First of all, I did not write any of this, so please try to list messages with
the author.

Second, I think you need to read a great deal of feminism.  One thing it
never gave us is Margaret Thatcher, who was not one.  And there were
rare women rulers and leaders before feminism, many of them who went to
war.  Feminism is not a simple-minded division of men into macho and
women into love and peace.  In the 19th C some women believed and
wrote that women would change politics and policy because they were
morally more idealistic (but they were basing their views on a history in
which women simply had no power or access to it), but you will have a
very hard time finding any feminist now (or since the beginning of this
movement in the 60s) who would affirm such an essentialist and simplistic

I really don't think you can blame feminism for Condi Rice any more than
you could praise masculism for Martin Luther King or Gandhi or Viet Nam
objectors who went to Canada.

Date sent:              Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:33:29 -0800
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Marianne Moore poem in WWII
To:                     [log in to unmask]

From: Nancy Gish [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> In a message dated 11/29/02 7:53:02 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> >> Men who do not go to war can also identify with women.
For instance, men who were considered 4F(unfit for military service)
during WWII or the men who ran off to Canada to avoid Vietnam would have
different perspectives than women.  Also, men who did not go to the Gulf
War (and there was no draft) would also have different feelings than
women. ==================== Including the women who did fight in
the gulf

I thought feminism with all its rave about equality for
the female dimension of things was supposed to bring us
an era of more peace and less macho destruction. Instead,
we got Margret Thatcher.