In article , dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA
says...
>
>  (connor_a{at}hotmail.com) writes:
> > tssk wrote:
> >> "John Smith" 
wrote in message
> > news:...
> >>
> >> There is a totally valid way for men to help out at home as Ms Goward
> >> said.
> >>
> >> "It need not mean they reduce their working hours, but instead
> >> decreases their leisure hours in the way women have done."
> >>
> >> Well said.
> >
> > What "leisure" hours? Self preserving sexist women
refuse to share the
> > burdens across the entire employment spectrum, particularly in those
> > unaffirmatised jobs where death and injury remain "male bastions of
> > patriarchal privlege".
>
> Indeed. Since daytime teevee is a medium dedicated solely to women,
> it therefore stands that daytime is a wealth of " leisure time " for
> women, while most men... work.

Not true.  I quite often watch TechTV, the Discovery channel, or the
Military Channel during the day.   That statement might have been true
before the advent of satellite and cable TV, though.
>
> So, in order to maintain *equality*, one might suggest that,
> when men are resting, women can be working. So that it becomes
> possible and profitable for media to devote *as much time to
> men as they do to women*...

If you take the average over all the available channels, including
satellite and cable, you will find the balance a lot closer than
it is  if you examine only network TV.

It might be interesting to measure advertising revenues instead of
simply hours of programming.    It just may be that 3 hours of
NFL on Sundays brings in as much as 12 hours of weekday soap operas.
>
> > When will women give men a rest?
>
> Indeed. Lets see women *start* to do equal work.
>
Ah, perhaps we should start by making them eligible for
the draft!   ;-)



Mark Borgerson

'


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/11/05 2:44:29 AM ---