Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Is sexual freedom a good thing? (Was Re: Right To Not Support)
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:44:47 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <715830386@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <VIXIE.92Sep6173524@cognition.pa.dec.com> 
> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>The basis by which an adult female is granted the legal right to terminate a
>>pregnancy has nothing to do with "last resort...birth control" and it has
>>nothing to do with "reproductive freedom".  
> 
> Read sometime what feminists wrote about abortion right *before* 1974.
> The traditional view point was that sexual freedom is a dangerous thing
> and it should be controlled.  The "penalty" for sex was either the
> risks of unwanted pregnancy or to get sterilized.
> 
> Feminists demanded their sexual freedom and defined (rightly IMO) female
> sexuality as a good thing that should not be controlled by the state.  
> Now we see the same feminists define *male* sexuality as a bad thing.  
> The "penalty" for sex should be either the financial risks of unwanted 
> pregnancy or to get sterilized.
> 
>>Legally, this "right" comes out
> 
> Leave all the lawyer like arguments at the door.  Let's talk about
> justice, sexual freedom and rights.  Why are you scared of such talk?
-- 

  Lawyer-speak is a deliberate mask. Like the inflated rape statistics and
other lies used to support the feminist "cause", it has little to do with
fairness or equality. If you study the parallels between the practices of the
feminist extreme and the white supremicists of the 1950's, you'll see that what
is happening here is political repression and economic subjegation. 

  In the 60's, the FBI, as part of the COINTELPRO program of domestic 
covert operations published the "Black Panther's Coloring Book". I think
I probably still have a copy stashed away in a trunk. It was a coloring book,
purported to be given to black children by the black panthers, with pictures
of black people killing white people. It so infuriated the average citizen
that most people chose not to notice incidents of political repression
against black political leaders, because the blacks somehow deserved such
treatment, which is of course what the FBI intended.

  These days, the "coloring book" had been replaced by the afternoon TV
show, and while the extremists are too extreme to be taken seriously, the
overall effect has been to create a socially acceptible impression that,
1. All men are rapists and that's all they are.
2. Women are far and away the naturally superior parent.
3. All domestic violence is initiated by the male.
4. Men who actually love their families and voluntarily want to be
	responsible for them are too rare to take seriously.
5. Men are biologically incapable of the same compassion and empathy
	that women are.

  The net result is that political repressions which would be denounced 
if applied to an ethnic group are tolerated by a public that assumes
that men, as a class, somehow deserve such treatment. The removal of the
presumption of innocence as a fundimental legal principle is tolerated
by a populace which assumes that the man, if not guilty of the specific
charge, simply MUST be guilty of something else.

  The lawyer-speak is a deliberate obfuscation device to keep the focus
shifting around. Those precious basic assumptions, without which political
repression cannot thrive, must be protected. The Whites cannot be allowed
to see that all Blacks are not killers and looters. The women cannot be allowed
to see that all men aren't rapists and brutes. The isolation must be
maintained, the media image preserved, the legal shortcuts left intact, if the
political repression is to yeild the expected financial and empowerment gains.
Otherwise, the feminist leaders lose their blocks of votes, the publishers
sales declines, the manufacturers of rape whistles have to find another product
to sell, and afternoon TV has to start working to hold the audience again.
Like the cosmetics swindles, there is no large scale overriding conspiracy,
merely the aggregate desire to exploit any situation for profit. Once political
repression can show a profit, it develops a frightening momentum on it's own.
The early part of the trail to the deathcamps was lined, not by anti-semites,
but by the businessmen who were able to assume the properties and assetts
of the deported owners. The ethnicity was merely an excuse.

  When the Black Panther's coloring book arrived in our home, neither I
nor my parents (who should have, after all known better) even thought of
talking to a black family to see if this was how they really felt. The coloring
book's very nature discouraged independant evaluation. Likewise, when the flood
of lies regarding men as rapists/abusers/molesters/raveningmonsters first
gained the attention of the press and TV, the very nature of the accusations
discouraged independant evaluation. Women were afraid of what they thought
men might be, and the communication between the genders slowed; indeed
almost stopped. And that's just as the purveyors of the legal-speak
intend. Obfuscation. Preservation of basic and unprovable assumptions.
Fletcher Prouty said it best,"Politics is power. Nothing more".


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men