rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/09/86)
In article <611@zeus.UUCP> rob@dadla.tek.com (Rob Vetter) writes: >In article <153@druxo.UUCP> nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) writes: >>The "crimes" of the fathers gave all males an advantage (in terms of >>cultural expectation, encouragement, control of power, education, etc). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -> pressure! >>Yes, the mothers paid a price. The children benefit only on the basis of >>their sex--i.e., males benefit, females don't. Devil's advocate :-). Women recieved indirect benifit in that they were not obligated to support themselves, their husbands, and their children. While a women had the OPTION of working, men had the OBLIGATION to work. (like housework isn't working?!?!;-). >>You have agreed that there is a problem (i.e., you agreed that my point is >>valid). Why ask how *I* would solve it? Why don't *you* suggest some >>solutions? I'll take this as an open invitation. The current society, reflected in media, schools, and social interaction, does not provide enough pressure for women to prepare for complete self- sufficiency, and places too much pressure on men to be not only self- sufficient, but able to support a number of dependents as well. Some "family oriented" churches even pressure men to support excessively large families, and their parents to when they retire. It is possible, and even common in some circles, for a woman never to have to be self-sufficient. There is even a gaping hole in the english language between virgin daughter, wife, and widow. King James english calls a non-virgin unmarried woman a harlot! "Woman" would be a more apropriate word, just plain woman. "Working girl", "working woman", "career woman", and similar names are often associated with prostitution. On the flip side, a man who is dependent on a woman is a "giggalo", a "hustler", or a "free-loader". Today, women are allowed, even encouraged, to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, sales professionals, and even enterpeneurs. How often are men encouraged to become nurses, secretaries, or maids? Right now, men MUST make more than women to support the obligatory wife and 1.8 kids. Even the single mother who supports 1.8 kids doesn't need as much. She's feeding 2.8, and he's feeding 3.8. Men and women should both be raised with the expectation that they may be the ones to provide primary support for themselves and their families. In other words, they should both be playing with trucks, construction toys, puzzles, and books. They should both be looking at careers that provide the income required for a primary provider. At the same time, they should be prepared for the option of being the secondary provider, or the dependant. This may include taking care of children, sewing, cooking, cleaning, and shopping for groceries and clothes. In other words, boys, as well as girls, should be encouraged to play with dolls, toy kitchens, toy sewing machines, and handicrafts. The primary provider should be the one to initiate relationships with a secondary. They should also be able to show there abilities to provide by paying the expenses of the relationship, with the occaisional "dutch" date. The secondary might be able to contribute, but should not be expected to do so all the time. That means the graces of such things as tipping, ordering, making reservations, planning, and various other responsibilities should be learned by both sexes. The secondary should have the skills to attract a primary's interest and approach. Skills such as make-up, fashion, color coordination, and other "defect hiding" techniques should be taught to both sexes. This means boys and girls should be encouraged to play with "Barbie" and "Ken" dolls. Both sexes should have appropriate skills in self defense, technology, and "street survival" techniques. The secondaries to defend themselves against undesired primaries, the primaries to defend themselves against rival primaries, and to prove their superiority to other primaries (forget that last one, it's "macho" b***sh**). So both boys and girls should be encouraged to play with guns, swords, and similar "war toys", right? Now, to overcome the reverse discrimination of the past X centuries, we have to find ways of overcoming parents natural tendency to raise boys as primaries, and girls as secondaries. Television has been a very effective tool for changing the general attitudes toward racism, poverty, anti-semitism, ethnic persecution, and even female supressive sexism. Some parents are even raising their their girls to be primaries. But that is only half the battle. Encourage Mattel to include boys in it's "Barbie" commercials. If Joe Namath can wear panty-hose, certainly Ricky Shroeder could play with barbie dolls. He did play "jacks" when he was younger. Show women showing men a "good time", and men attracting them on the physical level AS WELL AS the emotional level. She can pick him up in her business suit, and he'll show up at the door in skin-tight spandex pants, satin shirt, ruffle tie, and velour jacket. Have Prince's costume designer do the outfit. Prince, by the way, is an excellent step in the right direction. She can tell him about the hard day at work, and he can tell her the latest neighborhood gossip (men gossip more than women, but it's "shop talk" instead of "girl talk"). Imagine the "honeymooners" or "I love lucy" with full role reversal (which was closer to real life in Lucy). Ricky: "Lucy, Please take me to the club, I haven't been out of the house all week". It might be a good idea to make both Ricky and Lucy very glamorous. Who's the Boss, Bosom Buddies, and similar ilk, made men doing "non macho" things look like something one should not imitate, hence doing "macho" things was better. Show men and boys in "pretty" clothing. Men's and Boy's wear usually comes in black, brown, blue, and almost pure hues of red, green, or yellow. Boy's wear often has pictures of some aggressive character doing something agressive on the front). Try and find boy's wear with flowers, pastel colors, or even intricate patterns on it. How about if some cosmetics firm came out with a makeup line modeled by the men of Chippendales! Does someone really think all men have no zits and perfect skin color? And why should women worry about "panty lines" when men wear undershorts that you can outline blindfolded? More importantly, why shouldn't men be aware of products that can give them firm, tight tushes? Waist cinchers are even advertised in magazines, why not on television? You can spend $25 to order one from a magazine using a male model, or $15 at Fredricks of Hollywood. They're great under a vest. They make you stop slouching. All of the above suggestions are examples of reverse sexism in a positive form. Men who, for whatever reasons, realize they have the ability to enter a relationship with a woman who is a superior provider should be encouraged to do so. The alternative would be highly skilled couples with no children, and poorly equipped couples with children they cannot support emotionally, or financially. This would truly be the crime of the fathers, and the greatest crime in history. If all men were equal, economically, politically, and influencially, and there were no "rank", all women could be equal to all men. Since some men are superior, women who settle for being equal to the lowest common denominator are selling themselves short if they are in fact superior in terms of skills, experience, intellect, and ability. Women have come a long way toward equality, but to make it, men have to see that it is acceptable for them to give superior women superiority. Without "men's lib", it is economically, politically, and socially impossible for superior women to achieve superiority. Yes, my son likes his barbie coloring book, and yes I played with dolls. I also cook, sew, knit, crochet, and take care of the kids when my wife is at work. Rex B.