Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!eecae.ee.msu.edu From: leesa@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Anita Lees) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Who is on this newsgroup? Message-ID: <1990Jul30.160819.1101@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Date: 30 Jul 90 16:08:19 GMT Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Distribution: na Organization: Rodent World Magazine Lines: 97 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R 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.edu