On 24 Mar 2005 09:18:50 -0800, lensman1955@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>Dreamer wrote:
>> <lensman1955@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:1111602077.242260.327270@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > Actually, they weren't that bad. Sort of "hard core" Edgar Rice
>> > Burroughs-Mars stuff. What got to me was the hypocricy. (sp)
>>
>> There isn't any hypocracy if you also realize that the books are
>perfectly
>> consistent in the general case of the specific observation you make
>below:
>> the assertion that men and women are fundamentally different. Whether
>you
>> believe it or not is another question, but it's not fair to call a
>book
>> hypocritical in one breath and make fun of it for endlessly repeating
>the
>> same message with the next.
>
>I never said he was inconsistent. I think the basic message (men will
>work together to free themselves, women will work against each other.
>Women will be happiest when they learn to be subservient to man) is
>hypocritical.
It isn't. Given the premise (that the "natural order" is men on top,
and women on their knees), there's no hypocrisy involved in saying
that slavery is bad for men and good for women. It might be
considered pernicious, but not hypocritical.
|
