[DEBATE] : Re: Too bad Zuma didn't drown in the shower
p.waterman at inter.nl.net
Fri Apr 7 09:58:00 BST 2006
Your legal argument would carry more weight if it was not tied up with a
hostility to not only 'neo-feminism' but also to a 'feminist utopia'.
Why neo-? And what's wrong with feminist utopias? Or feminism (actually
I can provide you with the recent Women's Charter for Humanity (if I have
the title right), produced by the World March of Women. If any of your slurs
have substance, it should be easy for you to spell them out in relation to
In the meantime I am reminded of Virginia Woolf (I think) who said, about
100 years ago, 'I don't know what feminism is. I only know that whenever I
express any opinion that distinguishes me from a doormat, I am accused of
Do you prefer women in the Doormat Position?
I would have myself thought that, after a century of struggle and argument,
recognition of the general feminist argument had become an integral part of
even liberal-democratic discourse. Just as has anti-racism.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Mahlangu" <tshankimahlangu at yahoo.com>
To: <debate at lists.kabissa.org>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:35 AM
Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Too bad Zuma didn't drown in the shower
The law prohibits questions on the complainant's
sexual history, unless the judge grants special
permission. Zuma's team applied for permission, which
was granted. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor
objected to the questions. The only people who
complained are ideologues who would want to see rape
convictions sky rocket.
Or would you prefer a blanket, no- exceptions-allowed
prohibition, as neofeminists demand? Even if the
complainant has a history of accusing no less than 6
people of rape? Only in feminist utopia.
--- mfleshman at aol.com wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Mahlangu <tshankimahlangu at yahoo.com>
> To: debate at lists.kabissa.org
> Sent: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 01:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Too bad Zuma didn't drown in
> the shower
> what is happening is in accordance with the law.
> Rather like apartheid, eh Peter? Or the Holocaust,
> or slavery or Jim
> Crow. All in accordance with "the law."
> Very principled stand you've adopted.
> The rest of your posting is too debased and
> misogynst and bizarre for
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
DEBATE mailing list
DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
More information about the Debate-list