Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Evils of society
Message-ID: <966@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 12:14:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.966
Posted: Fri May 10 12:14:17 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 11-May-85 03:33:41 EDT
References: <5163@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 39

> Gee, let's see...If I read all this aright, immodestly dressed women are
> responsible for rape, adultery, masturbation, broken homes, and no doubt
> child abuse and sexual discrimination.  And working women are likewise
> responsible for homosexuality, drug abuse, teenage crime, unwanted
> pregnancies, satanism, theft, fraud, tax evasion, fire, flood, earth-
> quake, drought, lingering bunions...but I digress.
> 
> I suppose that if hemlines dropped about a foot, the economy would improve?
> Would a ban on tube-tops halt the arms race?  If the Bar Assn banned women
> attorneys, we could end world hunger?
> 
> Yes, Myrtle Phillips, YOU can SAVE THE WORLD!  Just quit your job, go home
> to your estranged husband, dress plain and modestly, say "A woman's
> place is in the home" three times, and the world will suddenly be a better
> place to live.
> 
> For men.
> 
> But not for women, or those who care about them. [ucla-cs!mccolm]

Yes, it's all a question of perspective.  It's like I said in a few articles
in another group:  those who want us to go back to the old ways, to the
old values, want that because it will make life better.  For them.  Taking
exclusively the example of women, the fact that women have more freedom and
choices today, the fact that a woman treated on an equal basis with a man
in a family (as both "breadwinner" and "family leader") changes the nature
of the family, the fact that the increased freedom of ANY group of individuals
may change the fabric of society is seen as a NEGATIVE by certain people
because it changes the status quo (as they see it).  And the status quo is
(or was) good to THEM.  Thus, they argue that the changes are "destroying
the family/the church/the fabric of society".  Going back to those old values
they want means nothing more than taking away the rights of people who've
worked hard to get rights that they (in actuality) deserve without question in
the first place.  Bring back "traditional church and family values" they say.
Meaning exactly what Eric is satirically asking Myrtle Phillips to do in the
above paragraph.
-- 
"Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!"
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr