From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:51:25 GMT

 sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>
> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

Well, it's not like you and I will ever see to eye to eye (I think you
need a little help in your communication skills), but I'll give this
a try anyway...

>> I doubt it.  I would think that the women most inclined to abort an unwanted
>> pregnancy are the ones who are most capable of standing up for their 
>> rights and demanding their say.
>
>If so, why they then got the 'unwanted' pregnancy ? They could as well
>a) select a man that is willing to take his responsibility seriously,
>b) use proper birth control method or
>c) refuse to have sex with a jerk that doesn't take the results seriously.

Birth control fails.  People make mistakes.  That accounts for most
abortions, I would think.

>> Err -- she didn't say "anti-porn" here.  Turning off the TV doesn't get
>> us more female-oriented porn, does it?  I sure don't see the connection.
>
>Selecting the proper programs and turning it off otherwise would increase
>the relative amount of required actions. Altough not the absolute amount.
>
>> You seem to be talking quantity when she mentioned quality.
>
>There isn't much quality in that area, the same old s*it always. 

Exactly.  This is why some feminists, as Muffy pointed out, are working
to create Quality porn.
 
>> >Is't that theory already have proven wrong. The main reason fo women
>> >being unable to handle techincal subjects is the lack of interest. 
>
>> Um -- no, that theory already not have proven wrong. 
>
>So, if it is right, why then even want the equality if there is
>difference ?

(Deep breath...)   What?  Muffy claimed (pardon if my memory is in err)
that girls and women are often discouraged from Math and Science.  And,
no, 'that theory already not have proven wrong.'  There is a lot of debate
about it, but it's surely not proven wrong.  

All people are different.  No two are the same.  We all want to be equal.
That's what the constitution is about.

>> Wow!  I had not heard that feminism makes women sterile!  Shit!
>
>> Seriously, what makes you think feminists can't have babies?
>
>Usually they could, but don't want to. 
>As men can't have babies, a real feminist won't also,
>because that would be approving a non-equal situation instead of
>changing it.

Oh, A Real Feminist (tm) won't have babies.  That should be a big
surpise to all the feminists with children in the world.

>And if we suppose that a man has a feminist wievpoint, he won't
>propably want to have an ordinary 'chick' as a companion. And since
>females with feminist wievpoint does not need and want to be
>with a man, that way isn't also producing results.

Your logic here is simply spellbinding!  (Hint:  'many females with
feminist wievpoints' are with men.  Many are even -- married!)

>I tried to say that even if it is possible to change one's way of thinking
>in the older age, it is far more efficient to be raised having one.
>In this way the conventionalists will always have en edge, because
>they can raise their children having their way of thinking when the
>feminists must try to convert their supporters from the ordinarily raised
>people.

Yes, 'conventionalists' will undoubtedly have more children than 
feminists, or than the non-feminist working women, for that matter.  
So if you count strength in numbers, you might have a point. 
But it's not like the feminist movement will self-destruct due to
population constraints.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism