|
Women and madness
Feminism necessarily means the abolition of common sense. Common sense presumes the correctness of ordinary human reactions. Feminism can’t live with that, because it can’t live with the sexual differentiation that is basic to human life. Even the most moderate and mainstream feminism turns the radical transformation of human nature into a requirement of basic justice. Here’s a routine example: Body language ‘may cost you a job’. If job interviewers respond differently to men and women — and they do, since they are human beings — everyone agrees that’s a problem that has to be fixed. People might grumble or make jokes among themselves, but no one in public life offers principled opposition to the demand for re-education and thought reform. The abolition of common sense has nastier results than the comic-totalitarian attempt to turn interviewers into robots. For
example, domestic relations law law has been rewritten in accordance with feminine vengefulness. What Happens When 911 Is Dialed in Colorado suggests what has happened. When someone
calls the cops and claims domestic violence, machinery is started that accepts the feminist presumptions quite literally: the
man is a dangerous aggressor, the woman is always right, and the police and courts won’t protect the woman unless they are
forced to do so by stacked presumptions and rules that allow no exceptions. Ordinary concepts of fairness and due process do not protect the man since they have been expropriated by the “rights revolution” and cannot be asserted on behalf of the presumptive oppressor.
Comments
The fact that the title of this page is “Women and Madness” proves that this is not a preservation on human rights but an attack on women in general. Maybe you’re right, maybe I’m the abnormal one. Maybe it’s just unnatural that I want the right to choose, equal pay and the Equal Rights Amendmant. But this chauventistic diatribe has only proven that we have many obstacles before we can obtain these things. But we are certainly prepared for that, and this will not get us down, just proof that a degree from an Ivy League school doesn’t necesarily mean you know what you’re talking about. Posted by: Caroline on February 5, 2003 5:47 PM“Women and Madness” is the name of a well-known feminist text by Phyllis Chesler used here as a title for a brief discussion of feminism-related craziness. If Hedwigfemme@aol.com takes that as an attack on women in general I very much doubt I’ll be able to persuade her otherwise. Posted by: Jim Kalb on February 5, 2003 6:17 PM“Maybe it’s just unnatural that I want the right to choose, equal pay and the Equal Rights Amendment.” — Caroline Right to choose? Abortion as it is now practiced in this country IS unnatural; no “maybe’s” about it, Caroline. And not only that, it is a ghastly, ghoulish abomination of the worst sort imaginable. No “maybe’s” about that either. The “equal pay” thing has been debunked any number of times by reputable scholars (not “scholars” on the level of what passes for scholarship in the eyes of the NOW crowd) and it’s a crock. Women already receive equal pay for equal work, equal hours, equal expertise, equal effectiveness and aggressiveness in the workplace, equal job preparation while away from the office, equal number of uninterrupted years on the same job, etc. The Equal Rights Amendment is also unnatural; nor are there any “maybe’s” about that! Men and women aren’t the same — sorry! Better luck in one of the parallel universes or something. The universe we happen to inhabit just can’t (try as your side might) be shoehorned into fitting Eleanor Smeal’s and Kate Michelman’s fantasies. Put THAT in your “maybe it’s just unnatural” pipe and smoke it, Caroline … Posted by: Unadorned on February 5, 2003 6:50 PMJim, I respect your opinions and I respect the fact that you didn’t try to change my mind. Not everyone think’s alike,I stumbled upon this site looking for feminist web sites and after “unadorned“‘s attack on my beliefs and morality I won’t return, but just to clarify a few things…
If there were “NO maybe’s about it” then it wouldn’t be legal. You’re stating YOUR opinion.And even if it is outlawed, do you think that’s going to stop it from happening? Private docters have always and will always perform them. And for those who can’t afford that, well they’ll probably stick a wire hanger in their uterus in a desperate act of distress, as history has shown before, not only ending the unborn child’s “life” but putting their own at risk. Overthrowing Roe vs. Wade would not stop the so called problem it would only drive women to desperate measures they once had to take.
Obviously a woman did not write this. I’ve experienced this discrimination first hand. So don’t assume that just because at your place of employment ,everyone is payed the same that it’s like that everywhere. But I do agree on one thing… Women do achieve equal effectivenss and agressiveness.
EQUALITY:capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task .like in quality or status If you don’t understand that, I won’t try to convince you. I won’t conclude my summary as militantly as “Unadorned” did. There’s no reason to get aggressive, you rarely change people’s minds when they feel so strongly about these issues. Just making my presence known is all…Farewell Posted by: Caroline on February 6, 2003 5:08 PM“I stumbled upon this site looking for feminist web sites […]” Perhaps Caroline might find the following site of interest in her research: http://thesiclecell.blogspot.com/
“I won’t conclude my summary as militantly as ‘Unadorned’ did. There’s no reason to get aggressive, you rarely change people’s minds when they feel so strongly about these issues. Just making my presence known is all…Farewell” — Caroline I didn’t view my post as aggressive, but as strongly-worded sarcasm, together with sheer impatience at hearing arguments and statements for the trillionth time which are flat-out wrong and have been debunked to the nth degree a gazillion times already. If my post is to be considered aggressive, Caroline, then your first one was also aggressive, taking the form of that most maddeningly aggressive technique known to man (Ooooops!!!!! I meant, known to huwimminkind), the “passive-aggressive” technique. You can’t irritate the living hell out of people by means of extreme passive-aggressiveness, then feign frail, innocent, wounded surprise when they snap at you in response. You’re not fooling anyone by doing that. If you can’t stand the heat of a strongly-worded debate, then don’t ignite the flames by getting passive-aggressive in the first place, Caroline. It’s been shown to the total satisfaction of everyone whose head is screwed-on frontwards that the Equal Rights Amendment would lead to the sickest, most twisted perversions of the normal male-female set-up of society (and of biology) that can be imagined. I’m sorry, Caroline — maybe I’m just weird this way — but I don’t happen to want my tax dollars paying for stuff like testicle and sperm-duct implants for irate women who feel that thousands of years of patriarchy have deprived them of their God-given right to be able to impregnate their lesbian girlfriends without needing recourse to third-party sperm donors, or mammary-gland grafts for househusband stay-at-home dads who indignantly file claims under the Equal Rights Amendment demanding to be made biologically able to breast feed their baby while their role-reversed breadwinner wife goes off to work. I know I’m a little strange, so please just humor me — but I can think of thousands of better ways to spend my tax dollars than on some NOW/ACLU-imposed federal program to install stand-up urinals in the girl’s bathrooms of every high-school in the country so that girls can exercise their Goddess-given right (which used to be freely exercised by them under the wimmin-led clans of wiccan prehistoric Europe before evil males installed the Patriarchy) to urinate standing up, and if their anatomy doen’t lend itself to that, then let the feds pay for the necessary urological surgical alterations to harmonize their anatomy with that style of urination. I realize I’m being hopelessly unreasonable, Caroline, but I’m just not into having my tax dollars spent on Katherine-MacKinnon-inspired federal mandates to pursue major research on the genetic engineering of functioning wombs in men, complete with …. well, I could go on, but I think you get the idea, Caroline — or am I being too aggressive again? …. Posted by: Unadorned on February 6, 2003 6:35 PM |