From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Honest Question -- No flames please
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:55:11 GMT

In article <83312@ut-emx.uucp>, tzeking@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (chan tze-king)
wrote:
> 
> 	Now, perhaps I'm just a bit traditional, but doesn't it bother you,
> in some way, morally or religiously, to stand behind such a counter-productive
> ideology? 

No.  I don't think it's counter-productive - although by your logic to
follow, maybe it should be called counter-reproductive.

> I mean, it seems to me that women, having been given the mech-
> anism for bearing children also hold a certain responsibility to uphold.

As do men.

> As they do in lower animals, women should feel nothing but obliged to fulfill
> their reproductive responsibility to the species, bearing as many children
> as it is within their means to produce. 

The physical world cannot sustain this ideology forever.  There's not
enough to go around.

Regardless of what you believe I "should" feel, I'm sorry to inform you
that I feel more than just this "obligation".

> Along with this production go the duties of feeding their offspring until they > are self sufficient, and remaining at the home caring for the children until 
> they are past beyond the age at which they can reproduce consistantly viable 
> offspring.  

Why?  "Lower animals" don't all do this.  And how do we decide what that
age is?  Trial and error?  Does "viable" to you include, say, babies born
with Down's syndrome or other serious ongenital defects?  What place exists
in your society for infertile women?  

> The counterpart to your role as child-barers of the species is the protective > and provident role of men, whose duty, of course, is to father children 
> according to their ability, by perhaps dozens of women if they are of sturdy 
> stock. 

Are you honestly saying there are men out there who can be "provident" for
"dozens" of women and all the resulting children?  What about widows and
orphans?

> So, this in mind, shouldn't you all just find a good, strong man that can 
> provide for you and remain at home to raise his (and yours of course) children > until you are beyond prime reproductive age?  I think the examplum for your
> behaviour is clear, in the animal kingdom, as well as in the religious 
> philosophies of your western culture. 

As I said above, "lower animals" are not universally nurturing and singly
devoted to the viability of their offspring.  Many abandon their offspring
just after or even before birth; many eat their offspring.  Would you
advocate those behaviors for human mothers as well?

My religious philosophy includes free will.  My conception of natural order
includes the idea that humans are "higher animals" because of their ability
to reason.  That intelligence is not the exclusive domain of males.

> And please, I don't mean to reflect on your worth as persons; quite the
> opposite... if you fulfill your role as child barers of the species
> you are of paramount importance.  I only want to remind you of what most see
> to be your obligation to wellbeing of the race.  So stop fighting the system 
> and return to your roles, beside your man, providing for your children until
> your role in this function has passed.

Consider this:  How many female Einsteins, Edisons, Churchills, Kings and
more have we lost to your "system"?  

The God I believe in gave me a mind as good as my brother's.  My
"obligation to the wellbeing of the race" is to use that mind to the best
of my ability.

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams