Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (76740)	4/3/2000 2:01:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Actually, I purposely use the term "equality" rather than "equity", since equity implies "fairness". Whether it is good or bad, straightforward or convoluted, when women become less dependent and have a wider array of career options available, they are more equal. If my speculations are correct, it is unlikely that women (as a group) will dominate, although they may have key roles, like Margaret Thatcher. The reasoning is precisely that traditional family roles will continue to appeal, and traditional female occupations, such as teachers, will continue to draw a disproportionate number. If there is a feminine nature to fulfill, it may be that there is a precariousness to the current position of women. On the other hand, individual needs vary, and woman have a human nature before they have a female nature, and therefore it makes sense in the sort of society we inhabit to make room for diverse aspirations among women, and to educate them for whatever may come. What is wanted, I think, is to not slight the traditional roles of wife and mother in the course of opening up alternative avenues.......