>> (just as the early suffragettes promoted the ideal of the woman voter,
>> even if not all women voters fit that exact mold).
>
> Oh really William! The point is not that women vote better. Such a
> thought is absurd! The point the early suffragettes made was that women
> had no less an ability to decide on state matters than men. If we have to
> prove that women are better than men to get equal rights .... well....
> come on its just ridiculous!
>
> And just because you have seen one woman (for example ) who has abused an
> animal or beaten her husband does not in any way reduce the abhorence of
> the act nor reduce the culpability of the men who are the main
> purpetrators. In fact the fact that some women do it too, is just further
> support for the argument that it is a cultural thing (men are brought up to
> be violent and insensitive) and not a biological necessity for men to act
> in this brutal way.
>
> Kylie
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My point is that it is a learned behaviour, and can be altered both for
men and for women, but that it is not an innate thing that women don't
kill animals or ever torture. It is very rare, however. An ideal world
would remove the learned behaviour and encourage practices that would
discourage people from behaving in such a manner.
How is that an argument that it's "ok" for the behaviour to continue?
That's like the idea that you need to be cruel to hunt, or that one needs
to hunt.
William Affleck-Asch | The above is my personal opinion only and does not
Seattle | necessarily reflect the opinions of any of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | many organizations I belong to or represent. :-)
