|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that many of these women's studies course outlines are half of the bigotted problem. Many of them are doctors and researchers in feilds of pyschology and they spend a great deal of time figuring out how the brain works. Now take for example this line here
"The father is a foreign male element". Now reread that sentence and ask yourself why the redundancy? We can assume the father is male so why say 'a foreign male element' other than to make it a foreign element.
Its propaganda and Im sure many of you know this, and its purely dismissing of men in every shape and form. These study groups are a major threat as they are the ones presenting many of the arguements for the followers. Its my opinion that these same formulas are taken to courts and used as evidence such as the new "sexualization" concept that I have come across in the courts, which I think can stand the chance of having a radical affect on men unless someone stands up to it effectively. Trust me its total crap but it wouldnt be the first time that feminists have presented total crap as 'authentic scholarship' and dazzled someone of low inteligence and high authority.
Here is Christine Stolba's work on 'women's study course outline' its a pdf file and you can save it and read it at your conveinance.
http://www.iwf.org/pdf/roomononesown.pdf
But I do have to give a thumbs up to Massechusetts for even printing the series. It starts to point out many of the inconsistancies going on here. Personally I think the men's movement is connected in all ways. Its the overall demonization of men thats at stake, and all men should unite under this attack.
Double , triple and quadruple check everything that comes out of a feminists yap!
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusets News looks like one of those whiny ultra-conservative publications that pretends to be a legitimate, un-biased news organization. However, I think these particular articles are valuable.
I am definitely sure that I despise Hanoi Jane and all her sexist, communistic ideas of where this country should be headed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that pretends to be a legitimate, un-biased news organization. However, I think these particular articles are valuable.
.
Well Im not all that familiar with the news paper itself, but we've seen this type of rebutal before. Actually, most of it looks like a reprint and compilation of whats basically out there, thats why I think it was good to post.
These are the people that go in to research with biased attitudes and come out with the propensity to dig for federal funds to extend their bigotry. Its the purposeful false advertising that pisses me off. Such as the Ontario coalition of rape counsiling centres. Their claim is that 2/3 of all women are sexually assaulted. I mean where do they come up with this garbage. That means that 2/3 of men are sexual assaulters. So unless you think they were referring to just one bad guy running around touching girls all their quotes are of boyfriends and husbands someone they know. The key here is in the evaluation which is typical. That is the girls themselves were never directly asked if they were assaulted. But the staticians decided for them. Convenient when they were in need of public support and government money. As far as Im concerned this stuff taints the jury before it goes to trial. And it has given girls the oppurtunity to make false accusations at will. Because the funny thing is these girls were ingaged in sexual activety with most of the boys or husbands. The Drama of the propaganda pamplets that are spread around is, no one knows what the typical assault is.
The woman could have done something she really wasnt interested in doing so somehow that gets translated to assault? Secondly many of these girls are just embarrassed at the questions and again are worried about their reputations, its become easier for them to cry foul than it is to just say, "ya so what I had sex". To me , these feminists are the ones who are really oppressing women, and they are doing it for government cash.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must agree. I have no doubt that much of what the site talks about is real and happening, but it's discredited by the tone and its specificity.
Nonetheless, it's very important to have these sites on the Web, even if they seem over the top. Even strident, angry sites at least show another point of view and get people thinking. At least the opinions are out there and available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is what I have found in a grade eleven advanced English study lesson book for Independant Learning Centre in Ontario. From what I understand it is formatted from typical highschool work, but I am not sure how into the system it is. The course title is ENG3A-E, printed with a copyright 1990. Basically this is what they are teaching 16 year old kids about Feminism and how evil men are etc... Feminism equals Sexism. If anyone has information on this Annenberg Study please direct me to it. Warren Farrell I thought did something on it, I just can't remember which book, if anyone knows of hand that would be great.
<<Excerpt from Woman and Children First
When you turn on your TV tonight for an hour or two of mental browsing, just think: you're plugging into a network of 100 million other North Americans, your nerves flicking to the same stimuli and your brain imprinting the same images. And all of you are getting more sexist, racist, and deluded the longer you watch.
Now wait a minute; don't get made at me. Tha'ts not my conclusion. It's the conslusion of the most repected TV-watcher-watchers in the business-the experts at the Aneenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, who base those findings on 10 years of research.
On your TV tonight you'll see and believe in a miniature model of our world-but skewd model, where men form 73 per cent of the population, women are a compliant and adorable minority, and old pleople don't exist except as cartoons.
The TV men are vigorous, dominiant pro-fessional types in their 30s and early 40s. In fact, TV is a complete world of 34-year-old men. It's odd how passively we accept that, because, of course, it doesn't reflect anything real except for the "consumer income curve". The men who create TV are creating it for the middle-class men like themselves with money to spend.
Most of the women who flutter and swoop and simper around these TV men are not in their 30s, but in their 20s. "The character population in TV drama," remarks the Annenburg study, dryly, "is structured to provide an abundance of younger women for older men."
One of the most fasinationg insights of the study is the way in which "TV women age faster than men." By middle age the women are depicted as old, while the men are still dashing heroes with "romantic possibilities". I handn't noticed it before, but of course it's true. And when TV women get old, they're automatically frail, accident-prone, and the Character Most Likely To Be Murdered. Victims.
Old age is bad news on TV, of course. So bad that it's practically wiped out of existence: only 2 per cent of TV's characters are old (and usually batty), compared with 11 per cent of the real population.
Well, what of it, I hear the restless reader muttering. So what if women are portrayed as overwhelmingly young, attractive, and "benign but powerless", to quote the study? Isn't this more feminist niggling and fussing over trivia? After all, it's just TV.
Yeah. Only TV. The most powerful and pervasive force in our history. (You really think those advertisers would spend billions of dollars if TV didn't sway and mould us?) In fact, what the Annenberg studies spell out is just how massive and influence TV has on us. A couple of years ago, Annebberg told us about the "mean world syndrome"-heavy TV viewers believe that the cities are 10 times more violent than they really are, and have extreme law-and-order ideas to match their TV-shaped world. Now we learn that heavy TV viewers are measurably more sexist. According to Annenberg's 10 year study, combined with national opinion polls, TV buffs really think that women's place is in the home, that women should't work, that men are more suited "emotionally" for politics. Feminists, gnash your teeth. TV addicts are ummune to the movement.
Worse and worse, TV is even more pernicously sexist for children. Men outnumber women more than 5 to 1 on children's programing, and anyone who has watched a morning of cartoons knows how gross are the stereotypes.
True, we're not all heavy viewers and we're not all lobotomized. But even if you count yourself among the enlightened, can you really sear that TV has not affected your idea of female beauty, your concept of a "man's role", or your peceptions of black and aged people?
It's sinister. The ominipotent story-teller of our time, the one-eyed hypnotist in our living rooms, the enchanter who mesmerizes our children, is telling lies and warping our view of the world.>>
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this sounds terribly familiar. I go to another famous Northeastern woman's college, Wells. Although it may not be as terribly influential in the traditional sense as Wellesley or Smith, in feminist theory it's still up there. Everybody who is wearing a "Question Everything" button probably does the least questioning and the most regurgitating of feminist dogma that I have ever seen in my life. Honest. And if I question ANYTHING a prof says, I get sent to the Dean's office. Hell, I even got sent to the Dean's office once by another girl for watching The Man Show!! LOL I still want to go there, because i have the balls to stick around. Not the OVARIES, you idiots, the BALLS. And if you ask me where they are, I will gladly point to my head. (I did that in a transport van once, and everyone else corrected me, saying I didn't have those bad organs. And I had to apologize to those girls for arguing with them...tsk tsk.)
-Rivka
Learning to Adjust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This sort of thing reminds me of nothing so much as the 1950's and 1960's "education" films that were in the schools. You know, the melodramatic, over-the-top sermons about the evils of sex, marijuana, and disobeying your parents? The ones that told us to always trust a police officer and say thank you to everyone? Some people have collected those together into an hour-long video that is no longer considered information, but now something to laugh at.
"I'm sorry Bobby, but you have VD."
"But I've only ever been with one woman, doctor!"
"What did she look like, Bobby. It's critical that you tell me."
"She was a tall blonde with long hair, doctor!"
Later that day, Doctor Frank searches the fairgrounds for a tall blonde with long hair....
It may happen after I'm dead, but my hope is that future generations pick up these books and have a hearty laugh. You must admit that the current propaganda has all of the same hallmarks: everything is a "crisis" or an "epidemic"; sinister motives are assigned to everyone, even little boys kissing little girls in second grade ("Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?"); the proponents of these views see the entire world as black or white, and everyone who disagrees with them is in the "black" category.
Today's propaganda is tomorrow's comedy.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
