Newsgroups: alt.mens-rights,chinese.talk.politics,alt.politics.equality,altpolitics.correct,soc.men,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.german,soc.culture.china,de.etc.sprache.misc,de.soc.politik,nz.politics,sci.lang,soc.culture.austria
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!uw-beaver!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!world!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.rmii.com!usenet
From: vident@rmii.com (Vident)
Subject: Re: sexist language in German, Chinese and English
Message-ID: <323dc146.240996@natasha.rmii.com>
Sender: vident@rmii.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: slip2276.rmii.com
Reply-To: vident@rmii.com
Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet Inc.
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
References: <528qpg$b8l@news.allcon.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 01:13:30 GMT
Lines: 160

kira@trillian.allcon.com (Kira Schneekloth) writes:
>

You'd have saved yourself a lot of trouble to just read the
alt.mens-rights FAQ like the rest of us.

> vident@rmii.com (Vident) wrote:
>
> >But Feminists wouldn't do that because their aim is not what they say it
> >is.
>
> So what is the feminists aim then, you poor, oh-so-smart guys her in
> this hopeless and weired discussion?

You're trying very hard to go off on a tangent. And you use pointless,
condescending sarcasm, also in an obvious attempt to avoid the issues.

We see what Feminists want every day, in the rantings of Feminists on
these newsgroups, among other evidence. To hurt men. To grab power. To
monopolize public sympathy. To take/be-given-by-the-government money
earned by men.


> If so, is it o.k. with You to discuss language phenomenons on a level,
> that sets criteria for needed changes first and then tries to discuss
> all this on basis of the criteria rather then to polemicize against
> the political or whatsoever motives of the pressure group?
>

"criteria for needed changes"? Sounds like a smuggle for Feminist myths
and ideology.

> >It's worth looking at another interpretation of all this: What Feminists
> >really accomplish by this is to erect a lot of signs of their power;
> >to command a lot of public kowtowing to their ideology.
>
> Wrong: You state, that feminists have power? Where?

You're playing stupid, and I'm not going to play along.

> If so: Why dont
> we have more women in power then?

        Trick:  The preponderance of male legislators (male columnists,
                etc.) demonstrates male power.

        False and sexist. This is known as "The Frontman Fallacy":
        looking at what _sex_ influential people are instead of looking
        at _what they actually do_. Most legislators, male and female,
        show favoritism to women's interests.



> Why do we have this language fight
> at all then?

Non sequitur. Your question makes no sense.


> You refer to  the feminists fight as an end in itself. Wrong, wrong
> wrong.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat "wrong", you prove nothing.

> Firstly, women are smarter than that, we all could save a lot


        Trick:  Feminist interests and women's interests are
                interchangeable terms. "Feminist" and "woman" are
                interchangeable terms.

        False and absurd. Our opinion of all women could never be so
        low.


> wrong. Firstly, women are smarter than that, we all could save a lot
> of energy, if this fight would only be for some strange, not proofed
> feminist power itself.

You're incoherent.

> They fight for equality, equal chances

With that, you show yourelf to be a misandrist, to call hate for men
"equality".

        Trick:  Feminists just want equality. Feminism is about people.

        The anti-male nature of Feminists is so obvious, so huge, so
        outrageous, that to discuss this myth would only dignify it
        undeservedly. And we've all noticed that purveyors of this trick
        don't object when the next trick is used.



> and I
> can see no signs, that this aim is fulfilled by now. On the contrary I
> can see a roll-back.

You're babbling again. Get your mind out of your Feminist dogma.

> Secondly, women gain more power in fields, where they have been
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> underrepresented in the past.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your greed and your self-serving mischaracterizations are obvious.

And by the way, when you asked me above what Feminists want, that was
dishonest, since you obliquely provide the answer yourself, and it turns
out to be code-words for just what I said: To hurt men. To grab power.
To monopolize public sympathy. To take/be-given-by-the-government money
earned by men.


> What is wrong with "erecting signs" that
> show, that it is a woman in the job, not a man as used to be?

The fact that you have to twist my words shows you have no argument.

> You do
> not want women to behave like man, do you, so why not show signs of
> difference then, which match reality better than before?
>
> >They know full well, as the Nazis before them did, as many other tyrants have, that the
> >more that people are surrounded by signs of their (the tyrants') power,
> >be it swastikas or s/he, the less resistance they will offer.
>
> What is this? The feminists as the historic successors of the Nazis?

Obviously.

> I
> really hope, You can explain this very clearly to me and the rest of
> the unfortunately only male participants here. :-(((

What's to explain? Nazism and Feminism both hate, demonize, and oppress
a birth group (men, Jews) simply for being born. They both lie bigtime.
That can't be emphasized enough. Feminism *IS BASED ON* lying, to an
even greater extent than Nazism. They are both powerful, merciless, evil
movements, and when Feminism is finally erased as Nazism was, the world
will look back on it with disgust and horror as we do the earlier Nazis.

> >"If men were as bad as feminists say there would *be* no feminists"
>
> All of these violent lines here in Your article show very well, that

"violent lines"? Geez, just because you don't like something, suddenly
it's "violent"? Is there *anything* Feminists can talk honestly about?

> You at least understood one thing: The process of women emancipation
> comes to a point of redistribution of power. It will hurt.
> Kira

And when we finally overthrow Feminist oppression, it will hurt. I hope
to personally be there to bear witness against you at that time.


--
"If men were as bad as feminists say there would *be* no feminists"
