Some women do not feel driven to find a man to rescue them, take care of them, and then have their babies wash their laundry and clean their toilets for the rest of their lives. But the women who DO feel that way should be allowed to live the lives that make them happy. They should not be forced to go to college, become lawyers, and wait until they're 45 to have one mildly retarded child.
I'd agree on the "happiness" part--but these alternatives are highly artificial. You've implied two main tracks, finding a man or becoming a lawyer, and stated them in terms that are culturally determined, not biologically forced. Sure, reproduction is a biological imperative, but different cultures (including the US now vs. the US a couple generations ago) have evolved and reinforced different standards for carrying out that imperative.
If we turn this around, incidentally, do men have only two main options between which to choose, and if so, what are they? Or are men locked into a single domination scheme? Highly doubtful. The problem with many varieties of "feminism" is that they achieve their goals only by incurring a pendulum swing and vilifying "oppressors." Similarly, in your so-generous restoration of domestic choice to women, don't take away choice from men and leave them only with masculine insecurity.... (ObSfRef: Silverberg's comment when reviewing Tiptree.)
(Btw, why are finding a man and going to college mutually exclusive in your terms? There're quite a few women who want--and manage--to do both. And what about the men who want to have children but can't find women with whom to have any?)
Good grief. Just because you haven't been able to find the more challenging and well-crafted stuff "between the Mystery and Romance sections at Waldenbooks" doesn't mean you should bash all texts within what publishers define as one genre. I'd encourage you to try John M. Ford, Ted Chiang, Connie Willis (stories only), Steven Brust, Emma Bull, (some of) Tim Powers and Neil Gaiman, Greer Gilman, Guy Kay....
Seems to me that one can like Austen, Burney, and Edgeworth for that "historical kick" and their clever writing while also liking clever contemporary fiction of whatever genre. By all means, keep reading books published before WWII--it'll help keep them in bookstores and libraries for future readers. Sturgeon's Law applies to contemporary sf and fantasy as well as to "classics," though; we just don't see the lame pulpy stuff from previous decades (except in research libraries) because it's long out of print.
It's a valid question, but Anthony's about-the-author notes from long ago discussed the vagaries of using a DEC Rainbow, running CP/M and having to switch to DOS, etc. I haven't bothered to read his work for over a decade, so I've no idea whether his interest in playing with computers has continued without break since then; the interest is long-standing, at least.
Anyway, it's quite possible for people who aren't full-time computer geeks to choose something outside the mainstream, simply because they can....
Slashdot Mirror
I'd agree on the "happiness" part--but these alternatives are highly artificial. You've implied two main tracks, finding a man or becoming a lawyer, and stated them in terms that are culturally determined, not biologically forced. Sure, reproduction is a biological imperative, but different cultures (including the US now vs. the US a couple generations ago) have evolved and reinforced different standards for carrying out that imperative.
If we turn this around, incidentally, do men have only two main options between which to choose, and if so, what are they? Or are men locked into a single domination scheme? Highly doubtful. The problem with many varieties of "feminism" is that they achieve their goals only by incurring a pendulum swing and vilifying "oppressors." Similarly, in your so-generous restoration of domestic choice to women, don't take away choice from men and leave them only with masculine insecurity.... (ObSfRef: Silverberg's comment when reviewing Tiptree.)
(Btw, why are finding a man and going to college mutually exclusive in your terms? There're quite a few women who want--and manage--to do both. And what about the men who want to have children but can't find women with whom to have any?)
Good grief. Just because you haven't been able to find the more challenging and well-crafted stuff "between the Mystery and Romance sections at Waldenbooks" doesn't mean you should bash all texts within what publishers define as one genre. I'd encourage you to try John M. Ford, Ted Chiang, Connie Willis (stories only), Steven Brust, Emma Bull, (some of) Tim Powers and Neil Gaiman, Greer Gilman, Guy Kay....
Seems to me that one can like Austen, Burney, and Edgeworth for that "historical kick" and their clever writing while also liking clever contemporary fiction of whatever genre. By all means, keep reading books published before WWII--it'll help keep them in bookstores and libraries for future readers. Sturgeon's Law applies to contemporary sf and fantasy as well as to "classics," though; we just don't see the lame pulpy stuff from previous decades (except in research libraries) because it's long out of print.
It's a valid question, but Anthony's about-the-author notes from long ago discussed the vagaries of using a DEC Rainbow, running CP/M and having to switch to DOS, etc. I haven't bothered to read his work for over a decade, so I've no idea whether his interest in playing with computers has continued without break since then; the interest is long-standing, at least.
Anyway, it's quite possible for people who aren't full-time computer geeks to choose something outside the mainstream, simply because they can....