Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!jan@orc.olivetti.com
From: jan@orc.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Hypothesis for discussion
Message-ID: <62091@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 27 Nov 89 21:16:06 GMT
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: jan@orc.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel)
Lines: 70
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization:


>that changing the status quo can only happen through education of the
>next generation.  This leads to the problem that feminist women, who
>often reject the tradtional roles, may have less children or have less
>influence over their children than traditional women. 
>
>Correlary: If accepted into mainstream, the burgeoning men's rights
>movement with its emphasis on men accepting more of the traditionally
>feminine roles in the family, will have a more significant and lasting
					   ^^^^ 
>effect on the gender status quo than feminism.


Feminist women are affecting traditional women, television, and even
the men's rights movement, which may well be in great part a reaction to
feminism. 

(Although it won't be for long  i.e. the men's rights movement
*historically* owes a lot to 

   1. backlash against AA
   2. the fact that women can now bring money into the household
   3. the tendency of men to respond to perceived male-bashing by
      thinking and listing the ways sexism hurts men.

Once the momentum is going however, it is truly a men's movement, with the
power to accomplish things feminists always wanted to accomplish but
couldn't and never could.)

Therefore, we affect the next generation in many other ways besides talking
to our own children.

If by  more significant and lasting change you are *starting* in 1989,
then of course you are right, because we have gotten 2/3 of *our* half
of the job done, and it will unravel ultimately unless the men catch up.

This is going to be no fun, because just as it has been painful for
daughters of traditional women to find their own ways, often without
the support of family and friends (1800's to 1970's, not now in na)
so it will be difficult for sons of traditional men.  And, though
feminists would like to be able to promise to support men in this,
I think we will get a nasty surprise and confirm *our* theoretical
hypothesis that, just as men who are sons of traditional mothers must
die out or at least get one divorce to learn to support a liberated woman,
so also will daughters of traditional fathers have to die out or at least
get one divorce before we learn to support liberated men.

In other words, guys, you are in for a rough ride and it's not fair and
we sympathize, but we may be unable to help much.  Your sons will find
feminists to support their liberation among your friends' daughters,
probably not among our daughters.  (i.e. one more generation)

This sounds like it supports your conclusion, but, again, that is only
if history starts in 1989.  Before feminism, it was not even possible
for most women to control the resources to even stay alive, *then* we
started working on personality stuff.  So if you go from the distant past
to the distant future, I think we will have done more than half the work.
(But I am not claiming that is because women do more or because we are
doing your half of the work.  It is because each gender can only liberate
ourselves, and under patriarchy, women had lost body and soul, but men only
soul.  If you go back even further to matriarchy, then it evens out.)

BTW if you are looking to find more *feminine* in yourself, why the
competitive, challenging, male-style "correllary" ? (which, I admit,
I answered in an equally competitive style.)      -jan-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Universal Consciousness cannot be confined to any of the 5 genders, 
but we must worship Uy as each in turn in order to keep a balanced outlook."
					-- St. Xphlcyb of Alpha III 


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com