Re: Feminism as a religion

Steve (
Sun, 06 Sep 1998 13:03:23 +0800

Message-Id: <>
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 13:03:23 +0800
From: Steve <>
Subject: Re: Feminism as a religion

At 09:51 PM 9/5/98 -0400, Robert G. Grimes wrote:
>Well, I try to refrain, but this week, because of the hurricane Earl, my power
>and lights were off almost all day. Guess who the two "cablemen" were whom I
>asked about the problem when they were working at a junction box? Yep, two
>young ladies, very attractive, working in the rain and getting wet while they
>talked to me in my automobile...


The two lady cablemen you refer to might have been doing a good job. On the
other hand, they might not have. I have no doubts of what women are capable
of.... and of the way that many, under feminism, are shirking their

Here are a couple of examples how, under feminism, women get ahead and how
they compete with men.

I've taken the following examples from Per's MANifesto, which is a monthly
internet newsletter. It is witty and informative, and I strongly recommend
it for anyone who wants to get all sides of the story. Per's home page is at:
The July issue happens to be the latest:

So... ya feelin' lucky?.... Well?..... Do ya?

Then read on!


After all the dirty tricks we've seen feminists pull, we shouldn't be
surprised anymore. After all the Super Bowl hoaxes, the faked research, the
pseudo-science, the "rule of thumb" myths, the false accusations, and the
blatant stereotypes, we shouldn't be surprised anymore.

But sometimes feminists pull off something that is slimy even by their
standards. Such a deal was done recently at New York State Electric and Gas
Corporation of Binghamton.

It concerns men who had been hired for full-time jobs, but on a temporary
basis. The men who wanted permanent jobs were put on a waiting list. When
permanent jobs opened up, they were supposed to get first chance at them.
They worked faithfully at their temporary jobs, building seniority.

And permanent jobs did open up. But that's when the dirty tricks began.

On Sept. 3, 1993, five men were laid off -- for one day. They were re-hired
the next day, but this sleight-of-hand had caused them to lose seniority.

So the permanent jobs went to women from the office. They were all temporary
clerical workers, all women, and none with any experience in the jobs they
were getting. Men who had been doing those jobs for three years or more were
denied the jobs -- because they supposedly lacked "seniority."

There is something fundamentally dishonest about feminism's claim that
discriminating against men somehow constitutes "equality." When feminists
are that cynical about honesty, it's no wonder they stoop to dirty tricks
like the one pulled against these men at New York State Electric and Gas.
Feminists claim
that they just want a "level playing field." But what they actually do is
find ways to cheat men out of what they've earned -- in the interest of

Shame on New York State Electric and Gas Corp. for such a dishonest move. If
this is a public utility, maybe someone ought to pull some plugs.

This is nothing but a disguised, off-the-books form of affirmative action.
Maybe feminists are practicing covert affirmative action because society is
becoming increasingly aware that anti-male discrimination is wrong, and that
it is discrimination no matter what nice label you slap on it. People are
beginning to see through decades of feminist misrepresentation and
half-truths about the "glass ceiling." They are seeing that what feminists
want isn't equality, it's advantage -- no matter how dirty they play to get
it, no matter how many innocent people they cheat.

Enough people have seen this in California that they voted to end
discrimination in state contracting. The good news: earlier this month, the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made its final ruling in the Proposition
209 case -- overturning contract preferences. Then Governor Pete Wilson
signed an executive order terminating discrimination in the awarding of

The Proposition 209 debate showed feminists at their dirtiest. They tried to
claim that ordinary folks who didn't want to be discriminated against were a
bunch of demonic backlashers and Klansmen. Perhaps the strategy backfired.
People got a good look at the dishonesty and hatred coming from the feminist
camp, and voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 209 in 1996.

Proposition 209 says state and local governments cannot "discriminate
against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin." No wonder
feminists hate it. It doesn't allow them to discriminate anymore.

And another encouraging note: the decision reached beyond California. Last
year, the U.S. Supreme Court let Proposition 209 stand.

But the essential dishonesty among feminists has never been resolved. They
still wish to paint people as being evil simply because those people don't
want to be discriminated against.

If feminists honestly wanted to compete for jobs fairly, they would
understand why people don't want to be discriminated against. Feminists
themselves don't want to be discriminated against. But they sure want to do
it to others. And they claim that that position is "moral."

Take the recent case at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Veteran journalist
Lawrence "Bud" Withers was passed over for a sports columnist job because of
affirmative action policies that called for hiring a woman, Laura Vecsey.

Withers is suing. We hope he wins.

The newspaper's editor and publisher, J.D. Alexander, admits that Vecsey's
female voice and the "fact that she is female" were factors in the decision
to hire her. Alexander also said the paper was trying to promote "diversity."

You know what diversity means. It means that discrimination against men is
always right and discrimination against women is always wrong. Oddly enough,
there never seems to be any need for diversity once women make up the top
management or the majority of workers in any field.

Alexander's statements are "direct evidence that raises an inference of
discriminatory motive" sufficient to let Withers take his case to trial, the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 ruling.

Personally, we think sports coverage is one of the worst places to be
practicing "affirmative action," because there is no affirmative action on
the playing field. Once the color barrier in sports fell, minority athletes
excelled -- on their own merits. No one added extra yards to their running
or extra hits to their stats. They earned it every step of the way.

Meanwhile, covering the people who do the real work are columnists who got
there not because of what they can do but who they can manipulate.


The fitness standards for women in the military have long been far below
that of men. There is a blatant, two-tiered system in which women are
allowed to pass fitness tests with performance that would get a man booted
out. The standards have been lowered so that women could meet them. And this
has led to the objections from some men who are penalized for performance
that actually far exceeds the performance of women.

You may have recently read about how the Army is going to "toughen" or
"raise" the physical standards for women. That claim was presented in a
number of news articles. It made it sound like women were going to be held
to tougher standards and required to perform better on physical tests.

Well, that shows once again why you need Per's MANifesto to give you the
rest of the story. In fact, the Army is merely making it a little harder for
women to get perfect scores on physical tests. But the minimum requirements
are mostly staying the same. Of course it's the minimum requirements that
set the level at which you pass or fail. And the minimums are not changing
much. Women can still qualify at the same, far-lower standards.

This fact is readily discernible just by glancing at an informative chart
that ran in USA Today on September 26. It shows the Army's current fitness
standards for men and for women, broken down by age group. It also compares
them to the proposed new standards.

The Army says that it is going to require women to do an equal number of
sit-ups as men. But that's the only area in which requirements will be even
remotely similar. In some areas, women will still "pass" for performance
that would cause a man to fail, and they will receive "high" scores for a
performance that would be mediocre or even failing in a man.

For example:

To meet the minimum requirement for the 2-mile run, a man age 17-21 has to
finish in 15 minutes, 54 seconds. To get a perfect score of 100, he has to
finish in 11:54.

To meet the minimum, a woman that age has to finish in only 18:54. For a
perfect score, she only has to finish in 14:54.

In other words, her "perfect" score is only one minute less than the bare
minimum for men! The women getting elite scores are performing at a level
that would barely let a man squeak by.

Now consider all the women who are in the middle of the pack, between the
perfect time of 14:54 and the minimum of 18:54. They're finishing in about
16:54. But at that speed, a man wouldn't even pass the male minimum of
15:54. A middle-of-the-pack woman would flunk the men's test!

Fitness standards also change by age -- they get lower as you get older.
Let's consider some of the blatant imbalances this sets up.

Under the current rules, a 36-year-old man has to run 2 miles in 18 minutes
to meet the minimum qualification. In other words, a 36-year-old man has to
run faster than a 17-year-old woman less than half his age.

But wait, it gets worse. A 41-year-old man is expected to finish in 18:42.
That's right, a 41-year-old man still has to complete 2 miles faster than a
17-year-old woman!

The chart shows that a lot of the minimum times for women are staying the
same. They're making it harder for women to get a perfect top score. But
they're not actually raising minimum standards much. It's a sleight-of-hand.
For example, there are no changes in the women's minimum times for the
2-mile run in the 17-21 age group or the 22-26 age group. And women would
actually get half a minute more to finish in the 27-31 age group. They're
actually lowering the standards for women.

And in some cases, they're actually raising the minimum standards for men.

The current standard for men age 42-46 is finishing 2 miles in 19:06. The
proposed new standard makes it tougher for men, requiring them to finish in
18:30. Meanwhile, the female minimum in the 17-21 age group stays the same:
18:54. So the proposed new fitness standards would mean a 46-year-old man
has to run 2 miles faster than a 17-year old woman. And a 51-year-old man
would get precisely 18 seconds more to run 2 miles than a 17-year-old woman!
Out on the training fields, there will be grandfathers who are required to
possess the speed of teen-agers.

Anyone who has had to deal with affirmative action sees the game being
played here. Feminists can go on saying that "no unqualified women" were
hired/enlisted. It's just that the qualifications for women are so much
lower. And only by rigging up double standards in favor of women can you
escape the accusation of discriminating against women. If you're not
discriminating in favor of women, you're a sexist.

Of course, once all the standards are biased in favor of women, then we are
on the road to "equality," in the brave new world of feminism.

G.I. JANE NEEDS TO TRAIN (Vol I No 21 Sept 97)

While the propaganda film "G.I. Jane" purports to show a woman undergoing
the same rigorous military training as men, the Army is finally planning to
narrow the difference in its separate-and-unequal fitness standards for men
and women.

In the wake of accusations of sexual harassment against women in the Army, a
special Army panel conducted a gender investigation. In reporting the story,
the Washington Post sounded amazed at the "surprising results" indicating
that men feel aggrieved by gender bias.

What do you know! Men resent gender bias against them. Why, who ever would
have thought it!

Mainly, the men are concerned about the far-easier fitness standards for
women. Only half of the men said they thought that women "pull their load."
But nearly all soldiers, including the women, felt that male soldiers "pull
their load."

Many of the men felt that women received favorable treatment, and 28 percent
of men said "women have an advantage over men when it comes to having a
successful military career." And 30 percent thought female soldiers get
treated better.

Feminists will probably try to dismiss this as backlash among men who don't
want women in the service. But nearly 70 percent of the men said they felt
women should be allowed to do any job "for which they can qualify."

The problem is, the qualifications for women are often remarkably lower. A
25-year-old man is required to do 40 push-ups and 47 sit-ups in two minutes
and run two miles in 16 minutes and 36 seconds. A 25-year-old woman must do
16 push-ups, 45 sit-ups and run the same distance in 19 minutes and 36
seconds. (The difference in running ability is notable. Apparently the Army
thinks the enemy will be courteous enough to wait until the women catch up.)

The standards for women are so low that overweight smokers could pass with
ease, while men often struggled to meet their higher standards. This is one
form of discrimination you didn't hear feminists complaining about. There is
no demand for a "level playing field" when the field tips so far in women's

New rules will require women to do a few more push-ups and will slightly
lower the time for the two-mile run. The number of sit-ups will stay the same.

As the Washington Post noted, men found extra burdens being placed on them
when women soldiers got pregnant: "Men complained about a battalion-level
fuel handler who became pregnant and was assigned a desk duty until she gave
birth so her unborn baby would not be exposed to chemical hazards. There
were only a few fuel handlers assigned to the battalion and because she
technically remained on the unit payroll, the battalion could not request a
temporary substitute." The remaining men had to take up the slack.

So women's "equal" rights translate into more responsibilities for men -- as

Vol I No 14 Feb 97, focusing on THE WAGES OF MEN (a couple of good
articles). Here's the intro (

WELCOME, READERS: This month we look at "The Wages of Men." If you know
feminists, you know that they set their eyes on the elite among men and then
demand "equality." They seem to overlook the lower rungs, where most of the
people doing dangerous, dirty jobs are men. Feminists aren't demanding
equality of risk, just equality of results. And they are demanding absolute
safety for themselves in the workplace, even safety from unwanted comments.
They seem considerably less concerned about men who die on the job. But
then, the safety measures required to save men's lives would increase the
costs of goods and services. And this might put a crimp in a feminist's
ability to jet to
the next high-powered seminar on women as victims.

So let's look at the wages of women -- and "The Wages of Men."


Feminists in Italy have managed to institute another example of selective
equality. Selective equality is equality only for women, and only when they
want it.

Specifically, Italy's lower house approved a bill that will let women join
the armed forces.

Now, if you're going to say that it was gender discrimination that women
weren't allowed to join before, consider:

All Italian men must serve at least 10 months. This involuntary servitude
never seems to get labeled discrimination.

Also, women still are not required to serve -- not 10 months, not 10
seconds. The bill calls only for voluntary service. Women can join if they
want, or they can skip it. The bill specifically gives women choice -- a
choice men still do not have.

In other words, women have rights, men have responsibilities.

Stephen Springette, citing articles from Per's MANifesto

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)