Re: [-empyre-] the use in girls coming
> Commerce, military, governmental. The forces that
> control the Net, all of
> which are all largely male
Could you elaborate a little on this?
I'm afraid I don't get it.
Who controls what? Can you not start a political
movement on the Net? Can you not have you own
discussion list? People have even created new nations
It seems that you're referring to a status of things
dating 20 years back. And even then, it was really
difficult to control anything.
You of course know better that I do, that the Internet
was created to destabilise control and centralisation.
It got them out of hand, they really did a good job
and they lost control (the Military)...
Language was also born for commerce reason. But we can
express love, and hate, with it, neither of which has
anything to do with the original intent.
> > So, my post was offensive and I'm in the minority
> > offenders,
> To make that statement is to therefore assume that
> you are trying to
> conversely assume the place of the 'oppressed',
> which isn't the case. I
> would not call your comment offensive, but perhaps
> at issue with some
> perspectives. Also to call yourself an offender
> assumes that you actually
> did commit an offense, which I also disagree with.
> You didn't.
It was not my intention, if I did. But I just wanted
to prove that it's rather easy to put yourself in the
position of the oppressed and then claim rights based
on that status. Women are oppressed (and it is the
reality, unfortunately, in many cases). But
cyberfeminism is really chasing the wrong cause, here.
> Feminism is hardly untouchable or immutable. It has
> its many threads and
> internal conflicts, such as the conflicts between
> the radical/lesbian
> feminist clade and the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
> feminists. Both are in
> favor of strong female role models, but many of
> these clades often sate that
> the other aren't 'really feminists' due to their
> positions. Saying that
> there is only one kind of feminism, and one that is
> beyond criticism is to
> place one's self in a very questionable position, on
> either side. The
> question of feminism is far more complex than saying
> that there is a gender
> border that is non-porous and non-egotiable, which
> is to say that humanity
> does not find any malleability in terms of gender.
> That's defninitely not
> the case.
I agree. But, what is the case, then?
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and