🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34525e46.61648940@news1.ibm.net>,
Gary Paul Sarsok <sarsok@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>}
>>:}Yes, I know.  In about 2 decades of seeing phrases like this, I've come
>>:}to realize that "feminists of the more aggressive persuasion" is a code
>>:}word for "feminists who don't agree with what I'm saying."
>
>I have seen for about 4 decades what happens to the family when
>women have come to the feminist misperception that child rearing is
>slavery. Women and children are the bigest victims of divorce laws
>advocated by feminists.

You've rather oversimplified things, confusing a fringe perception of
some feminists with the perceptions of most feminists.  Robin Morgan
herself is a mother.  My mother is a feminist.  What the majority of
feminists have come to correctly percieve as slavery is not motherhood,
per se, but compulsory motherhood, motherhood as the one and only way
that a woman may be valued societally, motherhood undertaken for reasons
other than a desire to be a mother.

>>:}I've seen what you get when you pump men up with a fear of being "overly
>>:}influenced by women" and becoming "sissified."  It's not my idea of a
>>:}good way to bring up men.
>
>What have you seen? Men who want more involvement with their wives
>and children? 

Actually, no.  I've seen men who want more involvement with their wives,
but only if they can have it in a "I lead, you follow" capacity.  I've
seen men who throw them selves into their work and neglect their children
because child-rearing is "woman's work," and Gods forbid someone look at
them and think them unmanly.  I've seen men who are willing to be with
their children, but only in the context of the "fun-guy", leaving the
less pleasant parental roles like "disciplinarian" or "person who gets up
and makes breakfast for everyone" to the wife -- or ex-wife.

The men I've seen honestly want move involvement with their wives --
involvement as equals, that is; the men I've seen want more involvement
with their children *as real fathers* have been men that don't give a
rat's ass if someone thinks them unmanly, or if they might have traits
commonly associated with femininity, such as nurturance or empathy.

>Matricarchal alternatives are more anarchal to society than patriarchy. 

It is a small mind indeed which can only conceive of "matriarchy" and
"patriarchy" as ways to organize a family or a society.  The family I
grew up in is neither, so I *know* those aren't the only models around.

>Look at the jungle in Africa, or in the ghettos of 
>America where women are much more heavily burdened. It is when 
>males feel sissified, as you so eloquently describe it, that they
            ^^^^^^^^^
>become more violent and impotent and less responsible.

You misspelled "absent", hope this helps.

You'll have to be more specific about what you're talking about in the
jungle, but the problem in the ghettos aren't that the men aren't in
charge, the problem is that they're not *around*.  It isn't that the
women are in charge, it is that they're *unaided* -- and I haven't seen a
ghetto I'd classify as a matriarchy yet.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love 
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. --  The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.