...a slightly delayed response as I've been helping my daughter through spinal shots and phyiscal therapy the last few days....

The opinion you stated is one of the classic positions put forth by the radical right. That surprises me because I've always thought you had a more enlightened POV. Feminism is not responsible for the destruction of anything. The dynamics of marriage and family life have changed dramatically due to the ease with which divorces can now be had. In generations past, "until death do us part" really meant exactly what it said. Now, it is quite easy for both men and women to change partners when things are not to their liking rather than working things out.

Feminism (or equalism, as it is known now) is and always has been about equality for all people. For example, you know that I've been in IT for nearly 20 years and my skills are fairly advanced. Can you think of a good reason why I should make $0.85 to every $1.00 made by a like-skilled male?

Ask yourself why men are perfectly comfortable with women working so long as they take on jobs, such as nurse, teacher, administrative assistant, etc. Why is it only when women really show their brain power that there is suddenly a glass ceiling? Do you think it fair that I should have to tell my 20 year old math-wiz daughter that she can only take up certain occupations (or none at all) in the future so that she will uphold some silly notion of female and male roles? Does it bother you at all that 2/3 of the world's illiterate are women and that women in many countries even today are denied education?

Switch your gender hat for just a moment. How would you feel if you:

* could not obtain credit or loans of any kind in your own name
* could not own your own property
* could not vote
* could not go outside without an escort of the opposite sex
* could not obtain a degree of any kind
* the government (not you) decided what should happen with your body
* were considered the "property" of someone of the opposite sex
* were routinely raped with no legal recourse possible
* had rape laws enacted not to protect you but to protect your owners' property (you)

These are some of the realities that women throughout the world grapple with every day.

Feminism is often attacked because males in power view it as a threat to their power domain. Women don't want the destruction of males at all and they don't want to one-up men. They simply want an equal seat at the table and choices in their lives.

I also think that you are confusing feminism and lesbianism. Many lesbians view men in the context that you are thinking. They live their lives free of male dominated patriarchy and only need male sperm when reproducing. This viewpoint bothers many males obviously because it flies in the face of the patriarchy that they work so hard to enforce through traditional marriage and organized religion. And, yes, there are lesbians who are also feminists.

However, there are many more feminists who are not lesbians. The vast majority of feminists want to work within the context of current institutions and structure while striving to ensure equality and choice for future generations of women.

In addition, if women were to achieve parity it would also free men to explore other choices in their lives beyond a traditional role. The construct of men as breadwinner has not always been the norm. There are just as many facets to males as there are to females and males should be free to explore the other parts of themselves held in check by traditional roles.

So, circling back to your concern about the "destruction of the family/marriage", it is the ease of obtaining a divorce (not feminism) which
has led to current conditions.

Best,
Slugbug

DRL, I received errors when trying to reply split block and so am responding in text mode with designations instead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: The opinion you stated is one of the classic positions put forth by the radical right.

DRL: I vehemently disagree, because the radical right are collectivists, and are attempting to collect everyone under the umbrella of fundamentalist Christianity. Thus they bend even legitimate concerns into an unrecognizable form. My concern is for displaced men and families destroyed by state intervention on the behalf of women based on wrong assumptions. I feel that our society has fallen prey to what I call "the Unrestricted Feminine" and that men themselves are as much to blame as women, if not more so. (More on this idea later.)

MAGS: When you think of the "radical right", broaden your scope a bit. The radical right exists in every country on the face of this planet. When you peel back the layers of the radical right onion (in any country) there are only two main objectives:

1). to insure the continuence of institutionalized patriarchy
2). to keep power, money, and influence in the hands of a few males

Religion is an institution used to enforce patriarchy. Spirituality is a separate matter altogether and should not be confused with religion. Christianity is the pre-dominate institution in the U.S. and therefore leveraged by the radical right in this country. But, the radical right in other countries use other religions for the same purpose. Can you name one religion where men and women are considered equal?

In addition, control of the mass media is also leveraged by the radical right to enforce patriarchy. This is done by either controlling the message (developed countries) or by controlling access to the message (developing countries). The majority of mass media in this country is currently owned and operated by six wealthy males.

The current return of the radical right in the US is in direct response to the equality movement of the 60s and 70s. An equal world is one in which patriarchy just won't fly. Thus, late in the 70s/early 80s, plans were hatched to return the radical right to power. The struggle you are seeing today has a lot to do with the radical right trying to re-insert its control over the country and strengthen patriarchy.

When you speak about "displaced men", what exactly are you referring to? How have men been displaced? Men have the same options they've always had (minus the offshoring debacle, which is a by-product of corporate greed).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS:Feminism is not responsible for the destruction of anything.

DRL: This is clearly not true. Although their may now exist moderate and even mild forms, feminism in its original form assumes a special role for women and attempts a radical revisionist history. If nothing else, this form of feminism destroys the idea of common sense, and like all essentially abstract visions of society (that is, not supported by history or example), does tremendous harm when implemented against all common sense.

MAGS: Feminism does not assume a "special" role for women. Feminism is all about equality for women in every culture in every country around the world and there is nothing abstract about it at all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: The dynamics of marriage and family life have changed dramatically due to the ease with which divorces can now be had. In generations past, "until death do us part" really meant exactly what it said. Now, it is quite easy for both men and women to change partners when things are not to their liking rather than working things out.

DRL: Here we agree, see my post elsewhere about "fundamental units". The fault here is equally shared, but only because both sexes have accepted the Unrestricted Feminine and rejected the Actual Masculine as properly inhabited.

MAGS: Unfortunately, we disagree here too. The ease of use of divorce is not about some acceptance of the "unrestricted feminine" nor the rejection of the "actual masculine", as you refer to it. Divorce became reality because people began to realize that the original constructs of marriage were "developed" when men and women had much shorter life spans. Thus, "until death do us part" was very accurate. People just did not live long enough. Today, people have much longer life spans and the traditional view of marriage is just not practical for a great many people. Having said that, I will also say that far too many people divorce at the drop of a hat (trade up, as it were) rather than trying to work out their differences.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: Feminism (or equalism, as it is known now) is and always has been about equality for all people.

DRL: "All societies on the verge of death are masculine. A society can survive with only one man; no society will survive a shortage of women." - Germaine Greer

MAGS: It is interesting that you chose this quote. The first sentence would seem to point out that patriarchy is a bad thing. The second sentence seems to show that women are actually important. But, from your stated viewpoint, it sounds like women are only important and necessary when controlled by men. Do I have that right?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: For example, you know that I've been in IT for nearly 20 years and my skills are fairly advanced. Can you think of a good reason why I should make $0.85 to every $1.00 made by a like-skilled male?

DRL: This has nothing at all to do with feminism as such - common sense says equal pay for equal work.

MAGS: This has everything to do with feminism! If it were about common sense and equal pay for equal work, women would have economic parity already. Women making the same rate of pay as men flies directly in the face of patriarchy. Controlling how much women make allows power and existing institutions to remain in place without creating anarchy. Although we are seeing a re-assertion of patriarchy in this country currently, it won't last. Like the other three cycles that you will experience in your lifetime, this one will soon fade.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: Ask yourself why men are perfectly comfortable with women working so long as they take on jobs, such as nurse, teacher, administrative assistant, etc.

DRL: No sane person would advocate that. Again, most work is sexless, unless it requires special qualities that are better embodied by either sex. (Do you know anyone who is actually more comfortable with a male nurse?)

MAGS: Actually, my daughter really liked the male nurse she had when she was in the hospital. He came in the evenings and was very caring and nurturing. Both men and women are equally capable of caring and nurturing. Likewise, both men and women are capable of tackling work in just about any form. However, under the current patriarchical system, we define roles and jobs only one way. In the current paradigm, men are not suppose to be caring and nurturing. Likewise, women are not suppose to do anything other than caring and nurturing. That both sexes could live wonderful lives together and be equal is one of the principle goals of feminism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: Why is it only when women really show their brain power that there is suddenly a glass ceiling? Do you think it fair that I should have to tell my 20 year old math-wiz daughter that she can only take up certain occupations (or none at all) in the future so that she will uphold some silly notion of female and male roles?

DRL: Women have more opportunities than do men now, in the form of special scholarships and fellowships and tacit quota systems. "Brain power" as you put it is also sexless. But I suspect you really mean "abstraction power", that is, pattern recognition, making cognitive maps, etc., something that for biological reasons seems to be more natural to males. Morevoer, caring for the sick, tending the home, and especially raising good children all require heroic "brain power", only it is not the kind of brain power that can be easily classified into abstractions. Perhaps we should say "soul power".

MAGS: How do you figure that women have more opportunities than men now. Men have the same opportunities they've always had and the support of the "network". Women have made some gains in terms of education and in terms of some career fields.

That you think "abstraction power" is more natural to males is quite laughable. This notion is a learned perception. Women are quite capable of "abstraction power". Moreover, "soul power" is equally natural for both sexes. Men have just been robbed of the opportunity to have "soul power" by the kinds of definitions brought about by patriarchy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: Does it bother you at all that 2/3 of the world's illiterate are women and that women in many countries even today are denied education?

DRL: What do you think? Of course it does. Literacy is also sexless.

MAGS: If it bothers you, then you will begin to understand that feminism is not about shredding of males or anything even remotely like it. Feminism, among other things, is about insuring that women have a right to be educated SHOULD THEY SO CHOOSE. If a women becomes educated, does it mean that she tosses aside the nurturing, caring part of herself? Heck no! An educated woman can make a much more interesting partner and her knowledge can be leveraged to strengthen a marriage. After all, physical relationships only go so far, right?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: Switch your gender hat for just a moment. How would you feel if you:

* could not obtain credit or loans of any kind in your own name
* could not own your own property
* could not vote
* could not go outside without an escort of the opposite sex
* could not obtain a degree of any kind
* the government (not you) decided what should happen with your body
* were considered the "property" of someone of the opposite sex
* were routinely raped with no legal recourse possible
* had rape laws enacted not to protect you but to protect your owners' property (you)

These are some of the realities that women throughout the world grapple with every day.

DRL: I am attempting to understand why the society I happen to live in, is crumbling to dust. Of course those things are sad, but I do not live in or claim to understand those cultures. I suspect that they all have permanently inherent flaws that have prevented them from achieving the simple goal of caring for their own people up until now, and that conditions for boys are equally grim in the modern context.

MAGS: "Those cultures" you claim not to understand would include the U.S. then. Of the examples I cited above, some pertain to life in this country in the not too distant past. For example, the first rape laws enacted in the U.S. were put in place to protect a man's property (his women) from other men. The original rape laws did nothing to protect the women or stop the act of her being raped. They only gave legal recourse to men.

Also, until very recently, women in the U.S. could not obtain credit and could not own their own property. A look at current mortgage classification fields on any loan will yield interesting insights into the past. Even today, mortgages are routinely coded as being held by "John A Smith and Wife". The addition of "Jane A Smith, an unmarried woman" and "John Smith and Jane Walters-Smith" as property owner designations were not allowed until just recently.

Although the U.S. is further along in women's equality than many countries, women have not yet achieved full parity even in the U.S.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: Feminism is often attacked because males in power view it as a threat to their power domain.

DRL: That is not whay I am attacking it - I don't give a fig about "power" - I care about healthy, productive and creative life.

MAGS: News flash....it is possible to have a world where men and women are equal and there is creative, healthy, and productive life for all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: Women don't want the destruction of males at all and they don't want to one-up men. They simply want an equal seat at the table and choices in their lives.

DRL: Again, this is a matter of the laudable goal of sexless law. What I advocate is absolutely sexless law - one that does not enforce inappropriate abstractions where they do not belong, and one that treats men fairly in the context of families - something that certainly does not exist today.

MAGS: How exactly are men treated unfairly? Perhaps you are referring to men not being able to use the caring and nurturing qualities that they have given the narrowness of current patriarchical definitions?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: I also think that you are confusing feminism and lesbianism.

DRL: Close - I equate the attempt to recast homosexuality as anything other than abnormal, as clear evidence of the rampant Unrestricted Feminine operating on both men and women and - horrors - children.

MAGS: Unfortunately, homosexuality is a biological condition in a small portion of the population rather than a learned one, as the radical right would have you believe. Acknowledging homosexuality for what it really is flies in the face of the constructs the radical right needs to insure their continued success. Hence the need to convince the population that it is a learned behavior ("and if they'd just read the Bible, we're sure they can be set back on the straight and narrow path").


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: Many lesbians view men in the context that you are thinking. They live their lives free of male dominated patriarchy and only need male sperm when reproducing. This viewpoint bothers many males obviously because it flies in the face of the patriarchy that they work so hard to enforce through traditional marriage and organized religion. And, yes, there are lesbians who are also feminists.

DRL: There is a striking difference in the societal perception of gays vs. lesbians. This asymmetry cannot be explained away. If equality in the strict sense is assumed, that is, biology is irrelevant for society insofar as it expresses itself in males and females, then this fact is the most extreme contradiction possible.

MAGS: Explaining the social perceptions of lesbians versus gays is very easy really. Lesbianism is viewed in a sexual context as a "turn on" by males because they can take the viewpoint of easily inserting themselves into a sexual act with two women while remaining in power and control. In the world of lesbianism, however, that does not happen. Gay men, on the other hand, have equal relationships where power is shared. This directly flies in the face of patriarchy and is therefore unacceptable. Feminism is also frightening for men who view relationships in a traditional context since they feel the only "correct" relationship is one in which the male retains full control and power ("and she will be subject unto him").


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: In addition, if women were to achieve parity it would also free men to explore other choices in their lives beyond a traditional role. The construct of men as breadwinner has not always been the norm. There are just as many facets to males as there are to females and males should be free to explore the other parts of themselves held in check by traditional roles.

DRL: I think the "traditional role" is not a matter of choice but of biological evolution. You don't see tigers making role choices, or bees, or...People are animals and one aspect of feminism is to throw out this most important fact. It is impossible to create a system of mere individuals because human animals come in two complementary forms.

MAGS: Disagree with you here too. If you look at the animal kingdom, you will discover a variety of relationships. There are some species wherein offspring are born and both parents leave right afterwards, leaving the offspring to fend for themselves. There are other species wherein the female gives birth and the offspring belong to a larger "pack" for the remainder of their lives. Still in other species the care and feeding of offspring is shared by partners of both sexes. The "traditional role" is a matter of definition rather than biological construction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAGS: So, circling back to your concern about the "destruction of the family/marriage", it is the ease of obtaining a divorce (not feminism) which has led to current conditions.

DRL: And on this we completely agree - and the reason is the unfettered acceptance by both sexes, but oddly men in particular, of the Unrestricted Feminine, something that predates explicit feminist thinking - indeed I regard feminism as an grossly out-of-context attempt to recapture the Actual Masculine because it has been disowned by males.

I'll describe the Unrestricted Feminine more later. The strange thing you will discover is that I advocate the true Actual Feminine, in which women have full equality while remaining essentially female.

MAGS: Unfortunately, on this topic, I believe we fundamentally disagree. Perhaps you should consider reading feminist writings in greater depth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

....from the dictionary (and notice the date):

Main Entry: pa\ufffdtri\ufffdar\ufffdchy
Pronunciation: -"\ufffdr-kE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1632
1 : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power
2 : a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy


Tell me the definitions above aren't tightly tied to the principles spouted by those who want to push "family values". No false premises here; only a strong knowledge of reality and the will to want to improve women's lives.

Regards,
Slugbug