Why does most of women's lib fit into these two main groups?

[urban dream]

Saying "why do most women's lib fit into one of two groups?" is kind of a loaded question. That's like saying "why do most black people either act all violent all the time or get offended if you joke around with them by speaking ebonics?" Or "why are all gay guys reall effeminant or super butch?" Stereotypes. Stereotypes. Stereotypes. Sure you've at least had a few experiences so you're not just pulling examples out of your butts, but I think it's a little too much to expect every girl to think of what she's doing in political/feminist terms.

Good point, Quicksand Boy. The title of this topic probably wasn't very appropriate, if you look at it that way. But I think that's not what we're discussing. I presume all of us are perfectly aware that "Feminist Nazi Bitches" are only a small majority amongst feminists, and our comments, I believe, are all directed at that minority. At least mine where, apart from the bit where I made a distinction between "feminists", who want women to have better rights than men and who I'm against, and "women's lib", which only wants equal rights and is just fine and dandy IMHO.

Also, I don't see what that would have to do with the absence of girls on this board. As far as I can remember, no topic like this one has ever come up before.

think rights should be related to work -- If you want to be treated the same as me, do as much work as me. If you want to be treated better, do more work, or more important work. If you don't want to do any work for your rights, I don't think you are in any position to complain that you're being treated unfairly.

Rating people by how much or what work they do?That sounds like a very bad idea to me. It's not as if everyone could chose whether to work or not, or what work to do. Example: You're in your late teens or early twenties. You live in a poor part of town. There's not much work available, your education wasn't very good. You need cash, so you take the job at Burger King's. Okay, so you sell people fattening foods all day; that's both not very hard labour and pretty damn unimportant. The world can live without Burger King. Does that mean you're worth less than the middle-class white guy from the other end of town who is going to university and will be a scientist one day? Just because the work you do is less important than that he does? Or are you more important, because your work is harder than his? And what if you get sacked because your company is downgrading and can't find another job? Are you worth nothing because you don't work? Take it from me, most unemployed people do want to work. I know plenty of 'em, amongst them my own father.

I mean, rating people on whether they work has been done before, in communist countries. I don't know whether it was done in all of them, but I know they did it in the former German Democratic Republic and in Poland, because I have visited and have relatives in them both. There, you could be arrested for being unemployed too long, or not following a regular job. In some cases, the police actually arrested unsuccessful artists and writers, because they decided that painting or writing wasn't a proper job unless you were successful in it. I mean, is that right? Is that justice? And in todays age, where a lot of people, say, run commercial websites and are self-employed, wouldn't that make them all worthless as human beings as well? Or, look at it from another angle: Hitler worked reasonably hard to get to the top. So did Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein and many others of the like. Does that make them good people? Hardly.

And who is going to decide what's hard/proper work and what isn't? I don't think anyone can tell unless he's done it all.

I think people should be rated by their behaviour. Someone who does very little work but respects other people, makes their lives nicer with his friendship and is willing to help out if they are in need is, IMHO, worth a lot more than someone who might have worked himself to the top but is bitter and treats people badly.

Also, I think it should be considered all right for people not to do ANY work at all, even if they have a choice -- although, if they make that decision, society shouldn't give them anything back, at least not in wordly terms. That would be reserved for the people who do work, or are at least willing to.

EDIT: Also, I think saying that women in general suffer from behavioural problems is pretty sexist. Sorry, there's no other way to put it. Not all women are the same!
Unless of course one assumes that men have huge behavioural problems too, in which case everyone would have behavioural problems, which is probably quite true and not sexist.