|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." Sexual Personae (1990)
If Fred says it he is a crank and a chauvinist. If Paglia says it, well, she is a feminist, and who can argue with a feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's impossible to dispute Fred's main argument in his humorous piece, which is that white men from the industrialized West have invented nearly all of the modern conveniences that today are the taken-for-granted foundation of a "good life."
Of course, the enlightened feminist citizens amongst us view these conveniences as further irrefutable evidence of the Evil Patriarchy.
I'm still eagerly awaiting the miracles of feminist biophysics, feminist neuroscience, feminist thermodynamics, feminist information technology.... etc. etc.
Hell, I'm still waiting for any significant feminist-created social advance beyond the navel-gazing academia of Womynz Studies!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:12 PM February 12th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"white men from the industrialized West have invented nearly all of the modern conveniences that today are the taken-for-granted foundation of a "good life." For the record, the most important invention of all was the invention of handwriting, without which no other invention was possible. And this was invented in the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may be correct.
One might add mathematics, another ancient discovery by Middle Eastern people.
But we're still left with the fact that advanced civilizations preceded the invention of handwriting.
Wasn't it Guttenberg who invented the means to mass distribute hand-writing? (The printing press.)
And the Chinese invented gunpowder, sophisticated metal fabrication (for swords), and affordable paper.
And some really brilliant fellow (or maybe his cold female cave-dwelling partner) ... without the modern benefit of considering his ethnic identity ... invented FIRE!
That Fred Reed always stirs up trouble!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:19 PM February 12th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
It may be a suprise that a minority person will agree with Roy's statements, about most things being invented by white guys. But one cannot argue a provable fact. (Unless you're a feminist, then facts have no meaning.)
However, Just for the record, almost every food eaten in this country, not to mention the majority of modren medicines was first itroduced by American Indians. Just another little factoid the media never talks about.
As far as the feminists are conserned, they can never openly admit that most things in modern society were invented, not only by whites but by MEN! If they did their entire argument goes down in the proverbial flames. Although I have actualy heared them say things like "Most things were invented by WOMEN then MEN took the credit for the inventions"! I am NOT makeing that up...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought he made an error by stressing the "white' part. While much modern technology has been invented by white men, those same technologies were either based on previous advances from North Africa, Middle east, and Asian cultures, or were being similtaniously developed elsewhere, but white men got the credit for being first.
The main connection is that most were male advances. Also, that it was real women who stood behind their men and supported them, giving those men the freedom to create. So if NOW was wise they would just admit that women has a very important role in those invention, but that men did invent them. As a team we worked great together.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T-Cloud Man,
Thank you for making the point about Native American's science of sustainable agriculture.
As a kid fresh out of grad school (yeah, a spoiled white boy) I worked in Grenada, West Indies (during the People's Revolution that Reagan "rescued"...) to promote the cultivation of a plant called amaranth.
It is a pig-weed hybrid with very small seeds that have amazing protein content.
The Spanish conquerors in the 1500's burned thousands of acres of this plant in Central America and the Caribbean, because it was held to be both a source of sustenance and it was sacred to the Amerindian and Carib peoples.
The European saviors not only killed millions to "save their souls," but made sure the rest starved to death.
It is a little known fact that the Holocust of the Americas entailed the extermination of over 3 million native peoples in the Caribbean islands.
Today, you can still find amaranth growing in the back yards of peasant farmers in Dominica, St. Vincent, Grenada, and smaller islands.
Feed the people, yes?
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Spanish conquerors in the 1500's burned thousands of acres of this plant in Central America and the Caribbean, because it was held to be both a source of sustenance and it was sacred to the Amerindian and Carib peoples.
That the conquerors didn't undertake a similar eradication campaign against maize or potatoes indicates that the antipathy toward amaranth must have been based on something other than its wide use as a food.
As I understand it, the main objection to amaranth was that it was used prominently in the human sacrifice rituals that were a near-universal feature of pre-conquest MesoAmerican cultures, as amaranth meal/flour was mixed with human blood to make high-protein cakes. This is why it was "sacred," as the habitual eating of human beings seems to require ritualization as a "sacred" activity wherever it's practiced.
Marvin Harris, in Cannibals and Kings, points out that there were no Western Hemisphere-native large domesticable animals (analogous to the sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs of the Old World), and surmises that cannibalism (the word is derived from the Carib natives after whom the island region is now named) developed to make up this lack of available animal protein.
Of course the Spanish conquistadors came from a culture that practiced its own form of human sacrifice, in the Inquisition -- but the victims of the latter weren't eaten, and European culture generally has long been horrified by the anthopophagy often observed in other cultures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:45 PM February 13th, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
You guys have really done your homework! I AM impressed!
Oh, but just for the record, I have never drank human blood.
Nope, never. Okay maybe once.
No, wait, scratch that.
Never...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:00 AM February 13th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't always see things the way Fred does but he's by far my favorite writer in the movement in terms of style, prose and wit. He is just plain fun to read.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I gotta add something to this discussion.
A few months back I started to read Fred Reed. At first I thought he was pretty honest. Then I thought he was racist. Then I thought he was the first honest person to write in a long time. My last opinion still holds.
You can't take any of Fred's articles as a stand alone. I have read them all. First off, I am NOT an encyclopedia and don't have a photographic memory, but he's straight as a level on a lot of subjects.
Let me give like 3 examples to illustrate my point:
He was a police reporter for a long time and he has the support of a lot of cops, black and white. He did a few articles on "Racial Profiling". He pointed out how many BLACK cops LIKED being able to go into a neighborhood and look at people (it was their turf, their beat) and know who the bad guys were. In predominately black neighborhoods the criminals are black, in Hispanic neighborhoods Hispanic, white = white. But when too MANY blacks were arresteed, it got ugly. "Gee officer Washington, you seem to be arresting a lot of black [insert criminal action here]" and the problem was that cops started to drive on by drug/gun/whatever dealers because "racial profiling" could cost them their job. He had an excellent example where "racial profiling" worked: EL AL. The Israeli Airline that has not been hijacked once and is the safest in the world
On education he thinks that African Americans and Hispanics are getting crippled. Instead of tough rules and tests, any teacher who imposes them is a "racist" and "hurting students". He says that people of color need to demand better education, not better grades. He's ON THEIR SIDE.
And when it comes to the system of justice he SHOWS how people of color are getting screwed over and over by politicians who want votes and sound-bites instead of stopping crime. A black family that gets robbed doesn't care what color the robber is, they got robbed. But the politician plays up the racial idea to get votes, "be tough" on crime (but decries how "racial profiling" is used), and talked about how welfare is destroying people of color.
This guy isn't a racist, he's a realist and he's stuck up for people of color by telling the truth.
Better education, disproving feminazis, letting cops do their jobs, demanding that students LEARN, and warning men about gold-diggers who use the "justice" system does not make him a racist.
Read his articles ... again, you can't take Fred at 1 article and get his whole thought process.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:54 PM February 14th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Is Fred Reed "ON THEIR SIDE"?
I've read a half dozen of Reed's race articles at his website, and no, he's not just politically incorrect--he quacks like a duck. Though he presumes to have advice for blacks, and though he is extremely critical of blacks, he has never, EVER written anything, as far as I can discern, positive about blacks. He is, in fact, a disciple of the Rushton theory of blacks being innately intellectually inferior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been trying to figure out what S***E means, but I just haven't energy to go to the dictionary.
Troll, you abdicated your credibility when you declined to give and kind of identification. Besides, it's PARODY!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the article closely, I didn't see Fred degrading anybody except feminists, Al Sharpton and possibly New Guinea bushmen. The only place I thought he was being unfair was when he started getting into microchips. You have to give Orientals and Asians a lot of credit for working on microchips.
Of course, you are welcome to post a rebuttal detailng the contributions of feminists, Al Sharpton and New Guinea bushmen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:38 PM February 12th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Can't say I'm an expert on New Guinea bushmen, Skippy. But I'm sure the most uneducated New Guinea bushman has made a greater contribution to society than you ever have or ever will do. Of course, you are welcome to post a rebuttal detailing your contribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would, but I hate to brag. You first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:07 PM February 12th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, Skippy. As a proud white European male, I can tell you that I have contributed as much in the field of innovative and creative thinking as Fred Reed. Which means I have probably contributed less than the average uneducated New Guinea bushman. However, unlike Fred Reed, I am too modest to go around boasting about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to be very defensive about New Guinea bushmen. Not that I have anything against them. They undoubtedly do a much better job of functioning within their environment than I would. But I would say off hand that, just by holding a job, and going to work every day, and doing my job well, I do more to keep civilisation afloat than the average New Guinea bushman. I can't really speak for Fred. You will have to ask him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:39 PM February 12th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I got angry because I thought the post was divisive. Then I was labelled a "troll" which made me even more angry. Maybe, I was misinterpreting the article, as it seems I was the only person who found it offensive. Anyway, good night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me point out to you that people who offer opinions that are "against the local grain" typically fare much better when they share some sort of dientifying label, either by registering with this site or simply putting a unique name at the bottom of their posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree that this article is pretty offensive, or at the very least pretty ignorant. I don't find it very funny, but of course, humor is a subjective thing and is read by people differently, which of course, is also just just my opinion. ;)
As a scientist currently doing my postdoc in Genetics I find it just plain ignorant to speak of progress having mainly been the result of "white male" achievement. The work done during the enlightenment by "white males" was based on work done by the Greeks, Romans and Muslim world. Our entire math system and cyrillic alphabet was not invented by white males. Does this mean "white males" wouldn't have invented spelling and math without them? Of course not! But this is how science and progress work. We steal good ideas and improve upon them! "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is a term that describes it well.
Of course, you should acknowledge the great past achievements by "white males", but these sort of articles always seem to come across to me as claiming that women or in this case, non-white men are incapable of these things, which is bullshit. Frankly, until 30 years ago, they weren't *allowed* to. Nowadays there are some excellent female and non-white male scientists, many of which I am honoured to work with on a daily basis.
That said, I detest the whole tack of dismissing past progress because of who did the work. Isn't the whole point that women weren't *allowed* to do science? If so, denying the importance of what men have done in the past strikes me as resulting from a serious psychological imbalance or at least a very large insecurity complex. I don't think I will find anyone on this board that doesn't agree that Steinem et al. have some "issues". ;)
What's so sad and disgusting about Steinem et al.'s revisionism to me is that it not only downgrades men's past achievements, but dismisses all scientific progress in general, which is the product of individuals, not genders.
My two cents.
Jack Spratt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:18 PM February 14th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the above respondent is a troll. Further, I totally agree with him.
Often I've seen MRAs go into an "angry white men" mode that is more offputting to a black man than anything the feminuts could post. As men we simply cannot afford this divisiveness. Besides, it simply makes us look bigotted.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
