| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 153.1 | | COLORS::MODICA | | Thu Sep 24 1987 20:28 | 2 |
|
Having read womannotes 479.70 I've changed my answer to no!
|
| 153.2 | | VCQUAL::THOMPSON | Noter at large | Thu Sep 24 1987 20:51 | 3 |
| RE: .1 Could you elaborate please. What question are you answering?
Alfred
|
| 153.3 | | RAINBO::MODICA | | Fri Sep 25 1987 19:39 | 5 |
|
Re. .2 I was answering the question about whether men are thin
skinned while reading entries such as the one I mentioned.
When I'm done, I'll enter something in the other topic
started about the oppression of women.
|
| 153.4 | Horsefeathers | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Wed Sep 30 1987 20:23 | 19 |
|
Why ??? I tell you why...because its not done on a one to one
basis. I can understand and justify it when its directed and
discussed pointing out the man or specific group of men that
are responsible for the wrong. I get real sick and tried of
the dumping on of all men for the sins of the few by comparison.
When words are either written or spoken that encompass ALL
men as being responsible for ALL the problems I become
sensitive to it. Everyone in one way shape or another has
had bad things done to them. I get equally upset by any group
automatically labeling me as bad because I'am a white male.
I am tried of being the dumping ground for all the crap that
been done to all the others. In virtually every case, YES
they do have a legitimate bitch, but for crying out loud
blame it on those responsible, not all of us.
Bob B
|
| 153.5 | Why I'm sometimes "thinskinned" | MMO01::CUNNINGHAM | | Thu Oct 01 1987 15:52 | 59 |
| re:-1
I agree with Bob 100%.
If I were black, and someone was making generalized derogatory
statements about blacks, it would be accepted for me to complain.
The same is true if I were Jewish, Spanish, or Polish.
The same is true if I were a woman.
But a white male better keep quiet. After all, he is a member
of that class of oppressors that is keeping everyone else from having
a happy and fulfilled life, and if is not a part of the solution
(which he won't be if he complains about generalize derogatory remarks)
then he is a part of the problem. By having identified yourself
as part of the problem, you have become a target, and your the enemy
everyone has been looking for.
I have to confess that I have a hard time not feeling guilty
for all the things that have been wrongly done to people by those
who look just like me. It has been suggested many times that I
have received an unfair advantage, even if unintentional, by being
born a white male. If this is true, and I believe in equality,
then what else is left but guilt. So I try to do what I can to
compensate. Be a patient listener to other peoples pain. Vote
for those who believe in true equality. Contribute money to worthwhile
causes. Encourage a belief in equality amoung my friends. In
conversations and meetings I try to ensure that women and minority
voices are listened to and supported when appropriate. I refuse
to work for any company that doesn't support equal opportunity.
I value differences in people, and look for ways to learn from others
and try to be supportive. So why do I still feel guilt? Because
I am continually told it is not enough. Women are still getting
raped, minorities are still not properly represented in upper
management; change is occuring too slow; and the attitude that I
shouldn't feel guilty because I am not doing these things is considered
a cop-out. After all, I am still in the "cat-birds seat" due to
my race and gender. I have sincerely asked for what more I can
do, but few people have any useful suggestions.
What I am told is not to be thin skinned when women make remarks
like "Men are the enemy." (See wommannotes 1.28) If I feel this
is somehow unfair, I should keep quiet about it because after all
look how much others have suffered and continue to suffer. It is
only fair that I should have a taste of my own medicine. I should
feel guilty. If I am contrite enough, I might even someday be
considered an "honorary woman", and of course that is what I should
want to be. The only trouble is, I don't know quite how to explain
this to my ten year old son.
I appreciate that many women don't necessarily feel this way
but many do. I worry that I am somehow being blind or insensitive
to their legitimate comments, so I read them and try to understand.
But I'll be honest, I only read wommennotes on my strong days.
When I feel hostility and flames reaching new highs, I come running
back to mennotes for a little comfort, and to know that I am not
all alone out here with these feelings. So lets allow women their
space and the freedom to speak out in their pain without worrying
about offending me, but in here, in mennotes, I feel we have the
right to be, in as derogatory a term as I can think of it,
"thinskinned". Lets remind each other here that "men are NOT the
enemy" of women. At least not all men.
DRC
|
| 153.6 | WOW, I'm not alone in my consternation | MOSAIC::MODICA | | Thu Oct 01 1987 16:27 | 9 |
| RE: .4 & .5 Thats exactly how I feel but couldn't seem to
find the words to express it. So thanks to you
both. I'm really getting tired of all the guilt
assigned to me because I'm a white male. Hell,
sometimes I wish I had a group or a "class"
that I could hold responsible for all of the
problems and setbacks that I encounter. But
I don't feel that that would help solve much.
|
| 153.8 | ex | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Fri Oct 02 1987 21:08 | 115 |
|
RE: .7
> In reality, it's almost impossible to discuss the difficulties
> that women and minorities have without comparing our lot to
> that of white men. It is by comparison that we see the proof
> of how disadvantaged we are in certain ways (and we badly need
> to be armed with this proof so that we can work towards equitable
> treatment and set goals for what that might mean for us.)
How are you as a woman and other minorities being held back ??
There are now laws and company polices that are in place that
now places you as a minority in precedence over and above
white men. It makes no difference wither you are a man or woman,
black or white, there will always be the "haves" vs the "have nots".
My contention is that in todays world anyone can accomplish their
goals with working for them. Most every barrier you protest about
is gone. You of all people should be aware of that.
> No matter how it appears, I know very, very, very few women
> (including ones in WOMANNOTES) who resent white males for the
> advantage that they seem to have over us.
Then why do the continue to write anti man statements ????
> My son is a white male, and believe me when I tell you that
> I do not resent him (and would challenge ANYONE who tried to
> blame him for the problems that minorities have.)
Then why do you so strongly defend those and their words that do
just that ?????
> The insidious thing about the way women are treated in our
> culture is that we are born and trained to question our own
> worth and abilities.
And (to repeat some previous notes) just who did this to you ??
Your mother and your female teachers thats who. You admit that
these people "brainwashed" you that you couldn't do math, yet
you can to find you could not only do it but were good at it.
So since it was women that set you wrong, why are you blaming men ???
> What you sometimes see when women get
> together is a sharing of strength and self-determination.
> Stepping into the middle of that kind of scenario can be
> hazardous to your health. :-) Some women are incredibly
> strong and have the ability to inspire other women to share
> in that strength.
Why ??? because today your smarter that your mother and your teachers
and all the other females of the past that told you, you couldn't
do these things. Today you know you can and are passing that word
on to the younger generations of women. This is a part of what
I'am talking about when I say that we all woke up in the 70's.
> What you think you might see (but it isn't really there) is
> a fierce anger towards white males. It is one of the great
> misunderstandings of the file.
Horsefeathers !!!! If this is so WHY is there so much anger
expressed and written at men as a class of people.
Not a man as an individual or the person named, but men as a
plural and a class.
> The anger is there, but it is aimed at a nameless, faceless
> force that we struggle with to attain equality (and it surfaces
> most often when that anger is MISTAKEN for anger at all men.)
> We have repeatedly stated that we don't hate all men, so we
> tend to get annoyed when some folks tell us that we really
> *DO* hate men. Honestly, we don't.
Thats strange, each time you people call that enity men, so just
how are we suppose to know the difference ??? because you say so ??
thats funny ... your one of the most strongest defenders of those
words condemning that "enity" called men.
> So we are all caught up in a gross misunderstanding. When
> men go into WOMANNOTES, we sometimes get angry at the WORDS
> that are written (and some men mistake that anger for the kind
> that includes all men.) That makes some of us even angrier.
Has it occurred to even one of you, that we, who protest what is
written about us has a valid point and that you women should stop
generalizing about us ???
> The harder we try to explain it, the less plausible it sounds
> ("HEY, YOU DOPE!!! WE DON'T HATE YOU! HAVE YOU GOT THAT
> STRAIGHT???") It doesn't work out too well, but we've said
> it so many times already that it keeps coming out louder and
> louder (from some of us.) It's a losing battle in terms of
> trying to communicate.
Then why don't you read all of the note and digest it over a
few minutes rather than picking out some thing and coming back
and blasting the author ??? Not one of us said anything about
you or anyone else "hating" men. That is something you created
and came back with in your defense of what was written. What was
objected to was the lumping of all men into a bad person category
for a number of reasons, when most of us don't deserve it. What we
object to is constant anger directed at all of, guilty or innocent.
I neither attacked the file, nor you nor anyone, yet was accused
of this and more. You couldn't have read all of what was written,
since your replys show that you missed my words around exactly
what your saying that I don't say. For that and the consistent anger
directed at all men by your fellow women and your steadfast defense
of the same , you are in the wrong, yet I doubt that you will ever
see it. You see what you want to see and disregard the rest.
Continue your anger, continue your defense of it, for I see little
evidence that it disturbs you, but be aware that someday it will
come back to haunt you .
Bob B
|
| 153.14 | No stones in my glass house, please. | ULTRA::BUTCHART | | Sun Oct 04 1987 12:28 | 22 |
| Funny, I'm thinking about all the times I've complained about supervisors
and managers and lumped them together in generic "management - FEH!".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not prejudiced. Some of my best friends are
managers.
It's pretty natural to make generic pronouncements in a fast or heated
discussion. I can't think of anybody I know that hasn't done it at some point.
Whenever I see a statement using "men" in that fashion, it doesn't bother me in
the least, 'cause I'm pretty sure that it's no different from the times when
I've reached an impasse (related to differences in the way we think) with
Marcia and raised my eyes to the ceiling and thought - "women!". (I have
learned how to keep my mouth shut - sometimes.)
/Dave
P.S. Laws and regulations against prejudice only came into being
in the 60's and 70's. By my reckoning that only puts us
part of a generation through a change that will take at least
three to be fully realized - assuming no setbacks. Most
high executives and government officials had their attitudes
set well before that - and mere laws do not change fundamental
societal attitudes that quickly.
|
| 153.15 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Sun Oct 04 1987 20:35 | 18 |
| re .12
Nice note. Like to add that I dn't think "men" are better off than
"women" in general, or even in sum. Economically, yes, yu are better
off. But there are aspects of "womanhood" that I would not trade
for anything.
I am reminded of this every time I see a loved man struggle desparately
to express an emotion which his training has denied him to feel.
He knows _something_ is wrong, but doesn't know what, because in
the effort to be the "man" he was trained to be, who does not feel,
he has turned off _all_ emotion; he cannt allow himself to acknowledge
it EVEN TO HIMSELF, much less to anybody else.
I would rather be raped a million times, than go through that.
Lee
|
| 153.17 | Be true to yourself | CAMLOT::COFFMAN | Howard D. Coffman | Mon Oct 05 1987 16:16 | 15 |
| < Note 153.6 by MOSAIC::MODICA >
-< WOW, I'm not alone in my consternation >-
RE: .4 & .5 Thats exactly how I feel but couldn't seem to
find the words to express it. So thanks to you
>> both. I'm really getting tired of all the guilt
>>> assigned to me because I'm a white male. Hell,
Guilt assigned does not have to be guilt accepted. Be true to
yourself and not get caught up in the "stuff" of others.
Howard
|
| 153.18 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Mon Oct 05 1987 21:07 | 277 |
|
RE: .9
> After thousands of years of oppression, you think
> that a few laws and a few changes in company policy
> in some of the great CORPs like DEC can make EVERYTHING OK
> (so we should SHUT UP now and stop talking about what
> happened to us as women over the centuries and during
> our own lifetimes.)
Yes, since now you have the ways and means to put a stop to all
the things you are objecting to. These laws and policies are in
place and can be used to combat and stop the problems that
women are encountering. If you or any other woman chooses to
live in the past and not use these tools to stop the opression
problem, what would you have me do ?? hold a gun to her head to
force her to go and do something about it ???
But thats right, I'am the enemy, the bad guy, Iam a man so
therefore I wouldnt lift a finger to help. Why is it you are
so blind to the fact that there are both MEN and women who
are working to put a stop to this, do you recognize this ? NOOO
all we see are is people living in the past and pointing the
finger at man as a group and screaming your to blame. Your the
enemy.
And no, I never ask nor demanded that you "shut up", or stop
talking about all these problems. For the umpteenth time
WHAT I asked for was for you and your fellow women to stop
directing the anger at all men. To stop blaming all men for
all your problems.
What I am asking is for you to get off to get off this line of
defending other women who ARE writing all inclusive anti men as
a class statements. You as an individual, may not feel that way,
But I know (considering the replys both here and in the WOMEN
NOTES file ) that other men share my feelings that these state-
ments and anger and blame ARE being directed to all of us.
> Considering that DEC has set aside one file (out of
> hundreds of DEC files) for the purpose of DISCUSSING
> TOPICS OF INTERESTS TO WOMEN (including our social and
> economic position in the world) -- why does it BOTHER
> YOU so much that *WE* have decided what we want to talk
> about and refuse to let *YOU* decide for us?????
Decide what ????? You can discuss anything you wish.
This is America ya know ... Freedom of speech and such.
Neither I nor anyone else I know made any statements
that any subject was "forbidden" for discussion. To
discuss it is one thing, to use it as a medium to point
the finger of blame is another. You support and defend
statements that say that men are the enemy, and dont under
stand why we get upset over that.
> We *DON'T* write anti-man statements. We write
> anti-rape, anti-abuse, anti-discrimination and anti-
> other_things_that_are_of_concern_to_us_as_women.
> If you choose to interpret the statements as anti-man
> simply because the majority of rapists and abusers are
> men, we have no control over that.
The problem here is that in most instances the author of
those note goes on to blame men as a class of people for
being responsible when in fact it is NOT all men but one
or two men who are guilty. Yet we as a class of people are
expected to take the rap for the few. If I were alone in my
feelings and interpreting these words you would have perfect
grounds to blast me. But in consiteration that I am NOT ALONE
in these feelings, why is it that I am bearing the brunt of
your anger ??? Because I was the first to speak out against
these things ????
> Don't blame US for the fact that most of the crimes
> committed against us are committed by men. It's an
> ugly fact of life (supported by statistics), but unless
> YOU are a rapist or an abuser, then YOU have nothing
> to worry about.
> WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> If the shoe doesn't fit, then DON'T WEAR IT!!!
Then when can we expect to see the all men are guilty
and all men are to blame statements stop ???? When
and only then will I believe you .
> I strongly defend other members of the community when
> they are unjustly attacked (and I defend myself.) If
> the attacks stopped, I would become more like my REAL
> SELF (i.e., a busy person with a sense of humor and
> a lot of warmth.) I would *LOVE* it if I could spend
> less time in the file defending myself from the attacks
> of ***SOME*** men.
UNjustly attacked ????? OH ya, thats right, if a person
whoops correction ..a man disagrees with someone or
thing that one of the women has written that constitutes
an attack. I guess since Iam not an "honorary woman"
that my feelings and thoughts arnt worth anything.
Its wrong for me to reach a point of reading so many
angry and anti man statements and words that I have NO
right to write that I find them disturbing and wrong.
I guess since I directed my words at a total audience
rather that a single person (so I wouldn't look as if I
was picking on a person ) Iam wrong. The real killer here
is that expressions of these feelings were asked for
yet when expressed they are considered an attack.
Lets look at one more thing, when all this started
how many of your fellow women came back and said
Iam not angry at men, Iam not anti men. Four ??
five ??? Out of how many in the file ?? I hear you
( and those other 5 ) saying that you are not anti man.
I don't hear the others. The fact that you didn't see
anything wrong with the notes I referenced as the reason
for my speaking up in Womennotes tells me you will never
see what I and others are upset about.
> Wrong!! We get mad at INDIVIDUAL MEN (but the individual
> men then say "You're just mad at me because I am a man.")
> When I flame you in Womennotes, I do it to ***YOU***
> as a ***PERSON*** (and so does everyone else.) You
> consistently IGNORE the comments directed at you (where
> we show you that you misquoted us and made statements
> about things we've said where we can **PROVE** that you are
> mistaken.)
> We only start talking about our feelings about ALL MEN
> when some guy goes in the file and takes an innocent
> statement PERSONALLY (and attacks the file.)
You flame me and accuse me of attacking the file because I
have the ordasity to object to something that you think is
OK. Because I don't come in there and go rah rah women on
every note like some other men that are " accepted ".
Certain women in that file have ASKED and SOLICITED opinions
from men about when and what they find bothers them or they
find objectional.
So I in good faith came back twice , first about there is too
much anger and second about the anti men statements. What
happens ???? You come out blasting away defending the whole
file and it participants as totally above board and reproach.
Got news for ya .... I've never meet anyone who filled that
qualification yet including me.
I tried to make some peace offerings to you and you choose to
ignore them. I realized it was going no where so I retired
to let you have your way. So Now what, You have got to come
over and start this all over again in another file. You must
really love to do this, to take razor in hand to cut down any
one that disagrees with you.
> What is an "ENITY"??? What I defend is the right for
> women to speak to each other about the REAL (statistically
> provable) problems that we face in the world.
But thats just it , you haven't been defending your right
to speak to one another because that HAS NOT BEEN THE ISSUE
HERE. what has been the issue is the fact that a number of
men in this and the other file have found things written there
angry, disturbing and anti men in general. That was the subject
of this note and the main issue between you and I during this
entire exchange from Womennotes to here.
I have never asked you or anyone else to shut up or stop
discussing your problems. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SEE AND
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN OVER MY OBJECTING
TO THE ANGER AND GENERIC ANTI MEN STATEMENTS THAT EXIST AND
CONTINUE IN WOMENNOTES FILE.
> Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? We showed
> you in Womennotes where your statements were WILDLY
> INACCURATE GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT US (one woman took
> your text and SHOWED you how you generalized about her
> to make statements that were totally false.) You didn't
> listen. You said we were just jumping on you for being
> a man.
WILDLY INACCURATE GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT US ???????
Excuse me , but I defy you to take 20 or 30 men at random
let them read through the Womennotes file and come back to
any of us and not have found multiple angry at men or anti
man in general statements by multiple authors. The mistakes
you and others found were #1 I screwed up when I said Lee's
note contained "war with "all" men". The word "all" was mine
not hers and a mistake.
The other mistake was when I cross connected replys between
I believe you and Ann B. Yup she didn't say it someone else
did. Other than some typos and misspells there were no other
factual errors. Differences in opinions yes, facts no .
For that matter after you and ANN accused me of all these
generalizations, Maggie cane back with 479.46 and stated that
she had not seen any such generalizations that you accuse me of.
> Oh, give me a break!!!! Would you like me to send you
> an extract with all the notes written by men who accuse
> us of hating men (and being angry at all men)?????????????
> How large is your "IN" basket (it would never make it
> across the net.)
Well Guess what, there isn't a single reply, in note 479 in
Womennotes, in which any man, makes any statement, that any
of you women, in that file or that note are men haters.
Now I suppose that make both us human and capable of mistakes.
But on the other side Iam more than willing to believe that
there are some replys to different notes, accusing women of
being men haters in there, Why ?? Because of the anger
and the anti men statements that is what Iam talking about,
and you claim don't exist.
> You attacked the file some months ago (starting with
> words "NUCLEAR MELTDOWN FLAME" or some such) and without
> mentioning ANY SPECIFIC NOTE, blasted the whole bunch
> of us.
> When you started in on us this latest time, you once
> again FAILED to mention any specific note (you just
> criticized the whole bunch of us.)
> If you don't mention a note and you flame, then you
> are attacking the file. We can't read your mind (and
> GUESS what you are talking about.)
> I am not angry at all men. I am angry at **YOU**
> for the kinds of things you say to me and to others
> in the file. I am angry at *****YOUR WORDS*******
> to be more specific.
> Is that plain enough for you to understand, Bob?
Suzanne...
Thats right , lets dig up every thing Bob has said in
different notes and use it to justify our stand in this
one. Real class maneuver, For that matter I could pull the
same stunt , but I wont. So for that matter you have never
written anything protesting something to a broad audience,
rather than aimed at a single person. In both cases this
was the intention, that the message should go out to all.
It is still my contention that I attacked neither anyone,
nor the file with either note. The point of both was to
state that I as a person, as a man was greatly disturbed
by the amount of directed anger at us in the first note.
And by disturbed by the anti men statements in the second
one.
No what has happened here is that you have chosen to be
angry with me because I had the ordasity to speak out
against what you believe to be your all too perfect file
of all too perfect people. I have terrible news for you,
NOTHING is as perfect as you think it is.
Your fatal flaw is that you insist upon defending not
freedom of speech, or subject, but the right to be angry
and to direct that anger at anyone that suits you. Right
or wrong. You and the others continue to say it isn't so
but it continues. I will believe you and the others if and
when you see it for what it really is, blind anger.
You have made statements that you cant afford to avoid
offending 100 % of the men that support women's movements.
That there will be a small percentage of those that will fall
out of the movement. Yet what you don't see, is that in
defending that blind anger you are just driving all men away.
It is that blind anger, that makes many of we men think, that
you, defending other women that continue to express that blind
anger, are of the opinion that few, if any men are worthy to
help you. And you wonder why so many are turning
around and walking away. Your driving them away !!!!
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE MESSAGE ?????????
Bob B
|
| 153.19 | just another woman's opinion... | STOKES::WHARTON | | Mon Oct 05 1987 21:51 | 25 |
| re .18
For the record, I am not a man-hater. I love some men. God knows what
I would do without then.
Now that I've made that clear I can go on to disagree with you.
Yes there are a few laws and a few changes in the company policy
and the US. But what are laws if they aren't properly enforced??? So
women have the sexual harassment policy, but women have to *prove*
that they were harassed. Harassment and rape and most of the *crimes*
against women are difficult to prove. When the crime is harassment
it's the woman's words against the man's. (When it's a pickpocket
it's hardly ever one's word against the other's! The victim identify
the criminal and the case gets rolling.) A woman gets raped. If
she received no wounds then the defense asks, "Did this woman consent
to having sexual intercourse with the defendant and now has had
a change of heart...?" Yeah I know that a man must be innocent until
proven guilty, but these laws make it very very difficult to prove
guilt.
Another thing, who should be blamed for women's oppression? Women?
Society? God? Or no one?
|
| 153.22 | Talk about a chameleon, WOW! | GUMDRP::MCCLURE | Why Me??? | Tue Oct 06 1987 15:09 | 23 |
| re .21
Truly amazing! While Bob B is obviously upset with your attitudes
and the strident nature of your rhetoric, I certainly don't see
him as having attitudes that are anti-woman. But then, that shouldn't
surprise me. You failed to see that my attitudes weren't anti-woman.
No where does Bob claim to speak for all men, but you twist his
words to make it seem that way. The reason, that you don't see more
individual men responding to your rhetoric, could very well be that
they have done the same thing that I have. Namely, came to the
conclusion that it is a waste of time to argue with you, because
you can't see the forest for the trees. You may conjure up mental
images of oppression and sexism, because of certain words or phrases
that are used. But you really should look at the overall intent
of what is being said. You're intent would appear to be to label
every man, that doesn't *totally* agree with your exact position,
as being an opressor of women.
I am truly amazed at how you can flame and attack someone's response
and then turn around say "well, I really didn't mean that of you".
Bob Mc
|
| 153.23 | Guess I should stick my nose in here, huh? | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Tue Oct 06 1987 15:26 | 38 |
| Bob, what _is_ it about my note that you found to be so anti-men?
And you, too, Hank.
I cannot speak for others' comments/addenda, but I do not find my
note(s) to be anti-men. I _am_ angry, yes. I am angry at some
very specific men. I have every right to that anger, as I was
brutalized emotionally and physically. I do not make that anger
a part of my life, I do not nurture it or allow it to fester within
me. I do not particularly want to become embittered. It is there,
I acknowledge it, out loud and on paper, for three reasons: 1) to
help work it out of my system, 2) to let other women know what happened
so that if it happens to them they will be a little more prepared
than I was, and 3) to let any man who wants to read it know that
it happens, that these are the results for one woman, perhaps make
he think about the actions he does that put this one woman in fear.
I also have some very general anger that is aimed at the men who make
me afraid, the men who also do that sort of thing (rape, incest, abuse,
harrassment) to others. Is it an affront on all of man-hood for me to
talk about this anger? Are my comments "wild anti-men" comments?
Could it be that you are reading into my words the anger that you
think you would feel if you were in my position? That if you were
me, YOU would hate all men? That you find it difficult or impossible
to believe that I do not hate all, or even most men?
I am not trying to provoke, I am simply trying to understand. If
you find this to be inappropriate for a notes file, please feel
to write me. I am in the air, the only people who have contacted
me on this issue are the people (male and female) who support me.
Those who are angry at my words do not seem to want to understand
my intention or explain where they see an implied "all" when much
of the text was spent trying to explain why the "all" doesn't exist.
Your friendly Martian,
Lee
|
| 153.26 | | COLORS::MODICA | | Tue Oct 06 1987 16:14 | 20 |
| RE: .23 To tell you the truth Lee, When I left the other conference
it was because of what some others had written, not
any entries by you. But I must add that I hadn't read
everything so you may have written something similiar
to what had hit my nerve. Unfortunately, what I expressed
in womanote 479.93 (I think) is how I feel. But even
that was dismissed as childish.
But, to be perfectly honest.....
I guess all of this talk about "war" and the "enemy"
makes me very uncomfortable. In my eyes it does not
seem to be the best means for working towards a just
and equal society. That, and constantly being asked
to stay out of discussions because I'm male did me in.
I don't know how we'll ever be able to overcome these
obstacles that exist in society if we don't do it
together.
Hank
|
| 153.28 | | GUMDRP::MCCLURE | Why Me??? | Tue Oct 06 1987 16:27 | 25 |
| re .24
Yes, I agree that communications appear to be the problem. I went
back and reread .21. You're opening statement there is definitely
open to the interpretation that Bob B is anti-woman because he
isn't 'pro-woman' (in that he agrees with everything you think).
No, you didn't use those exact words. The interpretation is possible
from the tone of the sentence and the *perceived* meaning of the
rest of the note. I guess, if you can't see that, the argument
will continue ad infinitum. Admittedly, some of Bob B's statements
are open to that same problem. However, if you were only asking
for a clarification of the language instead of taking an antagonistic
stand, things might get better. I will assume that Bob B can't sit
back and look at this objectively just now. I know that I couldn't
do that when this was happening to me. I haven't gone into Womannotes
for a long time now, so I don't know what the specifics are, but
this whole discussion is getting very fuzzy now. Its spread over
a couple of notes here and other places and is getting hard to keep
track of.
Bob Mc
PS, I also reread one of your earlier replies here. The one mentioning
how your mother has never lost an argument. I guess I understand
better why you argue like you do. Hey, you can't lose if you keep
changing tack.
|
| 153.29 | | GUMDRP::MCCLURE | Why Me??? | Tue Oct 06 1987 16:39 | 12 |
| re .25
That's the first time anyone said that my notes were "strident".
These are the occasions when I deeply regret the deletion of
all previous responses in Womannotes when I left (Hey, i was
pissed, what can I say?). You appear to base that impression
on one note. There are some things that I have stronger opinions
on than others, but enough of this. I'm going back to conflict
avoidance again. The Lord knows that I deal with enough conflict
already.
Bob Mc
|
| 153.35 | | 2B::ZAHAREE | Hacker, Diplomat, Chili Connoisseur | Tue Oct 06 1987 19:48 | 12 |
| re .34:
I hate to be picky, but I think *all* of the bickering found in this
note a tad undignified.
- M
humorous ps - .34 really had me going for a second. It appears that I
read it while it was in the process of being written, however I did not
get the usual "note x is being written". What I saw was the first
screen of .34 with something like "4 billion more lines" at the bottom.
"Oh no!" echoed through the vacinity of my cube.
|
| 153.36 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Tue Oct 06 1987 19:54 | 117 |
|
RE: 153.21
> It's amazing how much you reveal about yourself (and your
> attitude toward women) by what you say.
>
> Obviously, you are not one of the people who was EVER on
> our side and or ever will be. It's no great loss to see
> that you (as an individual) are steadfastly refusing to
> listen to us. You NEVER would have listened to us no matter
> WHAT we had said. That much is more than obvious.
Well lets look at what this evil oppressor of women has done
to and for them in the last few years.
AS the Chief investigator for a certain Navy base I successfully
prosecuted three dirt bags that raped and kept their victim all
night long. I was the one she came to with her story and I
protected and backed her through the whole ordeal.
I'am the creep that convinced an ex lady friend to get out from
under a low paying abusive receptionist job and helped her get
one as an administrative assistant from which she was promoted
to the head of the operation in one years time.
I'am the bozo that hired a female candidate into my engineering
section, not because I had to, but because I felt she was the
best qualified for the job out of four other male candidates.
I'am the jerk that grabbed the dirtbag that was going around
exposing himself to young women, my sister included.
I'am the cretin that currently works for a female boss and
just supported the hiring of a very qualified female engineer
into this group.
> I don't think that the other men in this conference are
> fooled by what you are saying. They can see for themselves
> that you are arguing against statements that I've never made
> (such as the statement that we in Womannotes are perfect.)
> I've never said such a thing.
No, you never said such a thing and I never said that you did.
What you fail to see, is that in steadfastly defending the file,
because* you*, don't make angry or anti men statements, and *YOU*
see nothing wrong with the ones that are made. That the whole file
is above reproach from anyone. All I and other have been trying to
say is that there is blind anger and anti men statements that DO
exist in the Womannotes file, and they are of a nature that we as men
find them disturbing. I'am not out to fool anyone, the simple fact that
some other men have expressed concerns over the same problems in both
Men and Womannotes tells me I'am not alone in my feelings
> You also say that my whole argument is in defense of anger
> toward all men. I've steadfastly DENIED feeling such anger,
> so why would I defend it? Your arguments make no sense.
While you personally may have not written blind anger and
generic anti men statements a fair number of women in the
Womannotes file have. You defending the file as if it did
not contain any of these statements . It is as if both you
and the Womannotes file are above reproach from comment.
You are in essence defending that anger, when you disagree
with anyone who has written against it.
> Another man asked me recently how Maggie could state in
> Womannotes that BOB BARBER SPECIFICALLY is not a "bad guy" (although
> some of us continue to disagree with you.)
Because I believe that Maggie and other women understand that
I am not out to attack the file or anyone or everyone in it.
I expressed in my own words my own felling of the anger and
anti men statements contained within. The difference here is
that Maggie came back with something to the effect of Bob I may
not agree with all you say, but I do hear you. You on the other hand
have only seen what you wish to see, denighed any validation whatsoever
to my words and infer that I wouldn't lift a finger to help a woman.
> However -- while your arguments do not make you a "bad guy,"
> they *DO* make you what I would consider a non-friend. The
> VAST MAJORITY of the rest of the men in Womannotes *ARE* our
> friends, but I personally do not see YOU as one of them.
> But a non-friend is **NOT** the same thing as an enemy.
Then I shall continue to be non friend in your eyes, to you
and those who think like you, so be it. For I have gotten to
the point of tiring of attempting to explain and show you what
the problem is. One can not communicate with another who, has
put up the brick wall to keep their perfect little world free
from criticism. I tire of being only as good as my last trick
having to constantly prove my value and worth to you women
that are of a mind set that all men are cretins. That we are all
out to take advantage of you, rape you, oppress and abuse you.
That either don't know how or are totaly unwilling to accecpt
any criticism, are above reproach, are perfect in their minds.
That we are only accecptable when we support everything you
think, do or say as totaly right, never wrong in any way.
You use whatever means necessary to cast us aside, for you don't
want our help. You haven't believed in us for so long you never
will. You are the ones that drive us away.
I for one know that there are women among you that have risen
from that quagmire of crap. I have been welcomed and accepted
into their mist for they recognize a good person when they see
one. I would support and defend each of these women as if they
were my kin. They actively seek real communication, both criticism
and praise. They don't play the game, they don't ask for our
opinion and then turn us off if it dosent agree with their own.
These are the women I will seek, these are the women I shall
call my friends, for they are real.
Bob B
|
| 153.38 | I really would like to know. | STOKES::WHARTON | | Tue Oct 06 1987 19:59 | 32 |
| re .33
I noticed that your note was addressed to Suzanne but I read it
anyway. :>)
Do you really find it stressfull to argue with women? I have noticed
that some men do find it stressfull. I have been practically attacked
physically by some men I've encounted because I disagreed and said so.
I am opinionated but I don't believe that I am pig-headed. However, the
general attitude when I disagree, especially if the topic is about cars
or politics, is "What the hell do you know?" And if I ask "Why do you
think I don't know?" and say that it's a sexist attitide to think that
I am not informed because I am female, I recieve harassment.
Sometimes I would refuse to "shut up." (My refusal is generally not an
effort to win the argument. I just feel as though these men do not even
listen to what I am trying to say.) Only to receive threats or a
dismissal as if whatever I have to say must be trivial.
I am not taking sides in this -Womansnote- arguement. I've never
read the conference.
However I see a few similarities between the argument here and
the arguments I have had with people of the opposite sex. Mainly
men think that I'm trying to win the argument or "there you go with
that femenist bs.
Why do you think this is so? And why do you find discussions between
man and woman stressful?
-Karen
|
| 153.39 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Tue Oct 06 1987 19:59 | 62 |
|
RE 153.23
> Bob, what _is_ it about my note that you found to be so anti-men?
> And you, too, Hank.
Lee, Let me start out by saying that I have nothing against you
personally or as a woman. My problem (and I believe the other men
concur) was that we are disturbed at the amount of anger and anti
men sentiment that has been coming from the authors in the womennotes
file for some time now.
It was neither my intent to say that you don't have good reason to
be angry or that you should not speak out against being a victim.
I had hopped I had made that clear when I wrote the original response
in Womennotes. What I want you to know is that there has been a regular
entering of angry and anti men notes written by multiple authors been
going on in the file for some time now. I for one just hit a saturation
point after reading your entry and responded.
I had done something similar a few months ago about the amounts of
what I refer to a blind anger directed at men in general. Whats
happening here is that we as men are saying yes you have a right to be
angry and hurt but don't take that out on all of us. All of us didn't
do this to you. Many of us do want to help you and help stop this
from happening. Its when a person blasts all of us as a class of people
that we begin to feel that there is no sense in trying to talk or help
you for you'll never believe that were sincere in our offer or intent.
As long as women continue to express encompassing statements that
imply that all men are wrong, guilty and evil, no man is going to
support anyone with those feelings of resentment against them.
We are not angry with you, we are disturbed at the growing trend
of sentiment that all men are bad, cant be trusted, are in fact to
be considered guilty until he proves himself innocent and worthy
of being trusted.
Let me try to depict an example here. If I get mugged one night,
by two men, I wind up angry and resentful of those two that did
it to me. If I wrote about it I would express my anger of and about
those two individuals, not all men. What the trend has been is that
when the same thing happens to a woman that expression of anger goes
out to include all men and not just the individuals that did it.
When that happens those of us men who are innocent of this become
resentful that we are being held responsible for something that
we as a class of persons did not commit. In too many cases nothing
we can say will make any difference about these feelings and so
we then give up bothering to attempting to be of a help, because
we are in fact being driven away by the anger directed to us.
How often and under how many criteria do we need to continue
to prove that we are the good guys and not the bad ???
I hope this explains why I and others get disturbed when we see
blind anger and anti men statements. In some cases a compromise
of understanding will never be reached since some people don't
want to hear about it. I hope this is not the case here.
Bob B
|
| 153.41 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Tue Oct 06 1987 20:26 | 31 |
|
RE: .34
> Bob Barber has not satisfactorily PROVEN the allegations that
> he made earlier in this note about women in womennotes. He
> has tried several times and has not succeeded in building a
> case for his insulting, inflammatory and argumentative statements
> about us.
What allegations have I failed to prove ?????? You are actually
going to take a stand and continue with a defense that there are
NO blind anger and general anti men statements in the Womennotes
file ??? You've got to be kidding !!!!!!!!!!
I can't believe this !!!!!! You are still taking the stand
that men and their opinions are "welcome" in that file ????
You might have a case for differences of opinion of how effective
the current AA and EEO laws have been up to and including 1987,
which is the subject in note 155. But in this note, in which the
subject is about men being disturbed about women writing notes
to the effect that many men perceive them as being anti all men.
To continue to say that men and their opinions are welcome
in womennotes is utter nonsense.
> Are you going to tell Bob Barber and Bob McClure that they
> are being undignified (or do you save that argument for women?)
And just how am I "undignified" ????? Just because I disagree
with you ????
|
| 153.42 | Well hello EAGLE | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Tue Oct 06 1987 20:30 | 7 |
|
ET ALL EAGLE
As usual brother bridman you are at your superb and
undaunted self of excellence. My congratulations.
Bob B
|
| 153.46 | *** WARNING 2 *** | 2B::ZAHAREE | Hacker, Diplomat, Chili Connoisseur | Tue Oct 06 1987 20:56 | 9 |
| Bob & Suzanne,
Please consider this an official "cease and desist" order from the
moderator. Either figure out how to carry on a civilized discussion or
I will write-lock this topic.
Thanks,
- M
|
| 153.49 | You'll go blind! | ULTRA::BUTCHART | | Wed Oct 07 1987 11:34 | 29 |
| Back on the original topic, sort of.
How many "here" remember the late 60's and early 70's? I recall the
"hostility argument" was raised frequently then about blacks who were
not "polite" about working for equal rights. (Hmmm. A few more quotation
marks and I may qualify for the William F. Buckley school of psuedo
intellectual debate, as it were.) It was the liberal whites who seemed
to have the most trouble with "hostility" - and it was amazing how detailed
an analysis some would go into to uncover hostility in almost any statement
by a black leader that was not so sugary as to cause actual diabetic attacks
in their audience. I feel odd little echos in the corners of my mind.
Being perceived as hostile seems to be a sin of sorts in U.S. society,
although most of the stuff I have read that has caused accusations of
hostility to be flung about in this and other files is pretty dam' tame
by my standards - just some good, aggressive position staking and jostling.
In fact, the only hostility *I've* perceived seems to come *after* the
accusation is flung. Looking at the detailed and, in my opinion, rather
far-fetched interpretations imposed after the fact on some of the writings,
I'd say that some folks could detect unmitigated hostility in a purchase
order for jello pudding. (Of course, considering the last time I read
the ingredients for jello pudding, maybe the P.O. *could* be considered
a hostile act, especially if you were going to feed it to someone else.)
Ease up a little! That kind of mental exercise leads to bad eyesight,
poor posture, and all the other ills that are attributed to the physical
exercise it most resembles.
/Dave
|
| 153.50 | | VCQUAL::THOMPSON | Noter at large | Wed Oct 07 1987 12:05 | 14 |
| .38> Do you really find it stressfull to argue with women? I have noticed
.38> that some men do find it stressfull. I have been practically attacked
.38> physically by some men I've encounted because I disagreed and said so.
Personally I, and I think most people, find it stressful to argue
with *anyone*. Arguing with women is no more or less stressful
(except with my wife but that's different) then with men. Especially
thought notes. I seldom read the name attached to a reply until
I've read it and not always then. It's an opinion being expressed
not a person to attack.
Alfred
I never did unterstand how anyone could disagree with me. :-)
|
| 153.51 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Wed Oct 07 1987 15:01 | 29 |
| Ye olde bird_brain has some VERY good points on how to get yourself
listened to rather than dismissed. People try to dismiss me rather
regularly, whether due to my gender or my age (the lack thereof),
I am not sure.
To "win" feminist arguments/debates/discussions one has to be very,
very careful before using the label "sexist" (seeing a grunting
snout on the face of the offender does wonders to ease that anger,
tho not laughing at the sight can be tough).
I find that both men and women are much more comfortable if I argue
around the sexism... I never had to say sexism or feminism, but
the people I work with knew from day one... one guy even joked about
an old employee who used to pat women's fannies, saying that he'd
really like to see the results after trying that on me.
Alfred is right too... I HATE confrontation, whether it be with
a man or a woman. There are ways of getting the results you want
without ever confronting in a hostile way. Screaming at me (or
typing accusations) will get no one anywhere with me... I will figure
out if I am indeed wrong (horrors!) or if the accusations are unjust.
In the former case, I apologize VERY quickly, and avoid the topic
for a while. In the latter, I get a bit school-marm-ish or high
tail it out of there.
My experience has been that in general men are more willing to conflict
than women but there are some immediate exceptions to THAT rule...
Lee
|
| 153.52 | ? | MPGS::MCCLURE | Why Me??? | Wed Oct 07 1987 15:21 | 56 |
| re .32
> Again, you read things that are not there. Where did I say
> that if one isn't "pro-woman," one is "anti-woman"? Where
> did I say that I define "pro-woman" as one who agrees with
> everything I say?
I supplied my reference and explained my reasoning. I also stated
that you didn't use those very words.
> Where did I say that I argue like my Mother? I don't (not
> at all.) Why do you keep making assumptions about me and
> my words that have NO BASIS in fact?
I never said that you argued *like* your mother. I just stated that
I understand a little better now. IE Your role model never lost
an argument, therefore you can't conceive of losing an argument
yourself. But, maybe thats a fallacious assumption.
> What did you mean by "when this was happening to me" -- when
> WHAT was happening to you? Arguing with women?
No, arguing with Suzanne Conlon when you are already po'd and
she keeps telling you that it isn't you but flings your words
back at you to show that you are a (perceived)jerk.
> Do you find it especially stressful to argue with WOMEN?
> Do you think that ANY WOMAN WHO IS WILLING TO ARGUE PUBLICLY
> WITH A MAN must be some sort of radical (and must HATE ALL MEN
> to do it?)
No, all arguments are stressful. The gender of the other person
has nothing to do with it. Only that the @#$%& idiot doesn't seem
to understand my viewpoint and do it my way 8-).
> Why did the word "strident" bother you so much? You used it
> against me as a STEREOTYPE. My views in this note have very
> little to do with FEMINISM (unless you think that only feminists
> argue with men.)
My heavens, how did you make the quantum leap that your use of
the word 'strident' bothered me "so much". I only questioned your
application to my notes. Why did MY use of the word bother you so
much? A stereotype? When did that word become a stereotype? Of
what?
I always thought that you said you weren't a feminist. I'm a Humanist
myself and , the last time I checked, women are a part of the human
race.
Bob Mc
|
| 153.53 | I read something and started wondering | COLORS::MODICA | | Wed Oct 07 1987 15:41 | 14 |
| I've got a question for Lee or Suzanne or anyone who might have
an idea. It has to do with something entered in womanotes. One
entry is entitled "men never had it so bad" (I think) and goes on
to explain that no matter what has happened throughout history,
women have been nothing better than slaves. I hope I'm paraphrasing
correctly. I don't wish to dispute the argument itself but would
like to ask what purpose it serves to keep stating how badly
women as a group have been treated. It almost seems to me like
reverse one-up-manship that can only serve to keep the anger
level high. Is it productive? Counterproductive? Any comments?
As I probably said before somewhere, it seems very unproductive
to me and only seems to encourage polarization on either side
of the fence.
|
| 153.54 | 1 + 1 x 0 = 0 | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Wed Oct 07 1987 15:57 | 10 |
| To those of you continuing a long and, for me, trying exercise in
throwing words at each other (I dain to call it an arguement or
discussion given that I fail to see proof that any of those involved
correctly understand what the others are saying) I offer a suggestion:
Enter a comment or response and ignore the words thrown
at the comment or response if they are provokative. By
ignoring the words you assign them a nil value.
Douglas
|
| 153.55 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Wed Oct 07 1987 15:58 | 14 |
| I too found the wording inflammatory, and the reminder seemed to
feed fuel to flames.
I have a hard time asking her to reword, tho, 'cause she's RIGHT
(except for the title); those things did happen, they are important,
we mustn't forget them.
It bothered me less than you, probably, but if it bothers you I'd
suggest you contact her via mail (without screaming, but you know
that) and tell her why the title was, er, unfortunate. Then tell
her how to modify a note's title (if she chooses to do so.. after
all it _is_ her choice until a moderator is called in).
Lee
|
| 153.56 | well... | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Wed Oct 07 1987 16:02 | 7 |
| Hank, Most of what the note referred to is historical fact as
I know it. It doesn't mean that individual men haven't been
kind and loveing to individual women, nor that women haven't
been equal and loving partners with men....just that those were
the laws - and I for one am glad they have changed.
Bonnie
|
| 153.57 | | COLORS::MODICA | | Wed Oct 07 1987 16:05 | 4 |
| re: Last few, agreed. Perhaps I wan't clear though. What was stated
doesn't bother me. I seriously ask what purpose it serves today.
I didn't mind the title either. I am really just trying to understand
better.
|
| 153.58 | | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Wed Oct 07 1987 16:10 | 7 |
| One excellent reason for accurately restating history:
"He who ignores history is destined to repeat it."
Don't know the author of the above - Plato?
Douglas
|
| 153.59 | | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Wed Oct 07 1987 16:11 | 4 |
| Well I presume the author entered the note because she thought
many people were not aware of the information and she thought it
was relevant to the discussion....perhaps you should write to her
if you want a better explaination. :-)
|
| 153.62 | followup | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Wed Oct 07 1987 16:46 | 3 |
| Also, Ian the colonel has entered a note discussing the
historical accuracy of the note that Hank was talking about
- at least as far as Great Britian is concerned.
|
| 153.63 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Wed Oct 07 1987 17:13 | 16 |
|
Since I have said everything I have needed to say. And since
this discussion has only served to set up divided camps of
opinion, that show no chance of reversing themselves. And
due to multiple requests (and one threat, hi Mike :-) )from
both male and female members of the DEC community, I will
discontinue from any further continuing of this debate.
I have realized that opinions are like the nose on your face,
everyone has one, and they all can be different. This has gone
too far and only served to drive a wedge of division between
two factions that by all rights, should be working together
instead of apart. Eagle is right in that its gotten to be a
contest for fools. I defer to the wishes of the noting community.
Bob B
|
| 153.64 | | STOKES::WHARTON | | Wed Oct 07 1987 19:55 | 15 |
| re .47
Lack of information is generally not the case. I do not know everythng
there is to know about all subjects under the sun. But then again
I don't know of anyone who knows everything about all things.
There have been times when the opinions I expressed were opinions based
on facts not feminine intuition. But there seems to be a strong
tendency among a large number of men to question the validity of
statements made by a large number of women.
I agree with you about the advantages of discussing an issue over
"arguing."
-karen
|
| 153.67 | enquiring minds wanna know | RAINBO::MODICA | | Thu Oct 08 1987 14:13 | 1 |
| RE: .65 Was that serious or tongue-in-cheek?
|
| 153.68 | Poor things... | STOKES::WHARTON | | Thu Oct 08 1987 15:14 | 24 |
| re .65
"WHAT does one do?" you asked.
Well for starters, I believe that some women totally avoid those
pig-headed men in question. In any semi-civilized conversation those
men simply become nuisances. They are always right, never willing to
listen to the "female" side of the discussion. Without even reading any
of the notes in Womennotes I can understand why some women would want
some or all men out of the conference. But alas, these women are
branded as "men-haters."
I do not agree with your utimate solution.
The ultimate solution has to come from within men. We all have our
ego problems, men and women. Why is it so difficult for some men
to comprehend that MEN aren't the only intelligent species on earth?
Even if the older generation were to die overnight and were to leave
only the younger gerneration, women will still have problems. The
older ones are socializing the younger. They'll die but they'll
and leave a legacy.
-kw
|
| 153.69 | | CEODEV::FAULKNER | t | Mon Oct 12 1987 00:46 | 8 |
| okay
I'm confrontational but.....
i confront everything and ...one the same
but
i will admit this there are men that take advantage of the lower
abilities (ie. physical strength of women) but what the hay
i suppose every planet has its reptile life
|
| 153.70 | Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by laziness | OPHION::HAYNES | Charles Haynes | Mon Oct 19 1987 19:08 | 16 |
| I'm one of the men who read WOMANNOTES and don't feel threatened
by statements like "I hate men because they do x." Because I hate
men who do "x" too, and since *I* don't do "x" I don't feel threatened.
Now we all realize that "I hate men because they do x" is a gross
overgeneralization, but hey! we all overgeneralize :-).
Why don't all you men out there who *are* bothered by this sort
of thing just pretend you're "martians" while you read such things.
Try to "grok" it, sympathize, empathize, whatever with the attitude.
*Then* turn back on your "menness" and realize that you aren't like
that, and you do hate men who are.
And if you run into someone who insists that *you* are a shm*ck
just because you have one... well treat them like any other bigot.
-- Charles
|
| 153.71 | Opinions sought or not? | ANGORA::BUSHEE | George Bushee | Tue Oct 20 1987 12:08 | 18 |
|
RE:. 70
Charles, While it really doesn't bother me in the slightest
when I see statements like "I hate men beacuse the do x." as
I look at it much the same as you. I do however see some men
come in here to give their opinion and when they do they get
an attack on them personally. That is what I object to, if by
chance your opinion doesn't match with what most of the more
out spoken women say then, they bring on an attack of you as
a person rather than accept you have a different opinion.
Debate is one thing, attack is another and one which shouldn't
be taken place as often as it does. Why can't it be you can
give your opinion without an attack even if it doesn't agree
with anyone esle? Is it only allowed that the more out spoken
WOMEN may state their opinion without an personal attack?
G_B
|
| 153.75 | No arguements from here | ANGORA::BUSHEE | George Bushee | Tue Oct 20 1987 15:33 | 15 |
|
Suzanne,
I'm sorry if it came across as I agree with the notion that
all women in this file and woman notes are saying all men. I
didn't mean that, what I meant was I saw several men give their
opinions about something that went against the majority of the
women's view and get attacked for that opinion. If the male
gives his opinion without attacking another, why should he
be attacked for the way he sees an issue? That is all I'm saying
plain and simple. It just seems popular to flame someone for
their opinion if the are of the other sex (BTW, this goes both
ways and we MEN are just as guilty).
G_B
|
| 153.76 | | ENSIGN::HOLT | | Wed Oct 21 1987 02:40 | 4 |
| re .70
rah = (Martian *) HumanBeing;
|
| 153.77 | It happens frequently | STOKES::WHARTON | | Wed Oct 21 1987 14:06 | 5 |
| .75
I don't think that it has all that much to do with sex.
The majority nearly always sh*t on the opinions of the minority.
|