Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    My fiance walked around all day with a red carnation pinned to his
    lapel and everyone commented on how nice it looked.  I don't understand
    why anyone would have given your husband a hard time about wearing
    a rose on his lapel.  I bet it looked great!  My fiance also enjoys
    receiving flowers and doesn't care if he gets them delivered to
    him at work.
    
    Lori B.

I'm really sorry about the grief your husband got. How awful for both of you.

And, as to why: my bet misogyny, or sex-role-anal-retentiveness in general.
	Mez

    
    Hi Suzanne,
    
    That's too bad your husband got all that 'greif'... I think it's
    terrible.     Maybe those who were giving him snickers are jealous??
    
    Anyhow, if that was the case, they should do that.. they sounded pretty 
    rude.  I wouldn't be surprised if those people were ALONE on such a 
    loving holiday!!!
    
    Sandy
    

 I'm confused as to why two people have attributed the grief to misogyny and
homophobia. Have these terms come to mean something more generic than their
roots? I suppose I can almost make the connection with homophobia (everyone 
knows any man who likes flowers is gay, right?) but I don't see the misogyny
connection.

 Man + flower + grief = misogyny???

 I wonder what sort of environment your husband works in. I can imagine such
grief happening in certain places I've worked, but not where I am now. Was
the grief he got all in fun or was it nasty? I can't imagine anyone getting
nasty about flowers.

 FWIW- I think it was a very nice touch, wearing the flowers the following day.
What a nice reminder of the night before.

 The Doctah

    "misogyny" because wearing a flower is "feminine" and by definition
    "feminine" isn't as good as "masculine" (women don't get grief for
    *not* wearing flowers).
    
    						=maggie

>(women don't get grief for *not* wearing flowers).

Or for wearing pants (at least, recently). But try a man in a dress (in a
society where only women wear dresses...).

It seems easier to allow women to be like men (though not trivial) than to
allow men to be like women (except, for course, for the biological bits).
	Mez

    Actually most of the replies were rude or sarcastic.   Those type of "I
    cannot believe your wearing a flower" remarks.  The type of remarks
    your parents would tell you "if you cannot say anything nice just don't
    say anything".
    
    If it makes any difference, he works in an engineering environment.  I
    guess they just aren't as enlightened as Digits.
    
    Suzanne

    
    
    re -1
    
    Suzanne,
    
    Just a small nit. I am the sole female engineer working in my department.
    I really don't know if the men in my group would make hurtful comments
    just because they are engineers.  It is entirely possible that they
    would make comments just because they are guys.  I don't think
    it is fair to make a generalization about an engineering environment.
    
    Sure there is alot of ribbing back and forth on typical gender related
    issues, but no more so than with any other male dominated environment
    of which I have been involved.  I think these people who upset your
    husband are just not enlightened enough to realize that it is
    perfectly ok for a man to wear whatever he pleases.  They seem
    to be quite an immature bunch of folks.  
    
    Michele

    I certainly wasn't blaming the environment - someone asked what type of
    place he worked that would produce such a weird reaction.  I was just
    stating the facts.  I am also the only woman in my engineering group
    and have been since I started on this career path 4 years ago - and
    I certainly wouldn't expect that type of reaction from fellow
    engineers male or female.  
    
    And you're right - they do seem immature.

    For another silly comment on Valentine's Day:  One of the women
    in my group got some beautiful long stemmed red roses from her
    boyfriend and I went over to look at them.  When I was leaving one
    of the guys in my group nudged me, snickered, and said, "Where's
    *your* flowers?  I don't see any flowers in your office?"
    
    So, apparently, not only are men not supposed to have flowers for
    Valentine's Day, women *are* supposed to.  I guess if we don't stick
    to our "roles" somebody is bound to say something!
    
    So, let's get this straight!  We pick on men who *do* get flowers
    for Valentine's Day.  We pick on women who *don't*.  Got that?
    
    Lorna
    

>                      <<< Note 990.5 by MOSAIC::TARBET >>>

>    "misogyny" because wearing a flower is "feminine" and by definition
>    "feminine" isn't as good as "masculine" (women don't get grief for
>    *not* wearing flowers).
>    
>    						=maggie

	 I'm sorry, but I think this to be rather far-fetched.  Yes,
	 some people consider flowers to be feminine, but that doesn't
	 bring misogyny into the picture at all in my mind.  Misogyny
	 is hatred of women..........While being feminine is typically a
	 female trait, it has NOTHING to do with why people hate
	 women.  If a person hates women it has NOTHING to do with
	 whether women are feminine or not but rather that they ARE
	 women.

	 I see the homophobic connection that Doctah mentions, but I
	 see absolutely no connection with misogyny.


	 kathy

    Lorna - 
    
    I'll make you a deal.  Next year I'll send you flowers on valentine's
    day and you send me flowers.  That way neither of us will be hassled!
    O.K?  (BTW - make sure to send them anonymously.  That way they'll
    think they came from a man.)
    
    Sarcastically - 
    :-)  :-)
    
    Nanci (another flowerless woman)

    
    re:.11
    
    the underlying concept is male=good, not-male=bad.
    
    why did a male get hassled by other males for wearing a lower?
    
    traditionally in our society flowers are worn only by not-males.
    (which is bad)
    
    a male wearing a flower is doing a not-male thing- a bad thing-
    and should be chastised.
    
    misogyny is hatred of women, of not-male-ness.
    
    seems pretty straightforward to me.
    

 I think I subscribe to the "catch-all" theory.

 The Doctah

    I think he got picked on simply because he wasn't doing the accepted
    male macho thing.  He was happily displaying the affection he and
    another person share by wearing a beautiful flower.  It's so sad that
    his co-workers couldn't allow him to feel what he feels, and felt they
    had to jump on him.  What a way to ruin romantic impulses!
    
    Pam
    
    P.S.  I see the misogynist argument but agree it is weak in this case. 
    Hatred of women exists, but it's a *real* stretch for me to see it
    here.  It's reading too much into it, in my opinion.  Would we call it
    "hatred of infants" if he was mocked for sucking his thumb at work?

    Hauling out the PI epithet doesn't usually contribute to understanding
    the phenomena under discussion, in my experience.  Nor do accusations
    of 'catch-all' buzzwords.  I suggest those terms be dropped.
    
    A guy gets grief from his peers for wearing a flower.  Why?  Perhaps
    its because other men don't like to see men wearing flowers.  Why? 
    Perhaps its because other men tend to reinforce male standards of
    behavior upon themselves and upon other men.  Its peer pressure, and
    its directed at reinforcing one type of behavior ("acceptable") by
    discouraging the other ("unacceptable").  Again- WHY?  Mark, Mike,
    I invite your speculations.
    
    The hypothesis that it is rooted in misogyny and/or homophobia firstly
    requires that we understand those terms.  My take on misogyny includes,
    among other things, that gender roles are to be strictly enforced,
    because what a 'man' is is very largely defined by NOT being what a
    woman is.  That requires labeling of certain behaviors and associated
    phenomena as either masculine or feminine; and it is accompanied by
    pressure directed to people who don't conform.  It is unacceptable to
    both a misogynyst or a homophobe that men, such as himself, exhibit
    behaviors that show that men may actually be like women in some ways,
    that they may wear flowers or appreciate poetry or wear long hair.
    
    As a man with long hair, I have received pressure for it.  I can well
    recognize the pressure.  Now, I can also understand that pressure 
    may come from other drivers; for example, my manager was concerned 
    about my customer's perspective on my long hair, for reasons of
    'professionalism'.  It isn't a concern any longer.  I was able to
    understand my manager's pressure about long hair in one light.  I am
    able to understand it in another light when some guy on the street
    sneeringly tells me to get a haircut.  In the second context, I well
    recognize that someone is attempting to impose his views of appropriate
    gender roles upon me.  The incident with other men and Suzanne's
    husband, and the flower, sounds like that to me.
    
    It requires a much wider examination of the problem of gender-role
    reinforcement to dismiss homophobia or misogyny as possible sources for
    the observed behavior.  Mike Z and Mark, your notes have not done the 
    incident justice.
    
    DougO

>    Hauling out the PI epithet doesn't usually contribute to understanding
>    the phenomena under discussion, in my experience.  Nor do accusations
>    of 'catch-all' buzzwords.  I suggest those terms be dropped.

 What to do, then, when one observes what one believes is a pattern of 
attributing "bad things" to "homophobia" and "misogyny" rather than analyzing
what component, if any, of misogyny or homophobia plays in the "bad thing?"
Mike Valenza wrote a note in another string about an observed phenomenon which
gives the appearance of causing bad things to be identified with males, and
good things to be traced to females. No doubt he will be roundly chastised in
time, but I think it is a valid observation, and I think it applies here to
an extent.

 A noter recounts an unfortunate incident. Immediately, the unfortunate incident
is attributed to misogyny and homophobia, though no women nor homosexuals
were involved (at least none were related in the note in question.) Some of
us have observed a pattern, and have raised an objection to what we consider
to be unfair characterization. And our speaking out is definitely politically
incorrect, whether you object to the term or not.

 Certainly we could have couched our objections in better terms, even made our
arguments more formal. I acknowledge my part in being sarcastic instead of
clear and concise. I also acknowledge that in a male-dominated and oriented
file, the style of noting I used would have been jeered at had it been used
by a woman. So while I believe in what I had to say, I apologize for not
saying it better.

>    A guy gets grief from his peers for wearing a flower.  Why?

 Good question. I can see jealousy as being a possible motive. I can see
all in fun hassling that got out of control as being a possible reason. I can't
see "maybe this married man wearing a flower is a homosexual so I hate him"
as being terribly likely, especially in a professional environment. (In a
different environment, I could though.) I can't see "this guy with the flower
is a femme" either. My honest to God best guess is that a) his coworkers
were just giving him a hard time that got out of control or b) he works with
extremely ignorant and infantile people. c) he is oversensitive is also a
(very) slight possibility.

>My take on misogyny includes,
>    among other things, that gender roles are to be strictly enforced,
>    because what a 'man' is is very largely defined by NOT being what a
>    woman is.

 Part of the reason I am uncomfortable with the concept of misogyny being
responsible is the fact that the definition seems to be increasing to include
more and more things. It seems to me to be getting to be more and more to mean
"bad" in a more generic sense.

>The incident with other men and Suzanne's
>    husband, and the flower, sounds like that to me.

 Had Suzanne's husband had a bouquet of flowers, I'd tend to agree with you.
But wearing a boutonniere is an acceptable male thing to do. Women don't
(often? normally?) wear them. Men do. So I really don't think that the gender
thing is as big of an issue as you seem to. Now, had I been there and observed
the types of verbal and non-verbal cues his coworkers gave him, I might be
inclined to change my mind.

 I am not saying that misogyny and homophobia had nothing to do with the
incident. I am not saying they couldn't be the driving force behind the 
incident. I am saying that I am uncomfortable watching so many things be
attributed to gender differences, especially when that seems to be the default.
Make no mistake about it- many things are indeed a direct (or indirect)
result of gender differences, roles, etc. But I believe that not all are.
And I think I am seeing more attribution of "bad things" to gender differences
etc than is necessary or accurate.

 I am sorry that I managed to derail the topic by bringing this up, especially
in the manner that I did. It was improper. I apologize to Suzanne, and the
rest of the community for disrupting this string. I do not apologize for my
feelings.

 With that, I bid you all adieu. have a nice weekend, people.

 The Doctah

>          <<< Note 990.14 by DECWET::JWHITE "keep on rockin', girl" >>>

>-< try again >-

    Excuse me?  Only if you do.
    
    
>    the underlying concept is male=good, not-male=bad.

    No. To YOU, YOU see this underlying concept, *I* do not see this
    concept at all.  Therefore it is just a perception on both of our
    parts.

>    why did a male get hassled by other males for wearing a lower?

    Why do *I* get hassled when I get sent flowers?  Because when something
    out of the ordinary happens, people like to tease people about it.
    Obviously this man does not always wear a flower to work.  There are a
    few women in my area that rarely EVER wear dresses, but when they do,
    they get hassled and laughed at.  Is this a product of misogyny as
    well?

    Or is it perhaps some of the typical ribbing (that sometimes goes
    overboard) when something out of the ordinary happens?
    
>    traditionally in our society flowers are worn only by not-males.

    Not true.  I see men wearing flowers about as often as I see women
    wearing them (Which isn't often at all....churches, weddings, funerals,
    etc, I certainly RARELY if ever see it in common everyday places).
    
>    (which is bad)

    Your perception.  And a connection that I am unable to make to this
    situation.
    
>    a male wearing a flower is doing a not-male thing- a bad thing-
>    and should be chastised.

    No, I see a person doing something very out of the ordinary and getting
    teased for it.....(teasing that obviously went overboard).
    
    
>    seems pretty straightforward to me.

    Not to me.  Sometimes I think you see things to be much worse than they
    really are.  How many times have YOU teased someone for something?  I
    know I do it sometimes without even thinking about it!  Is it possible
    that this is a case of just some good-natured teasing gone awry?

    I can name MANY MANY instances where I have been treated almost EXACTLY
    the way this man was......by WOMEN as well as men.......are you
    implying then that all these cases were representative of misogyny?

    In this case, I believe your premise that "male=good and not-male=bad"
    has nothing to do with this situation.  What I see that happened here
    was that someone did something very out of the ordinary and he was
    kidded about it.  No one likes to be laughed at, and it is unfortunate
    that it happens, but I had a really hard time stretching this into
    believing that these people were laughing at him for any other reason
    than because it was so out of the ordinary.

    However, I don't know these men, and I definitely can't read their
    minds to see if they hate women, but I sincerely doubt that you can
    either.

    Women get teased all the time for being masculine and men get teased
    all the time for being feminine.  While wearing a flower MIGHT be
    considered a feminine trait and that might lead to some teasing
    about it, I fail to see how the combination of what happened to this
    man and the fact that SOME people harbor misogynic feelings can
    possibly reach the conclusion that this incident was a product of
    misogynic attitudes.  

    It would never stand up in any logic class *I've* ever taken.  What's
    missing here is the proof that joking with someone about something out
    of the ordinary is equivalent to misogyny.  No way, no how am I able to
    see that connection.


    kath
    

I tend to agree with Kathy here - from my experience, this kind of ridicule
stems (if you'll pardon the pun) mostly from that horrible, unspeakable crime,
"being different".  When we don't conform to the norm, our peers tend to
exert tremendous pressure on us to bring us back to the straight and narrow
path.  This happens in all phases of society.

Personally, I love getting flowers, and when in the past I have received
flowers at work, the majority of comments I've had were positive.  Some
(mainly women) were jealous, wishing that THEY could have received such nice
flowers.  I would proudly display them on my desk, and if they came with
big, bright balloons, all the better.  Each time I would look at them, I'd
know someone had been thinking of me and I'd smile.


Regarding flowers - there seems to be some unspoken rule that you can only
send flowers to someone with whom you have some sort of romantic relationship.
I say "fooey" to that, and have cheerfully had flowers delivered to
unsuspecting friends, just because I wanted to brighten their day.  It's
a lot of fun.

					Steve

    re .18, Mike, fine.  Figure out from your dictionary what words are
    used to define a misogynist.  Me, I think the world has a few more 
    shades of gray to it, and an understanding of complex phenomena like 
    hatred of women is not going to come from a dictionary.  Recognizing
    that complex phenomena like reinforced gender roles and misogyny are
    related is also not going to be in your dictionary.  
    
    re .19, Mark, thanks for elevating your level of discussion.
    
    > What to do, then, when one observes what one believes is a pattern
    > of attributing "bad things" to "homophobia" and "misogyny" rather
    > than analyzing what component, if any, of misogyny or homophobia 
    > plays in the "bad thing?"
    
    Well...one could grant people the benefit of the doubt.  The underlying
    'analysis' was obvious to me, and the stated conclusion triggered
    enough associations for me to understand and even to agree with that
    analysis.  I would rather you had merely asked why the attribution was
    made.  Water under the bridge, now, and I do appreciate your more
    thoughtful approach this round.  The point is that "PI" stifles rather
    than promotes discussion.
    
    >  A noter recounts an unfortunate incident. Immediately, the
    > unfortunate incident is attributed to misogyny and homophobia, though 
    > no women nor homosexuals were involved (at least none were related in 
    > the note in question.) 
    
    Whoa.  That's way too simplistic, Mark.  Homophobia and misogyny are
    attitudes that can be carried by men; deep seated attitudes, affecting
    behavior in far more subtle manners than only directly against women or
    homosexuals.  Not only does a male misogynist hate women, he jealously
    guards the male gender role, because he finds any suggestion that men 
    can be a little bit like women to be threatening to his mental image 
    of 'what a man is'.  An effeminate appearance in a man can bring out his
    homophobic or misogynistic attitude, even if no homosexuals or women
    are present.
    
    >> My take on misogyny includes, among other things, that gender roles 
    >> are to be strictly enforced, because what a 'man' is is very largely 
    >> defined by NOT being what a woman is.
    >
    > Part of the reason I am uncomfortable with the concept of misogyny
    > being responsible is the fact that the definition seems to be
    > increasing to include more and more things. It seems to me to be
    > getting to be more and more to mean "bad" in a more generic sense.
    
    Perhps we should spend a little more time on the definition, then.  
    When I speak of misogyny, yes, a whole host of related sociological
    problems come to mind and are associated by me with that term.
    
    >> A guy gets grief from his peers for wearing a flower.  Why?
    > 
    > Good question. I can see jealousy as being a possible motive. I can
    > see all in fun hassling that got out of control as being a possible
    > reason. I can't see "maybe this married man wearing a flower is a 
    > homosexual so I hate him" as being terribly likely, especially in 
    > a professional environment. (In a different environment, I could 
    > though.) I can't see "this guy with the flower is a femme" either. 
    
    I think I agree that subvocalized "I hate him" is not likely to be a
    factor here.  Jealousy, perhaps.  "This guy is a femme"...thats another
    story.  The problem isn't so obvious, though- I don't think that the 
    kind of man I'm worried about ever brings into conscious thought his 
    distaste at another's appearance.  It just 'bugs him'.  He just isn't
    comfortable with a man wearing the flower, the slightly "feminine"  
    appearance, as he perceives it...nor does he understand his own 
    feelings...but reacts with his mouth and gives his coworker a hard
    time.  The problem is lack of conscious thought.
    
    > My honest to God best guess is that a) his coworkers were just giving 
    > him a hard time that got out of control or b) he works with extremely 
    > ignorant and infantile people. c) he is oversensitive is also a
    > (very) slight possibility.
    
    a and b) yes, but that's the point.  How did it get out of control?  
    I think that the kind of people who make remarks like that do not
    recognize their culturally-induced inhibitions against men with a
    feminine appearance...and just react to their ingrained training.
    And that training, in my view, comes to us as part of society's package
    of 'proper' roles for men.
    
    Make no mistake.  I'm not saying that all men are given anything so
    obvious as woman-hate class 101.  Nope, the misogynistic influences
    here are much more subtle.  I recognize anybody who tries to tell me
    that 'a man does this' when clearly, I don't (in challenging me because
    my image of what a man is conflicts with theirs), as manifesting behavior 
    that often comes out of a misogynistic root belief system.
    
    >  Had Suzanne's husband had a bouquet of flowers, I'd tend to agree
    > with you.  But wearing a boutonniere is an acceptable male thing to do.
    
    To you, and to me, and to society in general.  But not to his
    coworkers.  Why not?  What else is going on here?  Suzanne's
    description indicated that he didn't get the pressure after he 
    took the flower off and left it on his desk.  What was it about 
    his appearance with a flower that incited the remarks?  Something
    about his appearance triggered his coworkers.
    
    > Now, had I been there and observed the types of verbal and non-verbal 
    > cues his coworkers gave him, I might be inclined to change my mind.
    
    I guess we'll have to decipher the issue without that, though.  Because
    of my own exposure to attempted gender role reinforcement, and from
    Suzanne's description of her husband's feelings at the end of the day,
    I can all too easily picture for myself just what kinds of cues were
    given.  If you haven't been there, I guess its harder for you.
    
    > I am saying that I am uncomfortable watching so many things be 
    > attributed to gender differences, especially when that seems to be
    > the default.  Make no mistake about it- many things are indeed a direct
    > (or indirect) result of gender differences, roles, etc. But I believe 
    > that not all are.  And I think I am seeing more attribution of "bad
    > things" to gender differences etc than is necessary or accurate.
      
    Perhaps those who are using the attribution could spend more time
    explaining their analyses.  But I don't think that finding misogyny
    and homophobia throughout the problems of our culture is such an
    unlikely possibility as you suggest.
    
    DougO

    re:.20
    
>    the underlying concept is male=good, not-male=bad.

    No. To YOU, YOU see this underlying concept, *I* do not see this
    concept at all.  Therefore it is just a perception on both of our
    parts.

	>i know you do not see this concept. i'm trying to get you
	 to see it. that does not make it just a perception. it is the
	 axiomatic premise from which i am trying to draw conclusions.
	 obviously, to you it is not axiomatic. therefore, i can
	 only hope that the conclusions drawn are compelling.

>    why did a male get hassled by other males for wearing a lower?

    Why do *I* get hassled when I get sent flowers?  Because when something
    out of the ordinary happens, people like to tease people about it.

	>why *do* people do this? perhaps, as mr. lionel has suggested, in
	 our society different=bad. i would go further and suggest that
	 that's really the same thing: male=normal, not-male=different=bad.

    Obviously this man does not always wear a flower to work.  There are a
    few women in my area that rarely EVER wear dresses, but when they do,
    they get hassled and laughed at.  Is this a product of misogyny as
    well?

	>of course.

    Or is it perhaps some of the typical ribbing (that sometimes goes
    overboard) when something out of the ordinary happens?

	>why is this 'ribbing' typical and why does it sometimes
	 go overboard?
    
>    traditionally in our society flowers are worn only by not-males.

    Not true.  I see men wearing flowers about as often as I see women
    wearing them (Which isn't often at all....churches, weddings, funerals,
    etc, I certainly RARELY if ever see it in common everyday places).

	>as you would say, not true TO YOU. my experience is exactly
	 the opposite. which is a more accurate description of our
	 society's traditions?
    
>    (which is bad)

    Your perception.  And a connection that I am unable to make to this
    situation.
    
	>not my perception, my deduction from the original premise:
	 not-male=bad

>    a male wearing a flower is doing a not-male thing- a bad thing-
>    and should be chastised.

    No, I see a person doing something very out of the ordinary and getting
    teased for it.....(teasing that obviously went overboard).

	>and i'm trying to look beyond that
        
>    seems pretty straightforward to me.

    Not to me.  Sometimes I think you see things to be much worse than they
    really are.  How many times have YOU teased someone for something?  I
    know I do it sometimes without even thinking about it!  Is it possible
    that this is a case of just some good-natured teasing gone awry?

	>possible, yes. likely? maybe. a useful way to think about it? no.

    I can name MANY MANY instances where I have been treated almost EXACTLY
    the way this man was......by WOMEN as well as men.......are you
    implying then that all these cases were representative of misogyny?

	>yes

    In this case, I believe your premise that "male=good and not-male=bad"
    has nothing to do with this situation.  What I see that happened here
    was that someone did something very out of the ordinary and he was
    kidded about it.  No one likes to be laughed at, and it is unfortunate
    that it happens, but I had a really hard time stretching this into
    believing that these people were laughing at him for any other reason
    than because it was so out of the ordinary.

	>i find it extremely useful to 'stretch' this. why do we laugh
	 at things out of the ordinary? what is ordinary? why are
	 not-male things considered out of the ordinary? why do we
	 sometimes do worse than laugh at things out of the ordinary?

    However, I don't know these men, and I definitely can't read their
    minds to see if they hate women, but I sincerely doubt that you can
    either.

	>you doubt correctly. however, i'm not really interested in
	 what these specific men were thinking. if these guys were
	 obnoxious and hurtful for some other reason, fine. but i
	 certainly think it's worth it to explore the possibility
	 that 'not-male hatred' filters down into even the most
	 trivial aspects of our lives.
	 
    Women get teased all the time for being masculine and men get teased
    all the time for being feminine.  While wearing a flower MIGHT be
    considered a feminine trait and that might lead to some teasing
    about it, I fail to see how the combination of what happened to this
    man and the fact that SOME people harbor misogynic feelings can
    possibly reach the conclusion that this incident was a product of
    misogynic attitudes.  

	>i am quite agree that we have no way of knowing what these
	 particular men were thinking. therefore, we must speculate.
	 your speculation suggests that they were reacting negatively
	 (in the broad sense of the word) to something out of the ordinary:
	 x!=ordinary, therefore bad. my speculation is that they were 
	 reacting negatively to something not-male: x!=male, therefore bad. 
	 if both not-male and not-ordinary are bad, are not-male and
	 not-ordinary equivalent (a=c,b=c,a=b)? 
	 
    It would never stand up in any logic class *I've* ever taken.  What's
    missing here is the proof that joking with someone about something out
    of the ordinary is equivalent to misogyny.  No way, no how am I able to
    see that connection.
	
	>i confess i've never taken a logic class. i submit, however, that
	 you have no more proof than i. i maintain that exploring the
	 misogyny angle is more useful (besides being perfectly obvious
	 to me).

    kath

	>j
    

>          <<< Note 990.23 by DECWET::JWHITE "keep on rockin', girl" >>>


    I find it really hard to follow your notes when you include three
    levels of replies in it.
    
>	>why *do* people do this? perhaps, as mr. lionel has suggested, in
>	 our society different=bad. i would go further and suggest that
>	 that's really the same thing: male=normal, not-male=different=bad.

    Yes, in some realms your "male=normal, not-male=different=bad" is a
    good indicator of what is going on.  However, I still cannot make the
    connection that not-male=bad has anything to do with this situation.
    Yes, people do think this way.  No, I see it as a factor in this
    situation.

    The problem here is that I definitely see the "different=bad"
    connection, but I, in no way, can add, given the information Suzanne
    has presented, the "not-male=" to the front of that.
    
>	>i find it extremely useful to 'stretch' this. why do we laugh
>	 at things out of the ordinary? what is ordinary? why are
>	 not-male things considered out of the ordinary? why do we
>	 sometimes do worse than laugh at things out of the ordinary?

    Because they are not something done withing the "norms" of society.
    Because we feel uncomfortable with people that are different than us.
    "Not-male" things are the same as different things.  In fact,
    "not-male" things could quite probably fall into the category of
    "different" things.

    What we have here is an occurance of someone doing something out of the
    norm, ie, different.  It falls into the "different=bad" scenario.  But
    can we say that it falls into the sub-category of that scenario that
    "different=not-male=bad" scenario?  I cannot make, given the facts,
    that assumption.  "Different" yes, "not-male different" I have no idea.
    Perhaps it's an "accepted attire" scenario or something like that.

    I have to admit that if I saw someone at work wearing a flower, I would
    comment on it and wonder why they were wearing it.  It would be
    something for my mind to ponder......after all, it's not a common
    occurance.
    
>	 if both not-male and not-ordinary are bad, are not-male and
>	 not-ordinary equivalent (a=c,b=c,a=b)? 

    Let me give you a quick logic course.

    a:  not-male
    b:  different
    c:  bad

    give your premise that
		a implies c
    and my premise that
		b implies c

    it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a correlation between a and b.

    So, I see it as b implies c.  And you see it as a implies c.  We both
    may be right, we both may be wrong.  But given the facts we've been
    given, we can make absolutely NO assumption that a = b in any way or
    even that a implies b.  Neither conclusion can be reached.
    
>	>i confess i've never taken a logic class. i submit, however, that
>	 you have no more proof than i. i maintain that exploring the
>	 misogyny angle is more useful (besides being perfectly obvious
>	 to me).

    You find it useful, I find it damaging because it misses an entire
    realm of discussion.  I would rather look at the
    whole and say that when people run across something or someone that is
    different than them in any way, they tend to put up a defense mechanism
    against that difference.  Be the difference a flower on a lapel, or a
    person in a wheelchair, or a person with long hair, or a person that is
    black, or a person that is albino, or a person that wears leather and
    has a pierced earring, or a person that ANYTHING.

    Many times people don't understand differences between themselves and
    others and they hide/become uncomfortable/fight that difference/don't
    know how to react/joke about it/etc.

    I find it more beneficial to the entire discussion to look at it from a
    viewpoint of difference instead of hatred of women.  Hatred of women
    limits it a point where we can't discuss the actual differences that
    caused the scenario to happen.  Perhaps misogyny is a part of it, I
    don't know, but I certainly know that a discussion of differences can
    encompass misogyny where the reverse cannot.


    kathy

    "Not-male" things are the same as different things.  In fact,
    "not-male" things could quite probably fall into the category of
    "different" things.

    >exactly.

    Let me give you a quick logic course.

    >i don't need a quick logic course; thanks anyway

    I find it more beneficial to the entire discussion to look at it from a
    viewpoint of difference instead of hatred of women.  Hatred of women
    limits it a point where we can't discuss the actual differences that
    caused the scenario to happen.  Perhaps misogyny is a part of it, I
    don't know, but I certainly know that a discussion of differences can
    encompass misogyny where the reverse cannot.

	>is misogyny a subset of hatred of difference or is hatred of
    	difference a subset of misogyny? i disagree that the latter is
    	not worth exploring and i disagree that it limits the
    	discussion.
   

>          <<< Note 990.25 by DECWET::JWHITE "keep on rockin', girl" >>>

>	>is misogyny a subset of hatred of difference

	 Yes.
	 
>or is hatred of
>    	difference a subset of misogyny? i disagree that the latter is
>    	not worth exploring and i disagree that it limits the
>    	discussion.

	 I never said it wasn't worth exploring, I said it could be
	 damaging to explore it as the sole factor in this scenario.


	 kathy   

    Well I've always loved to boggle my boyfriends' minds in the past by
    giving them a rose "just because".  The coolest way I did it was when
    he was living in a dorm, and was conveniently elsewhere for a few hours 
    - and I discovered a guy in the dorm I didn't even know had a
    room with a locked adjoining door (it was an old "converted" house
    serving as a dorm).  After explaining the situation, I asked him to 
    let me through the door and with a little furniture moved around, I
    "broke in" and left him the rose in a brandy snifter, right by his bed.  
    Boy, I would have loved to be there to see the look on his face when he
    came home that night.....;).
    
    I don't think he was too severely cuckolded for getting the rose, but
    that may be because he didn't wear it (carnations seem to be more
    acceptable for men to wear than roses)
    
    -Jody
    

    > 	So, DougO, am I a misogynist, a homophobe, or both?
    
    Why, Mike, I thought you'd look that up in your dictionary.
    
    Razzing is one thing, ruining someone's day to the point where they
    take off the flower to escape the unwanted pressure is another.  Did
    you ruin your coworker's day with the pressure?  Did he tuck the
    balloons away where they'd be out of sight?  If you pressured him 
    so much that he felt uncomfortable and put away the gifts of his SO 
    to escape your harassment, then tell me:  why did you give him such 
    a hard time?
    
    And if you aren't quite so rude and insensitive to your coworkers as 
    to have to answer "yes" above, then why did you bring your story up? 
    It isn't relevant.  Your 'razzing' and the kinds of pressure that
    Suzanne's husband got are two different things.
    
    DougO

>      <<< Note 990.29 by SKYLRK::OLSON "Trouble ahead, trouble behind!" >>>

>    It isn't relevant.  Your 'razzing' and the kinds of pressure that
>    Suzanne's husband got are two different things.


	 Well, actually, we don't know that for sure.  it could have
	 been simple razzing and suzanne's husband could possibly have
	 just taken the simple razzing too seriously.....perhaps he
	 was a little insecure himself about wearing it in such an
	 environment.....

	 either way, we don't know, so it's pure speculation on
	 everyone's part.

	 Were someone to take simple razzing personally, would that
	 mean that all of a sudden it was misogyny/homophobia?  Are
	 any of us capable of reading another person's mind to know
	 how they would react to any sort of stimulation we would give
	 them?

	 I see three scenarios....once where it's really a hatred of
	 difference, one where it's a case of taking something to
	 personally, and what this is a combination of the two.

	 I think, perhaps, it take two to tango, and very rarely in
	 this sort of scenario do I feel that any one person blameless.


	 kath_who_takes_a_lot_of_things_to_seriously_but_it's_not_totally_her
		fault_--_it_takes_two

    re .31, Mike-
     
    Interesting to see what you quoted from .0 and what you didn't.
    These things were also said.
    
    .0> Well for [m]y husband, his day wasn't so happy.  When I got home 
      > I could tell he was upset and in a bad mood. [...] and then the 
      > grief started flying. [...]  Then he started asking me why are 
      > people so cruel?  These aren't kids in a school yard, we know 
      > they can be cruel, but these are full grown adults!
    
    You didn't answer my questions about your story, Mike; I asked you 
    if you were so cruel and insensitive to your coworker as Suzanne's
    husband's coworkers were to him.  Until you answer that question,
    and the other questions in the same note (see .29) I'll doubt 
    your assertion that "The situations are parallel."  And when you 
    answer those questions, I'll tell you if I find your actions either
    misogynistic or homophobobic, or other.
    
    >	You seem to be willing to cast judgment based on the contents
    >of .0.  Now, in .28 I give you a similar situation and am curious
    >to learn if that alone is enough for you (or anyone) to conclude
    >what has been concluded about Suzanne's SO's coworkers.
    
    One- I didn't cast judgement.  I defended someone else's assertion 
    that these behaviors may plausibly have their bases in misogyny and
    homophobia, when you and Mark sarcastically dismissed the assertions
    out-of-hand.  I found the ideas worth pursuing and certainly more
    deserving of respect and discussion than to be so rudely treated.
    Mark at least had the grace to apologize for it.
    
    Two, until you answer my questions in .29, I don't have enough 
    information to conclude that the incidents were indeed "similar"
    and no, without that information, I can't make any 'conclusion'.
    
    DougO

    re .30, Kath-
    
    The grief Suzanne described went on for hours.  When people
    tease me and unexpectedly hit a nerve that hurts my feelings,
    I know that they are sensitive to my feelings and to their own 
    words if they apologize or at the least, back off.  Ok, so some
    people just aren't that sensitive to the effect their words can 
    have, and they hurt other people's feelings indiscriminately.  
    Are they excused for their cruelty on those grounds?
    
    I agree that one has to *allow* other people's words to hurt you;
    usually it happens when your default is to trust people you think 
    you know, and let yourself feel vulnerable regarding them.  When 
    that trust is breached, yes, you are partly responsible for trusting
    people who have turned out to be insensitive to your feelings.  But
    they are still responsible for being insensitive!  I think Suzanne's
    husband has learned an unpleasant lesson about his coworkers and their
    lack of concern for his feelings.  In that respect, your analysis of
    this incident is on target, and I freely acknowledge it.  I have been
    focusing on the roots of the coworkers' insensitivity, though.
     
    DougO

    re .35, Mike-
    
    You wanted me to tell you if your actions were misogynistic or 
    homophobic when you hassled your coworker.  Without the kind of 
    details Suzanne provided in the basenote about what effect your 
    "razzing" had on your victim, (which you still haven't provided 
    though I've asked twice) you haven't provided enough evidence of 
    your actions for us to know if the cases are similar, though you
    have declared them "parallel".  If you want to discuss the case
    within terms of your experience, fine.  Provide the details I've
    requested.  If not, your polemics, such as...  
    
    >.33> You didn't answer my questions about your story, Mike; I asked you 
    >.33> if you were so cruel and insensitive to your coworker as Suzanne's
    >.33> husband's coworkers were to him.
    >
    >	The amount/duration/severity of abuse does not determine the cause.
    
    aren't interesting.  You are asserting the contrary to an argument
    that hasn't been made (ie, you just set up a strawman.)  Answer the
    questions from .29, or admit why you haven't.  (I suspect the answers 
    don't support your case.)
    
    >.33> when you and Mark sarcastically dismissed the assertions out-of-hand.
    >
    >	That's not true.
    >
    >	I maintain that...
    
    Oh, fine.  You maintain NOW.  First I've seen of a real position out 
    of you.  What did you say originally?
    
>Note 990.12                Valentines Flowers for Men                 12 of 35
>MILKWY::ZARLENGA "I guess 12 minutes was too long"   8 lines 16-FEB-1990 14:16
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>.4> I'm confused as to why two people have attributed the grief to misogyny and
>.4>homophobia.
>
>	Those two phrases have become two of the more popular modern day
>    catch-alls.
>
>-mike z
    
    Looks like a sarcastic dismissal to me.  Don't tell me my statement
    wasn't true.  Perhaps you can explain your .12 as readable in some
    other light, non-sarcastically- I invite you to make the attempt.
    
    > Unless there is more evidence, it is wrong to claim that
    > misogyny or homophobia is to blaim for the situation cited in .0.
    
    'wrong'?  According to you, maybe.  If you can't counter the positions 
    I've expressed in the serious portions of this string (.22 and .34) 
    then you are demonstrably incorrect.  But make sure, please, that you
    argue with the positions I've taken, not your straw men.  Until you
    and I agree that you have refuted my arguments, I'll thank you not to
    characterize them as 'wrong'.
    
    > It is not my fault that some people here are making incorrect
    > accusations; what do I have to apologize for?
    
    Let me refer you to Mark's recognition that his contribution hindered
    rather than improved the tenor of the debate.  See .19.  The point is
    that attempting to correct what you see as an incorrect assertion in 
    good faith is usually more acceptable than sarcastic dismissal of it
    as a frequently used "catch-all".
    
    DougO

    The phrase is used more often.  But it isn't the people who use it who
    are losing track of what it means; we're actually trying to understand
    it in all of its subtle ramifications, exploring the interplay of
    hatred-of-other, alienation, and fear as they are reflected in twisted
    incidents in our culture; from the admittedly minor incident of the
    basenote up to the horrendous scale of the murders in Montreal.
    
    If you don't care to join the discussion, Mike, I'm sure I'm not the
    only one who'd at least appreciate your not hindering it.
    
    DougO

Recently something like this happened to my niece:

This is a teenager that generally *plays* by the rules, i.e., does what's 
necessary to be popular and fit it, etc.., especially when it comes to clothes 
(she can even be quite preppy (yuk))!

While shoping recently, we happened by a nice little boutique (sort of 60 
ish).  She found a very nice skirt, vest and turtleneck, and a wonderful funky
belt; put it all together and it looked great!

As I added up the various price tags (mega dollars here), I felt the need to
ask her, "will you *really* wear this--to school, to events, to parties, etc."
She confirmed with a resounding -- YES! YES! YES!.   I pushed more, "you know
this is a *real* departure for you, it doesn't have any *name brand tags* stuck
to the outside pockets, collar, across the behind, etc."   She still hung 
in-- and why not--the outfit was just right, it looked great, it was bit more 
sophisticated than the usual 13 year old would probably wear.

Now, school the next day, she wears the outfit, what do you think happens?
The girls love the outfit, the teachers love the outfit, the *BOYS* tease her,
one young man actually said he couldn't walk next to her while she was wearing
that outfit!

As I thought about this, I wondered *what* about the outfit made the boys 
tease her?  What made them so in-secure that they couldn't allow someone to be
just a little different?  Were they actually threatened by the way someone
dressed?  OR, was this  "Gee, I really like that outfit on you, but I 
don't know how to say it"?

Any thoughts, etc.?

Deb

    Quite frankly I'm disgusted with all the flack that's flying around
    here.  I entered the note because I was feeling down because my husband
    was feeling down.  This arguing - "Well it's because of this" "I don't
    agree" "Your making assumptions" is almost certainly as bad as the
    original scenerio.  And it is definitely not getting anywhere.
    
    I guess what it comes right down to is the office workers were
    insensitive an immature.  None of us will ever know why they are this
    way or what kind of remarks were made.  Some of us believe that
    the "razzing" was rooted in the fact that he was doing something
    considered more feminine.
    
    Quite frankly I'm sorry I even put this note in here now.
    
    Suzanne
    
    

    re: "the *BOYS* tease her"
    
    Waddabuncha twerps.  I hope she hangs in there.  There's a chance that
    she'll find a guy who also dares to be different in a nice kind of way.
    
    ed
    
    Btw, re: the base note.  I never had anyone make fun of any of my
    valentines or flowers.  Some were even envious of "The Cancan Girl Valentine"
    at MKO around 1979-80.  If they laughed it was probably out of jealousy.

I'm really sorry Suzanne. I was afraid of that. As a medium for support, notes
suck.

Hugs to you, and your honey.
	Mez

    Suzanne,
    
    It can be very frustrating when people take your basenote and run with
    it in a direction that you had neither intended or expected.
    
    However, I do think that your entering that note has prvoided an
    opportunity for valuable dialogue and some personal introspection
    for a number of people.
    
    Even if it got rather widely away from your original thoughts in
    entering it.
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie

    Mez you certainly didn't start the rat hole but thanks for your hug
    anyway!  I have to admit that I probably did it my including that catch
    all phrase (as some have referred to it as) HOMOPHOBIC.  I guess I
    should know after reading this file, mostly read only for 2 years, that
    there isn't a heck of a lot of support in this file.  I did want some
    ideas from people, conversation, "introspection" into our ideas of what
    is "accepted" and "expected", why people cannot accept differences in
    others etc.  And maybe a few hugs too along the way!
    
    I did not want to start a tit for tat argument note which this seems to
    be turning into.
    
    Suzanne
    
    

    Suzanne, I too feel sad that the results have made you regret posting
    the note.  I think there is actually a lot of support available in this
    community...it's just that it's not always obvious to people what's
    wanted.  Plus the questions of "homophobia" and "misogyny" are very
    vexed:  everyone knows exactly what they mean or at least what they
    don't mean...but no two definitions are the same.  Makes for a lot of
    heat.
    
    Shall we see if we can't get it back on a track more along the lines
    you intended?
    
    						=maggie

>                     <<< Note 990.44 by ACESMK::POIRIER >>>


	 Suzanne.

	 I'd like to think that you're wrong in thinking that you're
	 not getting support about this situation.  Just because there
	 is a discussion going on about WHY it happened has absolutely
	 NOTHING to do with how terrible everyone feels about what
	 happened to your husband.

	 We can either sit here and say "Oh, Suzanne we're sorry!" and
	 "Here's a hug" etc etc etc, or we can try to *examine* why it
	 happened and perhaps examine our OWN motives when we tease
	 someone.  Thru this topic you've given people in here the
	 chance to explore themselves and to discuss the scenario as
	 it applies to our lives and our actions.

         Just because we don't give you sweet platitudes constantly
         does NOT mean that we are not supportive of you and what
         happened to your husband.  It just means that we want to get
         something out of what has happened. We want to learn and we
         want to grow.

         If that growing means a discussion about the motives behind
         what these people did, then so be it.  But NEVER NEVER NEVER
         does that detract from the support we offer you.



	 Discussion is part of learning. 



	 kath    

Suzanne,

My boyfriend experienced something similar on Christmas, when I gave
him one of those ornament earrings to wear at work (I wore one too),
and also on Valentine's Day when I made him a heart earring (one for
me too).  No one said a word about the earrings I wore, maybe because
females are supposed to celebrate holidays in cutesy little ways.  He
did receive comments though and said he ignored all the teasing ones.

I've rarely met someone who teases for sincerely positive reasons.  I
always feel there's an underlying negativity involved, and can easily
end up in hurt feelings.  At which point the teaser usually says, "aw 
c'mon, I was only kidding," or "where's your sense of humor," or some-
thing equally lame.

Fortunately, there are many people in this world who don't feel it's 
necessary to resort to "razzing" other people for having a lifestyle 
that supports unique and unconventional experiences.  Unfortunately,
there aren't enough of them.

Carla

    
    Kath,
    
    I certainly did not want sweet platitudes from anyone!  At all!
    I don't need "we're sorry" and I don't need your hugs.  It's not like
    we are crying ourselves to sleep about this 5 days later.  This
    is not a big deal.  Perhaps I would have even forgotten about this if I
    hadn't taken the time to write this note!
    
    Damn it you people will argue til there is no tomorrow. That's what I'm
    sick of - "It's homophobic" "No it's not", "Yes it is"  "No it's not"
    ad nauseum.  You're not discussing why it happened - you're arguing
    whether or not it is homophobia or misogyny; catch all phrases or not a
    catch all phrase.   I haven't seen anything in here about growing or
    understanding - I've seen bickering.
    
    I was just trying to understand why we can be so cruel and insensitive
    to people.  And I would love to see more insight, discussion and
    learning from this kind of situation.  Nonconformity, doing things that
    may be considered feminine( for a man) or masculine (for a woman) 
    or out of the ordinary - this all good topic of converstation.
    
    I already put in a note a few back on what I expected from this note -
    and if you don't want to continue down that path fine.  Leave me out of
    it.
    
    Suzanne
                           

    I don't want to deride this conversation or belittle those that have
    entered valid arguments, discussion, similar situations and hugs.  They are
    appreciated.
    
    Suzanne
    
    

    I enjoy teasing, and I think I even like being teased.  Gentle teasing
    of or by a friend, that is (though often I just don't "get it" and the
    effort is wasted), I'm certainly not keen on the vicious stuff.  Why? 
    hmmm...I think maybe because to do it well, the teaser and her "victim"
    have to be close, and teasing is a way to acknowledge that closeness
    while at the same time "getting her/him [the victim] going" and getting
    some attention.  Since my goal is fun, I'm typically surprised,
    embarrassed, and sad if I misjudge and the person's leg comes off in my
    hand.  And I apologise for my mistake.
    
    What about the kind that ends up in "what's the matter can't you take a
    joke?"?  To me that seems very different, and maybe not proper teasing
    at all...more like hostility thinly disguised.
    
    Why would somebody want to not be straightforwardly hostile?  I mean,
    if they don't like the idea of a man wearing a flower, why not just
    come right out and *say* so?
    
    						=maggie

    Well, I can't say I don't understand why Suzanne's upset about entering
    this note--I was sitting here wondering why everyone was trading
    nasty remarks back and forth myself (okie, EVERYONE is an exaggeration)
    over definitions.
    
    Whether or not homophobia or mysogny *were* the deep-rooted cause
    of the teasing isn't exactly clear.  If we are looking for a
    broad-brush answer for why people can be so cruel, the answer is
    because people are people.  A vague and complex answer for a complex
    species.  Since I wasn't there to witness the people teasing Suzanne's
    husband, all I can guess that either:
    
    a) they were "just" teasing because he was a guy wearing a flower
    and he reacted "too sensitively" to it
    
    b) they just were being out and out mean (teasing can snowball esp.
    if the teasers already have some malice to get out)
    
    c) they were teasing too much and didn't realize when they'd gone
    too far
    
    d) as a group, the co-workers don't approve of men wearing flowers
    for whatever reasons (because it gives an appearance of sissiness,
    looks funny, etc)
    
    As for growth and understanding, the only way this situation might
    not happen again is for all people to think it's okay for a man
    to get a Valentine Flower from someone else and wear it.
    
    And, as a personal aside to Suzanne, I'd say to Hell with your hubby's
    coworkers.  If I were him, I'd wear a flower any time I felt like
    it.
    
    ---kim

What a great idea kim. I'll try to remember to start a 'flowers for everybody'
or, if I'm really bold, a 'flowers for every guy' movement next Valentine's day
(unless somebody can come up with a nearer flower-holiday).
	Mez

... not directly related, but.

Rick & I spent several years at cross-purposes over the whole Flowers Issue.

He'd send flowers [or balloons] to me at work and I'd bring them home that
same day and gaze at them in wonder whenever I was at home until they 
disintegrated.

I'd surprise him by bringing flowers home, and he'd take them in to work the
next day and prominently display or wear them until they fossilised.

He was proud and thrilled that I'd give him flowers and wanted everyone to 
know that he was special to me and here was visible proof, so there.  I was 
happy for him and his pleasure was a special gift.

He was hurt that I didn't evince the same behaviour.  However, having flowers
at work was [and I suppose still would be] a most unpleasant experience for 
_me_.  People would come to ooh and ahh and compliment my flowers and then would
begin the Spanish Inquisition because my reaction was 'not appropriate'  --
'did you have a fight? you don't seem happy!'...'if _I_ got flowers I'd be
THRILLED. What's wrong with you?!?' and that ilk.

How do react I to flowers?  My reaction is to gaze at them and get to know them
and to smell them and to touch them and to think about the special person who 
sent them.  My quiet wonderment is _not_ what those around me expect from a 
woman who receives flowers; hence, my wistful smiles are taken as sadness and
I am castigated for not properly appreciating them [or something].

Rick has seen me carry around a rose or a daisy until it's completely destroyed
enough times to know that I love flowers [heck, one Saturday morning I took
5 mylar balloons on my morning run because I couldn't bear to be parted from 
them], and now he understands why work isn't the happiest place for me to have
them.

He also understands that my employers appreciate that I don't keep flowers or
balloons in the office because I am not productive when I'm sharing space with
them ... 8^).

  Ann

    Just a reflection on Valentine's Day on my part; probably completely off 
    the wall.
    
    For the past couple of years,  I have been wondering why do we
    send flowers, cards or candy to our loved ones on Valentine's Day?
    I know there are no laws that said that you have to spend a fortune
    on flowers that are way overpriced for that 'special day'.  Yet I feel
    bad not receiving any from my finace, even though I am the one who told
    him NEVER to send anything over FTD again.  
    
    Seems to me that if you really care about someone, you should let the
    person know throughout the year, thus Valentine's Day is not necessary.
    I guess for my part I would rather be surprised and receive flowers for
    no reason at all, other than that the special someone is thinking of
    me.
    
    Valentine's Day is supposed to be for sweethearts to say how much they
    appreciate each other, but I think it's turning out to be a field day
    for florists and also a depressing day for un-attached people.
    
    BTW, my finace (who do not even care for flowers) told me, with a note
    of envy, how his officemate received a plant bouquet from his wife on 
    Valentine's Day.  Maybe it's a hint that he didn't feel loved enough.  
    I guess I should remedy that.  8)
    
    Just a thought.
    
    -Stella  

    	RE: 990.55
    
    	I agree totally, but never more strongly than during the
    	Christmas holidays. Especially when you can wait a day
    	or two and get things at 50% off.
    
    	Scott

RE: .55

    I've made  a  point  of sending my fiance some joke on flowers for
    Valentine's  day. Last year I gave her flours (white, whole wheat,
    corn,  ...),  and  this  year  I  put  a  flower  made out of cake
    decorating  icing on her favorite brownies. I don't know what I'll
    do next year, but suggestions would be appreciated.

--David

    Re something...
    
    Lorna...  You could have had one of the dozen sent to me...  I got two,
    and one dozen I wished I had not... I'd rather not get flowers, then
    get them for someone whom I wished didn't send them!!!
    
    Re: men getting flowers.. funny, I started a topic just like that
    in Human Relations last year, before I decided to send him flowers... he
    loved them...  
    
    I have sent men flowers at work before...  most have liked them, but I 
    do know of two men (both =wn= readers) that would kill almost all
    women that send them flowers... 
     
    I've glad not all men are like the above example though :-)

    Re Gale, sure now you say that!  Now that the 2 dozen roses are
    withered and thrown out! :-)  (maybe next time)
    
    Actually, it didn't bother me that I didn't get flowers sent to
    me for Valentine's Day because I'm used to *not* getting them. 
    It didn't even enter my mind to think about getting flowers until
    I saw somebody else's flowers and the comment was made asking me
    where mine were.  That didn't even make me feel bad, it just made
    me think that *if* I cared if I got flowers I might have felt bad
    when he said that.  
    
    Regarding getting flowers on Valentine's Day, reading this topic
    has made me realize something I might have been happier never
    realizing.  I have *never* in my entire life gotten flowers for
    Valentine's Day, and I'm 40 yrs. old, was once married for 12 yrs.,
    lived with another guy for 2 1/2 yrs. once, and a third guy for
    2 yrs., and yet I have *never* gotten flowers on Valentine's Day.
     Can anyone else make the same claim?!  I guess I'm just not the
    type who inspires such romantic notions. :-(
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna -
    
    Yes, I can make the same claim to *never* getting flowers for
    Valentine's that you have.  In fact, I have only gotten flowers
    sent to me at work *once* in my entire lifetime.  It was so unexpected
    (from a man with whom I was having a 'first date' that evening)
    that it made me uncomfortable.
    
    Apparently some of us just don't project an image that makes receiving
    flowers appropriate.
    
    Alison

    Well, Alison and Lorns, don't feel alone. I've never gotten flowers for
    Valentine's Day either. Sigh, I suppose that's why I'm a *cynical*
    romantic and not just a *hopeless* one. liesl

    Why not send flowers just for the heck of it?
    
    I didn't join the "FTD Shuffle" on the 14th, but every now and then,
    I'll pick up a small surprise or order some flowers, "just because". 
    (I left my fiance some chocolate hearts one morning, but he didn't find
    them right away because the cat had torpedoed them under the
    furniture!)
    
    As with all the major holidays, they've become too commercial, so I
    prefer to celebrate the un-holidays, when it's not expected.  (Okay, so
    I'll get some marshmellow chicks and chocolate eggs at Easter and I
    have fun filling Xmas stockings...)
    
    	Grandparent's day
    	Secretary's day
    	Boss' day
    	(you name it) day
    
    These are created by the greeting card industry to sell a product. 
    I'd rather celebrate my own way, recognizing those who are special to
    me, rather than feeling pressured by an industry.
    

	When I see a roadside stand selling flowers, I buy some on the
spur of the moment.  On St V's day, I didn't buy flowers but I found
some addressed to me when I got home.  I loved it!

BTW - I asked, she would never send me flowers at work.

					KBear

I've never _ever_ received flowers for Valentine's Day either...or my birthday
or wedding anniversary for the matter.  My previous comments and speculations
on the giving and receiving of flowers were not valentine-specific ...

  Ann

>   <<< Note 990.65 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "cuz Tim didn't blow chow at 5000'" >>>
>                        -< ok, there must be a secret >-
>
>
>	The last 3 times I sent flowers to people at work, they weren't
>    exactly thrilled.

>	More like peeved.


	 Yea, you have to NOT get them angry first. ;-)


	 Not meant against you mike, but just as an aside....I always
	 wondered why some people seem to think that sending flowers
	 or chocolates, etc during an argument is going to make them
	 all of a sudden not angry.  As an apology, yes...but just to
	 stop the arguing...hummm...I'll never know.

	 kath

    Well maybe this is indicative of a "I'm a closet romantic_follow the
    sheep_not a wimpy woman but not afraid of being a little old fashioned"
    personality, but for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone
    would get upset at receiving flowers (unless they were carrying
    a threat against your life, or maybe from some nutcase that had
    one of those obssessive things).  
    
    And most especially as an apology.  I mean, sorry _IS_ sorry!!!!
    
    ---kim 

    I've heard guys talk about using flowers as a way of stopping an
    argument without really apologizing - more like giving a kid a piece of
    candy to make it stop crying.  That might be a little irritating for
    the recipient. 
    
    Ray

>        <<< Note 990.69 by STAR::RDAVIS "The Man Without Quantities" >>>

>    I've heard guys talk about using flowers as a way of stopping an
>    argument without really apologizing - more like giving a kid a piece of
>    candy to make it stop crying.  That might be a little irritating for
>    the recipient. 



	 Yea, that's what I was trying to say...thanks Ray.

	 kath

    Re .68, well, even though I have never received flowers at work
    for Valentine's Day, I have received flowers at work twice.  That's
    *twice* in 23 yrs. of work.  (oh, well...I guess we can't have
    everything)  
    
    Anyway, one of the times  I received flowers, a dozen roses, I wasn't
    really very excited, and I did feel sort of bad about it, because
    they were from a guy who was romantically interested in me.....and
    I wasn't romantically interested in him.  My reaction was sort of
    like, "Oh, no.  Why did he have to send me these?"
    
    So, that can be another reason that a woman might not be happy to
    get flowers, because they were from the wrong person.  (As Cathy
    Guisewaite says, "Why do the right words always come out of the
    wrong mouth?")
    
    (The other time I got flowers at work they were from a male friend
    who sent them to me - 1 dozen long stemmed red roses - because I
    had told him I had never had anybody send me roses.  They were
    beautiful and I thought it was very sweet and I'll never forget
    it.)
    
    Lorna
    

	 All this complaining about not getting flowers.


	 I have a question....should we EXPECT to get flowers?


	 I've gotten flowers maybe 4 times in my life.  I never
	 expected to get them any of those times.  It's something I
	 feel that is done unselfishly.  But it doesn't make me feel
	 any less of a person because I don't receive them more.

	 The feeling I get from some of the notes here is that I
	 should "expect" them.  Personally, I have a really hard time
	 expecting anything from anyone.

	 kath    

    I'd say, never *expect* presents - of any kind.
    
    I was in a relationship where he would often suffer wounded feelings
    because I hadn't provided him with an expected gift of some kind; and,
    since he didn't tell me ahead of time what it was that he expected, I
    would be at a loss to explain his sudden fit of pique, or whatever. My
    view on it is that I just don't expect presents at all, and will not be
    offended if someone doesn't give me one. [OK, OK, there are traditional
    times - like weddings and birthdays and Christmas - when presents *are*
    expected, even by me. But even then I wouldn't be heartbroken if no
    presents arrived; I'd figure my family or friends were busy, or broke,
    or otherwise preoccupied. And I don't ever expect certain _levels_ of
    present, either; I can't believe some of the "Dear Abby" stuff I've
    read, where people take umbrage at a friend's giving them, say, a
    watch, when they wanted a diamond necklace...]
    
    The idea that "If you loved me, you'd (a) give me things, and (b) know
    what I want and when I want it without my having to tell you" has, in
    my experience, caused more wounded feelings than arguments about money,
    chores, and family combined...
    
    Besides - receiving is much more of a thrill when you didn't expect
    anything!
    
    -b

I perceive the notes differently from you, Kathy.  I haven't sensed a
single "complaint," but I have heard several "comments."  While some 
people are saying they do receive flowers, others are saying they do
not.  Or they do, but not from someone they care to receive anything
from.  To me, that's not complaining.  Nor have I seen where anyone 
is suggesting you should "expect" flowers.  I don't think that's the
case, nor the insinuation, at all.

Personally, I'd rather get a good book that lasts a lifetime than a
few flowers that will have a very short lifespan.  (Especially when
I forget to add water!)

Carla

Flowers or whatever as an apology are fine, as long as they appear other times,
too, as gestures meaning "I love you" <or insert appropriate emotion for less, 
um, emphatic relationships! :-)>  Especially nice, as mentioned, if unexpected!

"You never give me flowers anymore" is a stereotyped mid-relationship complaint;
can be worse if you start giving them when you're apologizing for something or 
trying to defuse a fight.   Even if they're offered with the best of intentions.
[note: I'm talking generalities, not to any particular noter/reader]  

		Helen

    Well, today was my birthday and a friend sent me flowers. I was very
    surprized and pleased. This is the first time I've ever had this happen
    and it felt good. If he'd been standing next to me he'd still have
    bruises from the hug. :*)

    I don't think the perishable nature of flowers is the issue. It's the
    expression of caring that they symbolize. Maybe I'm just little less
    cynical than I was a few days ago. :*) liesl

    I find myself astonished at several of the women who have written
    here that they have received "unwanted" flowers.  I can just imagine
    how the senders might feel if they read here that the gesture, which
    was almost certainly well-intentioned, was received with such lack
    of grace.
    
    It would be far better to contact the sender privately and state that
    though the flowers are lovely, you don't feel for them the same way
    they do for you and would ask that no further gifts be given.  In
    public, simply appreciate your good fortune that you have admirers.
    It could be worse.
    
    					Steve

    	
    	Shortly after I passed my Technical Proficiency Review Board in
    	1987, I received a beautiful flower and balloon arrangement at
    	my house from the support engineer who first encouraged me to
    	study for it.  (He was also the one who spent time at the office
    	with me the night before my board while I reviewed the last minute 
    	changes in my presentation.)
    
    	The message on the card was "Congratulations!  6 - 0" (to represent
    	the unanimous vote I received from the Review Board.)
    
    	I thought it was wonderfully thoughtful!
    

    RE: .77
    
    Why do you assume that it can only be a DECie who can send someone
    flowers?  Perhaps one can write in here her true thoughts because she
    knows she is safe.
    
    For the record, I *have* asked not to be sent the flowers anymore. I
    have asked and asked and asked and asked and asked until I was blue in
    the face...  
    
    Some people just can't take no for an answer....

    Re .77, the person who sent me the "unwanted" flowers doesn't work
    for DEC either so he won't read it here.  Steve, it only complicates
    life to have someone we could never have romantic feelings for,
    do things like send us flowers.  Would you like to have a woman
    whom you found unattractive send you a dozen roses?  Even if you
    thought the roses were pretty, surely you would realize it might
    cause problems up ahead, if this woman is going to keep showering
    unwanted attention on you?  What good does it do to have admirers
    whose feelings we can never reciprocate?  To me it only means trouble.
    
    Lorna
    

    If I'd made my feeling clear to the would be suiter, I would sit
    back and enjoy the flowers, not complain about them. 
    
    Gail

    re .81, well I don't like to disappoint or hurt people, so I find
    these situations upsetting.
    
    Lorna
    

>    If I'd made my feeling clear to the would be suiter, I would sit
>    back and enjoy the flowers, not complain about them. 

Not that easy for me.  In many cases, the flowers appear to be a sign that
the would-be suitor hasn't understood and/or accepted my statements that
I am not interested.

The flowers then represent to me his disappointment.  The remind me that I
can't be what he wants me to be, and that my not loving him hurts him.  They
warn me that there might be Yet Another Painful Confrontation coming up,
where he once again tells me he wants me, and I yet again tell him I don't
share his feelings.  They symbolize unrequited feelings.  They incur in me
a sense of unwanted obligation for the money and time he spent and the pleasure
he (tried to) give me.  Sometimes they feel like he is trying to manipulate
me, "win me over" with gifts, and I resent that.

Sometimes I really *want* to love a man, because he is a wonderful person
who cares for me, but I am just not capable of having those feelings for him.
Getting flowers reminds me of what I am missing by not loving him, and
rubs my face in my own perverse inability to love the people whomit is most
healthy for me to love.

I general, I just don't want people I have hurt doing nice things for me,
because it makes me feel guilty and/or pressured and/or like a clod.  Even if
I am not.

Now, if I really and truly *know* that he has genuinely *accepted* my 
rejection, and he is just sending flowers (or some other sign of affection)
just because he cares so much he wanted to show it, that's okay.  But how
often do I have no doubt about his motives or understanding?  No often...

(I got two sets of flowers...one from a beau, which were appreciated greatly,
and one from a would-be, who I believe didn't mean them to pressure me and
really understands/accepts that I am not interested, and those I appreciated
too.)

D!

PS: I think flowers from a friend as a sign of friendship, rather than love/
romance/whatever (even if that friend is an ex-lover or whatever) would be
really nice.  But I wouldn't know... ;-)

Gale and Lorna,

In my earlier note, I merely asked IF the sender happened to read about
your displeasure, how might he feel.  Whether or not this actually happened
is beside the point.

If I had received flowers from "an unattractive woman" (I'll take this as
meaning a woman whom I did not consider as a likely romantic partner), and
if it were clear that she was using the flowers as a means of courting me,
I would certainly tell her privately that, though I was flattered, I think
she should look elsewhere.  If she persisted in sending gifts, I'd either
return them or dispose of them appropriately.  At no time would I ever
complain in public about the unwanted attention.  I would consider this
a form of bragging, and rude at the same time. 

In no way am I trying to pass judgement on individual cases.  I simply
registered my astonishment that anyone would choose to broadcast the news
that they had received "unwanted flowers".  To me, this is something that
should be handled in private.

					Steve

    RE: D!
    
    Thanks.. you said what I'd have loved to say, if I had the gift of
    writing that you did...
    
    Gale

<     <<< Note 990.84 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent" >>>

Steve, it can be different when a woman is the recipient of unwanted attention
from a man then vice versa.  For me, when a man persists unwanted, then I
may feel a THREAT.  I have seen men turn nasty when I have turned down their
offers for a "drink after work", etc.  When I receive any unwanted attention,
even in as "pretty" a form as flowers, it has the potential to be frightening.

On the other hand, if the man understands that there is no interest from me,
and only sends the flowers/whatever as a friend (am I am SURE that he is not 
interested) then I can truly enjoy the gift.  I have a coworker who brings
me roses from his garden every so often.  It's *really* nice.  However, from
most men I prefer chocolate.  :-)  For me it has less romantic connotations.

         Carol

    
    	Receiving flowers have always had a negative connotation
    	for me, as I was sent them with intent-to-harass from 
    	someone anonymously over a period of time.  I think it was 
    	Him, but I don't know for sure.
    
    	[memory refresh]
    	A player of Maryland's basketball team, Herman Veal, was
    	accused of raping a student.  Rumor had it that Maryland's
    	coach had talked with the girl, her mother, and the school,
    	and arranged to have the charges dropped.
    
    	When Herman Veal was introduced at the beginning of the Duke-
    	Maryland basketball game, the students greeted him by
    	throwing condoms, female underwear, etc., on the court.
    
    	Someone held up a sign which read, 
    
    		"Did you give her flowers, Herman?"
    
    						nancy b.