AAR

[maryskl]

[LizE]

Maybe the problem is that money is valued over quality of life, particularly when it comes to the lives of women and children. I hear a lot of talk about family values, the importance of the family, etc., etc., but unfortunately we live iin a world where the actuality of women having children is seen as an inconvenience to employers, an impediment to the profit motive that drives our society. As long as we remain fixated on profit, we'll run up against the same question Dick posed, and he's right, in a world where money is paramount, the bearing and raising of children will always disrupt the almighty bottom line. We can be equal under the law, but when women have to compete by male rules--to be pseudo-men in order to succeed--well, that contest is rigged from the start.

[JaneO]

Once upon a time, many years ago when I was young, and I thought of myself as a feminist, I thought the point of feminism was that people should be treated as individuals, and considered in terms of their own peculiar talents and abilities, regardless of gender, race, age, ethnicity, or any of those accidentals over which we have no control.

The world has not lived up to my expectations. Now I think of myself as a crotchety old lady.

[dick]

I'm a curmudgeonly old man. And, if I've learned anything getting to that point, it's that -isms always turn immoderate. If we all truly considered the matter of equality, few of us would want it, I think. Like everything else, it's best taken in moderation along with a healthy dose of stoic realism.

[LizE]

Well, Dick, you're right about "-isms." But I don't see an -ism in equality. And if realism means accepting that we live in a male-dominated world where women, because they have the babies and are responsible for raising them, are by some twisted logic considered second rate, then give me idealism any day.

[Elaine S]