>Many women prefer not to have children and have excellent reasons for
>their choice. That's fine but some
>will have to to keep the human race from going extinct. What would
>happen if all women stopped giving birth? THE SPECIES WOULD DIE OUT. Are
Sam, I did not say that we should not reproduce our species. I said
that motherhood as an institution should be abolished, because i don't see
it a biological thing. since child caring is a social invention (as part
of women's domestic duties) it is reasonable in principle to argue that
we should reconstitute society in way to equalize men's and women's
child rearing functions. women should not be solely responsible for
mothering.
>So, as you _seem_ to think, that having children is a bad thing for most
>women, then who has to bear the burden of reproducing the species? The
>poor? Those not talented enough to pursue Phd studies? Further, maybe it
>is better for the children if they are raised by women? I don't know.
are you telling this to me? I have been preaching for months that the
realities facing third world women are worse than the realities facing
first world women. class cuts across gender, and divides women.. while the
first world exported its wage labor to periphery, it also exported its
own patriachy to reinforce local patriarchal practices (my mom was taught
home economics in american high school in Turkey, in the 50s, that was
a mandatory requirement). however, women should not be blamed for this;
capitalism should be blamed..
merci,
Mine
> Mine > > >> Sam Pawlett wrote: > >> >Well, it is necessary that the
male penetrate > the female or the species >> >will fail to reproduce
itself. > > > > ...except for the occasional turkey-baster. >
or canoe paddler.
> >Why not say "it is necessary for the female to engulf the male sperm . .
> ."?
>
Sure, why not?
