From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this picture?????
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:58:28 GMT

In article <715561809@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.165905.25808@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> a@a writes:
>
>>assertion is *naturally* true it needs no law to enforce it.  And all this  
>>time I thought that families were built by love--no room for that in  
>>Phyliss Schlafly's world.  
>
>Try to guess who said that "a woman without a man is
>like a fish with out a bicycle."
>
>>than just a robot for industry and the battlefield.  I find that the  
>>anti-feminist right hates men more than any radical feminist could.  
>
>Try to guess who said "if we can send one man to the moon then
>why can't we send them all?"
>
>a) The anti-feminist right.

There aren't many noteworthy women in this group.  Most of the members
of this group believe that women should stay at home with the children,
which is noble on one respect (wanting to make sure that the children
are well taken care of) and innoble in another respect (why is there
some biological predisposition that it always be the woman who does
this?).  Schafly (sp?) is the most famous woman, but Jerry Falwell et.
al. are also in this sect.  "God said so" - like God would even bother
with these people - if he/she exists.

>b) A radical feminist.

We all know the Andrea Dworkin/Catherine MacKinnon sect.  Openeth mouthus
inserteth footus.  Do they have good intentions?  Probably.  Do they
have a very warped sense of reality.  Definitely.  Do they like men?
When they need to have their tires rotated, yes.

>c) A main-stream feminist.

Ah, Gloria Steinem (sp?), Susan Faludi and even Betty Friedan.  I know
that Betty was not a big fan of the Steinemisms of the 70's and maybe
even Gloria has mellowed a bit over time.  Gloria was pissed at the
whole universe and took it out on men.  That she never stooped to
endorsing the mass slaughter of the male of the species  - well, that
means she wasn't in favor of it.  But she knew what made "good copy."
The "fish without a bicycle" bit - it is amusing.  Betty Friedan
defined the goals of a feminist movement way back then and women like
Gloria Steinem kept the issue in the news.  That was important.  Women
like Susan Faludi (and even Anita Hill) have done much to re-activate
what had kind of become a listless movement.  The common denominator
with the mainstream sect is that they are unequivocally in favor of
equality for women - whatever it happens to means to them.  In some
cases, it means that women should receive equal pay for equal work -
which they do when considering education and experience and time on the
job - even though it is a fairly recent event.  The last barrier for
women is the glass ceiling - and that will crack and crumble - it just
takes time for these "equal" women to work their way up the corporate
ladder.  AT&T just appointed a woman as the head of one of the 19 or so
business units - the first woman in the company to ever hold such a
position.  It is heading in that direction - it will just take time.

I always considered myself to be a "feminist" way back when - because I
believed that women should be treated equally and should have the same
opportunities that men have.  However, I've seen that women aren't
really big fans of equality when it means dying for your country, or
losing custody of your children 50% of the time, or even being the one
who works while the man stays home and cares for the children.  To me,
that is equality.  The good with the bad.

When I was in third grade, I asked my third grade teacher why the girls
always got to go first to lunch everyday.  She told me that they got to
go first because they were girls, that letting the girls go first
everyday was simply proper etiquette.  Men held doors open for ladies
and let girls go first.  She also told me that just by merely asking the
question, I was being rude.  Well, I told her that women were burning
bras in the streets and wanted to be treated equally.  If they wanted to
be treated equally, then they should be willing to let the boys go first
- oh, I don't know - maybe 50% of the time.  Or maybe go girl/boy one
day and boy girl the next - you know integrate.

That teacher never liked me.  I don't know why.  She probably wouldn't
like me today either - what with me fighting to get to see my children
and for shared parenting as part of my divorce settlement.

Oh, and I'm still all for "equality."  I think that women can take a
bullet in the middle of the chest as well as men - while fighting
for their country.  I also stop and let women open doors for me when
they get to the door first.

One of the funniest and saddest statements I've heard in a long time I
heard from a domestic relations court referee several months ago.  He
asked me - in all seriousness, "What's so fair abut 50/50?  Why did you
pick those numbers?"  I thought to myself, "Maybe because I understand
simple mathematics."

>You have just one guess.

Gloria.

Aaron "Equalist" Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM