> Date sent: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 09:00:50 -0600
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Goddess of Disco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Women controlling the world
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Sep 1994, Nina Aguilar wrote:
>
> > I think the world WOULD be better --- for men and women. After all, we raise
> > our sons to be better/more nurturing than our fathers and brothers were.
> > Like the women in Ireland who united to stop the violencs, like the Palestinian
> > mothers who marched to stop the violence, the world would become better because
> > no mother I know would ever let situations progress to the point of war.
> > Somehow, men seem more willing to let their sons die for a political cause;
> > mothers don't.
>
> True, most mothers wouldn't like to see their sons (or daughters) die in
> war. I don't think most fathers would, either. But the question raised
> was, what if *women* had emerged the controllers and law-makers, not
> *mothers*. We cannot assume that every women is, will be, or desires to
> be a mother. And not every women who is a mother had children out of an
> intrinsic deisre or instinct to do so. We must remember that some women
> are forced (or, at least, relentlessly "encouraged") to have chidlren out
> of a sense of duty to husband, significant other, family, or society.
> Being a mother does not necessarily mean having a nurturing instinct.
>
> just my $.03 (inflation).
> Lori T.
Women controlling the world.
The thought occurs to me that we had a woman controlling Britain
from 1979 - 1990, namely Margaret Thatcher. I failed to notice that
Britain became a kinder or more caring society (or for that matter
greener society). It depends which women are chosen to control! In
any event our conceptions of power and control are coloured by the
social order we now live in. Essentialism is precisely the notion
that certain attributes (nuture, caring etc.are biologically given. I
find this implausible. Some men care, some dont, likewise women. >
John Ferris
University of Nottingham
