----------------------

The rightful place for a woman is to be nurturing, kind, and compassionate.

The rightful place for a man is to be nurturing, kind, and compassionate.

It is the nurturing and compassionate woman who rightfully leads.

It is the nurturing and compassionate man who rightfully leads.

The term 'rightfully' is applied here, having experienced the result of individuals choosing NOT to be nurturing, kind, or compassionate.

The self-serving, controlling, competitive, aggressor, destroyer, or domination minded man or woman are defective units.

They have defective DNA.

Their brains are whacked.

The results of the choices that defective, whacked brains make are all to obvious.

Nurturing, caring, compassion, or kindness are not specific to gender.

Those are the positive traits of men and women who do not have defective DNA, hence referred to as 'rightful' because the results of their choices are positive and beneficial to society.

So where does the defective DNA- the Enlil DNA - manifest itself?

It manifests itself anywhere the self-serving destroyer-domination class, or wherever the self-serving domination-destroyer class mindset exists or operates.

Lion

---------------------------

: THE HEARTS OF MEN, American Dreams and the Flight From
: Commitment. By Barbara Ehrenreich. 206 pp. New York: Anchor
: Press/Doubleday.

:
: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/05/books/who-started-this.html?pagewanted=all

: OVER the past two decades we've heard many criticisms of the
: housewife's lot, mostly from women, and counterattacking
: complaints about the breadwinner trap, mostly from men. Now
: Barbara Ehrenreich offers a provocative new argument: Male
: complaints about their restrictions and responsibilities,
: and their grievances about women, did not follow the
: women's movement; they preceded it.

: Indeed, Miss Ehrenreich says, men's weakening commitment to
: their wives and children gave rise to both feminism and
: antifeminism. Women, faced with the unpredictability of
: male commitment and the insecurity of the family wage
: system - which pays more to men than to women on the
: crumbling assumption that men support their families - had
: two choices. They could struggle for economic
: self-sufficiency (the direction of feminism), or they could
: try to bind men more tightly to them (the direction of
: antifeminism).

: Miss Ehrenreich draws these conclusions from her study of
: ''the ideology that shaped the breadwinner ethic'' and the
: collapse of that ideology in the last 30 years. In the
: 1950's, she shows, the same ideology that was directing
: women to become steady wage spenders, docile wives and
: willing mothers was directing men to become steady wage
: earners, docile husbands and willing providers. According
: to the dominant ideology, men who resisted were not being
: ''mature,'' responsible or heterosexual; they were failures
: as men and redblooded Americans.

: Over the years, as Miss Ehrenreich wittily demonstrates, the
: culture shifted to an ideology that celebrates
: ''irresponsibility, self-indulgence, and an isolationist
: detachment from the claims of others'' - in the name, of
: course, of independence, personal growth, physical health
: and emotional liberation. Our medical and psychological
: experts provided a scientific rationale for the new
: ideology with dizzying speed. The advicemongers of the 50's
: are easy targets of ridicule, but Miss Ehrenreich reminds
: us that today's experts are no less biased, even when their
: judgments are ''buried under the weary rubric of 'changing
: sex roles.' ''

: Miss Ehrenreich does not consider the cultural shift a
: phenomenon to which men succumbed passively but the product
: of an active protest, a ''male revolt'' against maturity
: and responsibility in general and against women in
: particular. If the rebels were not always organized and
: conscious of their goals, she maintains, they were united
: in their rejection of the breadwinner philosophy.

: The author begins her argument with a discussion of some
: ''early rebels'': the Gray Flannel Dissidents of the 50's,
: for whom ''conformity'' was a code word for male discontent
: with the demands of careers; the purveyors of Playboy
: magazine, for whom ''sexual freedom'' was code for
: discontent with the demands of marriage; and the Beats, who
: resented the demands of both work and marriage. Miss
: Ehrenreich is at her best here. Playboy (whose very name,
: she observes, ''defied the convention of hard-won
: maturity'') was not the voice of the sexual revolution,
: which accelerated in the 60's; it was the voice of the male
: rebellion, which had begun in the 50's. ''The magazine's
: real message was not eroticism, but escape ... from the
: bondage of breadwinning. Sex - or Hefner's Pepsi-clean
: version of it - was there to legitimize what was truly
: subversive about Playboy. In every issue, every month,
: there was a Playmate to prove that a playboy didn't have to
: be a husband to be a man.''

: continued at
: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/05/books/who-started-this.html?pagewanted=all

: what else preceded feminism: