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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1226)	8/31/2006 5:17:34 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

One of the things I have done for the past ten years as I struggled to write is to immerse myself in women's literature and history. So when you claim that the subjugation of women in marriage is some sort of contrived feminist rhetoric and not based on reality, I honestly don't know what to say. I am delighted your grandparents were content with their marriage. I am sure there were many happy people, but the history of woman as oppressed and dependent is very much there. The movement wasn't about "feeling good", and by "personhood" I don't mean that kind of "60s finding oneself". It was about being acknowledged as a person capable of making intelligent, informed decisions, with the right to vote, to be educated, to own land, to receive equal wages, to not be sexually harrassed. It was about being allowed to write as a woman, think as a woman, and not be demeaned for it. If you honestly believe that is feminist rhetoric and the status quo was just dandy, that women should be denied these same rights that you as a man enjoy, then we are at an impasse. Women should have the choice of how they wish to live, and they did not have that choice in the past. We redefine because the terms have for various reasons the terms have lost their ability to focus us on the problems, or their new meanings are distracting us from their old utility. Redefinition is what is happening now as we talk about househusbands, or gay couples as parents. The rest of your post is too broad to require a response and I am not in disagreement with the concept of personal responsibility in any way. I don't like the term morality because it gets so entwined with religion and that just makes it harder to communicate. (Being told one can't be a moral person if an atheist is not conducive to pleasant exchanges.) In asking for new terms, you seem to think I was rejecting the concepts of an orderly, productive, rational life. Not hardly. In fact, not at all. But I do object to any denial that in all that traditional morality of the past there was a great deal of unpleasant imbalances that needed correcting, or that change is by its nature to be avoided.