-Caveat Lector- >Since writing these words last week, I have discovered that before she became a >feminist leader, Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA spying on Marxist students in >Europe and disrupting their meetings.
That Steinem was a CIA asset has been known for decades; the fact that the writer only found out about it 'last week' after initiating his diatribe suggests much about the writer's lack of scholarship and research... >She became a media darling due to her CIA connections. Actually she became a 'media darling' more because she had once been a Playboy Bunny, a fact the writer doesn't seem to know since he never mentions it in writing about Steinem's history... >Steinem has tried to suppress this information, unearthed in the 1970´s by a radical >feminist group called “Red Stockings.” Golly, gee! The writer maligns feminism, especially radical feminism, yet admits it was a radical feminist group who first uncovered and published the fact that Steinem was associated with the CIA.... >There is evidence that the 60´s drug counter culture, the >civil rights movement, and anti-war movement, like feminism, were CIA directed. Probably not at the beginning; but the spooks have a way of infiltrating and subverting any popular movement to suit their own purposes... They exploited the 'leftist' popular movements of the 50s thru the 70s, they are now exploiting the 'rightist' movements of today... >According to Mark Riebling, the CIA also may have used Timothy Leary. Certainly >the agency distributed LSD to Leary and other opinion makers in the 1960s. Of course the CIA 'used' Leary...it was the CIA that footed the bill into LSD research up until LSD's use was outlawed in 1967... The thing was, the spooks had certain ideas as to what uses LSD could be put to, and causing a general psychic enlightenment amongst the massess was NOT what they had in mind... >Leary made a generation of Americans turn away from active participation >in society and seek fulfillment “within.” And the problem with that is....? Actually, Leary never 'made' anyone do anything...he just presented LSD in a beneficial aspect (and there WERE plenty of scientific studies showing that it DID work well when used therapeutically in a controlled situation), and up until LSD was outlawed it was perfectly legal to use... And quite a few people used it, many of whom only used it once and went on to live productive lives...in fact, it was the very same "Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out" generation that overwhelmingly voted Ronald Reagan into office in 1980... >I won´t attempt to analyze the CIA´s motivation except to suggest what these acts >have in common: They demoralized, alienated and divided Americans. One could argue that it is not necessarily the USE of such substances with cause demoralization, alienation, and division, but rather the OUTLAWING of the use of such substances, which then creates a criminal society of users and a criminal society of suppliers... >The elite operates by fostering division and conflict in the world. All accounts of LSD users who did not have 'bad trips' (and most 'bad trips' occured AFTER it was outlawed in 1967, which suggests that the CIA itself was flooding the market with 'bad acid') state that one of the benefits of using acid was to fully experience the total connection with all creation, both animate and inanimate...which is probably why the CIA had it outlawed, since the fostering of commonality and brotherhood has NEVER been high on it's agenda... >Yet the lie that men have exploited women has become the official orthodoxy. Oh, so the writer would have us to believe that woman have ALWAYS had full civil rights? That even today, women aren't paid only 58 cents for every dollar paid to a man....? >Man loves woman. SOME men love SOME women. How that 'love' is manifested varies from man to man and is never uniform; some men are secure enough not to sweat the fact that the woman they love wishes to have an independent life. Other men are insecure, and keep the women they love in virtual slavery... >His first instinct is to nurture (“husband”) and see her thrive. Bull. A good many men just want a servant and bed partner, someone who will provide a beer or sex upon demand... >When a woman is happy, she is beautiful. When ANYONE is happy, they are beautiful; that not only applies to women but to men, children, and pets for that matter... >Sure, some men are abusive. But the vast >majority have supported and guided their families for millennium. If 'support and guidance' means that no one else in the family is allowed an opinion, let alone the autonomy to put their opinions into action, then that very 'support and guidance' is in itself abusive... >Feminists relentlessly advance the idea that our inherent male and female >characteristics, crucial to our development as human beings, are mere “stereotypes.” They are. Studies done on babies that have been dressed in clothes of the opposite sex have shown that the same infant has been treated totally differently depending on whether the person thought the baby was a girl or boy. When the baby was dressed as a girl, a person would hold and cuddle the baby more, and be more cautious in allowing the baby to explore its environment...and the toys chosen for the 'girl' baby tended to be soft, stuffed animals rather than hard things; when that very same baby was dressed as a boy and reintroduced to the same person as a 'new' baby (or in some cases as the 'male twin brother' of the 'previous' baby), the same person who had previous treated the baby as if it would easily break now allowed the baby to freely explore its environment, held the baby less and comforted it less when it cried, and would give the 'boy' baby hard toys like blocks, trucks, hammers, etc., and rarely gave it soft, cuddly toys as a first choice. In other words, our society treats males and females very differently even from the cradle -- and of course those differences will later manifest as personality traits; by the time the babies reach toddler stage, girls have learned not to be as active and to act in what is determined as 'proper' girl ways, while boys OTOH have learned that they are supposed to be more active and more 'boy' like...while an active girl will be tolerated as a 'tomboy', rare is the little boy who is encouraged to play with stuffed animals and dolls or in any way feel free to express his nurturing nature... >The American >woman has been hoodwinked into investing herself in a mundane career instead of >the timeless love of her husband and children. Oh yeah, we can't have women having careers and being able to support themselves, can we...? >Many women have become temperamentally unfit to be wives and mothers. Only to insecure men who are challenged by a woman who is intelligent and able to maintain herself... >People, who are isolated and alone, stunted and love-starved, >are easy to fool and manipulate. Gee, this sounds like any number of MEN that I know, but no women.... In fact, studies have shown that men do not handle living alone well...while women not only do well alone, but many actually PREFER it... >Women´s oppression is a lie. Bullshit >Sex roles were never as rigid as feminists would have us believe. More bullshit. >My mother had a successful business in the 1950´s importing watch >straps from Switzerland. Swell. That wasn't an option for 99.99 percent of women at the time... >When my father´s income increased, she was content to >quit and concentrate on the children. Again, swell. At least she had the option. The majority of women didn't. >Women were free to pursue careers if they wanted to. Bullshit. When I was in highschool in the 60s, I as a female was presented with two options to consider after graduation: if I went on to college, I could be a teacher or a nurse, nothing more; if I didn't go on to college, then my option was to become a secretary. If a girl was considered 'smart', she was 'tracked' into college-level courses with the idea of going on to become a teacher or nurse; if a girl was considered not so intelligent, she was 'tracked' into business courses, because the idea was that she'd have to go to work in an office immediately upon graduation. It was a given -- not an unspoken 'given', but articulated openly -- that the girl would eventually get married in a few years, whether she attended college or went right to work, and it was presumed that upon marriage the girl would stop working. I was even told this when being hired for my first 'real' job outside of highschool -- that the office I was going to work in was made up primarily of 'young girls who get married and leave'... A girl was never encouraged to think about an actual CAREER, let alone a career where she could become a manager or even an executive; my highschool guidance counselor had a fit late in my sophomore year when she saw the classes I had signed up for in my junior year...it was fine that I had taken "Personal Typing" in my freshman year (a half-year of typing instruction that all college-tracked kids were encouraged to take, because it was expected that we would need basic typing skills for term papers); she didn't even object when I had signed up for the full-year "Typing I" course for my sophomore year, as it was the only business course I took that year... But she objected when I signed up for "Typing II", "Shorthand I", and "Accounting I" for my junior year; she trotted out my 4th-grade IQ test to show that I had a genius-level IQ and should therefore be planning on going to college rather than taking business courses... When I explained that my taking such courses didn't mean that I didn't plan on going to college, I was met with a blank stare; she couldn't fathom a girl taking business classes AND going to college. She became even more flustered when I explained that at that time I was thinking of going to a college that had a Bachelor's program in business, as I was interested in both computers AND accounting, and that I was thinking of majoring in one and minoring in the other...and also that I planned on working part-time to pay for college, therefore the business courses would also come in handy in that aspect... It still didn't sink in; this was 1970 and 'the rules' said that I, as a female, only had the option of working as a teacher, nurse, or secretary for a few years until I got married, when it wouldn't matter what education and/or training I'd previously received because I, as a female, was expected to quit work to stay at home and raise a family...and while I could plan on being a teacher, I wasn't expected to plan on becoming a school administrator, school superintendent, college professor or college president; while I could be a nurse, I wasn't expected to desire to become a doctor; while I could be a secretary, it wasn't expected that I could ever become a bank president or a CEO of a major corporation... So she started to repeat her 'script' regarding how I was 'too smart' to 'go into business', which I cut short by coming back with: "Are you saying only stupid people work in the business world?"...and because I had such a strong personality I was able to withstand her pressure tactics and take the business classes I wanted...but I would imagine that any number of other girls at the time who may have dreamt of a college degree other than in teaching or in nursing would have been met with the same strong-armed tactics and encouraged to stick to the 'accepted' college-level careers. And any girl who was considered for whatever reason NOT to be 'college material' would have been told to take a few business courses so that she could type and take shorthand and perhaps balance some books for a few years in an office....but both the 'college level' and 'non-college level' girl both got the message that either selection was 'only for a few years', that it was expected that she would get married and would then 'not have to work any more'... No one seemed to believe that perhaps there were girls who DESIRED a career beyond wife and mother and homemaker... The point I'm making is that the writer of the posted diatribe, being a male, is in no more a position to judge the oppressed state of women than I, a Caucasian, am in any position to judge the oppressed state of Blacks... >The difference was that their role as wife and mother was understood, >and socially validated, as it should be. Yes, the role of wife and mother SHOULD be socially validated; but so to should be any other CHOICE a woman makes regarding her life role; and THAT is the key, that women should have a CHOICE, and not be stuck in male-defined 'proper' roles... <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
