leesa@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Anita Lees) (07/30/90)
davidw@oregon.uoregon.edu asks:
[Just what type of "feminism" are we talking about, here? I know
[people who call themselves "feminists" who simply believe that women
[and men should have equal job opportunities and political rights, and
[on the other side of the coin, I know women who call themselves
["feminists" and believe that men are totally useless scumbags, and
[consider themselves far superior to anyone of the male gender. Being
[male myself (gasp), I object to this type of feminism. Hope I don't
[ruffle any feathers, but I personally feel that the latter type of
[person is really stupid.
^^^^^^
I am the type of feminist who believes in equal opportunies and rights.
I am also vegetarian, christian, married to a male feminist, and the mother of
a 10-month-old female feminist. I also believe in pluralism, which keeps me
from calling other people's sincerely held beliefs "stupid".
[I believe that women should have an equal place with men in the
[business world and politically (hey, if I was old enough to vote, I
[would've voted for Ferraro), but I think we have to be aware of some
[problems this can cause. In hiring a male, one does not have to worry
[that he will get pregnant and have to leave work. I don't think that
[this should have ANY bearing on who gets hired, but many women feel
[that their employer should pay for their time off while they're taking
[care of their child. HA! Were I an employer, I would NOT set myself
[up to be paying for a non-working employee.
Well, are you against equal opportunities for the handicapped? Just because
the employer would loose some profits by being just is no reason, at least to
my way of thinking, that society should allow in-all-likihood-HIM to
discriminate. BTW, I am for paternity leave for men.
[... I also think it
[is ludicrous to suggest that a female can do equally well in a job
[which requires strength. Granted, there are female body-builders who
[are much stronger than myself (by QUITE a bit), but if you use them as
[an example, you must then also look at the male body builder, who is
[three times their size.
Leaving aside body builders, I think the relevant issue is whether the
*individual* is right for the job. If the woman in question is stronger than
the man, she should get the job (if strength is the criterion).
I don't think anyone here would insist on the NBA hiring 5'10" women; but when
a 7'2" woman applies, well, then there is an issue.
[I have nothing against females (hey, if I
[did, I'd have real problems with my girlfriend)
Some of your best friends are women? :-) Or is it that she's a feminist?
[and would be happy
[working on an equal basis with them, but I think some basic biological
[(and some psychological, although some people would debate that)
[differences have to be noted.
Yes, of course there are differences to be noted; I don't think anyone denies
that. But what bearing does the fact that I'm probably shorter and more
verbally adept than you have on our respective rights before the law?
[Just to get things clear in MY mind
[what's going on here (in this net), does anyone DISAGREE with me?
[(Boy, I could get myself shot here if somebody does.)
Flamed to ashes is more likely, but you wanted to know... :-)
[I also rather object to such statements as "THE WOMAN WHO SEEKS TO BE
[EQUAL WITH MEN LACKS AMBITION." Now, I realize that this COULD be
[... [stuff deleted]...
I object to smug assertions of superiority, too, but I think in general the
statements you refer to are 1) meant to be humorous, and 2) exist to boost the
morale of people who feel oppressed.
[... Men and women are DIFFERENT. EQUALITY implies that
[there are no differences, which is absurd. The conventional use of
[the word equality -- lack of discrimination, or some such thing -- is
[quite a bit more sensible.
?Huh? You probably didn't intend this to be a contradiction. But to address
what I think you are getting at: Blacks and whites are different; sighted and
unsighted are different; men and women are different. It is commonly accepted
that the first division is/should be meaningless BEFORE THE LAW. I hold that
the other two, and more, should be likewise.
[Well, I'm rambling on quite a bit, aren't I? Hope I haven't upset
[anybody. Do respond, though, whether your response is positive or
[violently negative. Thanx!
[ -- David
You're Welcome.
-Anita
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Anita F. Lees leesa@frith.egr.msu.edullama@eleazar.dartmouth.EDU (Joe Francis) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Jul30.160819.1101@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> leesa@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Anita Lees) writes: >I also believe in pluralism, which keeps me >from calling other people's sincerely held beliefs "stupid". You are the first person I've ever met (if you call this a meeting) who would never call other people's sincerely held beliefs "stupid". (What are unsincerely held beliefs?) I reserve the right to be judgemental. >Well, are you against equal opportunities for the handicapped? Just because >the employer would loose some profits by being just is no reason, at least to >my way of thinking, that society should allow in-all-likihood-HIM to >discriminate. BTW, I am for paternity leave for men. When you say you are for paternity leave, do you mean that you prefer working for an employer who provides it, are more likely to spend your money in businesses that provide it, would provide it to those you employ, etc..., or do you mean that the federal or state legislatures should pass laws requiring employers to provide maternity leave? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clarifies a misunderstanding
w25y@vax5.cit.cornell.EDU (08/03/90)
In article <1990Jul30.160819.1101@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, leesa@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Anita Lees) writes: > I am the type of feminist who believes in equal opportunies and rights. > I am also vegetarian, christian, married to a male feminist, and the mother > of a 10-month-old female feminist. I also believe in pluralism, which keeps Alert! Alert! Suppose I said that I was the father of a 10-month-old male republican, or a 10-month-old Scientologist, or made any other sort of ideological commitment on behalf of a 10-month-old? For all you know, your daughter may someday become a homemaker just to spite you. Don't call her a feminist until you've had a chance to ask her. -- Paul Ciszek W25Y@CRNLVAX5 Bitnet W25Y@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Internet UUNET!CORNELL!VAX5!W25Y UUCP "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse." --Bruce Cockburn
ed@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Ed Gould) (08/03/90)
Paul Ciszek, commenting on someone calling their 10-month-old daughter a feminist: >For all you know, your daughter may someday become a homemaker just >to spite you. Don't call her a feminist until you've had a chance >to ask her. Why do you presume that "feminist" and "homemaker" are necessarily mutually exclusive? To my mind, feminism does not object to one becoming a homemaker, it objects to the notion that a woman is (or might be or would be) expected or pressured to become a homemaker. That pressure is real, whether it be subtle, societal expectation or conditioning, or explicit. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA ed@mtxinu.COM +1 415 644 0146 "I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady. I'll fight them as an engineer."
ROPERK%QUCDN.QueensU.CA@EVANS.UCAR.EDU (08/04/90)
For the record: It is true that "equality" is not an applicable
term in this argument i.e. the phrase, 'men and women are not
equal' is essentially true. It is also true that one woman is
not equal to another woman, or one man to another. "Equal"
means "exactly the same as".
The word you are looking for (and evidently have not found) is
"equivalent", which means "functionally the same as".
For most purposes, men and women are _equivalent_.
For more information, consult a math text dealing with
equivalence classes and/or modular arithmetic.
(For most purposes, I and a carrot are equivalent :>
-------
Kim Roper
Dept of Chem Eng, Queen's University
(Formerly a resident of the Math and Eng Dept.)
Bitnet/Netnorth: roperk@qucdn.queensu.caOPBRINA@ncsuvm.ncsu.EDU (08/04/90)
In article <4949.26b7a175@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, w25y@vax5.cit.cornell.EDU says: > >In article <1990Jul30.160819.1101@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, leesa@eecae.ee.msu.edu >(Anita Lees) writes: >> I am the type of feminist who believes in equal opportunies and rights. >> I am also vegetarian, christian, married to a male feminist, and the mother >> of a 10-month-old female feminist. I also believe in pluralism, which keeps > >Alert! Alert! Suppose I said that I was the father of a 10-month-old male >republican, or a 10-month-old Scientologist, For all you know, your >daughter may someday become a homemaker just to spite you. Don't call her a >feminist until you've had a chance to ask her. > > -- Paul Ciszek I hope you don't think that one cannot be a feminist and a homemaker as your posting inplies. I assumed that the original poster meant that she was raising her child to be a feminist. Whether she remains one or not is certainly open to question and of course the child's choice. But if she did become a homemaker for whatever reason she could also be a feminist if she wished.
wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) (08/08/90)
In article <1305@mtxinu.UUCP> uunet!mtxinu!ed@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Ed Gould) writes: >Why do you presume that "feminist" and "homemaker" are necessarily >mutually exclusive? Of course they are not as long as the definition of "feminist" is "a person concerned with the rights of women" and not "Militant man-hating socialist lesbians advocating special sex-based privileges". >To my mind, feminism does not object to one >becoming a homemaker, The "right-thinking" ones don't, but there are people out there calling themselves "feminists" who would object. >it objects to the notion that a woman is (or >might be or would be) expected or pressured to become a homemaker. >That pressure is real, whether it be subtle, societal expectation >or conditioning, or explicit. So is the pressure exerted by the parents of children who are described as some kind of political activists before they are mature enough to understand the issues. Without parental conditioning, I doubt there are many/any 10-year old feminists, bigots, socialists, capitalists, hare krishnas, moonies, or cub scouts.
IO81409%MAINE.BITNET@evans.ucar.EDU (08/09/90)
and just WHAT is wrong with being a lesbian, i would like to know? even
a militant one???
i have known ten year old feminists. i grew up with one, as a matter of
fact. everything a child learns, they learn from parental or societal
conditioning, so stop making it sound so sinister. at least children who
are taught to be feminists early have a better shot at growing up to be
decent human beings. am i saying therefore, that nonfeminists are not
decent human beings? well, baldly, yes. nonfeminist and decent human
being are mutually exclusive.
-j.c.murphy
the world's only prolife lesbian feminist
paganjudy@ncar.ucar.EDU (Judy Hawkins) (08/09/90)
In article <90215.162500ROPERK@QUCDN.BITNET> ROPERK%QUCDN.QueensU.CA@EVANS.UCAR.EDU writes: > > For the record: It is true that "equality" is not an applicable > term in this argument... > "Equal" > means "exactly the same as". > > The word you are looking for (and evidently have not found) is > "equivalent", which means "functionally the same as". > For most purposes, men and women are _equivalent_. > > For more information, consult a math text dealing with > equivalence classes and/or modular arithmetic. > But these are the mathematical definitions. In terms of human relations, equal is generally used to mean equal in basic rights. I'm quite sure I'm not your equal in chemistry but I know I'm your equal as far as human rights go, and typically in a discussion of human relations that's what equal is shorthand for. Context, context, context. > >------- >Kim Roper >Dept of Chem Eng, Queen's University >(Formerly a resident of the Math and Eng Dept.) > >Bitnet/Netnorth: roperk@qucdn.queensu.ca Judy Hawkins judy@vicorp.com
gazit%oberon.usc.edu@usc.edu (Hillel) (08/09/90)
In article <90220.012125IO81409@MAINE.BITNET> IO81409%MAINE.BITNET@evans.ucar.EDU writes: >am i saying therefore, that nonfeminists are not >decent human beings? well, baldly, yes. nonfeminist and decent human >being are mutually exclusive. I think that quite a few feminists are not decent humand beings. Especially when they moderate a newsgroup...
leesa@frith.egr.msu.EDU (Anita Lees) (08/10/90)
In article <11247@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: >In article <1305@mtxinu.UUCP> uunet!mtxinu!ed@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Ed Gould) writes: > >>Why do you presume that "feminist" and "homemaker" are necessarily >>mutually exclusive? > >Of course they are not as long as the definition of "feminist" is "a >person concerned with the rights of women" and not "Militant >man-hating socialist lesbians advocating special sex-based >privileges". > Gosh, I hope you don't mean me! I'm a democrat, and I like men and enjoy their company, at least when they're not defensively flaming... >>To my mind, feminism does not object to one >>becoming a homemaker, > >The "right-thinking" ones don't, but there are people out there >calling themselves "feminists" who would object. > Of course homemakers can be feminist. So can man-loving capitalist heterosexuals. Special sex-based priveleges? I'm not advocating that. Methinks a straw 'person' is being attacked ... :-) >>That pressure is real, whether it be subtle, societal expectation >>or conditioning, or explicit. > >So is the pressure exerted by the parents of children who are >described as some kind of political activists before they are mature >enough to understand the issues. Without parental conditioning, I >doubt there are many/any 10-year old feminists, bigots, socialists, >capitalists, hare krishnas, moonies, or cub scouts. > The trouble one can get into by omitting a ":-)"! Of course my baby isn't yet a feminist. Or a christian, for that matter. If I said that my cats were feminist, that would've been obvious, but here you assume that I am really asserting the baby is. More seriously, I think it is a parent's right to raise a child into whatever moral/ethical system the parent espouses. What is the alternative? To let the child choose from among the myriad of systems available? This is not realistic. First, there are way too many choices -- they would be teenaged before they had even read about all of them! --> :-) <-- More importantly, children are not far enough up Maslow's hierarchy to make a meaningful choice for themselves. Thus, it falls to the parent(s) to pass along their beliefs to the child. We fully intend to make it clear to our daughter that she will be loved and accepted no matter what she chooses to do with her life, and that we have taught her what we feel are the best principles for living a moral life. -Anita
clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (08/12/90)
In article <90220.012125IO81409@MAINE.BITNET>, IO81409%MAINE.BITNET@evans.ucar.EDU writes: > and just WHAT is wrong with being a lesbian, i would like to know? even > a militant one??? There's nothing wrong with lesbians or militant lesbians; prolife lesbian feminist pagans are the one that you have to watch out for. What was said was: | Of course they are not as long as the definition of "feminist" is "a | person concerned with the rights of women" and not "Militant | man-hating socialist lesbians advocating special sex-based | privileges". I fail to see how one could take offense at the above statement, or conclude from it that the author doesn't like lesbians. He was merely pointing out that feminism, whatever that is, should be concerned with all women and not just a particular subset of them. > i have known ten year old feminists. i grew up with one, as a matter of > fact. everything a child learns, they learn from parental or societal > conditioning, so stop making it sound so sinister. at least children who > are taught to be feminists early have a better shot at growing up to be > decent human beings. am i saying therefore, that nonfeminists are not > decent human beings? well, baldly, yes. nonfeminist and decent human > being are mutually exclusive. I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist; I don't concern myself with only a subset of humanity but all of it. Does this make me a bad person? -Chris