Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Petronski
How?

Hmmm...truthfully, if you don't know there's hardly a point in explaining it. But the implication is that women are only valuable as child-bearers...which in turn eliminates quite a few women, including older women, as having value.

Geez I can't believe I had to explain that!

237 posted on 07/31/2005 8:53:37 PM PDT by unbalanced but fair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies ]


To: unbalanced but fair
But the implication is that women are only valuable as child-bearers.

Only if you read that way.

242 posted on 07/31/2005 9:11:36 PM PDT by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

To: unbalanced but fair

Hmmm...truthfully, if you don't know there's hardly a point in explaining it. But the implication is that women are only valuable as child-bearers...which in turn eliminates quite a few women, including older women, as having value.

Geez I can't believe I had to explain that!

I dont think that they were saying that all woman have value, but that their marital marketibility value erodes over time as their physical charms erode and childbearing ability fades, for although in our culture marital status is not totally corrolated with childrearing, it is significant.


271 posted on 08/01/2005 4:42:54 AM PDT by mlmr (CHICKIE-POO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson