Analysis of Social and Political Events and the impact of the latter on Immigration

[E.]

This posting is for my fellow Americans who are in their 50-60s.

Let me begin with stating my belief that most of the problems this country faces today is rooted in the Post-war 50s and 60s.

With the end of the WWII US entered a new phase of its development, and became not only one of the great powers in the world(as it has been since WWI), but also the dominant, superpower that was alone capable of competing against the threat of Communist Russia.

Changed political and economic circumstances have led to great changes in internal and foreign policy.

It is my understanding that by the beginning of 1960s there was a strong Liberal-Democrat movement that has clashed with some Conservative Republican interests.

I also understand that legislative victory of Liberals have given them unprecedented powers and opportunity to bring this country together and make it into a ONE Great Nation on Earth.

It is also clear to me that all the best aspirations of people who initially supported Liberal movent were bitterly betrayed in reality:
In domestic line more freedom turned into a chaos and mayhem of extreme degradation and demoralization of society.
Average taxpayer was burdened with higher taxes.
Federal money was wasted on all kinds of Social Programs designed to fight powerty, but that in fact were sustaining and giving a growth to very thing they were designed to fight against.
Housing projects in Urban cities resulted in high concentration of very poor, disadvantaged people in the City that in turn led to higher crime rates and drug trafficking/gang wars throughout all of the major cities of America.
Millions fled cities and thought to have found refuge in suburbs, but all the ills of the City were slowly but steadly following after them as a an inescapable nightmare.
Anglo-Americans, who make the majority of the population in this country, were made to feel as if they had no right to keep their National identity/heritage without being labeled a rasist.
Everyone else was at the same time encouraged to do the opposite.
Multiculturalism came to be seen as a melting pot that was actually destroying the fabric of this society.
In the foreign policy things weren't going too well either.
Soviet Union was growing stronger every day.
Khrushov,then Russian Secretary of KP,was openly threatening US in his speech in UN while banging the podium with his shoe in the hand.

Cuban crisis was just the beginning of all.
It all went down the drain with the loss of war in Vietnam and 10 years later with Soviet invasion of Afganistan(1978) and yet another setback in Iran a year later.

All this failures combined together could not fail to create the great resentment against ANYTHING associated with the word "Liberal" in this country.
"Wishy-washy", "knee-jerk", "gay","freak" are just a few of the labels earned by the so called "Liberals" during the time they ruled the show.
I am sure Clinton would have no chance of winning the Office twice, had it not been for large number of female voters who voted for him not on issues but only because they were attracted to him personally.

Now there are few issues I want to discuss.
And I bring these issues here, on Immigration board, because I believe Immigration is an INTEGRAL part of overall processess that take place in the society and therefore everething that happens in political/ecenomic world directly impacts the Immigration Policy and the way Immigrants viewed/treated in this country.

First,I want to ask the elder generation:

1.Why did so much failure, so many failing policies take place through 60s-70s?
It is my understanding that the movement you participated in had to right wrongs in the Society.
Why did it instead MULTIPLY them??

2.Once it was clear that something was failing, why then weren't taken nesessary steps to fix things, to straighten the direction?
Why it took 20 years to build up a recentment/momentum capable of overturning the course that has clearly been failing for so long time?

3.Why didn't your movement, instead of radically opposing and annihilating everything that your opponents stood for, why didn't you instead come to the round table and unite your efforts to rule/direct the country the best way you could?

4.Why did you antagonize when it was more efficient and more in your interests to integrate?

5.Also, do you realize that you left for this New generation a kind of a baggage that will take a decade if not decades to get rid of?

Immigration, being a part of the "Liberal" agenda now has very little chances of getting a fair/unbiased treatment.

I believe that no matter what side you stand on when you look in the roots you see that a lot of terrible things that have happened wouldn't happen if grave mistakes weren't made in 60s-70s.
The "sixties" is a very sizeable monument to what happens when good intentions are not supported by realistic/practical/constructive approach.
I hope we all learn something from it.

My hope is that the common sence will some day prevail and people will realize that it is in everyone's interest not to be extreme/radical but try to be moderate when deciding the issues that will have an impact in lives of millions in decades to come.

I also hope that this posting does not rise as many eyebrows as some of my postings did in the past.

You need not actually post your replies/answers to asked questions: it should suffice if you take some time and think about them.

Good luck.

[E.]

This posting is for my fellow Americans who are in their 50-60s.

Let me begin with stating my belief that most of the problems this country faces today is rooted in the Post-war 50s and 60s.

With the end of the WWII US entered a new phase of its development, and became not only one of the great powers in the world(as it has been since WWI), but also the dominant, superpower that was alone capable of competing against the threat of Communist Russia.

Changed political and economic circumstances have led to great changes in internal and foreign policy.

It is my understanding that by the beginning of 1960s there was a strong Liberal-Democrat movement that has clashed with some Conservative Republican interests.

I also understand that legislative victory of Liberals have given them unprecedented powers and opportunity to bring this country together and make it into a ONE Great Nation on Earth.

It is also clear to me that all the best aspirations of people who initially supported Liberal movent were bitterly betrayed in reality:
In domestic line more freedom turned into a chaos and mayhem of extreme degradation and demoralization of society.
Average taxpayer was burdened with higher taxes.
Federal money was wasted on all kinds of Social Programs designed to fight powerty, but that in fact were sustaining and giving a growth to very thing they were designed to fight against.
Housing projects in Urban cities resulted in high concentration of very poor, disadvantaged people in the City that in turn led to higher crime rates and drug trafficking/gang wars throughout all of the major cities of America.
Millions fled cities and thought to have found refuge in suburbs, but all the ills of the City were slowly but steadly following after them as a an inescapable nightmare.
Anglo-Americans, who make the majority of the population in this country, were made to feel as if they had no right to keep their National identity/heritage without being labeled a rasist.
Everyone else was at the same time encouraged to do the opposite.
Multiculturalism came to be seen as a melting pot that was actually destroying the fabric of this society.
In the foreign policy things weren't going too well either.
Soviet Union was growing stronger every day.
Khrushov,then Russian Secretary of KP,was openly threatening US in his speech in UN while banging the podium with his shoe in the hand.

Cuban crisis was just the beginning of all.
It all went down the drain with the loss of war in Vietnam and 10 years later with Soviet invasion of Afganistan(1978) and yet another setback in Iran a year later.

All this failures combined together could not fail to create the great resentment against ANYTHING associated with the word "Liberal" in this country.
"Wishy-washy", "knee-jerk", "gay","freak" are just a few of the labels earned by the so called "Liberals" during the time they ruled the show.
I am sure Clinton would have no chance of winning the Office twice, had it not been for large number of female voters who voted for him not on issues but only because they were attracted to him personally.

Now there are few issues I want to discuss.
And I bring these issues here, on Immigration board, because I believe Immigration is an INTEGRAL part of overall processess that take place in the society and therefore everething that happens in political/ecenomic world directly impacts the Immigration Policy and the way Immigrants viewed/treated in this country.

First,I want to ask the elder generation:

1.Why did so much failure, so many failing policies take place through 60s-70s?
It is my understanding that the movement you participated in had to right wrongs in the Society.
Why did it instead MULTIPLY them??

2.Once it was clear that something was failing, why then weren't taken nesessary steps to fix things, to straighten the direction?
Why it took 20 years to build up a recentment/momentum capable of overturning the course that has clearly been failing for so long time?

3.Why didn't your movement, instead of radically opposing and annihilating everything that your opponents stood for, why didn't you instead come to the round table and unite your efforts to rule/direct the country the best way you could?

4.Why did you antagonize when it was more efficient and more in your interests to integrate?

5.Also, do you realize that you left for this New generation a kind of a baggage that will take a decade if not decades to get rid of?

Immigration, being a part of the "Liberal" agenda now has very little chances of getting a fair/unbiased treatment.

I believe that no matter what side you stand on when you look in the roots you see that a lot of terrible things that have happened wouldn't happen if grave mistakes weren't made in 60s-70s.
The "sixties" is a very sizeable monument to what happens when good intentions are not supported by realistic/practical/constructive approach.
I hope we all learn something from it.

My hope is that the common sence will some day prevail and people will realize that it is in everyone's interest not to be extreme/radical but try to be moderate when deciding the issues that will have an impact in lives of millions in decades to come.

I also hope that this posting does not rise as many eyebrows as some of my postings did in the past.

You need not actually post your replies/answers to asked questions: it should suffice if you take some time and think about them.

Good luck.

[NYCImmParalegal]

What about the opposite? Prior to the 60's the conservative movement, inspired by the military establishment and religious conservatives, kept segregation in place with Jim Crow laws, kept women as basically second class citizens, and utilized war and war conflict as a reason to invest a lot of money in the establishment, without regard for the consequences of war or public opinion on war. I take it you don't like "liberals." I take it you'd rather go back to the good ole days... where certain people had to drink from a different fountain, where a woman's only purpose was to be a breeding machine, where people of any religion or creed other than Protestant Christianity were not even considered.... I am glad we are at a point where I, as a woman, can work and, if I have a child, I can take Family Leave (though not yet advanced to the point of paid leave), where I can walk around and learn from all different races and cultures, where Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists can live together practicing their beliefs without fear of retribution...

I take special offense to your comment about the reason Bill Clinton was elected twice... you mention that women voted to him because they were attracted to him. That is the most insulting comment I've seen in a while. Women are not stupid. Thanks to the "liberals" you so denounce, women are the larger percentages of university graduates. Perhaps women saw that Mr. Clinton offered issues and platforms of interest to them. After all, the Family Leave Act was signed by Clinton.

But I'm sure you prefer presidents who invade a country with the excusing of finding weapons that are not there, of doing absolutely nothing for the economy, of eroding the rights of citizens and non-citizens with the idiotic Patriot Act, of endorsing a Protestant Christian right-wing agenda, of discriminating against a group of people because of sexual orientation....

[E.]

NYC,
My point was:

"My hope is that the common sence will some day prevail and people will realize that it is in everyone's interest not to be extreme/radical but try to be moderate when deciding the issues that will have an impact in lives of millions in decades to come".

As to the Clinton vs Voting, please don't be offended.
I wouldn't be able to make it up if I wanted: there was actually a poll/survey (conducted after 1996 election) that reflected how many people voted for whom and what was the reason for them to do so.
If you think these FACT findings are offensive then you should work together with other women, try to educate them and explain to them that choosing a leader for country is not the same thing as choosing a movie or pop star for MTV.

On a broader scale, to reply to your comments, I will remind you of Zbignev Bzhezhinski, a former National Security Adviser for President Carter (I always forget how to spell his name who was saying yesterday on
C-SPAN, that there is a certain way policies are made in Washington and attacks such as yours are unlikely to have a positive effect on the issues you care so much about.

Moderation and reason is the key to solve many problems, and Immigration is not an exception.

Take care NYC.

[E.]

When I posted this thread I hoped that it will generate more responce to it, since much of what is being discussed on this board has its roots going deep into not so remote past.

Many of you float on the surface of the water, sending various contradicting,subliminal messages without ever attempting to think what patterns lie in the beginnings of it all.

More than once I called for moderation but didn't see much responce.
So I thought that may be this atmosphere of intolerance to opposing/different views must have some very powerful currents behind it.

I will maintain what I have said before: as a Nation Americans should be consistent, firm and moderate in their approaches of all issues they face, and if they do so there is practically nothing that could stand in their way to Greatness.

But I also do not forget that Americans are a young Nation, perhaps much more idealistic than reality could withstand, and as a Young Nation it is only natural for them to pass through the stages the do now.

I suggest you give a deeper attention to your impulses and try to better understand what causes them and how they could be overcome.

Good luck.

[Spouse]

E.

Everyone uses heuristics to make decisions at certain times. These heuristics may vary, but the factors such as the relevance of the topic to an individual also influence when and what heuristics are used.

Additionaly, affect is involved in all decisions that are made (even political ones.) Therefore, it must be understood and appreciated that what a person espouses as to their rationale for their decision may or may not be accurate.

When looking at a political decision, it is possible that society has educated women to feel comfortable responding that they feel positively towards one candidate as opposed to another, without providing exact justification (hence, "attraction") Yet, one cannot deny that men make decisions on a similar basis, yet our culture defines a male suggesting attraction to another male as being homosexual (which, unfortunately, is considered negatively in today's world) Therefore, the man cannot justify his voting for clinton (or opponent) as feeling "attracted" to the candidate, although that may well be what is occuring.

These polls that you are citing are far from scientific, and therefore should always be taken with a grain of salt and other explanations should be allowed for.

Also, according to Kohlberg's theory, there are several different types of moral/analytical reasoning. Many people do not reach the highest level, postconventional reasoning (if I remember correctly) and those that do rarely reach it in more than a few areas.

Therefore, one must attempt to be aware of ones own limitations and the heuristics that one uses in certain areas to determine their decisions.



Moderation is to be valued, but in order to change the status quo exremism is often necessary (hence the women's movement, the civil rights movement, etc.). The United States is built of millions of people with different backgrounds, beliefs and experiences, it is impossible that Americans will be consistent, firm, and moderate in all issues that they face, until all inequities are banished.

Human nature on the other hand forces humans to differentiate between in-group/out-group, to attempt to feel better about oneself by looking down on others. Etc. etc. etc. Therefore the cultural consistencies are by definition, at least part of the downfall in your ideology.

I suggest that educating people to respect every regardless of race, class, sex, creed, sexual orientation, etc. and refusing to make any laws that prevent fair and equal treatment regardless of an individuals characteristics (as opposed to their actions) or stem human rights, is a step that we can make in the right direction.

However, as applied to immigration, moderation perhaps would be a key point - yet, to do this, the current laws would need to be almost entirely abolished and re-worked to provide an equitable treatment that is not in any way influenced by characteristics, and differentiates between different actions!

I am not of the generation to whom this is addressed, however I believe that it must be acknowledged that great mistakes were made, but great progress was also made. And unfortunately, this generation is making a great deal of mistakes, that I can only hope lead to the same type of positive progress!!!

No era is free of its doings.

[E.]

Spouse:

I appreciate your delving into this topic.
I suppose it has to educate me as to why/what and when I say, and sort of explain/show to me that I am judging things around me without first looking deep into myself
Ok.
I got your point.

But what I don't see in your posting is an attempt to look at the MATTER OF FACT without focusing on WHY, for what SELFISH reasons/causes did I, as an individual, bring it up in the Immigration Forum.
I might be wrong on this (I am not a psychic, you know), but that is my impression.

Anyways, I found your posting informative and refreshing.
Words such as "heuristics" were unknown to me up until today, so I had to look up the dictionary to get the meaning

I hope we all one day step beyond the "Me, I, I am smarter than You, Win/Loose" kind of thinking and learn to contemplate on things without taking them too personally (and I say "WE", meaning I don't exclude myself from the group).

And finally,I commend you on overall implications of your reply because it confirms in its totality what I was expressing in my previous post:

"But I also do not forget that Americans are a young Nation, perhaps much more idealistic than reality could withstand, and as a Young Nation it is only natural for them to pass through the stages the do now".


P.S. One QUESTION to you:

What does this refer to?: -->"Therefore the cultural consistencies are by definition, at least part of the downfall in your ideology".

I see eternal change, flow and constant cycle of the things in the Universe as a part of reality we live in.
Where did you get an idea that I was an advocate of some sort of "cultural consistencies of...ideology" that has lead to "My" downfall???

I am just curious, did you interpret my posting as Ideologically Conservative or Liberal or else?
Your answer would help me to see clearer what heuristics are employed in the process of your evaluation of my postings.

Good luck

[This message was edited by E. on March 10, 2004 at 01:22 PM.]

[E.]

To the rest of the members of this forum:

I know there are women,just as men, who visit, read and respond to postings on this site.

Seeing that some of you may interpret my statement about reasons for Clinton's reelection as sexist and anti-feminine, I want to inform you that it is not what I was trying to tell.
Point I was making had nothing to do with Male/Female issue, and I thought the thread of this posting made it clear.
In case if it didn't, I will repeat: it was NOT my intention to bring Male/Female issues on this post.

I also have to admit that I am very fond of opposite sex and think our lives would be a bitter, senseless, gray,shadowy,boring existence without them.
I hope some of them share the same opinion.

But again: the topic of this discussion had NOTHING to do with Male/Female superiority issue.

Good luck to all.

[Spouse]

E. Hi. I was not, in effect, arguing with YOU per se, as you had many valid points. I was however "playing devils advocate" and presenting alternative viewpoints. Some of which I hold dear, and others of which are simply other ways of perceiving things.

For example the cultural consistencies remark, was actually intended to refer to commonalities between humans in which humans judge others, separate others by group membership (thus the us vs. them mentality), and other conflictive responses, makes agreement between groups difficult. Thus, "as a Nation Americans should be consistent, firm and moderate in their approaches of all issues they face" becomes difficult.

However, if equality and respect could ever truly occur (within the human race) I believe that you are accurate in that "there is practically nothing that could stand in their way to Greatness."

America is most definitely a young nation, I only hope that it matures in liberal social values and conservative economic values. That it matures into respect for other countries and minority groups. (etc.) For this is, in my opinion, the path to greatness, even if it is strewn with hardship along the way.

However, as this path is in line with the original ideology, I believe that maturity could bring great things (or destruction if the ideology is ignored for the sake of us vs. them mentality!)

It will be interesting to see the evolution (and the complaints that the next generation will make about this one!)

In answer to your question regarding liberalism or conservatism, perhaps the best way to answer this is that from your response I perceive a person that could benefit from a well-taught graduate level feminist sociology class (please note feminism is not only about women!) I do not say this out of negativity towards you, only that I, myself, grew to appreciate the world and acquire new understanding from a class of this nature.

To respond more specifically with my own opinion (albeit flawed in its own right!)

It is also clear to me that all the best aspirations of people who initially supported Liberal movent were bitterly betrayed in reality:

- betrayal is very subjective, as the so called liberal movement made huge steps.

In domestic line more freedom turned into a chaos and mayhem of extreme degradation and demoralization of society.

- perhaps in some ways? If you are refering to women working, perhaps the error is not an error with women working, but rather in the lack of services provided to women (and men). Services as such could provide daycare in buildings where parents work, paid maternity leave, permission to bring children to work, encouragement for fathers to spend more time at home and with their children, control of cost of living expenses - so that a dual income family is no longer a necessity, and/or other options could be made available (although not required) (I do not necessarily support or disapprove of any of these options, they are only examples).

Average taxpayer was burdened with higher taxes.

If we got something besides defense spending for our tax money, the burden wouldn't be all that bad... I mean imagine federal aid for things like education, health care, quality day care, (programs to aid the family such as those mentioned above) etc. WOW!!! If we didn't have to spend so much on these types of things, the higher taxes would not be as much of a burden!!!!

Federal money was wasted on all kinds of Social Programs designed to fight powerty, but that in fact were sustaining and giving a growth to very thing they were designed to fight against.

The social programs are often restricted and information such as how to get an education on these programs is difficult to find. In this way these programs undoubtedly need to be altered. However, programs to fight poverty should be augmented, not decreased. The stereotype that many people have of the people on "welfare" (i.e. a black woman, who doesn't want to work, keeps having kids in order to get more money from the government. Illegal immigrants that come into the USA just for the social programs and live 4000 to a house, etc.) do not hold water in scientific studies. In fact, federal programs do not generally aid illegal immigrants (these immigrants have few if any rights) and if there were any truth at all to the stereotype about "welfare mothers" then why on earth do welfare programs not offer assistance with contraception (do we see the conservative hand here?)

Housing projects in Urban cities resulted in high concentration of very poor, disadvantaged people in the City that in turn led to higher crime rates and drug trafficking/gang wars throughout all of the major cities of America.

Did the liberals ever say lets isolate "them" all in one area (as far away from the rich folk as possible) and give them assistance, but keep them away from us? Not that I am aware of... assistance is beneficial, but would be more beneficial if we allowed these "poor" children to live in wealthier neighborhoods, and attend wealthier schools! People in poverty should be helped, not marginalized!

Millions fled cities and thought to have found refuge in suburbs, but all the ills of the City were slowly but steadly following after them as a an inescapable nightmare.

Perhaps perhaps not... please elaborate on exactly what you mean here.

Anglo-Americans, who make the majority of the population in this country, were made to feel as if they had no right to keep their National identity/heritage without being labeled a rasist.

I am Irish. That is my heritage, and nobody has ever complained that I consider myself as such. However, walking around going "I am white and I am proud" is an inappropriate display of power, only truly understood by someone that does not have that power. One must recognize their power and use it to help people up, not to keep them down or maintain their power.

This is a very hard thing to explain, unless you have seen the other side!!! But no, contrary to popular wealthy conservative opinion, prejudice is far from over, WASP males still have more power (politically, economically, educationally, etc.) than most other groups.

Everyone else was at the same time encouraged to do the opposite.

BECAUSE THEY NEEDED TO!!!

Multiculturalism came to be seen as a melting pot that was actually destroying the fabric of this society.

Huh? Who views it as such? George W.???

If a person actually believes this I hope that tthey don't eat pizza, chinese food, arabic food, or indian food, and that they avoid any other type of "multicultural" experience! In fact, I hope that they do not identify themselves with any ancesteral heritage (such as Irish, British, German, Finnish, Russian, Italian, etc.) In fact, I would hope they do not live in the US of A, as the melting pot is a basic premise of what this country is, was, and was meant to be, and is, in fact, something that makes the USA unique in many ways. It is, in my humble opinion, one of the most beautiful things about this country!!!!!

In the foreign policy things weren't going too well either.

Are they any better now? Our "allies" and "friends" think that we are arrogant, separatist, and several other things!!!! Have we really improved???

In effect, perhaps the liberal movement has not failed at all, it has only made small baby steps in the face of strong conservative opposition, bettering the country, but not yet to the desired level. If this is the case, is it not then possible that the conservative opposition is responsible for the current failings of this country?

[This message was edited by Spouse on March 10, 2004 at 11:58 PM.]

[E.]

My points are very simple, Spouse.

1. Radicalism is selfdefeating. Integration and balanced policies are constructive.
2. I understand that US is a young Nation and thus can't avoid passing through the stages of "radicalism".
3. Let everyone try to contemplate how this transitional period could be accelerated (if acceleration was possible at all).

Every teenager has difficult times, but some overcome those faster and better than others.
Whoever thinks that teenager should be encouraged NOT to mature is entitled to hold to his/her opinions.
I simply disagree and think that opposite is true.

Also, you say that you are "playing a devils advocate".
There your antagonistic, divisive spirit reveals itself.
Why do you play "devils'" advocate?
Why don't you instead get rid of the "devil" that exists in your conscious and subconscious mind?
Why don't you look at your opponents, be they Liberals or Conservatives or else, as HUMAN beings so you would be then playing HUMAN advocate intead of the DEVILS.

Also, you suggest I take a graduate class to study FEMINIST SOCIOLOGY.
Perhaps you have very poor judgement of my knowledge of FEMALE ISSUES.
I am not a playboy, but I know enough of history and dynamics of all the movements/actions/philosophies associated with females throughout the world.
I don't know where you got the idea of bringing this issue up, as if I was some kind of male chauvinist who was bashing all women and claiming they should all be locked up in homes, looking after cattle,children and dogs.

Although I do make occasionally ridiculous jokes to that effect, yet I don't remember mentioning any of those in my post that was originally dedicated to Analysis of Social and Political Events and their impact on IMMIGRATION.

But since you did mention this stuff, let me make my view clear:
I think Men and Women are NOT equal/same BUT they are DIFFERENT, and that is the beauty of Nature, Yin-Yang, eternal movement and interaction of forces.
And to limit women's role/functions/freedoms/ways of self-expression would be like paralizing one of the two main forces, and that foolish policy couldn't fail to stagnate the progress of society in the long run.
Are we clear on that?

I could go on and on taking each of your statements and making comments/explaining my point of view and etc.
But, I think it would be too exhausting and besides if you read carefully what I have stated above you will get my point.

And just to make sure there is no confusion about what I mean, let me copy and paste what you have just read above:

My points are very simple, Spouse.

1. Radicalism is selfdefeating. Integration and balanced policies are constructive.
2. I understand that US is a young Nation and thus can't avoid passing through the stages of "radicalism".
3. Let everyone try to contemplate how this transitional period could be accelerated (if acceleration was possible at all).
Every teenager has difficult times, but some overcome those faster and better than others.
Whoever thinks that teenager should be encouraged NOT to mature is entitled to hold to his/her opinions.
I simply disagree and think that opposite is true.

Also, you say that you are "playing a devils advocate".
There your antagonistic, divisive spirit reveals itself.
Why do you play "devils'" advocate?
Why don't you instead get rid of the "devil" that exists in your conscious and subconscious mind?
Why don't you look at your opponents, be they Liberals or Conservatives or else, as HUMAN beings so you would be then playing HUMAN advocate intead of the DEVILS.

===============================================

Good luck

[Spouse]

Again, I highly recommend a class of this nature for anyone that is interested. For if it is taught well the class does not focus on male/female issues.

Feminism is NOT ONLY ABOUT WOMEN (as mentioned in the previous post) it also addresses issues, of race, poverty, (which if I recall were mentioned in your previous post) etc. It is for those reasons that I would recommend a class of this nature.

I will not argue with you about the role of women.

Also, "playing the devils advocate" is an English phrase referring to presenting the opposite side of an argument or issue, usually for the purpose of expanding knowledge and presenting additional information.

Rarely, if ever, is it taken as being a presentation of an "antagonistic, divisive spirit?

Nor (to my knowledge) has it ever been previously considered an indication of having a devil in in one's "conscious or unconscious mind." It is certainly not an indication of a perception of opponents as devils - if you are to look the individual words up in a dictionary you would find that advocate is a person that supports someone/something. Hence a human advocate supports humans. Therefore a literal translation of devils advocate would be a person that supports the devil..

by the very nature of the choice of words used for this idiom it is quite impossible that I am calling my opponents the devil or in any other way anything other than human (unless you believe that I am supporting my opponents!)

Thus I am afraid that you mistook my purpose in responding to this post. I intended only to present alternative ways of viewing things... not to insult anyone.

I now understand that you do not post to learn, exapnd your knowledge or understanding, or present opportunities for the presentation of alternative explanations, rather only for the purpose of sharing your opinion, and I will allow you to do so without further interuption. Please forgive!

Best of luck to you in the future!

[E.]

Very well
Good spinning, Spouse

I always learn from spinners
But I have little to tell them

By the way I never intended to say/imply that I don't allow/want someone to spin around my thoughts/ideas.