🚀 go-pugleaf

Marg Petersen (goddess@kira.peak.org) wrote:
> In article <345dd1e1.83455183@news1.ibm.net>,
> Gary Paul Sarsok <sarsok@ibm.net> wrote:
> >Dialectic Materialism is not the soul of human nature, nor is any
> >other economic model. The point today is not ownership but
> >what is destroying the family, and dehumanizing our children.
> >When life is just a matter of dollars, children denied of their
> >mother, will feel cheated, and they are cheated, just so that
> >feminists can feel fullfilled. It is bad enough that men must
> >be away from their families, but when women accept the
> >same, their children will suffer.
> >
> So, what you're saying is that men wish to/have to/need to
> accept being away from their families but women must NOT follow
> their *bad* example?  Oh, how convenient.  

No -- what he is saying is that it is undesirable for men to be away from
their families.  Worse still, is when women must also be away from their
families.  There's no way you can rationally argue against that unless you
are a proponent of the concept of parents deferring their parental
responsibilities to the 'Village'.

Your response reminds me of my children demanding to be allowed to be as
destructive as their siblings in the name of fairness.

-- 
+-----------------------------------------///----------------------+
|                                    |   ///                       |
|  Now that that's settled, can we   | Mike Hartigan               |
|  proceed with lunch?            \\\| hartigan at interaccess.com | 
|                                  \\\///                          |
+-----------------------------------\\\/---------------------------+