From: maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (John MAX Skaller)
Subject: Re: Why She Took My Name
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: MAXTAL P/L C/- University Computing Centre, Sydney
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:28:58 GMT

In article <2087@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.COM (Dan Welch) writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.124746.23321@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (John MAX Skaller) writes:
>>In article <13uudkINNc9r@agate.berkeley.edu> dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>>>>My name choice was one small part of my larger choice to be an equal
>>>>partner in my marriage.
>>
>>	Impossible. You can bear children, your husband can't.
>>You cannot be 'equal'. Not even if you were the same sex:
>>you are different people.
>
>First of all, John, get your attributations straight.  Cindy B-E said
>that, not me.  It appears from your response that you knew that, but
>please be careful.

	I was just replying to comment, but I guess i knocked out
some of the >>>>> at the top for brevity. Sorry.

>Second, "equal" does not mean "identical", unless you are a
>mathematician, or maybe a Fortran programmer.  I think of myself and
>my fiance as being completely equal, even though we are as opposite
>as two people can be, physically (and to some extent, mentally).
>"Equal", in human relations, does not mean "the same" it means "just
>as good, bad, worthy, or unworthy".

	Oh. Well, for me personally then, it is a meaningless word,
everyone would be equal, if only because good, bad, worthy, and
unworthy are totally subjective and relatively meaningless concepts.

>Did you come into this discussion late?  Just to make a point, how
>about this scene: a husband and wife both own equal parts in a
>property, but the wife does whatever the husband tells her to do with
>her part.  Are they acting as equals?

	Of course they are from my point of view, now you have
said 'equal' is to do with being 'worthy' or 'good', how
can I possibly judge them unequal when I starty with the
useless axiom that everyone is equal?

	If you mean are they jointly deciding what to do
with their property, each with an equal vote in determining
the decision, I *still* cant answer for a different reason.

	It would be eminently sensible for the wife to simply
do what the husband says if she were uninterested in property,
totally trusted him, and they had mutually decided it would be
best if he simply told her what to do. Thats called division
of labour, its one of the things makes civilisation possible.

	Let me say that if you refer to 'Equal Opportunities
in Employemnt', that is a different thing. That means
something specific: it means, in the case of equal opportunity
for men and women that their gender will not be considered
in making employment decisions.

--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
	Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.