Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice6!daf
From: daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: the GREAT MARCHIONNI replies  (all bow....:-)   )))
Message-ID: <315@ccice6.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Feb-85 18:10:47 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice6.315
Posted: Sat Feb  2 18:10:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 06:56:58 EST
References: <1534V6M@PSUVM> <787@druxo.UUCP> <654@ccice5.UUCP>
Organization: The Wall Of Fog
Lines: 52

Well Rob, I see you have fled across the news groups in
an attempt to elude me. Alas I have found you and must
once again respond.

> I don't know what's really eating you, but you can't possibly be suggesting
> that it's Christianity that causes all of the ills women must endure today.
> It was certainly used to reenforce the second class status of women for
> many years, but that status was established when a woman couldn't hunt, or
> get fire from a waring clan for the cave, or keep from getting pregnant.

I suspect women could always hunt. (excluding blind paraplegics) Society
probably didn't allow them to. Possibly this isn't the point you intended.

Get fire from a waring clan for the cave? I must advise you not to see
"Quest For Fire" again until you are less impressionable.

I think effective methods of birth control came after Christianity, at
least on earth.

Hopefully you will explain what these random examples have to do with
the claim that Christianity reenforces the second class status of women.

> I, for one, detest ANY attempt by ANY group that will cause inequality (with
> exceptions like war, etc.).

Are you saying that you don't detest wars that cause inequality?
Do you detest wars that cause equality? Please explain.

> BTW, remember that MANY women do not support the idea of equality with men.
> People like Phyllis Shaffley (sp?) are not part of some fringe group.  They
> speak for MILLIONS of WOMEN.  What people like you and I need to do is to
> make sure they don't speak for everyone!  Remember that a supporter can be
> found in many areas.

Look now, the fact that you have gone on for several sentences is no
reason to totally forget the original point.

> Don't chase them away by assuming that since they are
> a member of such a diverse group as "Christians" that they must all be the
> enemy.

Perhaps there is minor jump in logic here.

> The above is based on the idea that you want equality of the sexes.  The tone
> of your attack makes me wonder if you don't think one or the other must be
> "second class".

Is the part where you tie all this together into a salient point
coming in some future article?
-- 
The Watcher
seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf