------=_Part_39744_2311761.1128655788889
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
wow, this has gotten really good. i'll jump in as a female who graduated
from an elite college with other girlfriends from said elite college.
if that reporter really did selectively include quotes, then i think that's
negligent, if only for the reason that the media is supposed to present
contrasting ideas in their work.
as for the viewpoints of the girls in the article, the only thing that
bothered me really was that they seemed so confident that "having it all"
couldn't be done. the quote from the girl who said, "my mom told me you can
either be a good mom or a good worker, you dan't be both" (paraphrase)
bothered me because that just isn't true. my version of feminism is just
that anyone can do whatever it is they want to do, regardless of gender, and
not be judged. so if a man wants to stay home, that's fine, if a woman wants
to stay home that's fine. i am resigned to the fact that in all likelihood
there will be more women than men staying home for obvious reasons, but i
would hope it all to be by conscious choice and not social pressures. at any
rate, i fully believe that there are women in this world who are so smart
and capable and time efficient that they can have stellar careers and raise
wonderful children at the same time. i'm not sure i can do that, if only
because i seem to be one of those peopel who must have 8 hours of sleep a
night to be at my best and my time management skills are tepid at best :).
but i find it really infuriating that this girl can make a blanket statement
like that for all women that they must make a choice. some can do it, and
far be it for me to stop them. more power to them. and more power to me,
too, to decide whatever it is i want to do in the future, which i'm not sure
yet. most of my girlfriends from college don't know yet either.
lisa
On 10/6/05, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
> I nominate Michelle for a fuller response.
>
> I'll just say for the nonce that of course I've read brave new world. In
> my feminist utopia the *only* differences between the sexes will be
> biological. The biological vs socially constructed line is pretty bright
> and I don't think your slippery slope argument with government-enforced
> sterility, test-tube babies, and a drugged working class is very on the
> mark. But I'm eager to argue this more...
>
> -- Danny's Grandpa Andrew's Grandson
>
>
> --- \/ FROM Andrew Reeves AT 05.10.06 21:07 (Today) \/ ---
>
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - google://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> I took a course in speed reading and was able to read War and Peace in
> twenty minutes. It's about Russia.
> -- Woody Allen
>
>
------=_Part_39744_2311761.1128655788889
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
wow, this has gotten really good. i'll jump in as a female who
graduated from an elite college with other girlfriends from said elite
college.
if that reporter really did selectively include quotes, then i think
that's negligent, if only for the reason that the media is supposed to
present contrasting ideas in their work.
as for the viewpoints of the girls in the article, the only thing that
bothered me really was that they seemed so confident that "having it
all" couldn't be done. the quote from the girl who said, "my mom
told me you can either be a good mom or a good worker, you dan't be
both" (paraphrase) bothered me because that just isn't true. my
version of feminism is just that anyone can do whatever it is they want
to do, regardless of gender, and not be judged. so if a man wants
to stay home, that's fine, if a woman wants to stay home that's
fine. i am resigned to the fact that in all likelihood there will
be more women than men staying home for obvious reasons, but i would
hope it all to be by conscious choice and not social pressures.
at any rate, i fully believe that there are women in this world who are
so smart and capable and time efficient that they can have stellar
careers and raise wonderful children at the same time. i'm not
sure i can do that, if only because i seem to be one of those peopel
who must have 8 hours of sleep a night to be at my best and my time
management skills are tepid at best :). but i find it really
infuriating that this girl can make a blanket statement like that for
all women that they must make a choice. some can do it, and far
be it for me to stop them. more power to them. and more
power to me, too, to decide whatever it is i want to do in the future,
which i'm not sure yet. most of my girlfriends from college don't know
yet either.
lisa On 10/6/05, Daniel Reeves < dreeves Æ umich.edu > wrote:
I nominate Michelle for a fuller response. I'll just say for the nonce that
of course I've read brave new world. In my feminist utopia the *only*
differences between the sexes will be biological. The biological vs socially
constructed line is pretty bright
and I don't think your slippery slope argument with government-enforced
sterility, test-tube babies, and a drugged working class is very on the mark.
But I'm eager to argue this more... -- Danny's Grandpa Andrew's Grandson
--- \/ FROM Andrew Reeves AT 05.10.06 21:07 (Today) \/ --- >
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
> --
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - google ://"Daniel Reeves" I
took a course in speed reading and was able to read War and Peace in twenty
minutes. It's about Russia . ; -- Woody Allen
------=_Part_39744_2311761.1128655788889--
|
