>Well, Kells, I don't get it, so plaese pardon me for
>being a bit slow here. You say the kinds of
>psycho-sexual problems we are dealing with here can't
>really be addressed by counselling, even for those who
>can afford it, and are beyond the scope of any
>individual or even any couple to change by themselves
>because they are due to large scale social forces. I
>add in the premise that there is not much any
>individual or couple can do about these forces, and we
>are like to be living with them for some time. So if
>that's not a dark outlook, what is it? What are you
>saying that I am not correctly understanding? I'm
>asking because I respect your insight and I know you
>have given these maters serious thought. jks
feminism was and is a social movement that, in some respects, changed and improved fundamental aspects of our lives. barbara ehrenreich wrote a book, _hearts of men_, in which she pointed out that men revolted against the homemaker/breakdwinner ethos of the family as a social institution long before feminists did. does recognizing that, in part, feminist successes come about because the people in power find them useful a reason to take a pessimistic view? i think not.
if you need more elaboration, you'll have to wait. i've been in the process of moving, my hands are chewed up from cleaning and cleaning products and home repairs, and i'm just plain too busy. and, again, i'm not inclined to pursue this if you prefer to cop a nasty attitude. in the earlier incarnation of this thread, i was defending you. how that escaped you is beyond me.
maybe i can turn you over my knee and lovingly rub some desitin all over your chapped, wittle bum? :)
kelley