🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Nov13.094216.1797@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> In article <58975@microsoft.UUCP>, rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes:
> > 
> > Uh, better check your hysterical, ... er, ... HISTORICAL facts there fella.
> > Female secretaries is a relatively recent innovation.  
> > 
> 
> Yep, they are relatively recent.  Before that, women weren't allowed to work
> at all.  They were expected to stay home, barefoot and pregnant.

Gosh, you must be referring to *before* the industrial revolution.  But then,
back then men didn't stray very far away either, and, as even Shere Hite
concedes (in WOMEN AND LOVE), prior to the industrial revolution such 
relationships as we would today label oppressive of women had legitimate
value.  But, as sociologists have noted for decades (TIME, Dec. 1989), the
trend all throughout the industrial revolution has been for women to move
into the factories and sweatshops.  Just off the top of my bald spot, I'd
speculate the reason female secretaries are a relatively recent occurence
is the result of an educational lag -- most women (and most men) simply 
lacked the literacy needed to hold such a position.  (Now, lest anyone 
suggest being a secretary is a trivial position which can be held by any
dolt, my response will simply be to sit back and watch the toasting offered
by women who know otherwise.<-:)



> > Rod
> 
> Ah, yes, Rod, the guy who insists that breast milk is bad for babies.  BTW,
> we never did hear any real sensible reason why you felt this way.  If I 

Ah, yes, I just read through my "milk" file in winmail and nowhere do I find
a single posting where I said "breast milk is bad for babies."  

I've got you're really very hostile, and that's cool with me.  But really, if
you're going to flame me, I'd prefer you do it on the basis of what I really
said, and not what you, in your evident ignorance of the definitions of 
common words, think I said.

OO
\/
Rod