To Edryce from Stephen Springette

Steve (
Tue, 01 Sep 1998 20:52:56 +0800

Message-Id: <>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 20:52:56 +0800
From: Steve <>
Subject: To Edryce from Stephen Springette

At 05:22 PM 8/31/98 -0700, Edryce wrote:
>On Sunday, August 30, you sent a message which ws in response to someone
>else's message, which I did not read. So my comments here may be out of
>place. I am just responding to what I read in your message.
>You titled it "Feminist drivel and memetics." You use the terms
>"feminist claptrap," "feminist drivel," "feminist disaster." These are
>pretty strong terms.

They are, because that's how I feel about a gender movement that has the
superiority of one gender implied in its name.

>I would like to know from whence they came---or did
>I miss a whole bunch of stuff?

No, you haven't missed anything.

>A resume of what you mean would help.

No, I can't explain, in the course of a single email, what I mean. What I
will do, however, is post a message that was in reply to Aaron Lynch's post
of the 30th of August (which was a reply to the original thread) - for some
reason, my post did not make it to the list. Hopefully this might shed some
light on a very complex matter.

>Later you say, "When we understand these sorts of basic issues,
>everything else will fall into place with crystal clarity. And there
>will be no gender-supremacist movement." Shall I conclude from this that
>the "feminist drivel" and "gender-supremacist movement" somehow relate to
>one another?

Of course. Feminism is a movement that has the superiority of one gender
implied in its name. It is a movement that asserts the superiority of
sweeter, kinder gentler women over brutish, thuggish, oppressive men, all
the while peddling notions of equality and, all the while oblivious to the
true equality between men and women throughout the ages.

But the reality is that women are *not* imbued with a niceness gene that
exempts them from taking responsibility for the choices they make. They are
every bit equal participants in everything that is good and bad. That
feminism peddles the myth of moral superiority of women over men is
sufficient reason, I believe, to regard the movement with contempt.

>One more question/ You say, " are the producers of variety and
>women are the filters of variety." Could you please elaborate on your
>reasoning here, and give some references?

The only references I can quote are my own. There is something terribly,
terribly wrong with what we, in the 20th century, understand about cognitive
processes. The whole panoply of what represents our understanding of
consciousness is seriously inadequate - from New Age candy-floss through to
the equally unlikely, thermodynamically impossible brains-as-computers. So I
have taken it upon myself to go it alone. Refer to my web site - I'm no
expert, but for my money, it's the best there is.

Stephen Springette

Newton's Laws of Emotion:
There can be no complexity without simplicity

This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)