Amber,
I must respectfully disagree with some of your points to Dr. Flood.
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?
**I think what Dr. Flood really intends, is not to make boys into girls and
girls into boys, but rather to allow them both options. Society teaches
girls they can only be "A", and boys they can only be "B", with A and B
perscribing certain behaviors and interests, and telling them that the
other
is not an option for them.
You wrote again:
> 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?
**The only reason (if it is even true) that boys are more interested in
technical things than girls, is because boys are taught to take an interest
in these fields, and girls are not, and boys are encouraged and given the
tools to suceed in these fields, while girls are not given the same tools
(yet).
You wrote:
> 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?
**I don't think anyone is looking for a reversal (if that's what you
meant),
but just to broaden the horizons of both boys and girls, and help them both
break out of their stereotypical limitations society has placed on them.
You wrote:
> 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?
**That would be fine if boys were just naturally "boys", and girls were
just
naturally "girls", but it is much more complicated than that. We have, for
centuries, socialized boys and girls differently, and in sexist ways,
putting artificial parameters on what "is" a boy, and what "is" a girl.
You wrote:
> Hugs
> Amber V. DeWine
And Hugs to you as well! Are you married now? You had talked about being
engaged, had you not? Has the blessed event long taken place? Sorry not to
have followed up on that sooner!
Amy Kelly
<akelly99@hotmail.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:15:48 EDT