Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!era1987
From: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: news.misc,talk.politics.misc,soc.women
Subject: The Sexual Constitution of the United States of America
Message-ID: <4128@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 21:27:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: jade.4128
Posted: Fri Jun 26 21:27:13 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jun-87 01:07:39 EDT
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: era@killer.UUCP
Followup-To: soc.women
Distribution: world
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 103
Keywords: checks and balances, fascism
Xref: mnetor news.misc:634 talk.politics.misc:3265 soc.women:5040



In article 28 of comp.risks, the moderator, Peter Newmann, suggests that
Alan Curtis posted the long personal attack on me directly to comp.risks
without authorization, simply to show that it wasn't difficult to do.

It that had been Alan's purpose, Alan could have simply posted a one-liner,
saying, "Okay, here's my posting to show how stupid Mark Smith is."

Alan was not simply attempting to prove that it was not difficult to post
directly to an unmoderated group.  Alan posted a long personal attack on
me, based on sex, to show that nobody can stop a male from attacking a
woman on usenet in any forum he wishes and in any manner he pleases.

Peter's inability to correctly assess the situation indicates that he,
like Ollie North and almost everybody else in a policy position under the
Reagan Admistration, may have been selected not for his intelligence,
expertise, or logical thinking ability,  but for his boyish charm, willingness
to go along to get along, not rock the boat, keep his mouth shut, and his
preference for the Reagan/Gilder "sexual constitution," above our legal one.

The "sexual constitution," which Reagan cleverly substituted for our
legal one by giving every Cabinet member a copy of Gilder's book, "Sexual
Suicide," so that Cabinet members would know Reagan's wishes and carry
them out without implicating him by giving him the details of how this was
done or necessitating a formal policy statement by him, exists for the
purpose of "affirming male identity."  To achieve this end, women must be
"denied all means of survival outside of marriage, including jobs and
social programs."  Not only does this change the nature of marriage from
voluntary to involuntary servitude, and constitute a death sentence for
those women unable to snag one of the 7% of American men capable (but not
always willing) of supporting a nonworking wife, but it forces many women
into prostitution.  In Gilder's other book, "The Naked Nomads," where he
starts out by asking sympathy for some friends of his whose attitude towards
women is so bad that they actually make the old joke come true, and cannot,
even with intense effort, get laid in a whorehouse, Gilder makes it clear
that when women are "made available for marriage," and no husbands exist,
they are supposed to turn to prostitution, since this also "affirms male
identity."

Some of the ways in which the Cabinet members who were the recipients of
Reagan's "informal gift" of Gilder's book, (Gilder is an official policy
Advisor to President Reagan), carried out his informal policy directives,
were by attacking Affirmative Action and civil rights, pouring enormous
sums into defending the government against discrimination suits where the
government was clearly guilty, and cutting social programs, particularly
those that benefitted women, children and the disabled.  The feminization
of poverty is a direct result of the informal substitution by appointed
officials of the Reagan/Gilder "sexual constitution" for our legal one.

Alan's attack on me was not a simple matter of proving that he could
post directly to a moderated group, but a matter of affirming male identity
to show that nobody currently in a policy position in America today will
defend the civil rights of a female from an attack by a male.  Like
Pastor Niehmoller (sp?), the good German and Polish citizens who never
saw a thing, and the poor Nazi S.S. guards who Reagan claimed were also
"victims," of fascism--until they themselves are the target, people are
not apt to notice that others are being targeted and eliminated.

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the survivors of atomic tests cannot
sue the government, that military people given drugs without their
knowledge or consent by the government cannot sue, and with Justice
Powell's resignation it is likely that the Supreme Court will, in the
future, not be likely to hold our government responsible for anything.
For example, if it should ever be proven that AIDS was genetically
engineered in a government biological warfare laboratory, as some
scientists believe, there is no way that the victims could seek compensation
from the government.  And no telling what future atrocities our
government may perpetrate on us and the world, without any danger
whatsoever of being held responsible.  If I steal a loaf of bread, I can
be put in jail.  If somebody working for the government murders a
million innocent civilians, it is unlikely that they would ever spend
a day in confinement.  The dead cannot sue, the survivors are deprived
of the right to sue by the Supreme Court, and the system of checks and
balances we once had, has been, as far as I can see, totally and permanently
destroyed.

Even if Reagan were to be impeached, either he or his successor would be
certain to pardon any federal officials who acted illegally or against
our national interests.  By the time the Christic Institute case reaches
the Supreme Court, we may have one or two voices there, crying in the
wilderness that atrocities, even when perpetrated by a government on
innocent civilians, are reprensible, but they will not constitute a
majority.

(Private note to someone who knows who I am referring to:  Never attribute
anything to unconsciousness when there is an obvious economic motive
in existence.)

It is because I am a woman that I can see no difference between a federal
policy of affirming Aryan identity by depriving non-Aryans of all means
of survival other than slavery, which often means being worked to death
under inhuman conditions, a federal policy of affirming white identity by
depriving people of color of all means of survival other than slavery,
which often means being worked to death under inhuman conditions, and
a federal policy of affirming male identity by depriving women of all
means of survival other than slavery, which often means being worked to
death under inhuman conditions.  Historically, those who stood to benefit
from such policies, have always failed to see any such relationship, and
have justified fascist policies as being the natural order, God's will,
or the absolute right of an absolute dictator to impose as he sees fit.

--Mark Ethan Smith