X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 Sender: -2.5 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j9718ABN032284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 21:08:11 -0400 Received: from workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu (workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.143]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.2/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j971896h009963; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 21:08:09 -0400 Received: FROM sccrmhc14.comcast.net (sccrmhc14.comcast.net [204.127.202.59]) BY workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 4345CA76.B6D6E.24082 ; 6 Oct 2005 21:08:06 -0400 Received: from wayne.edu (pcp03672332pcs.grosep01.mi.comcast.net[68.40.104.36]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with SMTP id <2005100701080501400oouvne>; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 01:08:05 +0000 Message-ID: <4345CA6B.758FA5C5 Æ wayne.edu> Organization: Wayne State University X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <57f1bcf9e8c721f1618af727e222b935 Æ umich.edu> <1b4e773905092708261fee093 Æ mail.gmail.com> <1acf35a70510051647x3ff95ebcwe1c7713acbe8c0de Æ mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:07:55 -0400 To: Daniel Reeves CC: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Andrew Reeves Subject: Re: NYtimes article: Many women at elite colleges set career path to Motherhood Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 211 Finally I read through the comments of Dave Morris, Robert Felty, Vishal Soni, and of course of Bethany and Danny to Louise Story's piece in the NY Times. What finally set me to enter the fray is Danny's view of the article as furthering an anti-feminist agenda because that's not the way I see it at all. Actually, I do not have a satisfactory definition of "feminism". If it means removing all historic obstacles to the legal equality of the feminine gender in all aspects of public life, I'm of course for it. If it means promoting a new concept of human society in which traditional "gender roles" are abolished or suppressed, I am against it. For the foreseeable future, I don't have to worry about reversing human biology to the point of males getting pregnant and bear babies, although that, or perhaps some mechanism by which females could be freed from that also and yet the human race to go forward, seems to be the unstated ultimate aim of the second type of feminism. Until that distant goal is achieved, this kind of feminism just struggles against the secondary consequences that spring from the presently existing biological differentiation between the sexes. That of course is also an uphill struggle and yields numerous contradictions which are easy to see and not at all easy to circumvent. This kind of society has been foreseen in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel, "Brave New World", a best seller of its time which seemingly none of you in the "improvetheworld" crowd, or at least those who share Danny's view on the matter, have read. I would urge you to do so; if you did, you will see the problems and unintended consequences that would result from that kind of societal restructuring even assuming that it could be successfully done. Actually, some early versions of Communism including the Israeli kibbutz system experimented with that kind of idea and it cannot be said that it turned out to be a resounding success. The basis of our present societal structure, which our beloved President would no doubt call "the nucular family" does have some historic roots going back a few hundred thousand years, and I am not totally convinced that its origins were entirely dependent on our brutish and club-wielding male ancestors ramming it down the throats of their unwilling mates. The fact that females get pregnant, give birth to babies and nurse them, while males are more muscular, more aggressive, can go out and bring home the bacon more successfully, does have some character-forming consequences which did get built into the human genome over the millennia. I must admit that I have a great deal of sympathy with the female type which Louise Story depicts in her piece and which Danny has chastised as "anti- feminist". In fact, my idea of anti-feminism would be almost precisely the opposite. It is possible that in the 21st century we are crossing a milestone of human evolution although I must say that I would be dreading the prospect. In such a system, females would be REQUIRED to enter the work force on totally interchangeable conditions with males, pregnancies would be pharmacologically prevented except for individually approved cases, and child rearing institutionalized. As I am sure you know, certain insects such as ants and bees already live in that kind of societal structure where the "workers" are actually degenerate females whose sexual development was nutritionally suppressed during infancy. I would not regard anything resembling that as a desirable future for Humankind and if that is your kind of "feminism" then I am afraid that we have irreconcilable differences. Danny's Grandpa Andrew