Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!usc!jarthur!uci-ics!gateway From: carole@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Hypothesis for discussion Summary: I'll argue against. Message-ID: <8318@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> Date: 28 Nov 89 06:40:57 GMT References: <5953@unix.SRI.COM> Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) Organization: Rosemount Inc., Eden Prairie, MN Lines: 28 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu In article <5953@unix.SRI.COM>, trent@unix.SRI.COM (Ray Trent) writes: > > > Argue for or against the position: > > Hypothesis: One of the biggest dilemmas in feminism is that fact > 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. This imbalance > will tend to work against the goals of feminism in favor of > traditional values. I'll argue against. As I once posted in response to Matt Rosenblatt's similar comment, the surest way to produce a really tough female feminist is to try to raise an intelligent, ambitious girl in a traditional family. My quite traditional parents, doctor father and homemaker mother raised five children. Both boys accepted their parent's values and grew up quite traditional. All three girls ended up feminists. I'd say we all had a keen appreciation of where our own advantage lay. The notion that 'changing the status quo can only happen through education of the next generation' is quite naive. The next generation has been known to educate itself. Carole Ashmore Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com