In article ,
 hyerdahl3{at}aol.com (Hyerdahl3) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: More Lesbians; More Choices for Women
> >From: mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com
> >Date: 1/7/2005 2:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >This is a good opportunity to discuss (one of) feminism's many ideological
> shortcomings.  For now, I'm going to discuss the notion that more choices, by
> definition, is necessarily good.
>
> Well, the term "good" is really something so generic that it can't be
> discussed
> by rational adults.

Not at all.  Whether it's an adult, or even a child, most people
understand that something can be "bad" or "good" unless taken
to some kind of meaningless philosophical extreme.

Was the Tsunami disaster "good" or "bad?"

>  Now if you were able to specify exactly what negative
> more
> choices implies, you would have more to discuss.

It's based upon the desires and wishes of the people affected.
It's not really all that complicated.

> On the contrary, psychologists recently showed that more choices, even when
> it
> may result in improved conditions (such as more choices in cell phone plans)
> result in confusion and dissatisfaction and worry over whether the person is
> making the right choice.
>
> So, Mark seems to be implying that we should all simply have stayed with
> Apple
> IIE's in order to avoid all those niggling choices we have today?  :-)

Actually, the success of Apple's competitor, Microsoft, proves
the point I was making quite nicely, thank you.

Millions of people chose a far inferior product because it
provided them with the comfort of comforming with the popular
MSwindows operating system even if it was technologically inferior.

Many people are drifting away from Windows precisely because it's
stopped being such a strong standard.

> But that doesn't really matter here.
>
> No, it really doesn't.  Most normal people would rather deal with the
> technological implications and have more choices rather than fewer choices.

There you go again speaking for "normal" people. :-)

I wasn't speaking about technology in particular but rather that
people prefer simplicity especially when it's geared towards a particular
feature they prefer already.

Cell phones are a perfect example because plans are popular that
are based upon simplicity: More "everytime" minutes, for example.
Most people don't want to think about evening time versus
weekday roaming even if the plan is cheaper overall.

This doesn't mean that choice, by itself, is bad.  Just that
choice _for no meaningful purpose_ is bad.  Once again, I can
talk about mobiles: Many of them have all these feature sets
that people could care less about.  A few are big sellers with
the one or two features people like (range, battery life, and
a camera) but the rest of the features don't mean diddly and
they mean nothing when the phones are thrown onto the scrap
heap and offered as freebies.

>  This may surprise Hyerdahl1 to
> >hear,>but most women are heterosexual and do not desire lesbian marriage.
>
> It comes as no surprise to me, Mark;  most feminists are married to someone
> of
> the opposite sex and most also have children.

You mean the dwindling and aging ranks of NOW? :-)

>  What also doesn't come as a
> surprise to me is that insecure bitter boys like you, want to limit what
> women
> do to actions that support what men want.

HAHAHA!

Actually, I enjoyed watching bittergirls scream and rant and rave
that they don't have a president or federal government that's
going to force men's tax dollars to support what THEY want. :-)

That said, there's a lot of room there for women to do what men
want and still give these women quite a bit of freedom.

Your agenda's failure is that it depends upon big, bad men
to both fund AND lead it even as the list of what men
are permitted to do is rather limited.  If he's a diaper changer
at the expense of being a poor breadwinner, he's a deadbeat.
If it's the opposite, he's a sexist who should lose access
to his children.  Your agenda can't win because it doesn't
work for men or for most women either.

> Thus, I can understand why you
> don't
> like the FACT that today women need not marry men to have fulfilled and
> productive lives.

If it was a FACT I guess I would worry.  So then, these gals
don't need socialized daycare and healthcare?  Good thing,
because that money's already spent.  

>  (surprise surprise.)  Feminism resulted in the choice for women to make more
> money on their own apart from men, but
> for most women who desire heterosexual relationships, it really just
"evened"
> things out.
>
> Making sure women had equal opportunity in the job market certainly would
> have
> the goal of "evening things out" as far as doing paid work goes.

Measured by that metric and ONLY that "precious" metric, it does even
out.  But most women (not including aging "married"
feminists at NOW) view marriage to traditionally successful men
as what it takes to have fulfilled and productive lives.

>   Men earned, by definition, less than
> >they had compared to women and this limited women's ability to marry up.
>
> Women have no inherent right to "marry up", Mark.

There are lots of things people don't have an "inherent right" to
unless defined by SC justices.  I think their "opinion" may
change in the near future though. :-)

> However, they do have the
> legal right to work for equal pay.  If that ends up facilitating more women
> doing less of the unpaid work and more of the paid work, I'm A-ok with that.
> Did you really think I'd object?  :-)

I don't doubt you're ok with it.  The problem for many women is
they feel pushed out into "paid" work and then have to pay
another woman to look after their kids.

Is that empowerment?

>   So feminism really didn't help most women find their personal happiness.
>
> Feminism was never about women's "personal happiness", but
rather about equal
> rights, equal treatment and equal opportunity.

Then I guess proposition 209 is a feminist law since it doesn't
allow discrimination based upon race or gender. :-)

Feminism, for most women, was about greed and led by parasitic
marxists.

Today, most women are catching on that "feminism" isn't going to
allow them to double dip and that's why the word isn't all
that popular anymore.

> Each person is responsible
> for
> finding their own "personal happiness", Mark.  I never
promised you a rose
> garden.  :-)

Gee, the declaration of independance says "pursuit of happiness."

And that's not accidental: American culture was based upon people
finding happiness as they defined it whether it's a rose garden or not.
And yes, feminism did promise to let them double dip and that
it would all be easystreet and that hasn't come to fruition.
Now it's time for the long road downhill...

> >It didn't help much with equality either.
>
> Sure it did.
>
> The only way to "even the playing field" is to give
preferences making the
> term
> >largely meaningless similar to women golfers teeing off 50 years downfield.
> What honest person can take it seriously?
>
> Well, I suppose folks who don't expect doggies to meow in order to be
> competent
> doggies understand the reasoning, if you don't.

This argument doesn't make any sense.  "doggies to meow to be
competent doggies?"  Please explain.

> You see, Mark...once your
> American wife divorces you, for greener pastures, she will have the same
> right
> you have to work for the same pay

Now there's a meow!

Of course, what works for her is she doesn't need to work the
same as I go get a share of my pay.  She already gets that.

For most women, feminism has turned out to be about them
being wage slaves to pay taxes and for some other woman
to raise their kids.

> doing the same work, even in her high
> heels.
>  That's more than enough for me.

Fortunately, her goals aren't the same as yours.

> >It's not wonder that feminists are always angry that men
and>society don't
> recognize such accomplishments.
>
> Men don't have to recognize anything women do in order for women to take
> advantage of their own equality, Mark.  That's the good part.

Even if this was true, this doesn't change the fact that most
heterosexual women don't want equality to begin with.  If anything,
most resent the fact that they're stuck with it _despite_
feminists promising otherwise.

> You can all
> stew
> in your own juices while women are out cashing that paycheck.  Of course,
> you'll likely have to cook those juices yourself.

I can microwave a juice as well as any "primary" caregiver. :-)

Funny story: My wife is a bit of a hypochondriac.  All the doctors
assure us that she's ok but if she has even a small pain
she's very oversensitive.

Now she is working part-time and when I suggested she could
pay for the doctor instead of me fronting the co-pay, she
suddenly discovered that advil wasn't that bad a solution. :-)

> Anyway, back to choices: Heterosexual women are certainly not jumping
> >with joy over the prospect of lesbian marriage or childbearing anymore
> than marrying a guy who earns only as much as they do.
>
> The het women I know don't spend much time thinking about being gay or being
> married to a rich guy.  They're simply too busy doing their own thing.

Yep.  Working class wages doesn't leave a lot of time for that
kind of thinking.

Most working class women voted for Bush, BTW.  Double dipper feminism
was a product sold to spoiled, middle class, ignorant women.
Thanks to Hewlett and the Bush economic system, those days are
over. :-)

> However, marriages are still going on ...rich ....poor; it's not under your
> control, pretty much like everything else.  :-)

Indeed. :-)  It's ironic that after women reaffirmed they wanted
marriage after all, that gays should want to participate.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/25/05 2:41:48 AM ---