I most definitely have read Brave New World (and most of Brave New  
World revisited- which was written about 50 years after the original,  
saying how much of it had already come true, and that was is in the  
70's.  Now it is even scarier to see how much has come true!).

As for a definition of feminism, I think there are multiple ones.   
Though I don't know what it means exactly, we are currently on the  
"third wave" of feminism, which to paraphrase an onion article,  
basically means that women can see anything as empowering, including  
being a stay at home mom, or a childless career women.	It is a bit  
confusing.  I believe Dave made some good earlier comments when the  
thing about the president of Harvard came out.	He was basically  
saying that we don't know all the reasons why men and women are  
different, and we should continue to explore both nature and nurture  
explanations.  It probably is a bit of both, though that makes for a  
less than procovative statement.

But to get back to the empowering thing, part of this "third wave" of  
feminism I think is saying that we should define ourselves as  
individuals and not worry so much about societal norms.  I think that  
offering both men and women the chance to get paid time off from work  
to raise a child is a good idea (and some European countries already  
do this), and I think that if there is to be a draft, that women  
should be included as well.

I agree with Danny that that article was somewhat biased, especially  
after reading that the reporter was very selective in who she  
quoted.  I think that is another problem with the media today.	The  
media was, is, and always will be biased, but back in the days of 4-5  
newspapers per town, it was much more obvious who was biased in what  
direction.  Now we have come to think of news as supposedly unbiased  
(like how Fox news advertises itself), even though the media never  
will be biased.  This makes the job of the reader particularly	
difficult, as one must always check facts and read critically.	 
Fortunately, that is one of the things we learn in grad school (and  
in undergrad as well).

I shall end my ramblings now.  Thanks for the comment Mr. Reeves.

Rob

On Oct 6, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Andrew Reeves wrote:

>    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
>
>
>