Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: men dominate net.women (flame-ish)
Message-ID: <628@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 05:11:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.628
Posted: Thu Sep  5 05:11:46 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 04:46:10 EDT
References: <175@drutx.UUCP> <231@whuts.UUCP> <2674@sun.uucp> <689@mit-vax.UUCP> <2723@sun.uucp>
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 45

> > The point is that women, at most, are equal to men. 
> > 
> The point is that there is no penis envy, but there IS womb envy.
> Every woman is everything any man is, plus she has the ability to
> nurture a child.  This is the reason for men's fear of women, that
> men are only the spark which ignites the fire of life which burns
> within woman.  Women are, at least, equal to men.
> 
> 			Sunny

	I doubt that the question of whether men are superior to women (or vice
versa) is even meaningful.  What sort of superiority are we talking about:
Emotional stability?  Physical strength?  Intelligence (whatever that is)?
Sensitivity?  Biological function (e.g. ability to bear children)?  Even if you
know what sort of superiority you are talking about, why do you believe that
your criteria are important?  Can you say that your criteria are more important
than mine?  How will you go about measuring some of the more nebulous criteria
in ways that everyone can accept?
	What it comes down to is that belief in superiority of groups, even in
the possibility of superiority, is not based on objective fact, but rather on
a hidden assumption that the concept has a meaning.  And trying to nail down
the meaning is like trying to pick up a globule of mercury with one's bare
fingers.
	Now can we stop this stupid bickering?

P.S. Sunny, I mentioned in a previous posting that the way you express yourself
     annoys me sometimes.  This is one of those times.  I realize that you are
     probably just giving the original poster a bit of his own medicine.
     However, I see evidence here that you are more interested in hitting
     back than in getting at the truth (unless you really believe the
     literal interpretation of your above argument, and are not just being
     sarcastic).  You seem to be displaying some of the aggressiveness you
     claim to abhor, and which you claim to be chiefly due to testosterone
     (the influence of which you are now happily freer than before).  I don't
     think I'm applying a double standard here, even though there are some
     men who post here who are truly obnoxious; I think you are more intelligent
     than this rabble, Sunny, so I'm saying this with the hope that in the
     future you will not react to every provocation with remarks which seem
     intended to make me, as a man, feel small.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff