On Apr 5, 5:34 pm, MaharaniCodC...@gmail.com wrote:

A few comments on feminism, written from the point of a view of a
child of the last couple years of the 60s and all of the 70s.

The "sexual revolution" revolutionized nothing for women, it's all a
farce and completely equal to men getting what they want even more
than usual (no need to get married, just grab your nearest hippie
girl...)

After years of reading blurbs about Helen Gurley Brown especially, I
was completely disappointed with her conversations during an interview
mostly focusing on sexual sluttery as the triumph of feminism ... I
suggest that may be the case only in that it might have got men just a
little bit off the women's cases, nothing more.

The other modern feminists thought they needed to be men -- like this
new pregnant (wo)man -- at this writing I've not heard that the "man"
was born with male genitalia, only that reassignment surgery was
performed and I don't care how "brand spanking new" her appendage may
be, it's not the same thing as being born a man. IF she was born a
hermaphrodite, that would be more interesting -- almost never see
anything about hermaphrodite born children (did see that Eric
Cartman's "mom" was one on South Park though).

Though I myself feel it necessary to call myself a feminist AND a
women's libber, my reasons and feelings are not in the least bit
similar to the examples above. Now, a woman like Hillary Clinton, I
can handle a little better. She's smart and she knows there are tons
of women that need good paying jobs to support their families because
so many of the "sexually revolutionized" men bail on them. I watched
a video on her myspace page where she's reinforcing the idea of equal
pay for women (women still only make 77 cents to the $1 a man makes
these days) and "a woman's right to choose."

Of course, currently the only two really recognized "rights" for a
woman to choose are abortion and adoption. I personally think women
need even MORE choices -- LIKE A WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN WITNESS
PROTECTION PROGRAM for women who get forced into the unhappy
situations that bring abortion and adoption into the picture at all
and who don't like either of those two choices and would like to raise
their with REAL government assistance and protection from dangerous
boyfriends and husbands, dangerous incestuous parents and other family
members, dangerous rapists in dangerous neighborhoods. Sometimes
women have a lot of things stacked up against them but they would
really rather raise their children if they had REAL help rather than a
welfare ticket right back into the situation that got them in trouble
in the first place.

Also, I believe in keeping killing anything to as minimum a number as
possible (especially humans) and I think many women would rather kill
their own children than give them to strangers who might abuse them or
worse. A WITNESS PROTECTION PLAN FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN would offer
one more choice.

There are always more than TWO choices, there are more parties than
democrat and republican, and there should be more choices for women in
serious trouble.

The "sexual revolution" and a lot of the olden days of suffragism are
kind of funny because the women back then were like babies of
feminism, they were green behind the ears but they sure worked their
behinds off whether we think of them as important or not.

I think the more we focus on trying to improve the lives of women,
especially the women who don't have men to support (or whose men in
their lives don't or won't support) them, not "leveling the playing
field" or making unisex undershirts or inventing a more comfortable
strap-on, the better we'll all be as a planet. That involves men
stepping back just a little and saying, no, I don't think I have to
hold her back or hold her down. Like the Beatles say, "Let it be."