mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/02/85)
Gee, let's see...If I read all this aright, immodestly dressed women are responsible for rape, adultery, masturbation, broken homes, and no doubt child abuse and sexual discrimination. And working women are likewise responsible for homosexuality, drug abuse, teenage crime, unwanted pregnancies, satanism, theft, fraud, tax evasion, fire, flood, earth- quake, drought, lingering bunions...but I digress. I suppose that if hemlines dropped about a foot, the economy would improve? Would a ban on tube-tops halt the arms race? If the Bar Assn banned women attorneys, we could end world hunger? Yes, Myrtle Phillips, YOU can SAVE THE WORLD! Just quit your job, go home to your estranged husband, dress plain and modestly, say "A woman's place is in the home" three times, and the world will suddenly be a better place to live. For men. But not for women, or those who care about them. -fini- "Reason is Peace; -Eric Fanaticism is Slavery; ...!ucla-cs!mccolm Tolerance is Strength."
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (05/10/85)
> > I suppose that if hemlines dropped about a foot, the economy would improve? > Actually, there is a "school" of economic thought that does believe there is a relationship between women's fashion and business cycles. But I guess you weren't really interested in that. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/10/85)
> Gee, let's see...If I read all this aright, immodestly dressed women are > responsible for rape, adultery, masturbation, broken homes, and no doubt > child abuse and sexual discrimination. And working women are likewise > responsible for homosexuality, drug abuse, teenage crime, unwanted > pregnancies, satanism, theft, fraud, tax evasion, fire, flood, earth- > quake, drought, lingering bunions...but I digress. > > I suppose that if hemlines dropped about a foot, the economy would improve? > Would a ban on tube-tops halt the arms race? If the Bar Assn banned women > attorneys, we could end world hunger? > > Yes, Myrtle Phillips, YOU can SAVE THE WORLD! Just quit your job, go home > to your estranged husband, dress plain and modestly, say "A woman's > place is in the home" three times, and the world will suddenly be a better > place to live. > > For men. > > But not for women, or those who care about them. [ucla-cs!mccolm] Yes, it's all a question of perspective. It's like I said in a few articles in another group: those who want us to go back to the old ways, to the old values, want that because it will make life better. For them. Taking exclusively the example of women, the fact that women have more freedom and choices today, the fact that a woman treated on an equal basis with a man in a family (as both "breadwinner" and "family leader") changes the nature of the family, the fact that the increased freedom of ANY group of individuals may change the fabric of society is seen as a NEGATIVE by certain people because it changes the status quo (as they see it). And the status quo is (or was) good to THEM. Thus, they argue that the changes are "destroying the family/the church/the fabric of society". Going back to those old values they want means nothing more than taking away the rights of people who've worked hard to get rights that they (in actuality) deserve without question in the first place. Bring back "traditional church and family values" they say. Meaning exactly what Eric is satirically asking Myrtle Phillips to do in the above paragraph. -- "Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (05/13/85)
In article <827@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >> >> I suppose that if hemlines dropped about a foot, the economy would improve? >> > >Actually, there is a "school" of economic thought that does believe there is >a relationship between women's fashion and business cycles. But I guess you >weren't really interested in that. "Year of the Jackpot?" m
chabot@miles.DEC (Bits is bits) (05/14/85)
The "nature of the family" is always changing. It's not the same now as it was in the 1950s (which were certainly different with than the first half of the 1940s) or the 1850s or ... L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa