Christian Domestic Discipline

[serious crayons]

Interesting. Social equality is part of the definition, but legal equality is not.

Legality is implicit in both definitions.

In the first definition, laws are used to protect political, economic and social equality, or at least the first two. For example, if laws are required to insure that the sexes receive equal economic treatment -- for example, in the workplace -- then feminism would call for them.

The second definition applies to "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." The word "rights" is generally understood to include legal rights.

In other words, it's not about legal vs. social equality. It's just plain equality -- a broader concept than what you're suggesting, with some aspects that are subject to legal controls and some that aren't.

[serious crayons]

Katherine,  if that were organized feminism's definition of feminism, maybe I would be one.  But I have read feminist theorists recently and it goes much, much MUCH deeper than that. 

Oh, I know; I've read some of those theorists, too. But I don't grant any particular individual or theorist the right to speak for all of feminism. As for "organized feminism," what is that? I'm a feminist, but I don't belong to any organization.

For example, feminist Andrea Dworkin, to quote Wikipedia, "argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission." Does Andrea Dworkin get to establish the rules, and does that mean if I have sex with a man I have to turn in my feminist card? Or could it just mean Andrea Dworkin and I are two feminists who disagree about some things?

Feminists disagree about all kinds of things. Sometimes they're in diametric opposition. Neither "side" necessarily represents "feminism" as a whole.

[delalluvia]

Sure, but eventually they'll either retire or be too sick to work or be dead. The sad facts of mortality. They may work longer than their parents did, but nobody works forever. And your post to which I was originally responding mentioned "several generations" -- i.e., approximately 60 years.

Meanwhile, many of the baby boomers I know are being laid off, thus forced into retirement in their late 50s or early 60s.

But they still pay taxes even on pensions and dividends.  Those who are below the poverty line don't.

[delalluvia]

Yes, it is. It isn't necessarily where people want it--and perhaps you missed my parenthetical comment about Texas, which was not meant as a joke--but the total amount of water on the planet is not diminishing. It's easier to clean up water than it is to go on indefinitely taking up land to bury poopie disposable diapers.

I agree with you about the fountains in Las Vegas. I also remember when people moved to the Southwest to escape the flora and climate of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and instead they've just replicated that flora in the Southwest (lawns, plants not native to the area), and it takes water to do that. That was just plain stupid.

But ill-advised and stupid misuse of water resources by ill-advised and stupid people does not mean that water is not a renewable resource. As long as rain continues on the planet, water will be a renewable resource.

No, aquifers do run dry, Jeff.  My ecology professors were talking about this years ago.  As one article puts it, it's an impending 'tragedy of the commons' situation. 

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/20/time-water-running-out-for-americas-biggest-aquifer/
http://www.naturalnews.com/031658_aquifer_depletion_Ogallala.html
http://www.economist.com/node/17199914

And I think you missed my point - sure we can clean up our polluted water...but at what cost?  How many chemicals and water purification plants are needed?  Desalinating water is also extremely power expensive.  Our infrastructure has become so expensive to upkeep that we can't afford to fix our bridges until they start to - or actually - fall down and now, because we can't be reasonable about our water needs we're just going to wait until we have to pay a fortune for water as well?

[delalluvia]

LOL!!!

Del, men have been putting themselves at personal risk in a multitude of ways for humanity's entire history in order to ensure the survival of the species, tribe, country, and family. So I don't think men would shirk the responsibility of bearing children if that were the case. Honorable men would step up to the plate and do what was needed.  

Wow, everyone took this and ran with it before I could come in here and clarify.  I meant in Lee's daughter's situation, specifically, and a great many men in reality.  THEY don't have to care for the children, not when they hew to the 'men work, women childcare' model.  They don't share in the daily grind of cleaning, feeding, clothing, up middle of the night feedings/holding hands nightmares/sick care, carting and hauling the children around to do the domestic errands.  If they did, suddenly they'd not be quite so anxious to have as many as 'god wills it'.

True story:

A young child-bride responded with the exact same pious words when her doctor asked her if she wanted birth control right before her wedding.

He replied dryly, "Honey, if you're a healthy woman, you'll have a child for every year of your marriage."

She took the birth control pills.  Her wry comment years later, "I was young, not stupid."

[serious crayons]

But they still pay taxes even on pensions and dividends.  Those who are below the poverty line don't.

Yeah, but their average income is a lot smaller than the average income of working people. And if their retirement accounts are Roth IRAs, they don't pay taxes on the dividends or distributions.

[delalluvia]

Yeah, but their income is a lot smaller than it was when they were working. And if their retirement accounts are Roth IRAs, they don't have to pay taxes on them at all.

But there will be less population that will be supported by their taxes.

[serious crayons]

But there will be less population that will be supported by their taxes.

No, that's what I'm saying. Health care for elderly people is one of government's biggest expenses. As baby boomers get old, that will skyrocket. The population will gradually shrink, but the elderly population specifically will be increasing for the next 30 to 50 years.

[Jeff Wrangler]

For example, feminist Andrea Dworkin, to quote Wikipedia, "argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission."

Gee, I bet she's a laugh a minute at parties. ...   

[milomorris]

Desalinating water is also extremely power expensive.

All they do is run it close enough to the reactor core to make it boil.