🚀 go-pugleaf

Robin E. Cook wrote:
> 
> In <4nltfv$3ij@ss.netgate.net> howeird@netgate.net (howeird) writes:
> >
> >In article <4nkn9u$bch@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, pangk@aol.com (PangK)
> wrote:
> >>  Just a comment. EVERY guy I have seen who claimed to be a
> >>CHAMPION for women's rights, was a neo-rapist!
> >Neo? That means "new". "Neo-Nazi" means "new Nazi" as in a new
> generation. You
> >apparently thought is meant something else, since "new rapist" doesn't
> make a
> >whole lot of sense. One can only be a new rapist once. After that one
> becomes
> >either a "been there, done that" rapist, and/or an inmate. Or perhaps
> a
> >politician.
> >
> >But your intended point is well-taken. I, for example, have been a
> champion of
> >equal rights for women since the late 60's, but that doesn't stop me
> from
> >appreciating the salient physical differences between myself and
> women, and
> >acting on that appreciation.
> >
> >My biggest gripe with the women's movement of the 60's-70's is the
> mistaken
> >impression most activists had that one couldn't both be sexual and in
> favor of
> >equal rights. Humbug! Just because someone is fun to boink doesn't
> mean he/she
> >shouldn't be hired for and paid equally for the same jobs as a person
> of the
> >opposite sex. Or be able to join the same sports teams, or use the
> same
> >facilities.
> >
> 
> Actually, there are lots of sex-positive feminists out there; some were
> just overlooked by the mainstream media during the 1960s and 1970s.
> Germaine Greer, Ellen Willis, Erica Jong, and Betty Dodson are
> examples.  Jong has (rightfully) criticized more puritanical feminists.
> But I think you make some very valid points there.  I think that these
> days we are seeing a reevaluation of the claim that "the personal is
> political."
> 
> >And just because I believe that women and men should be equal under
> the law
> >doesn't mean I don't love them!
> >
> >
> >
> > =========================================
> >|I knew French was a language by age 6.   |
> >| At 19 I discovered it was also a tongue.|
> 
> LOL!!!!!
> > =====================================================================
> >| howeird@netgate.net    http://www.netgate.net/~howeird/howeird.html
> |
> >| Anatomically Correct BBS (408) 733-7429
> |
> > =====================================================================
> >

I was a teenager in the 60's and so feel a great indebtedness to all the 
women and men to made what we (women and men) have today.  They had to 
do some pretty severe and drastic things in the beginning to get the 
ball rolling and to be taken seriously.  It is up to the next 
generations to modify it, gentle it if necessary, evolve it to suit what 
is now, decide that it doesn't have to be all or nothing anymore.  What 
I see as the biggest failure of the women's movement of the 60's is that 
they did not, in general, raise their sons to be better men because they 
either caved into the same "anything for my son" thing that mothers have 
been perpetrating forever, or else did a serious number on all males 
(including their sons) by degrading anything that is male.  One gender 
is just as good as the other and there is a place for both (or should I 
say "all"?) in this world if our tiny, narrow minds would just recognize 
it.