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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (17060)	6/18/2001 3:49:53 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

It is the radical attempt to create a false impression of martyrdom, driven by a political agenda. No, Brees, it's just a bumper sticker. I thought you were old enough to remember the bad old pre-feminism days. I certainly remember when, as a married woman in the state of Pennsylvania, I couldn't own property in my own name. I can remember when I was in high school attending a career day event where I showed up at the civil engineer seminar and was told, nicely, that their was an airline stewardess discussing down the hall. I can remember when I had a good job at the Pentagon and couldn't get a car loan from the Pentagon Credit Union without my husband's signature. That good job was as a computer programmer intern. I had the highest scores of anyone in my intern class but the instructor chose someone else as first in class. When questioned about it by a colleague he asked "Do you really think I would have chosen a woman" and then proceeded to make another in a series of passes at me. Do you remember any of that? Perhaps you don't remember when women weren't people. Karen

To: one_less who wrote (17060)	6/18/2001 4:33:42 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

In 1928 the Supreme Court of Canada was unanimous in ruling that woman were NOT persons. This was overturned by the English Courts. Insofar as the idea of woman as persons is so recent to history, I would not be surprised to find it radical to the minds of some. I don't think anyone would have trouble detailing the unequal treatment that has reflected on the "personhood" of women, or how feminism contributed to reducing this inequality. But right now I would rather have some roast chicken. Certainly, the point and purpose of feminism was to bring about legal and social changes so that woman could be considered and treated as persons. So the idea that "feminism is the radical notion that women are people." seems to me to be terse, accurate, and catchy. Not something I have time to argue over, however.

To: one_less who wrote (17060)	6/18/2001 4:47:58 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I think early feminism had a point. For example, the sufferage movement. Although our country's greatest prosperity, growth, and sense of national pride came during times when women weren't allowed to vote, I still think it was only fair to let women have the vote and have a fair chance to elect scoundrels and cheats to undo all the good that the male-elected politicians had created. (After all, if women couldn't vote, Clinton would NEVER had been elected President.) But I agree with you; once feminism accomplished its important goals, it didn't just declare victory and dissolve; the people who had become prominent in it had gotten used to being prominent and affecting the national debate, and cast about for other things to keep them in the limelight. Sometimes quite absurd things. That's much the way of movements like that. Sadly.