-Caveat Lector-
So everyone is tired of talking about Jesus' possible
political association.
Here is an interesting forward that could open a whole
new can of worms from Fred (Washington Post Guy I
believe).
Are women starting a whole new rash of conspiracies
like Fred claims?
--- Frederick Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Frederick Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:55:50 -0500
> Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [FredOnEverything] Anxiety
>
> Anxiety
>
> The Man Beneath The Bed
> When Shadows Twist Through Medieval Twilight
>
> Hooboy. I'm trying to understand the
> truculence toward men that is now the default
> position of American women -- the chip on the
> shoulder, the blisterish sensitivity, the vigilant
> search for litigable slights. It's tiresome. It's
> unwholesome. It approaches medieval dementia. What
> did men do?
> Nothing, I submit.
>
> Ponder the following phenomena:
>
> To begin with, there is the hysteria on
> campus about rape. Across the country, college girls
> hold nocturnal processions to "Take Back The Night."
> Overwrought co-eds tell each other to applause that
> sexual assault waits around every corner, under
> every tree. Rape, they insist with enormous
> satisfaction, is a constant danger. All boys are to
> be feared.
>
> Princeton among other former institutions of
> learning has blue rape-lights to illuminate any spot
> on campus where a bogey-rapist might lurk. College
> boys are often forced to go through anti-rape hazing
> resembling the brainwashing engaged in by religious
> cults. College girls apparently live in a
> demon-ridden mental landscape drawn by Hieronymus
> Bosch.
>
> And yet the actual incidence of rape by
> Caucasian males -- who are uniquely the targets of
> the hysteria, despite being far less inclined toward
> rape than are various minorities -- is very low. As
> we will see, most of the distaff hysteria involves
> (a) beliefs that are demonstrably false, and (b)
> profound sexual anxiety.
>
> Next, consider the plague of eating
> disorders -- anorexia and bulimia -- that seem
> common among women, but hardly existed forty years
> ago. These are imagined to be the fault of men, who
> are thought to want emaciated women, and therefore
> in some way to force women to starve themselves.
> Again, the false premises -- men do not want stick
> figures, nor force women not to eat -- and again,
> sexual anxiety.
>
> Then there's the recent wave, finally being
> slapped down by the courts, of "repressed-memory"
> lawsuits ("induced memory" is more accurate) in
> which women, usually in their thirties, decide that
> they were raped by their fathers. They supposedly
> repress the memories until a therapist helpfully
> recovers them. Typically there is no corroborating
> evidence, no reason to believe that incest actually
> occurred, or that memories in fact are repressed. As
> always, the false premise, and the undercurrent of
> sexual anxiety.
>
> Closely related are the reports, usually by
> women, of suddenly remembrance of being forced to
> engage as children in satanic rituals. In these they
> recall being forced to sacrifice babies, or being
> sexually violated in strange ways. There is never
> any supporting evidence. Like the incest stories,
> these mental aberrations are statistically rare, but
> based on falsehood, and rife with sexual fear.
>
> Next consider the widespread notion that
> women are unremittingly victimized by men --
> sexually harassed, underpaid, abused, denigrated,
> stalked, beaten, undervalued, everything but stuffed
> and mounted over the fireplace. But in fact American
> women are not oppressed. The charges are just
> ritualized paranoia.
>
> The preoccupation with sexual harassment is
> salient. As with the nonexistent rapists on campus,
> nonexistent harassment is seen everywhere. Did the
> guy in the next desk have a photo of his girlfriend
> in a bathing suit? He's demeaning women. Did Bob use
> the "F" word, which women haven't heard and never
> use? He's creating a hostile environment. An
> off-color story? Virtual rape. Harassment must be
> detected everywhere and suspected everywhere else --
> rooted out, punished, exorcised.
>
> This is nuts. Somebody needs to say it's
> nuts.
>
> We tend to think of feminism as asserting
> that women are as strong and able as men. The more
> profound current beneath the bravado is that women
> are weak, helpless, and threatened. They aren't, of
> course: As a matter of everyday observation, women
> function perfectly well, show no signs of fear, and
> seem quite able to take care of themselves. The
> entire enterprise of radical feminism, like its
> component sub-hysterias, is based on beliefs that
> are easily discovered to be foolish. And on sexual
> anxiety.
>
> What is going on?
>
> A guess: Women have just undergone, as men
> have not, a profound change in their relation to
> society and to men. The change has created stress
> and confusion for everybody, but far more for women.
> Men are puzzled by the hostility, wary of charges of
> harassment, weary of affirmative action, but pretty
> much doing what they have always done as they have
> always done it.
>
> By contrast, women have left the secure
> role, if subordinate and perhaps boring, of being
> wives and mothers, to enter into self-conscious,
> avowed competition with men. So far as I know, this
> has never happened before, anywhere. A lot of women
> aren't sure they like it. Many don't seem suited to
> it.
>
> We are not supposed to notice this. Part of
> the required nonsense of daily belief is that women
> behave differently from men only because of
> (imaginary) oppression. In particular the zeitgeist
> urges that instinct doesn't exist, that upbringing
> determines everything, and that sex roles are
> "social constructs." None of this is true. Pretense
> engenders problems.
>
> As anyone knows who has dated childless
> women in their thirties, children are painfully
> important to them. For women the conflict between
> career and children is clear, distressing, and
> fundamental. For men, it isn't.
>
> Security is more important to women than to
> men, and women have lost a lot of it. Universal
> divorce leaves them at 35 trying simultaneously to
> work and raise kids, without help. It's just awfully
> hard. But it also isn't what they expected.
> Biologically women want men to protect and care for
> them. They don't need protection today, and earn
> their livings just fine -- but that somehow isn't
> what was supposed to happen.
>
> The new order isn't easy. Men are bruising
> competition. There are women who can keep up, but
> more who can't -- or, perhaps more often, don't want
> to. Thus the cry for affirmative action. A question
> for women is how to handle the change emotionally,
> how to be a prosecuting attorney until five, and
> then be a woman at six. Men don't have the problem.
> Other enigmas abound. For women the male workplace
> is unaccustomed and largely uncomprehended: They
> just plain don't understand men. (They know how to
> manipulate them, but that is a different thing.)
> Women are uncomfortable with male ways, for example
> with the combative verbal sparring that men enjoy.
>
> I suspect that women suffer a sense of
> psychic displacement, that things are not as they
> should be; which leads to a diffuse but potent
> anxiety merging into diffuse but potent anger, all
> revolving around relations with men. Women
> personalize: When they are angry, they find someone
> to be angry with. Bingo.
>
> �Fred Reed 2000. All rights reserved.
> Important Note!
>
> FredOnEverything.com is changing its web
> address to FredOnEverything.net. Click here and
> bookmark to add the new address to your Favorites
> list.
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subscribe and get Fred weekly by e-mail!
> For free, yet! Click
> here!
> When the e-mail form appears, just click
> on send. No message or subject is necessary.
> (Subscribing doesn't provide your e-mail
> address to spammers.)
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, click here.
> When the e-mail form appears, click on
> send.
>
>
=====
FreshLinx is an ezine that will submit to your inbox provocative links daily!
Main Page URL: http://www.egroups.com/group/FreshLinx
Posting address:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~OR~~~~
Subscribe Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Info: http://www.topica.com/lists/FreshLinx
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
