In article <1993Aug19.085437.2393 at gserv1.dl.ac.uk> BRENDA at za.ac.uovs.wwg3 writes:
>>YES YES - I absolutely agree any sane woman should have as one of her
>criteria of the perfect male that he should be capable of sharing in
1111111 2222222
1. If I said something like: the perfect female is...I'd get trashed for
sexist presumption.
2. Most of us are capable, but is it willingness you had in mind?
>the child-rearing. I have been trying to explain this fact to the
>undergraduate class that I teach. The reaction I get however is not
>comfiting. They think that I am mad to even discuss this - however,
>they think I'm a bit strange anyway because of my enthusiasm for
>science.
So which cultural stream is looking at you askance there?
Indian? English? Dutch? Zulu? etc???
I'm interested because I think the attitude (correct or not) is
*universal* and may indicate some ancient truth about how human societies
organize themselves.
> .......One of the major problems is that "Love is blind" and so
>often preconceived (sp?) ideas about the perfect male fly out the
>window when faced with other realities.
Do you mean "sex?"
>The one solution I have to this problem is to educate not only the
>women/girls that they should expect a male to help but also to
>educate the males that they should help. However the men in my
>undergrad class think I am even more unusual than the women!
Well, why do they think that? Maybe they have a reason? Do you also
educate both male and females to other values that the men in your society
think *women* fall short on? Some would call that a fairness doctrine.
Or it may be that your classroom activities are actually political,
in which case the fairness doctrine does not apply at all.
>I have been lucky enough to marry someone who has and does help with
>the kids. But looking back I think there was a lot of luck involved
>with my choice as I did get married quite young. It is impossible to
>tell young women not to get married until they understand what they
>are doing.
This comes close to what is known as "Do as I say, not as I did."
>>Just a comment on Steve's comment he does know someone who was killed
>by a terrorist. I'd say that knowing someone like this has nothing
>to do with your lifestyle but rather with where you were born!
Well, yes and no. Like Laura, presumptions go astray. Mine might also.
I'd dare to say that actions of the political and police authorities and
the FBI during the Civil Rights movement era amounted to terrorism
(state-conceived)...and it certainly was a *physically* dangerous time for
some of us. :^)
And I'd even venture the kind of criminal violence fairly common on our
streets and in our schools amounts to terrorist activities (probably a
product of the rampant female-headed-family-multi-generation-welfare-state
we've erected)....hell, is there really a difference between a 16 y.o.
girls ploting to stab her (female) teacher and terrorism a la IRA
or PLO?
But no, my exposure to the bombs, mines, and bullets of certain Middle
Eastern life-long terrorist thugs was not in my birth-country. ;^)
And frankly I think that exposure definitely had/has something to do with my
then- and now-lifestyle...i.e. how I happened to be there and why I have my
current value system. Or did you think I was/am a vacuous robot?
> .........And
>as I grew up in a country that was being "liberated" such occurences
>were not uncommon.
Oh, don't hide behind "liberated" in quotes...let us hear your full
political views. You might come from the subpopulation of South Africa
(it it?) that says "the Republic of South Africa" rather than the
subpopulation that refers to your country as "the Fatherland"? Or are
family names misleading?
If your views are "modern" and politically correct (in the American sense),
then you are an activist demanding *also* that each ethnic group shall occupy
the classroom seats in proportion to the general population....how close is
your institution? Why restrict classroom propagandizing to trivialites
like shared child-care when slaughters make the news fairly frequently?
Let's have full proportional seatings, now, or by tomorrow morning. Just
pass some laws and make it so. :^) Then we can teach every one to mind
their manners, especially in politics.
> ......However, I don't think this is something to boast
>about but rather to mourne that mankind (and unfortunately it does
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>tend to be the men and not the women) has to be so cruel and stupid
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and have such little value for life!
I agree...and certainly recall sadly those who died or were mained...and
am thankful for my personal luck not to have been.
But, no pain, no gain. How many times were you arrested under the 90 and
120 day detention laws when speaking out brazenly for justice and for greater
respect for the lives of men and women? There is something to be proud of
in direct action from conscience. Let us hear your non-violent personal
examples...I understand that detentions without charge, hearing or trial
were regarded as badges-of-honor (or at least I'd think so). Did you do
more or less time than Mandella?
But you did infer that some women were violent...did you mean Winnie and
her comment about ringlets?
>>Brenda Wingfield
>Brenda at wwg3.uovs.ac.za
Of course, "...za" could just be a relay point for some more civilized
country, like the Provence of Northern Ireland...and none of what I said
applies.
Steve nmodena at unity.ncsu.edu
