Heh..

Post #135,689 by hnick 1/14/04 12:08:52 PM Reply	Heh.. I'd suggest my wife. She's intellegent, educated, has strong feelings and positions, and is quite independent. She has been successful socially and in the business world. She is what I would consider a feminist. Trouble is, she doesn't. Never mind...
Post #135,692 by deSitter 1/14/04 12:20:11 PM Reply	Re: Heh.. Almost nothing we here can adduce from experience is going to be worth a damn. We're all educated and aware, and unlikely to have "typical" lives. I'm speaking from the perspective of the tens of millions of men displaced by arbitrary social wrenchings. -drl
Post #135,695 by JayMehaffey 1/14/04 12:31:10 PM Reply	Common problem The word "feminist" has been smeared the same way the world "liberal" has been, and by exactly the same parties. Thus many people that are feminists by any resonable meaning of the word don't want to be labled that way. Jay
Post #135,701 by deSitter 1/14/04 12:58:47 PM 1/14/04 1:01:42 PM Reply	Re: Common problem My definition: The idea that men and women are literally equal, and should have equal roles in determining all aspects of family life. This is far more mild than that of radical feminism, and probably more mild than mainstream feminism. I believe men should have priority in determining family direction because it has been that way since we crawled out of the river vallies, and there is probably a good reason for it being like that - in any case, the collective unconscious has incorporated this idea so deeply that to monkey with it is dangerous. This implies that 1) women are more important for actually raising children 2) men are more important for providing for the family, both in terms of abstract direction and material needs. This does not mean that women should receive less for equal work, or be prevented in any legal way from doing X. One should let family and employment relations naturally evolve without input from the government. It may actually be that the majority people prefer the emerging world, but I am sure it will be sterile, violent, and miserable, as the individual smoothing effects of nulling out gender differences show up in collectivist upheavals (the natural result of tinkering with - no irony intended - Mother Nature). The basic idea is - the more uniform you make individuals, the more likely they will form into irrational destructive collectives. -drl Edited by deSitter Jan. 14, 2004, 01:01:42 PM EST Expand All History
Post #135,720 by CRConrad 1/14/04 2:22:00 PM Reply	Basic problem: Your "definition" is the (Repo-)Newspeak one.

Welcome to IWETHEY!