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: JF Quinnelly who wrote (14375)	12/21/1997 10:33:00 AM
From: James R. Barrett	Respond to of 108807

>>"And what is this gender-chauvinism you are promoting? All that the world needs to be set right is to let women run the place?"<< How many men do think Christine would burn at the stake if she became Queen of the World? I am sure she would place me at the head of the line. Male dominance forever, (except for taking out the trash and mowing the lawn) Jim

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (14375)	12/21/1997 11:11:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

Freddy, I think there is a difference between all of the casualties men have suffered through the ages, defending their land, their honor, and of course their sweet, clinging womenfolk. The burning times was a HOLOCAUST against women, aimed at them directly and deliberately. The mere fact that during the Inquisition they were stripped naked, and then had their pubic hair shaved as well and had to go to court proceedings that way, is indicative of the total dishonor they suffered because they were women. Perhaps this would be a good time to repeat that in pagan, agrarian Europe women worked alongside the men in the fields, and were the doctors and midwives. When the Inquisition came, priests implored men to beat their women, to control them, and also made it illegal for women to practice medicine and midwifery. Thus they were stripped of their knowledge and power. This is not anything like the experience of men in battle!!! As horrible as war is, there have been fierce female warriors historically, although certainly not as many as men. War has been something most men seemed to enjoy better than most women, in terms of strategic thinking and just sheer masculine energy being utilized. And women were of course always caring for children and nursing their babies, the place where their strengths were in the division of labor. But war does not kill men deliberately simply because they are men. I certainly am not promoting gender chauvinism in a negative or vindictive way, incidentally. Because women do bear children, however, and because of the way they are socialized to communicate well and cooperate to a larger degree than men are, we can only hope that the less divisive, continuum-building instincts women have will be positive in the future. These are all generalizations, of course. Look at Maggie Thatcher and Winnie Mandela!! But I am not alone in believing that as women become more powerful politically, their maternal interest in a healthy, peaceful future will bode well for the survival of humankind. Do you think more women in power would be positive, negative, or neutral?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (14375)	12/22/1997 12:12:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

What's got me wondering is how and when it suddenly became ok to use a narrow grammatical term ("gender") as a euphemism for sex. I shall actively resist this dilution of the language in the service of an ill-defined delicacy. I get pretty peeved at forms (like insurance paper) which ask me my gender. Why don't they follow through and inquire about my declension? Folks, people have sexes. Only nouns have genders. Rant o'the Day (tm)