Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism & simplification
Message-ID: <9101072033.AA28225@easynet.crl.dec.com>
Date: 8 Jan 91 00:59:36 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 23
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu


I wrote:

"Won't that simply replace the current situation where female roles
are supposedly defined by men, with a society where feminists define
male roles and oppress them?"

In article <1991Jan2.155342.1414@arris.com>, rshapiro@arris.com
(Richard Shapiro) writes...

"Why should it?  Feminists are interested in understanding what goes
into a "female role" or a "male role", and understanding the methods
by which individuals assume these roles (of course, disregarding the
specious free-will argument that we simply "choose" them).  They're
not interested in prescribing what those roles should be"

Funny, I have meet a lot of feminists who are not interested in
understanding what a male role is, and who are only interested in
defining the female role regardless of it's impact on men.  Then
again, there are those feminists who do care that are worth putting up
with the rest :-}

Jim Baranski