mazur@inmet.UUCP (03/12/85)
***** inmet:net.women / decwrl!arndt / 7:55 pm Feb 22, 1985 > The 'dark forces' are in retreat. It is becoming more and more obvious to > all save a few obscurantist hold-outs on net.women. Actually, Ken, you might be right. The Boston Globe (that's the paper that doesn't have the Wingo numbers in it :-) had a column in it recently where one of their female columnists claimed that the yuppie-type female of today does not identify with the women's movement, except as something that happened "in the past". > Quite a turning of the tables, eh? The 'shock troops' of the radical > screamers have served their purpose and now are passed by. The majority > of women, who DO owe them a debt for waking them up, are not dancing > to the 'radical' tune but are supporting 'traditional' (family) values. And it is these women who "are not dancing to the 'radical' tune" who are, if not active participants, condoning the use of explosives to try and prevent clinics from performing abortions. Sounds like 'traditional' values to me... > For example, Burton White, director of Boston's Center for Parent Education, > cautions, "A child needs large doses of custom-made love. You can't expect > hired help to provide that. I see the trend toward increasing use of day > care as a disaster." Opps! There goes another 'women's movement' plank! Uh, Ken, this one's going to be a big problem. Many women are not moving into the workforce because they're mega-career oriented; many of these women with kids in day care work because their families need the two paychecks. But you know that. So Mary Smith has two choices: she can leave Johnny in daycare for all his formative years, in which case he'll surely turn into a mass murderer or rapist type; or, she can quit her job take care of the kid, feeding him bread and water every day for all his formative years, in which case he'll surely turn into a mass murderer or rapist type. Beth Mazur {ihnp4,ima,harpo}!inmet!mazur
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (03/13/85)
> Uh, Ken, this one's going to be a big problem. Many women are not moving > into the workforce because they're mega-career oriented; many of these women > with kids in day care work because their families need the two paychecks. > But you know that. So Mary Smith has two choices: she can leave Johnny in > daycare for all his formative years, in which case he'll surely turn into > a mass murderer or rapist type; or, she can quit her job take care of the > kid, feeding him bread and water every day for all his formative years, in > which case he'll surely turn into a mass murderer or rapist type. Actually, there is a third alternative which few seem to consider... Don't have Johnny in the first place, since it's impossible to raise him in a constructive manner. The reason it's so difficult to provide for Johnny in the first place is because the world is overpopulated, and there isn't enough pie to divide into even one more piece for Johnny. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) (03/14/85)
>> Uh, Ken, this one's going to be a big problem. Many women are not moving >> into the workforce because they're mega-career oriented; many of these women >> with kids in day care work because their families need the two paychecks. >> But you know that. So Mary Smith has two choices: she can leave Johnny in >> daycare for all his formative years, in which case he'll surely turn into >> a mass murderer or rapist type; or, she can quit her job take care of the >> kid, feeding him bread and water every day for all his formative years, in >> which case he'll surely turn into a mass murderer or rapist type. >Actually, there is a third alternative which few seem to consider... >Don't have Johnny in the first place, since it's impossible to raise him in a >constructive manner. The reason it's so difficult to provide for Johnny in >the first place is because the world is overpopulated, and there isn't enough >pie to divide into even one more piece for Johnny. What ridiculous zpg western-self-hating nonsense, the USA is underpopulated. While the USA consumes more per capita, it also produces far more per capita so that the world on the whole benfits from USA consumption. Didn't you know that feminism was a mega-business conspiracy to increase the labor pool in order to drive salaries down? Also encouraging people to be single or childless is a mega-business conspiracy to make sure employees keep their employer central in their life. Yehoyaqim Martillo
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (03/16/85)
[] Yehoyaqim Martillo writes: > Also encouraging people > to be single or childless is a mega-business conspiracy to make sure > employees keep their employer central in their life. I don't know about that. In my experience, people with children to support are much more apt to be concerned with staying in the good graces of their employers. Isaac Dimitrovsky "I'm sorry, but I've had to sell you all for medical experiments."
lisa@mit-vax.UUCP (Lisa Chabot) (03/19/85)
> Didn't you know that feminism was a mega-business conspiracy to increase > the labor pool in order to drive salaries down? Also encouraging people > to be single or childless is a mega-business conspiracy to make sure > employees keep their employer central in their life. > > Yehoyaqim Martillo Er, wouldn't it be more effective, if the aim is a large labor pool to either eliminate immigration quotas, or encourage women to be in frequently pregnant? If you get all the women working, you at best double the work force, but if you get them all to have 6 babies...or if you open the gates of the "land of opportunity" to everyone who wants to come in... You baiting feminists again? L S Chabot ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
annab@azure.UUCP (A Beaver) (03/19/85)
>References: <2037@inmet.UUCP> > > ***** inmet:net.women / decwrl!arndt / 7:55 pm Feb 22, 1985 > > For example, Burton White, director of Boston's Center for Parent Education, > > cautions, "A child needs large doses of custom-made love. You can't expect > > hired help to provide that. I see the trend toward increasing use of day > > care as a disaster." Opps! There goes another 'women's movement' plank! > Uh, Ken, this one's going to be a big problem. Many women are not moving > into the workforce because they're mega-career oriented; many of these women > with kids in day care work because their families need the two paychecks. > But you know that. So Mary Smith has two choices: she can leave Johnny in > daycare for all his formative years, in which case he'll surely turn into > a mass murderer or rapist type; or, she can quit her job take care of the > kid, feeding him bread and water every day for all his formative years, in > which case he'll surely turn into a mass murderer or rapist type. > Beth Mazur Face it, some people have not had to deal directly with the reality of being sole support for one or more other persons, a student and female. As one of those people, i feel compelled to tell you that it is well justified to strive for the best that you can get. If a person strives to do well, as measured by their own standards, they tend to feel better about what is happening around them. This then comes out in how one interacts with others. It also helps to improve the quality of the time which you DO spend with these other people, whom you care so much about. As for the preschool environment: It is VERY important for children to have interaction with other children their age, as well as other adults. Being in preschool is generally a good way to get this type of exposure. Most of the women whom I know, that don't work and have children over the age of three, take their child to the preschool for 1/2 days. This helps to eliminate the culture shock that the children used to go through when they were all of a sudden sent off to school at the age of 5 or 6. That way the child can settle into a pattern of doing well in school. (they have classed for them to learn to read and write a bit) Generally, the mother then gets a part time job to help pay for the cost of the preschool and the child can comfortably get their early start. ##### ##"""## Annadiana Beaver ## Q Q ## A Beaver@Tektronix @" w "@ #( \_/ )# ##\___/## #### ####
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) (03/21/85)
>> Didn't you know that feminism was a mega-business conspiracy to increase >> the labor pool in order to drive salaries down? Also encouraging people >> to be single or childless is a mega-business conspiracy to make sure >> employees keep their employer central in their life. >> >> Yehoyaqim Martillo >Er, wouldn't it be more effective, if the aim is a large labor pool to >either eliminate immigration quotas, or encourage women to be in frequently >pregnant? If you get all the women working, you at best double the work >force, but if you get them all to have 6 babies...or if you open the gates >of the "land of opportunity" to everyone who wants to come in... Immigrants typically enter the labor pool at the wrong type of occupation. Encouraging pregnancy means then the husband will have more encumbrances outside the job which is undesirable. Anyway your proposal does not work. 6 children implies perhaps 3 boys on the average which in the long term only increase the labor pool slowly, if the women are at home barefoot and pregnant. >You baiting feminists again? Of course, though actually I was more interested in deriding the zpg nonsense. India may be overpopulated but not the US. The US should eliminate immigration quotas altogether. All zpg meant was slowing population growth in underpopulated, productive Western countries while they make even more babies in overpopulated less productive nations.
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (03/23/85)
I was a day-care child. I'm 30, and I still haven't developed any criminal tendencies, or severe problems in psychological development. Neither have the other former day-care children I've known. Not that this proves the general case, but it does lead me to suspect the motives of those who claim daycare produces misfits and criminals. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (03/23/85)
> > Many women are not moving > > into the workforce because they're mega-career oriented; many of these women > > with kids in day care work because their families need the two paychecks. > > Actually, there is a third alternative which few seem to consider... > Don't have Johnny in the first place, since it's impossible to raise him in a > constructive manner. The reason it's so difficult to provide for Johnny in > the first place is because the world is overpopulated, and there isn't enough > pie to divide into even one more piece for Johnny. > -- > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) I don't agree. The U.S. isn't overpopulated, that is, it has more than enough "pie" for everyone within its borders. Yet it has become common for both parents of a family in the U.S. to have to work in order to provide enough income to feed the family and pay the bills. This is a problem of distribution; the incredible wealth that exists in this country is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Population is only a problem in those countries where basic needs exceed the people's ability to meet them by production or trade. Eventually it may happen that this will happen throughout the whole world. Currently, the world capacity for production of basic needs (like food) exceeds the world demand. The main reasons that people are starving are political. I don't think it's fair to expect people in a prosperous country like the U.S. to avoid having children in order to solve a population problem that doesn't exist for them. On another note, I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that another reason more women are in the work force is that more of them are choosing to remain single, and more women are divorced or separated. It's also fairly common for husbands in ghetto families to simply leave without providing any child support; the mothers have the choice of working and leaving their kids alone or going on welfare. Vigorous enforcement of the law would help this situation, but this often doesn't happen for poor people, especially women. Sorry for the net.politics nature of this message, but the issues are fundamentally political. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
lisa@mit-vax.UUCP (Lisa Chabot) (03/23/85)
I'd like to agree about pre-school being a good idea. My logical niece loves it and her mom who doesn't have a paying job devotes a lot of energy to maintaining a pre-school environment she approves of; one of the bees currently in her bonnet (and also in some of her friends') is that she doesn't want to see too much stress placed on getting the "correct" answer. I think some of the other folks are yuppies who've bought in to the pushed child approach. But pre-school isn't for teaching your kid arithmetic when they're three, it is for socialization. Just like Alice (the niece mentioned above), I was an only child until about kindergarten. But I grew up in trailer parks and they always segregate the families with kids, so unlike most housing areas, our neighbors always had a couple of kids and there was a fantastic playground (or so it seemed to us) that we could usually go off to even unescorted sometimes. ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/25/85)
Martillo writes: > Of course, though actually I was more interested in deriding the zpg > nonsense. India may be overpopulated but not the US. The US should > eliminate immigration quotas altogether. Zpg is not nonsense. In the long term, it is the *only* way for humanity to survive in an all-too-finite biosphere. The US may not be overpopulated yet, but eliminating immigration quotas certainly seems like a good way to make sure that we *are* overpopulated within a generation or two. Especially with an administration that thinks that birth control causes pregnancy. > > All zpg meant was slowing population growth in underpopulated, > productive Western countries while they make even more babies in > overpopulated less productive nations. I'm not sure what you meant by this. Apparently that overpopulated countries are making little effort towards zpg. I don't see how that fact (if true) is an indictement of the zpg concept. Somehow I think you meant it as one, though. And again with the 'underpopulated' western countries. Just what is your idea of the best population level? Why is it higher than the number of people we already have? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "War is peace."-the ministry of truth
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/26/85)
> > > Many women are not moving > > > into the workforce because they're mega-career oriented; many of these women > > > with kids in day care work because their families need the two paychecks. > > And even if women WERE moving in the workforce because they are mega-career oriented, what would be wrong with that? Why do we have to have excuses for working such as "we need the money", etc.... Why do we get on the defensive over such things? Have you ever heard of a discussion about why men want to work go in the same manner as the one we are having now: _ "well you know, he doesn't REALLY want to work, but he has to, because of..., but all in all, he's still isn't career oriented, so it's ok...." Does this sound absolutely ridiculous? well, it is, and so is the equivalent for women!!! I am working because I want to! and even if I didn't HAVE to, I would probably be working because I enjoy it, and I like making money just as much as any of you men out there do, because I like spending money and I like feeling confortable. Apparently that's a crime, well, I don't care! So all you women out there, wake up! there's nothing shameful about working even if you don't NEED it: men do it all the time!! Now, back to work....... -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (03/27/85)
> Martillo writes: > > Of course, though actually I was more interested in deriding the zpg > > nonsense. India may be overpopulated but not the US. The US should > > eliminate immigration quotas altogether. > > Zpg is not nonsense. In the long term, it is the *only* way for humanity > to survive in an all-too-finite biosphere. The US may not be overpopulated > yet, but eliminating immigration quotas certainly seems like a good way to > make sure that we *are* overpopulated within a generation or two. Especially > with an administration that thinks that birth control causes pregnancy. > > > > All zpg meant was slowing population growth in underpopulated, > > productive Western countries while they make even more babies in > > overpopulated less productive nations. > I'm not sure what you meant by this. Apparently that overpopulated > countries are making little effort towards zpg. I don't see how that fact > (if true) is an indictement of the zpg concept. Somehow I think you meant > it as one, though. > And again with the 'underpopulated' western countries. Just what is > your idea of the best population level? Why is it higher than the number > of people we already have? > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "War is peace."-the ministry of truth The alternative to birth control is death control. The most popular and most widely practiced form of this is war. Just like rats in a skinner box, the more overpopulated we get, the more warlike we get. Take the pill or take the bomb. When Malthusian growth exceeds the food supply, famine will result. Little farms are going broke one by one. Soon the famine comes. Then the pestilence and disease, then we get more warlike and comes armegeddon. Overpopulated? nawwwwww. Not U.S. We've got the bombs and missles and marines to make sure we have the Arabian oil to keep the teamsters rolling to get the chemically polluted carcinogenic food trucked to the local supermarket. It comes down to cubic feet of topsoil per capita. Our modern industrial food companies are destroying the topsoil with their chemicals, driving the pure reproducible species of food out of the seed catalogs, and making us all dependent on hybrids you have to re-buy each year from the chemical companies. The Dow of Industrialization. The Tao of Ecological Suicide. Look at it another way. By limiting the population through war, we selectively breed for ability to wage war... the winners get to reproduce their jeans. If instead we intelligently choose to practice birth control (like by reversing the tax structure to tax rather than encourage more babies per couple), then we can select for intelligence and earning power rather than for pugnaciousness. Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
ariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (03/28/85)
> Especially > with an administration that thinks that birth control causes pregnancy. >(Jeff Sonntag) No, no, Jeff, this administration thinks that birth control causes sex (and immorality, and warping the minds of our youth, and communism, and rampant licentiousness, and... and... and...) Ariel (birth control is avoiding the issue) Shattan ..!tektronix!orca!ariels
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (03/28/85)
> I was a day-care child. I'm 30, and I still haven't developed any > criminal tendencies, or severe problems in psychological development. > Neither have the other former day-care children I've known. > > Not that this proves the general case, but it does lead me to suspect > the motives of those who claim daycare produces misfits and criminals. > > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall This *proves* that being raised in day-care makes you grow up hating Playboy! Will day-care be the next target of men's-rights activists? :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) with apologies, Jeff Winslow PS: I agree with you, Ed. About daycare.
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (03/29/85)
In article <128@mit-athena.UUCP> martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) writes: >>> Didn't you know that feminism was a mega-business conspiracy to increase >>> the labor pool in order to drive salaries down? Also encouraging people >>> to be single or childless is a mega-business conspiracy to make sure >>> employees keep their employer central in their life. >>> >>> Yehoyaqim Martillo Once again, Yehoyaqim (or is it Joaquim?) shows us he is free of the ravages of intelligence. ("Thank you, Master"). Didn't you know that Ubizmatism is a Zionist conspiracy to confuse the commies? Merlyn Leroy "...a dimension between stupidity and substance, between science and superficiality, a place we call...The Usenet Zone"
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (03/30/85)
Sophie Quigley writes: > >_ "well you know, he doesn't REALLY want to work, but he has to, because of..., >but all in all, he's still isn't career oriented, so it's ok...." > >Does this sound absolutely ridiculous? well, it is, and so is ... If truth were known I would spend my days skiing, sailing, bicycling, and just putzing around. Much, if not all, of my career orientation comes from the need to have income (I like spending so much!). Since I do need to have a job I might as well do something I like and do it well, hopefully well enough to be recognized for my efforts and abilities - I don't intend to work hard just to get ahead. This doesn't truly reflect on what Sophie said, career is one of those words that I have a knee-jerk reaction to. Peter Barbee