Dear Dr. Flood:
Please pardon me for not responding to you in a timely manner; I was on
vacation, then moving into the dorm, then experiencing the first week of
new classes. I think I'm all oriented to what's going on now.
Let me ask you a question about your statement as written below. You
wrote:
> Just as grils need to "see their place" at the table in nontraditional
occupations, boys need to >see their place in the family.
And I ask, why? As a devil's advocate here, it appears to me as if the
majority of the radical feminist leaders want to make boys into girls and
girls into boys. My question is, why? Do you have any ideas as to why
they want to do this and what benefit they think would derive from it?
It's the same thing to me when people complain because girls are not
participating as much as boys in technical fields. I say.."Boohoo. Boys
are more interested in technical things than girls are." What's wrong with
that?
Will it be more equal when boys are taught ("socialized") to sew and cook
and play with dolls and girls are taught ("socialized") to be interested in
technology and computers and play with trucks? Why is that a desirable
goal?
Basically what I'm trying to ask is, from a devil's advocate position,
girls are girls and boys are boys. What's wrong with it?
Hugs
Amber V. DeWine
your_honor@justice.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:15:48 EDT