The 200th exoneration by DNA evidence freed a Black man convicted of raping a white womyn. He had been out on parole awaiting his name to be cleared, when a judge cleared it April 23.Let's cut to the cheese:
People who want to do something about rape--emotional cheerleading for the court system is not productive. Putting police booths on streets corners does not work. Much pseudo-feminism goes into a fascist or monarchist direction appropriate for pre-1789 feudal Europe. Call for the abolition of pornography; make consent forms mandatory for all sex; even taking up Muslim or Eastern customs on a womyn's "place" (meaning if she shows up in certain places sex is assumed and unthinkable in other places)--these would be less extreme measures than our pseudo-feminist policies and injustice system now, despite the disruption to culture they would involve. Currently, some men go to prison so that other people can enjoy sex everywhere anytime with all the pornography and spontaneity with no forms to fill out [glavin!--ed.].This is not a joke. Well, yes it is. But MIM has long advocated consent forms for sex. The bureaucracy. The waiting in line. The graft. The shortages. Socialist paradise.
MIM reviews some student publications in its Student Writing Roundup, including the Barnard Bulletin, which MIM says can be found daintily "chewing on many subjects" and "playing with MIM-type issues."
On the other hand, Vassar's The Miscellany News is a candidate for dekulakization:
MIM has reported before that one is more likely to find an orgy advertised for a college building [huh?] than a serious revolutionary feminist discussion. Vassar College writers continue MIM's disappointment. One writer sees Nancy Pelosi as a victory. Another sees knocking down Bush administration "abstinence" officials as another feminist cause. "Truth is, feminists are making serious headway in challenging the blind ideology of abstinence--perhaps more so than at any other time during the Bush presidency. So, for the record, this is a perfectly legitimate reason to kick back and finally celebrate our victories," says [Miscellany News'] Carolyn Bradley. . . .Purge! Purge! Purge!
Here's a page I hadn't noticed before--the Maoist Internationalist Movement's take (sorry, "line") on clothing:
In the Socialist dawn, nobody will have potentially no new clothes at all.
VOTE 2.a. A line on clothing styles and the bases of attraction
Under the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations, production of clothing should restrict the style of clothing.
If there is any economic difficulty in the world after the downfall of u.$. imperialism, the restriction of clothing may be from sheer economic necessity in an economy wrecked by global capitalist militarism. It goes without saying MIM is not going to favor having some people have mini-skirts and suits while others have potentially no new clothes at all.
You are not going to believe their solution to the "ho" question. It's brilliant, and totally original:
It is unmistakable that wimmin spend more time on makeup and clothing than men and this is the pattern of facts that separates a Marxist approach from a Liberal one. MIM does not believe the difference in time spent by wimmin on appearance stems from some female gene for self-decoration. It may appear that way to people only because class society has existed so long and because wimmin have sold their whole outlook to men for so long with varying degrees of coercion over history.
In other words, the fascination with cosmetics and putting together clothing outfits stems from inequality and the difference in men's efforts at appearance and wimmin's is an important inequality in itself. . . .
The problem with self-decoration is time and money spent. It is not impossible to wear makeup and have accomplishments, only less likely. We can also state the converse of this when we say that men want wimmin who put in the effort on their looks, because of holdovers of class society that are about to disappear. . . . On average, the pattern was for men to focus on their class advancement while wimmin can focus on life as private entertainers. This ancient pattern of behavior is the 'ho' question.
The simplest means of bringing about equality is the Mao suit. When everyone wears the same grey or blue suit, there is no time wasted and gender equality improves greatly. Instead of one style and two colors, perhaps wealthy socialist society can afford 20 styles and 10 colors, but the point is that individual distinction should disappear with an eye to evening out the disparity between men and wimmin. This approach will also eliminate the oppression of children where they have school uniforms and many adults have no formal uniforms. (All people have uniforms produced by the mega-corporations of imperialism.)
Conclusion: these people are nuts (I'm lookin' at you, Security Minister!).
Update: Never forget what our hero once said: "[T]he Maoist International Movement have used their weekly papers to advance some of the best analysis of my case and its implications yet published."