Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: davidw@oregon.uoregon.edu
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: What kinda folks 've we got 'ere?
Message-ID: <19929.26ab3a4a@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Date: 26 Jul 90 23:47:35 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 55
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

Good evening, all.  I'm basically new here, and have only read a
couple of the messages in this section; so far, nothing disaggreeable.
However, I would like to ask a question, if I may...

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 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.  The employer who WOULD is
masochistic and doesn't want his(yes, or her) money.  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.  I have nothing against females (hey, if I
did, I'd have real problems with my girlfriend) 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.  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.)

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
trying to say that women should work to the best of their ability
instead of trying to work against men.  However, most of the people I
know who would say something like this are ACTUALLY saying that they
think they are far SUPERIOR to men, and should be treated as such.
Pushaw.  I'm sure you've all heard this before, but I want to get a
bearing on what YOU all think, so I'm going to say my peace and see if
anybody disagrees.  (uh, how do I use the editor on this thing?  ^ I
think this should be "piece," but I've only heard it said, I've never
seen it written) 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.

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