[DEBATE] : Re: Too bad Zuma didn't drown in the shower

[Peter Mahlangu]

Peter,

I don't have a problem with feminism per se, and I
admire feminist victories like female suffrage, female
leadership in govt and business (Maria Ramos and
Phumzile Mlambo-Ncguka spring to mind) and the
judiciary,etc. In fact, the only students who used to
beat me academically, at school and in University,
were all female, without exception.

The problem starts when today's "gender activists"
(actually a disgrace to feminism) start lecturing
women and men on what are essentially private issues
("you have the right not to cook dinner for your
husband", "you have the right to go to an all-girls'
night out and come back at 12:00 midnight"). So-called
independent women start believing this non-sense and,
predictably, marriages and relationships disntergrate.

I will consult the document you refer to and reply
accordingly.

--- peter waterman <p.waterman at inter.nl.net> wrote:

> Peter:
> 
> 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
> feminisms)?
> 
> 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
> this document.
> 
> 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
> being one'.
> 
> 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.
> 
> P
> 
> 
> 
> ----- 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
> > comment.
> > _______________________________________________
> > DEBATE mailing list
> > DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> > http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>