[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference quark::mennotes-v1

Title:	Topics Pertaining to Men
Notice:	Archived V1 - Current file is QUARK::MENNOTES
Moderator:	QUARK::LIONEL

Created:	Fri Nov 07 1986
Last Modified:	Tue Jan 26 1993
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	867
Total number of notes:	32923

310.0. "The New Macho" by WMOIS::B_REINKE (Mirabile dictu) Tue Nov 29 1988 00:26

   This was printed in another conference and I am printing it
   with the permission of the original submitter.
    
__________________________________________________________________

    From the September 21 edition of the Detroit Metro Times (which
    is free)
    
    THE NEW MACHO  by Travis Charbeneau
    
    How did the reigning image of American masculinity get from Dustin
    Hoffman to Sly Stallone in just nine years? The answer to this,
    and more disturbing questions, may well be: the New Macho. A variety
    of forces have conspired to pressure American men to eschew progress
    made in the '60s and '70s toward a new vision of masculinity based
    on wisdom, intelligence, and gentility, and to resurrect tired old
    masculine models based on flamboyant virility, selfishness and
    jut-jawed aggression. 
      Operative in America from the individual to the national level,
    the New Macho character is especially inappropriate to the current
    planetary drama. Just as humanity approaches the nuclear brink,
    our hero seems to have adopted a Neanderthal system of masculine
    values guaranteed to return us to the Stone Age. How did it happen?
      One reason, of course, has to be "human nature". If they are candid,
    women caught up in the turbulent era of the last three decades will
    readily recognize the temptation, when caught in the chaos of redefining
    femininity, to retreat to old, sexist roles. Like a hopelessly worn
    but comfortable pair of old shoes, old patterns of thought offer
    us respite from relentless change. And, of course, respite from
    change is the chimerical quest of both sexes in these change-ridden
    times.
      But while reams have been written on the identity crisis of women
    in our era, little thought seems to have been given to the plight
    of men who must change accordingly, and, as nominal overlords of
    the system, suffer the unique (if unempathetic) pain of those who
    are surrendering power. The relinquishment within the space of two
    decades of prerogatives established over millions of years is not
    a task lightly undertaken. We can certainly expect repercussions
    from our lizard brains. How else to explain the New Macho?
      The mere fact that so many women now work has by itself intricately
    ravaged American lifestyles with change: kitchen routine, child
    care, budgeting and spending, entertainment, sexuality. Working singles
    created through divorced and postponed marraige also meet and mingle
    under an entirely new set of circumstances, often as threatening,
    if not as omnipresent, as the changes wrought on the marriage front.
      In this volatile context, let so much as one New Woman, in a fit
    of old-shoe weakness, term the New Man a "wimp", and millions of
    men already uncomfortable with their own new shoes will go scurrying
    to old wardrobes. When they emerge, the footgear is more likely
    to be combat boots than Gucci espadrilles.
      Matters are further complicated by the unprecedentedly huge numbers
    of men in our time who have been scarred by divorce, an experience
    guaranteed to make you reappraise fundamental attitudes even if
    you do wind up short of Sam Kinison. The more painful and confusing
    the experience, the more tempting it becomes to retreat into old
    values.
      And so the bugle sounds.
      Surely this sort of waffling is to be expected. The proportions
    of the changes are, as outlined above, immense, and occuring at
    a highly unstable time. The true dilemna of New Macho arises when
    this normal ambivalence is codified in a cultural support system
    that says retreat is just the ticket. "Lace up them combat boots,
    maggot, strap on dat commando knife, grab dat assault rifle and
    show 'em who's boss." How this message got entrenched in our culture
    at such an inopportune moment may be one of history's greatest stories.
    Perhaps its last.
      While backlash against the fruits of feminism is obviously a
    fundamental, if amorphous, cause of cultural reintrenchment, there
    are several others more tangible. Economically, consider the plight
    of the baby boomer male, the New Man who, at his best, encouraged
    women's liberation in the '60s. By the '70s, a male in this
    largest-ever demographic cohort discovered a dearth of career
    opportunities. He hit a recessionary job market competing with
    unprecedented numbers of his male peers and new hordes of educated
    women. Pointedly, he also lacked the ruthless skills needed to overcome
    these odds.
      A cutthroat appreciation of the dollar and an obsession with economic
    security may have been the lessons of the '30s, but these were not
    the values of the affluent '50s. Up-and-coming boomers were taught
    such nambie-pambie goals as "self-actualization" and "meaningful
    work". Thanks to their unprecedented numbers and the depressed economic
    cycle, these goals were quickly obliderated. A battle-zone mentality
    seems more suitable to the economy of the '80s, with appropriate
    macho demeanor towards the competition, male or female.
      The upshot is that today's male economic achiever is turning into
    the same over-consumptive, hyper-acquisitive, basically bored and
    intolerant careerist his father was, with the chief difference being
    he has to work a lot harder for the same result. The extra effort
    doesn't seem to have made the spoils of greed any less appealing
    as proof of manhood. Indeed, and in keeping with macho traditions,
    the increased difficulty makes the goal more "rewarding". Donald
    Trump thus becomes the Arnold Schwarzenegger of business.
      In this context, appropriate career tools simply leave little room
    for sensitivity, generosity, etc., toward *anyone*, male or female.
    Invulnerability, self-assuredness, aggression, domination,
    competitiveness all seem to serve better - even for women. This
    attitude is of course derived from, even as it contributes to, other
    aspects of culture, including those in which it is absolutely 
    dangerous. Especially politics.
      Beyond backlash and the economy, we also have "rollback", now
    an '80s buzzword. Conservatism, as much a logical byproduct of macho
    as the all-male pastime of warfare, has likewise enjoyed a resurgence.
    Drilled to preserve the status quo and witnessing "too much progress"
    in the recent decades of change, conservatism seeks to roll back
    the clock, in civil rights, social programs, cultural mores, etc.
    This naturally goes hand-in-hand in such fundamental and personal
    attitudes as concepts of masculinity, offering the illusion of stasis
    and security. 
      And strength before one's peers. It is upon the international
    stage where America defines "himself" before "his" fellow nations
    that the New Macho persona truly struts. Accordingly, much of our
    current "tall in the saddle" posture in foreign policy is a transparent
    attempt to compensate for our humiliation in Vietnam.
      America staked its credibility, capacity to preserve, military
    and political acumen and other masculine virtues on an imaginary
    line drawn against communism in the completely wrong place. New
    York Times military correspondent Hanson Baldwin, still faithfully
    echoing the government line in 1966, wrote that withdrawal from
    Vietnam would result in "political, psychological and military
    catastrophe" and tell the world that the United States had "decided
    to abdicate as a great power." In essence, then, we arbitrarily
    married our national masculinity to victory in Vietnam. When we
    lost, we were wimps in the eyes of the world and by our own
    predefinition, and no amount of "peace with honor" rhetoric could
    make that go away.
      In the '80s, instead of absorbing the relevant lessons as a properly
    chastened and mature ex-imperial power, we blustered harder than
    ever, and, encouraged by the wet dream of Grenada, beat up on Nicaragua
    by way of a booby prize. 
      One might think that going from King of the World after WWII to
    Wimp City in just 40 years would be a sobering development. On the
    contrary, we seem intoxicated with our own testosterone, levels
    of which ran dangerously high, into outer space in fact, where we
    proposed to build the colossal Star Wars system as sort of an orbiting
    chip on the national shoulder. Currently, this is all down, but
    hardly out.
      Our geo-political fall from masculine grace was if anything
    outstripped on the international economic front. Wimpy little Japanese
    selling wimpy little cars Pearl Harbor'ed the Detroit giants. OPEC
    shafted us for oil. For the first time ever, America has become
    a debtor nation, "out-producing" even Brazil. Now, like some Third
    World countries, we increasingly export raw materials and import
    manufactured goods. Our "export" status was admirably caricatured
    by the "Wandering Garbage Barge" of Islip, N.Y.
      There are mature, readily available analyses for all of the above
    developments, but too often these are lost in the cacophony of breast
    thumping typical of the New Macho, which sees mature analysis as
    lack of resolve. The election and re-election of Ronald Reagan,
    the resurrection of the John Wayne, GI Joe motif in films and pop
    culture, the defeat of ERA, the rehabilitation of the death penalty,
    guns and money out of control; all indicate a public readiness to
    adopt New Macho as the standard of male - and national- worth.
      We may hope that this is merely an aberration, a temporary retreat
    from the inevitable "too much, too fast" onslaught of change in
    our time. New Macho, after all, is nothing so much as a pretention
    to certainty in an era of unknowns. But looking at the one issue
    we need to address in order for human evolution to continue in any
    direction, that of war, we should not be encouraged. Only the
    intervention of an overly slender women in the White House and the
    arrival on the scene of a wily, progressive Kremlin leader enabled
    us, in this one critical department, to put New Macho on a back
    burner - for the time being.
      It remains a profound challenge, and given the short fuse of modern
    technologies - now in the environmental as well as war-making
    department - we haven't much time to meet it. Baby boomers sit squarely
    in the middle of a crucial transformational period. We are the "make
    it or break it" generation. Our current flirtation with the New
    Macho could prove fatal. A re-trying of comfy old shoes now could
    mean resurrecting another fine Old Macho tradition: dying with our
    boots on.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
310.1	Rambo is not the New Macho	HSSWS1::GREG	Malice Aforethought	`Tue Nov 29 1988 01:53`	11
	re: .0 Quite amusing, but not very enlightening. When the author attempts to equate such vagueries as 'guns and money out of control' and the death penalty, the analogy stretches very thin. Furthermore, the obvious attack on conservatives and Reagan display the liberal leanings of the author, and we all know that liberals can not be trusted, nor are they capable of rational thought. ;^) - Greg
310.2	The "Loony" Left !?!	GLDOA::WETHERINGTON	the smoking caterpillar...	`Tue Nov 29 1988 12:29`	69
	What was that about liberals....? ;-0 The way I see it: Conservatives: Have reasoned and justified to themselves that it would be better to destroy the entire planet rather than let a rival economic ideology (communism, which even Mr. Gorbachev is beginning to realize is a dismal failure economically, socially, etc., and will eventually collapese under its own weight anyway) to threaten the status quo of rule by the rich elite. (Or, as we have so often, simply resort to assasination and illegal overthrow of governments whenever the people of these third world countries have the audacity to try and rule themselves rather than be ruled by the despotic tyrant the CIA installed in a coup decades ago (what was that word..."democracy" that you're trying to restore in Nicarauga? Doesn't that mean that the people of Nicarauga decide who's going to rule over them, instead of Ronald Reagan? Also, like some sort of drunken adolescent, they stand in a burning house (the Earth under the onslaught of industrial pollution), and deny that the house is burning; yea, when some want to throw water on the fire, they say "we need more study to actually see that this house is burning". Anyone take a look outside last July? They are unwilling to impose legislation on business, that would enforce and stem the tide of the greenhouse effect, acid rain, etc. etc. Far from the Iroquois Indian's elder's practice of basing decisions for the tribe based on what impact the decision will have seven generations into the future, the Conservative mindset sees only the "here and now" bottom line profit margin, which would be (horrors) lowered by the legislation that is needed to stop the slow choking to death of our planet. So, while spouting the pretext of "maintaining morality" and "doing what's best for our country" and all their advocacy of nationalism (something we would think would have passed from the world after WWI and WWII), their policies are actually, on two fronts, the greatest danger that this planet has ever been threatened by. They actually have the effontry to claim that those who oppose the killing off of 200 million people in a nuclear genocide, or oppose the destruction of the Earth's atmosphere, as the "loony left". Yep, saving the planet from destruction and rape sounds pretty loony to me. Destroying it with nuclear war and environmental pillage makes a lot more sense. The Liberals...well, right now it's all we can do to keep them from doing these things. Once a couple hundred of years have passed, history will look back on the folly of the mindset that was willing to destroy the entire planet based on a differing economic system, as madness, and perhaps the Liberals then will be able to turn their attention to a more nobler cause; making life as good as possible for the greatest number of people. Watch the next four years as the middle class disappears and we continue to polarize into the upper class and the lower class. Doesn't even George Bush have the wisdom to see the writing on the wall? If it wasn't my country that was going down the tubes, I would enjoy watching the next four years as his illusion of American economic strength and world dominance blows up in his face. Remember, George? "No New Taxes". How you are going to balance the budget without revenue as part of the equation, we are all waiting to see. I now relinquish the soapbox. Thank you, Doug Wetherington
310.3	A round for the house on me!	GLDOA::WETHERINGTON	the smoking caterpillar...	`Tue Nov 29 1988 13:51`	26
	Just wanted to enter a quick note to soften some of the edges on my last reply... .2 was not directed at .1 in particular, and I did notice the smiley face at the end of the comment about liberals. .2 is simply a statement of my beliefs, and it is worded strongly because I believe that the conservative mindset is a direct threat to my own life, the lives of any potential childrem I may have, and to the basic harmony of nature on this planet. We have created a world where every one of us knows that everything we have built, everything our ancestors have fought and struggled for for the last x000 years, can be wiped out forever in the time frame of a few minutes. I don't think there is any argument that justifies the genocide of 4 billion people and all other life forms on this planet. But, I'm just a loony liberal. Anyways, I really am a nice guy, and regret that my first entry in this notesfile is so hard-edged. Oh yeah...I originally typed and submitted the basenote into another Notesfile, and gave permission for it to be extracted to here. I was curious to follow it's progress. Doug from Detroit
310.4		CSC32::M_VALENZA	Love is a dog from hell	`Tue Nov 29 1988 14:30`	11
	Thanks for posting this note, Doug and Bonnie. The premise is quite interesting. Is it a mere coincidence that during the Reagan era we have seen the rise of macho films like Rambo and Neanderthal television show hosts like Morton Downey? Do the macho Reagan foreign policy initiatives (the invasion of Grenada, the bombing of Libya, the arming of terrorists in Nicaragua and death squads in El Salvador) simply represent the foreign policy side of a general trend in American culture towards Neanderthal thinking? Is a macho foreign policy the natural by-product of a macho culture? -- Mike
310.5	New Macho = losers and whiners	CLT::BROWN	upcountry frolics	`Tue Nov 29 1988 15:24`	13
	Good article... Whatever the "Old Macho" ethic was based on, it's clear to me that New Macho is based upon fear, confusion, and frustration. The New Macho adherent is a person who feels that they have lost control - over money, over people, and over events - and that to survive, they must dig in their heels and batter their world back into something they can understand and accept. The New Macho people are the weak ones - the strong ones are the people who persevere in hope of change and growth. Ron
310.6	New Feminist = ?	WILKIE::MSMITH	Crime Scene--Do Not Enter.	`Tue Nov 29 1988 18:16`	12
	So we should all bow down at the altar of the Alan Alda's and Phil Donahue's of the world if we wish to be considered as having the "correct" attitudes by the New Feminist? I guess what bothers me about all this gaseous generalizing is that while it may make the author and those of her ilk feel good, it does little to convince us "Bad Men" to want to assimilate those attitudes that will cause them to say "Good Boy". Or to put it more simply, stop using vinegar if you want to catch flies. Mike
310.7	Macho = Ego	PCCAD1::RICHARDJ	Bluegrass,Music Aged to Perfection	`Tue Nov 29 1988 18:22`	7
	I don't think Rambo is the new macho image, in fact most guys I know hate Rambo movies except First Blood. I do think the article is trying to say something about masculinity, and how men identify with it, which is why I had asked in an earlier note. "Is masculinity lost ?" Thanks for posting it Bonnie. Jim
310.9	hmmm	WMOIS::B_REINKE	Mirabile dictu	`Tue Nov 29 1988 22:08`	11
	Mike, Do you mean his movie role or his private personality? The fact that he is very bright and apparently socially quite charming (given who he married :-) ) but can play the role of the barbarian would make him indeed a unique personification of the macho image. And perhaps a more postive one, since it is obviously a role with him. Bonnie
310.10	... and what triggers male aggression?	MCIS2::POLLITZ	gender issues	`Tue Nov 29 1988 23:09`	14
	Depending upon the ideological principles held by people, the role of barbarian can be played by anyone. Female chauvanism is as bad as male virism. Both can be called macho if you want to get right down to it. Frankly, I find ideological aggression more uncomforting than natural impulses. You'd be surprised the chalices that are really blades. Russ P.
310.11	well, someone needs to take this trash to the dump...	SKYLRK::OLSON	green chile crusader!	`Wed Nov 30 1988 01:34`	36
	re .10, Russ- > Female chauvanism is as bad as male virism. Russ, this is merely the latest salvo in a string of many I've seen you drop in here and elsewhere regarding women's social empowerment. I'm really curious, because the needle is wearing that groove pretty badly by now, the song never changes, why do you keep playing the same old record? > Frankly, I find ideological aggression more uncomforting > than natural impulses. Here's the reason I'm curious. I don't see the dichotomy between the two that you see. I find it perfectly natural for women to recognize and resent previous culturally-based suppression, and to rail against it. Be that ideological agression? Maybe for some women, on the radical separatist side...and so what? I'll call it paranoia to lump "female chauvinism" in with "male virism" as if their incidences were statistically equivalent...we both know they're not. > You'd be surprised the chalices that are really blades. So even that symbol is threatening to you, Russ? I probably would be surprised, but I'll take the chance: I invite you to show them to me. Frankly, the innuendos come across very ugly. Hmmm, this really doesn't address the basenote much, let me mention that I appreciated the beginnings, where the author addressed changing male-female roles, especially in business and economics, but when the article took a radical left into politics, it lost its detached analytical basis and became just another ranting ideological tract. Oh well. Thanks, Bonnie. DougO
310.13	The liberal conspiracy, revisited	HSSWS1::GREG	Malice Aforethought	`Wed Nov 30 1988 02:21`	10
	re: .2 (Wetherington) I had no doubt you viewed conservatives as the bomb-tossing Terminators of planet earth. That is exactly the reason I tossed in my sarcastic remark about liberals. And hey, don't worry about the 'hard-edged' reply... that's the only kind I write. ;^) - Greg
310.14		GLDOA::WETHERINGTON	the smoking caterpillar...	`Wed Nov 30 1988 12:40`	8
	RE: .13 Well, I raise my beer mug in a toast that we have the right to freely debate these things, and care enough to do so, even though we disagree on means perhaps we agree on ultimate goals...the best thing for our country. DW
310.15	It had a nice beat and was easy to dance to!	GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER		`Wed Nov 30 1988 14:35`	22
	The article had some interesting points scattered throughout, but went to extremes on many occaisions. Whereas many good things came out of the 60's an 70's, there were many bad things also. I think to hold these times up as idealogical times which we should always strive to mimic is wrong. There were many generalizations throughout, which really took a lot of credibility away of what the author was trying to say. Maybe this trend of "new macho" (I don't agree with the authors definition, but I do agree that things are changing and redefining themselves again) is societys way of saying, maybe we went too far with all of these 60's & 70's ideas. Maybe its just society correcting itself. And no, I'm not condoning that we change EVERYTHING back to the way things were, but I would like to see some things change (family units staying together and that type of thing.) One thing that I think everyone has got to realize is that the people who really care for you and are going to help you in your time of need are your family. I, myself, am a conservative, but I do see a lot of good ideas that the liberals have. It doesn't have to be all one way or the other. There is a happy medium in there somewhere. (I hope) Mike
310.16	Macho Doesn't Exist	PCCAD1::RICHARDJ	Bluegrass,Music Aged to Perfection	`Wed Nov 30 1988 15:19`	11
	What is Macho ? Everything that can be defined in Macho, can be atributed to females also. So we have macho females and macho males. Didn't they come out with a female version of Rambo called Raven? I think the whole idea of macho stinks, because it really means phony. If we men and women are looking for a macho image to identify with, then we're looking to be something we can never be. Why not look inside yourselves and be the best you that you can be, because being yourself is what the world needs, not a macho image. The world has enough phonies to put up with, we don't need more. Jim
310.17	Yes, what is this macho they always speak of?	GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER		`Wed Nov 30 1988 16:38`	15
	RE: .16 I agree Jim. This expression has always been used, but noone has every really defined it. I always related it to someone trying to be somthing they are not. I definitely do not think it is a substitute for masculinity as it is sometimes used. As you said, be the best person you can be. After reading the article a few more times it appears that it is a bashing of conservatism and a promotion of libralism. It also tries to equate coservatives with males and everything that is wrong with society today. As I saiid earlier, it has some good points scattered throughout, but they were overshadowed by the soapbox manner in which they were presented. It would have been a much better article if it was only 1-2 paragraphs long. Mike
310.19	hard to believe that made it into print	LEVEL::MODICA		`Wed Nov 30 1988 19:50`	11
	Was Dustin Hoffman the image of American masculinity 9 years ago? I thought it was CLint Eastwood. Anyhow, I can only conclude that the base note is a bunch of pompous garbage. But, it does a nice job of presenting not only more male bashing (the sport of the 80's) but also conservative bashing. Thanks for entering it though, very very amusing. Hank
310.20	Communication fosters better understanding.	GLDOA::WETHERINGTON	the smoking caterpillar...	`Thu Dec 01 1988 16:41`	58
	re: .19 I think Trevor wrote the article in a manner that was as tongue-in-cheek as possible considering the subject matter...it kind of struck me as late night type of thinking. I don't agree with everything in the article either, I agree with a couple of the earlier criticisms of it, but I do think it made some interesting points. How it can be construed as male-bashing, rather than a plea for men to remember the humanistic side of themselves as the more desireable side, I don't understand. Nor do I understand how a plea for the people of the earth to try to live together without blowing each other up, and a plea for people to stop the destruction of the environment, is "pompous garbage". To all: Misunderstanding is often the result of lack of communication. I would like to try and understand the conservative viewpoint better. Surely no sane man would stand by and allow the atmosphere and water base of our home planet be contaminated, nor would he be willing to risk the destruction of his home, family, and all other life on earth over a difference in political ideologies. Furthermore, I am convinced that the noters here are indeed sane. Therefore, I must conclude that I am misunderstanding the viewpoint. I would welcome a non-sarcastic response, perhaps even a new topic, that would allow me (us) to become better acquainted with the conservative viewpoint. Do conservatives believe that the environment should be used up with no restrictions as fodder for the industrial machine, and that it will last till the end of their lifetime and they don't care what happens afterward? Do they believe that it would be better to blow up the planet completely rather than peacefully co-exist with the Russian people? Do they advocate the breaching of the Constitution, or the removal of the clause of the constitution that puts the power to make war into the hands of the congress rather than the president? If not, how do they sanction the actions of the NSA under Oliver North, and the fact that Ronald Reagan has been carrying out a covert war in Nicarauga for years, for a time in violation of law passed by the Congress of the United States (the Boland Amendment). All of the above seem to me to be accepted and agreed to by most people I encounter that say they are of the conservative political leaning. Would anyone care to comment, or start another note, to help me to understand better? If what I have written has made you angry and you wish to react rather than respond, please spare me. If you wish to help me understand your beliefs better, I would welcome a response. Doug
310.21	No	PCCAD1::RICHARDJ	Bluegrass,Music Aged to Perfection	`Thu Dec 01 1988 18:04`	37
	re:20 > Do conservatives believe that the environment should be used up > with no restrictions as fodder for the industrial machine, and that > it will last till the end of their lifetime and they don't care > what happens afterward? No > Do they believe that it would be better to blow up the planet > completely rather than peacefully co-exist with the Russian people? No > Do they advocate the breaching of the Constitution, or the removal of > the clause of the constitution that puts the power to make war into > the hands of the congress rather than the president? If not, how > do they sanction the actions of the NSA under Oliver North, and > the fact that Ronald Reagan has been carrying out a covert war in > Nicarauga for years, for a time in violation of law passed by > the Congress of the United States (the Boland Amendment). No > All of the above seem to me to be accepted and agreed to by most > people I encounter that say they are of the conservative political > leaning. Would anyone care to comment, or start another note, to > help me to understand better? If what I have written has made you > angry and you wish to react rather than respond, please spare > me. If you wish to help me understand your beliefs better, I would > welcome a response. As a conservative on politcal issues, I hope my answers help you understand that your understanding as it presently stands of what conservatives believe is incorrect. The problem with your understanding is in your loaded questions. Jim
310.22	Who would suppose you really want to communicate?	WOODRO::MSMITH	Crime Scene--Do Not Enter.	`Thu Dec 01 1988 18:36`	33
	Re: .20 If this article was meant to be taken with tongue in cheek, then the author should have indicated that somewhere. It certainly did represent fuzzy, late night type thinking, which isn't calculated to get this reader to pay much attention. The problem I had with that article was that it sounded like yet another "All White Republican, Conservative Males Are Responsible For All The Country's Problems" kind of thing. The author seemed to be making such gross generalities that I, for one, just gave up trying to dig any deeper for whatever underlying message there might have been. It seems to me that the author was more interested in preaching to the choir, than he was in trying to make new converts. It makes the "True Believers" feel good by way of pointing the finger at those who have a different point of view. As far as your questions about the "Conservative" point of view goes, I'll leave that to someone who wishes to label themselves as such. I am not a "Conservative", although I do agree with some of the classical Conservative positions. As you pose those questions, though, I imagine the answer will be "No", and then a return question as to why you are being so insulting. No sane person would be for the agenda that you have described. If this is the kind of answer you didn't want to hear, maybe you shouldn't have phrased your questions in a such a patronizing manner. Mike
310.23		GLDOA::WETHERINGTON	the smoking caterpillar...	`Thu Dec 01 1988 19:46`	34
	Re: last 2 Good points, both, and well taken. I apologise for the bitterness of my attitude, and the slanted mannger in which I phrased my questions. The fact that I was being that way, needed to be pointed out to me, and I appreciate the frankness. Sometimes I get overly emotional and need to be reminded when I'm being unreasonably slanted, or sarcastic. I assure you that I am working on this, and some of the discussions in the notesfiles are helping me to do this. I am 23 years old, and I daresay that with age some of my positions will grow and change, and my manner will mellow somewhat. If you are willing to accept my apologies for my Attitude, I would be more than happy to continue the discussion. You can see why it is so difficult for me to understand the Right. Obviously my current comprehension of their positions is woefully lacking, or is so tainted with emotionalism that I am not perceiving it rationally. Perhaps the former is a result of the latter. Please, let's keep talking. If no-one else replies to what I've written so far, I will do my best to rephrase my questions so that they will not be "loaded", and so that I will not come off as being offensive. Or, I invite anyone to do so for me; rephrase the questions in a more generic manner. Perhaps a new topic should be generated. Is there anyone who would care to help a young idealist grow in his understanding of people's diverse opinions? Does anyone remember any extreme opinions they had at 23 that evolved as they grew older and hopefully wiser? Doug
310.24		LEVEL::MODICA		`Thu Dec 01 1988 19:59`	7
	re. .23 No problem, when I have a little spare time I'd be happy to discuss some of the points you've raised. BTW, when I was 23 I was very very liberal. Hank
310.25	Me too!	WILKIE::MSMITH	Crime Scene--Do Not Enter.	`Fri Dec 02 1988 11:53`	1

310.26	Not Stuck To A Label	PCCAD1::RICHARDJ	Bluegrass,Music Aged to Perfection	`Fri Dec 02 1988 12:20`	14
	Yo Doug, No apology necessary. We need all types of dialogue in order to see things more clearly. The thing I have learned is, not to let my dislike for the other's position blind me so badly that I can't see what they're really saying. Both sides have their good and bad points. Its just the circumstances of the times that make one sides good points shine and the others wrong. There will be a time when a more liberal position on issues will be necessary. Hopefully we won't be so entrenched in our ideology that we won't beable to see it. Thats why both sides must be heard. Jim
310.27	Heading for a radical old age	CLT::BROWN	upcountry frolics	`Fri Dec 02 1988 12:21`	20
	Re. .23 Doug, When I was 23 I was very much a liberal. Now I'm 36 and I'm still liberal, if not more so. I'm a little more selective now about where I put my support and my money, but I still cut up my Shell Oil card to protest their role in South Africa, I don't buy California grapes, and I keep an eye on the League of Conservation Voters rating of politicians. Not that any of these are exclusively liberal causes, they're just things I have an interest in. My gut feeling is that conservatism puts too much emphasis on trying to recapture a state of stability, which never actually existed anyway, instead of rationally evaluating alternatives. Enough of the soapbox - I just wanted to let you know that growth can be in a number of directions and that older does not necessarily mean mellower (my 70-year old more-liberal-than-ever mother will attest to that - and, hey Mom, thanks for encouraging me to read Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience"). Ron
310.28	What is a conservative	NSSG::FEINSMITH	I'm the NRA	`Fri Dec 02 1988 12:54`	43
	Dare say, I might have even been called RADICAL in my younger days (20-21). I even had a subscription to the Militant (!), but maturing reality changed those attitudes. As a Conservative, I don't believe in change for change's sake. I believe that the least amount of government interference is the best, and that government does not necessarily know what's best for ME. I believe in a free economy where business may compete without artificial constraints, as long as that competition is fairly done. If you produce a product better and cheaper than I can, you deserve to succeed and I deserve to fail. I FIRMLY believe in the rights of the working man to choose if he wants to belong to a union or NOT belong and still have the right to work (closed shops run against every ideal I hold true). I don't believe in large and expensive social programs whose succes- ses in the long run of curing anything, are questionable at best. I believe that those who can work should work and not get governmental handouts. There should be equal opportunity in the workplace, but no favoring any group or bending any rules. The only factor that should decide who gets a job or promotion is that person's qualifications. I believe that you can never level out the economic system, some people will make more because they are better at what they do than others. There has always been rich and poor and there will always be rich and poor. Everyone should have fair access to the system, those who make it, therefore will succeed. I believe that the rights of the victim should greatly outweigh those of the criminal, and that once someone commits a crime, he (or she) must pay a penalty for their acts. The safety of society from being preyed on my criminals is of utmost importance, and that society has the right to protect itself from crime by whatever means necessary. Knowledge is of great importance, so book banning is wrong (I draw the line on such things as child porn though). The parents should have the rights over how their children are raised (unless they are abusing them) and how they are schooled. If you look over the previous material, my view of a conservative revolves around keeping big government out of our everyday lives, letting the economy control itself by supply and demand, letting individuals make their own decisions (as long as no one else is hurt as a result), and letting those who are more qualified rise to the top. These opinions are not necessarily those of anyone else in DEC or this node, but only those of the writer.
310.29		CSC32::M_VALENZA	L'enfer, c'est les autres	`Fri Dec 02 1988 13:09`	9
	I was a liberal at age 12, I was a liberal at age 23, I am still a liberal at age 28, and I will probably be a liberal until my dying day. I have always believed in the liberal values of peace, justice, equality, and human rights, and I don't believe that this will ever change. Certainly my outlook on certain things has matured over time, and I suspect that this process will continue to happen, but maturing does not require tossing out one's values or one's conscience. -- Mike
310.30		NSSG::FEINSMITH	I'm the NRA	`Fri Dec 02 1988 13:18`	12
	RE: .29, I don't always look at as tossing out one's values or conscience, but rather, once out of the "ivory tower of learning", getting a more realistic view of the world. I remember the great differences in attitudes in college (late 60's/early 70's) between the students were were working to pay for their education and those whose parents footed the bill. It seems that once you get out in the real world, your view changes. Eric
310.32		GLDOA::WETHERINGTON	We're for each other	`Fri Dec 02 1988 16:37`	9
	re: previous few Thanks for understanding. I am swamped today, and will have to prolong my participation in the discussion until this weekend or next week. Until then, respectfully, Doug Wetherington
310.33		HANDY::MALLETT	Split Decision	`Fri Dec 02 1988 22:58`	34
310.34	it's not the symbol ...	MCIS2::POLLITZ	gender issues	`Sun Dec 04 1988 16:38`	56
	re .11 "...this is merely the latest salvo ... regarding women's social empowerment ...why do you keep playing the same old record?" I happen to think that notesfiles (particularly gender-proclaimed ones) should generally reflect the audience for whom said files are for. As you know there exist voices from some of the more fringe ideological perspectives that make sure their voices are heard. These vocal majors tend to overshadow the rest of the populance, particularly when an issue "gets hot." I like issues that don't "get hot." ie proceed cordially with respect for one's colleagues. Furthermore, since modern critiques have put the lights out on said ideologies, I don't really like what should be "normal conversations" derailed (distracted by) by those ideologues who don't know what they're talking about. In addition, matters like "women's social empowerment" do not make me paranoid. In fact I rejoice in "women's freedom." However, my definition of "freedom" and "empowerment" is very apolitical since the trappings of political structurings have a way of deeply affecting the personal. Dangers include moves toward mandatory quotas, ie 50% of such and such job "must be filled by women" (or whatever). The sexes have a number of like and different interests, like and differing motivations. When quotas force gender preferences freedom is compromised. Furthermore, there is a difference between "emancipation" and "liberation." Considering the excesses of the latter, it is well to know the difference. "I don't see the dichotomy between the two..." (ideological aggression and [sexual] natural impulses)... I find it perfectly natural for women to recognize and resent previous culturally-based suppression, and to rail against it. Be that ideological aggression? ... so what?" The burden of proof regarding supposed matters of 'suppression' lies on the shoulders of the claimants. As science marches on, the biological differences the sexes have do seem to have a lot to do with the shaping of any given culture. Levin thinks that "gender preferences" are innate. You cannot force a woman to be an engineer if she's not motivated to be one, nor a man to be a househusband. Nor a girl to play with trucks, or a boy with dolls. It's well known that "non-sexist" child rearing is a complete flop. Levin says that "if the broad features of human society flow from innately programmed preferences of men and women, these features are not products of oppression." "So even that symbol is threatening to you...?" Oh no, it's not the symbol, not the symbol .... Russ
310.35		NEXUS::CONLON		`Sun Dec 04 1988 22:59`	16
	RE: .34 Pollitz > You cannot force a woman to be an engineer if she's not > motivated to be one, nor a man to be a househusband. Neither can you force a man to be an engineer if HE is not motivated to be one, nor a woman to be a fulltime homemaker. The IDEA is that you do not assume that culturally-inflicted roles are 'innate' to each sex (and instead, allow each person, man or woman, to decide what role can best fill that individual's desires AND potential.) A society that thinks "engineers are men" and "homemakers are women" is ultimately going to sentence both men and women to unhappy, dissatisfied lives.
310.36		HANDY::MALLETT	Split Decision	`Mon Dec 05 1988 17:14`	31
310.38	gender preference vs mandated change	MCIS2::POLLITZ	gender issues	`Sun Dec 11 1988 18:49`	38
	re .35 Perhaps I should have used the word "motivate" instead "force." Sometimes when I read authors like Friedan such words and phrases accidently slip out if you know what I mean ... Oh, I did make a mistake. One can force women to be engineers. Well, not exactly, but let's take a comparable idea for a ride: "... Eisler urges in the 'Equal Rights Handbook'(NY: Avon 1978)- a book endorsed by the League of Women Voters - that ERA would warrant court action to insure a 50 percent representation of women in administrative and judicial positions at all levels of government and in female characters on television (pp. 193-97). (Broadcasters who failed to comply would lose their licenses.) She adds that ERA would mandate changes in "the educational programs of all schools, universities, vocational colleges, and apprenticeship programs" (p. 193). - M. Levin The idea Suzanne is that so called 'culturally -(based) inflictions' are really just reflections of the way people are inside, and that some ideas to radically "equalize" everything possible "in the name of equality" have been made a stark reality with the Gov't, State, Corporations, Lawmakers, and others all getting a piece of the action. And believe me, someone like Riane who refers to Homemakers as 'crypto-servants' is not interested in Choice, at least not in quite the same way that you and I would like to think. re.36 I'll need some time as there's a lot of technical stuff to cover. Russ P.
310.40		NEXUS::CONLON		`Mon Dec 12 1988 02:24`	17
	RE: .39 Mike, don't get too excited about this. This sounds to me like another instance where Russ finds a sentence written by one woman in a book that is over a decade old and tries to hang an entire movement for it. He has the right to say whatever he wants, of course, but please don't think that his "Reports" on Feminism necessarily constitute arguments (that need refuting) from any of the real Feminists in Notes. Russ condemns all Feminists for ideas that most of us have never heard of before. Movements are composed of people (and not ideologies that take years of research to dig up to be used against them.)
310.41		5645::WATSON	No_Mad	`Mon Dec 12 1988 14:07`	15
310.42	Russ isn't exactly an un-biased source of info about this...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Mon Dec 12 1988 14:22`	20
	RE: .41 The point is that not every single member of any given movement is responsible for every word ever uttered by any person who calls him/herself a member of that movement. If Russ wants to hold the individual author responsible for her words 10 years ago, fine. He shouldn't hold the entire movement (and every person who is affiliated with the movement) responsible. As far as the League of Women Voters "endorsing" the book, I'd want to hear what the League itself had to say before I would accept what opinions Russ claims they have about the ideas. Would YOU accept what Hitler might have said about Jewish ideology, for example (knowing his obvious bias against them and his constant agenda to discredit them) or would you want to reserve judgment until you heard their views from their own spokespersons?
310.43		5645::WATSON	No_Mad	`Mon Dec 12 1988 15:14`	11
	If Russ can fill us in on his source for stating the League of Women Voters endorsed the book, that would be nice. Let him speak for himself. One cannot say he belongs to an organization unless one subscribes to that organization's ideology. Any views spoken by a representative of said organization will reflect the views of the entire organization. thnx, Kip
310.44	To Russ...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Mon Dec 12 1988 15:14`	54
	RE: .38 > Perhaps I should have used the word "motivate" instead > "force." Ok, fine. Then I'll change my statement to "You can't motivate a man to be engineer if he doesn't want to be one, nor can you motivate a woman to be a fulltime homemaker." It fits, either way. > Oh, I did make a mistake. One can force women to be > engineers. Well, not exactly, but let's take a comparable > idea for a ride: What are you trying to say here? > "... Eisler urges in the 'Equal Rights Handbook'(NY: Avon > 1978)- a book endorsed by the League of Women Voters - > that ERA would warrant court action to insure a 50 percent > representation of women in administrative and judicial > positions at all levels of government and in female characters > on television (pp. 193-97).... Eisler "URGES"? That sounds like she is trying to promote a personal opinion of what should happen (rather than trying to predict actual events that might occur.) Of course, it is hard to tell because you didn't quote her own words. You quoted someone who interpreted what she said. > The idea Suzanne is that so called 'culturally -(based) > inflictions' are really just reflections of the way people > are inside... What people (and how do you divide them up according to the way "they are inside"?) Do you think that all men are the "same way" inside (and all women are the same way inside as other women?) I'm talking about "ways" other than strictly biological, of course, as I infer you are. I'm an engineer, so at work, I'm more the "way" engineers are inside. Any attempts to take me away from engineering (because it isn't what I am "supposed" to be like inside) would be an affront to my individuality as a person (as well as to the way I really am inside.) If we allow our culture to make judgments about what we 'ought' to want (based on the way it perceives each of us TO BE, based strictly on our sex,) then we cease to be individuals and our culture will fail to offer us the opportunities we need to reach our full potential as human beings.
310.45	Feminism NE A formal organization	WMOIS::B_REINKE	Mirabile dictu	`Mon Dec 12 1988 15:26`	13
	Kip, The actual definition of feminism, as I have mentioned in this file before, is 'advocay of the political, social and economic equality of men and women'. (There was a long back and forth discussion of this in note 301, titled "Nifty New Slogan?") To call oneself a feminist can, and often does, mean that you subscribe to the dictionary definition of feminism. It does not mean that you are a member of a feminist organization (there are many) or to the philosophy of any other person who writes books or speaks on feminism. Bonnie
310.46		NEXUS::CONLON		`Mon Dec 12 1988 15:26`	30
	RE: .43 > One cannot say he belongs to an organization unless one subscribes to > that organization's ideology. Any views spoken by a representative of > said organization will reflect the views of the entire organization. Although there are organizations which consider themselves as "Feminist," they are a subset of the Feminist Movement (which, by contrast, is NOT a formal organization unto itself.) If a person belongs to a Superset that has NO formal structure, such as a formal 'joining' or 'dues' procedure with the accompanying election of or subsciption to a certain set of leaders, then one belongs to a ideological MOVEMENT and NOT an organization. Therefore, one is not responsible for every word ever uttered by every person who belongs to either the Superset or an organized Subset. The only thing that one commits to by calling him/herself a member of any particular movement is the common factor to which the entire movement has AGREED that all members hold. This 'common factor' cannot (by definition) be something so obscure that most of it's members have never heard it before (as in the case of the obscure quotes mentioned by Russ in an earlier note.) Do you understand?
310.47	Nothing's ever simple	VAXUUM::DEVRIES	Fixed in next version	`Tue Dec 13 1988 17:27`	24
	.43> One cannot say he belongs to an organization unless one subscribes to > that organization's ideology. Any views spoken by a representative of > said organization will reflect the views of the entire organization. I, too, disagree with these assertions. I belonged to a particular religious denomination for many years before I realized that I never really understood what they were talking about, and that there was really a vast gulf between my beliefs and those I had heard (and repeated) regularly. As for any representative automatically reflecting the views of the entire organization, I have a couple of comments: 1) This may be the "legal" view, but we all know from experience that there are spokesmen for the organizations we are in who say things with which we don't agree. 2) The only objective approximation of an organization's ideology is that part which is written down. Most members of groups have a much longer informal agenda, and each person tends to have some items on that personal agenda with which others in the group might not fully agree. Mark
310.49		HANDY::MALLETT	Split Decision	`Tue Dec 13 1988 20:03`	24
	re: .48 O.K. So now in fairness, "the obvious must be stated" that neither is Arpad exactly un-biased, nor Steve, nor Chelsea, nor. . . I think Suzanne's observation that Russ sometimes takes specific quotes from one author and tried to attach that quote to all "feminists" is an accurate one. In one instance, he asked someone to justify her feminist beliefs in light of his interpretation of one such author's words. Moreover, just as "the peace movement" or the "black power" movements were not organizations with stated platforms, the "feminist movement" is a phrase which covers a wide spectrum of individuals, organizations and the beliefs they all hold. While there is a strong base of commonality within a "movement" there's also a great deal of diversity. Arpad, you apparently reject the definition of feminism that Bonnie gave (.45) by stating "Equality! Not Feminism!" in your personal name. Why? Would you say also "Equality! Not Black Power!" as well? Steve
310.50	Consistantly inconsistant	KOBAL::BROWN	upcountry frolics	`Tue Dec 13 1988 20:28`	31
	re: .49 Good points, Steve. It's interesting to note that nothing is called a "movement" when it first starts - only when it has gotten up a head of steam. There were plenty of feminists before there was a "feminist movement." And the term "movement" is just a convenient handle for talking about directions in social change. Since movements are made up of multiple individuals and groups based on related but sometimes widely divergent beliefs, it is unrealistic and naive to expect consistancy. That's good - because consistancy = stagnation in terms of social change. The energy that changes societies comes from the creative tensions between point and counterpoint. Look at notes... Other musings... When it comes to looking at how relations between people are changing, look at the people around you first. Books are good for letting you know who was thinking what at a particular (past) point in time. They're not so good for telling you what's going to happen next. (And this from a BOOKSnoter, writer, and former English major!) I only have to look around and talk to people to feel the chilling effects of the New Macho mentioned in the base note. And I react to it at gut-level - I don't check a book to tell me how to respond. My identification with feminism comes from my respect for the strong, capable, intellegent, and compassionate women I know: my wife, family, friends, and coworkers.
310.51	Ann must be laughing	MCIS2::POLLITZ	gender issues	`Tue Dec 13 1988 23:05`	1

310.52	Mistakes have and will be made	CAP::FISHER	Work that dream and love your life.	`Wed Dec 14 1988 13:25`	23
	Movements, since they are composed of people, also make mistakes. I remember in a Core Group meeting, I was laughed at because I said that, at age 27, my career path at DEC was not important to me (since I was young enough to get another job somewhere else). Before he finished laughing, I said, "But I reserve the right to change my mind at sometime in the future." The guy who was laughing nodded his head in agreement. I suppose that, if it were possible, the feminist leaders would take back some of the things they did and said along the way. And they have the right to change their minds, too (without changing their overall goal). But the funny thing is that, at the time, the choice usually seems to be to do nothing or to try to do something in response to a problem (sexism). When you choose to do something, you make mistakes. And what a coincidence it seems that many of the most critical people are ones who "saw no problems" or who saw the problems and did nothing. --Gerry
310.53	Time out	BETSY::WATSON	No_Mad	`Wed Dec 14 1988 14:41`	20
	re: .45 (Bonnie) Thanks for the definition of feminism (again), Bonnie. Since it (definition) "does not mean that you are a member of a feminist organization...or [that you subscribe] to the philosophy of any other person who writes books or speaks on feminism", than what I said in .43 does not apply _here_. I went back and re-read .0 As far as the "New Macho" goes, I just don't buy it outright as presented by the author. The article places too much emphasis on men being solely responsible for the woes of the world - and suggests that it's up to us to be solely responsible for correcting them. (Flame away if you want; I won't be responding to this topic any longer.) thnx, Kip
310.54		HANDY::MALLETT	Split Decision	`Thu Dec 15 1988 14:00`	21
310.55		CSC32::M_VALENZA	Born again secular humanist	`Tue Dec 20 1988 15:50`	21
	I recently observed a panel discussion on the changes that feminism has brought about in society. One of the panel members described her difficulties, as a female entrepreneur, in gaining respect and acceptance within the local business community. She had to combat certain stereotypes about what she as a female was capable of doing. What I found interesting was that in this same panel discussion there were several comments about the supposed lack of nurturing qualities in men. Apparently I was the only person there who noticed the irony that those who decried the stereotypes that limit what women are expected to be able to do would turn around and express traditional stereotypes about a supposed limitation in men. I can expect reactionary thinking from reactionaries; but when people with apparently progressive credentials implicitly accept a stereotype, and when that stereotype exemplifies the macho myth, then perhaps that says a lot about why our society has progressed so little. Perhaps the evils of Reagan-era conservatism simply reflect a more deeply ingrained problem in U.S. society. -- Mike
310.56	<>	ERLANG::LEVESQUE	I fish, therefore I am...	`Tue Dec 20 1988 16:11`	29
	please elaborate on the "evils of the Reagan era conservatism" I'm sure that's not a stereotype, either. The fact of the matter is that it is virtually impossible to go through life without accepting at least a few stereotypes. No matter how "enlightened" any particular group is, they always manage to subscribe to a few stereotypes themselves while decrying other's inability to see through stereotypes aimed at them. It is very simple. Realizing, of course, that sweeping generalizations are never "always true", it is possible to make statements that cover a statistically significant portion of a group's members. For example, many women feel oppressed; they feel that men look down upon them and their abilities because they are women. It is somewhat interesting to note that many of these same women also feel that their abilities in certain areas exceed that of men, by virtue of their femininity. It is always easier to see fault in someone else. When that fault is also present in you, it's always "different" somehow. We are all human. We are not perfect. It's all part of the deal, like it or not. It is very easy to be hypocritical regarding stereotypes. It is especially humorous when one person from group A tells a person in group B what a horrible condescending attitude they have, and they do it condescendingly. That they are being hypocritical is totally lost... Mark
310.57		NEXUS::CONLON		`Wed Dec 21 1988 17:54`	35
	RE: .56 > It is especially humorous when one person from group A tells > a person in group B what a horrible condescending attitude > they have, and they do it condescendingly. That they are being > hypocritical is totally lost... You have seriously underestimated the level of insight that persons from 'Group A' display when they use a condescending tone to address the tendencies that some members of 'Group B' have of using that very tone (on a regular basis!) to address some members of Group A. Not only is the use of a condescending tone effective in demonstrating (to some) what the tone sounds like to the listener, it can also be a source of humor to some other members of 'Group A' (because of the irony involved in seeing a condescending tone used in that particular configuration.) Before anyone starts in about "two wrongs don't make a right" or "the end doesn't justify the means," I'd like to point out that I don't consider the use of a condescending tone to be a moral issue. It's just another social dynamic (among many!) that takes place between humans (and as such, is worth of exploration from time to time, especially in contra-traditional ways.) Whether the use of this particular tone from 'Group A' makes you uncomfortable (or just plain angry,) don't assume that the significance of such a tone is lost on those who have chosen to use it in certain situations involving interactions with 'Group B.' Take my word for it, the members of 'Group A' know exactly what they're doing when they use it. >;^)
310.58	oh- group A is just superior to group B	ERLANG::LEVESQUE	I fish, therefore I am...	`Wed Dec 21 1988 18:39`	11
	In other words, it is implicitly assumed that when group B uses a condescending tone, it is not that they are using it as a social tool; it is that they are ignorant. However, group A uses a condescending tone only as a social tool. My apparent confusion is that you seem to feel that using a superior attitude to decry the same quality in another is not somehow hypocritical... IE- I can do the same thing that you do, but I can ream you out for doing it. That sounds logical. :^0 Mark
310.59	Not that I think all/most members of Group B are condescending...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Wed Dec 21 1988 20:23`	61
	RE: .58 > oh- group A is just superior to group B < Isn't it interesting how you assume that Group A would have to really feel superior to Group B to finally/occasionally engage in behavior that has been common to Group B for thousands of years (even though the behavior is still very rare for Group A as a whole even now)? > In other words, it is implicitly assumed that when group B uses > a condescending tone, it is not that they are using it as a social > tool; it is that they are ignorant. Well, actually, I was trying to give Group B the benefit of the doubt here (by implying that the use of a condescending tone is sometimes unintentional.) If you want to use the word 'ignorant,' well, if the shoe fits (as they say.) I do think that some members of Group B do it intentionally as well -- something about the Group B ego, I think... :-) > However, group A uses a condescending tone only as a social > tool. Let's just say that Group A has been less conditioned to use the tone automatically, so it requires a special purpose when some members of Group A use it (and education is one of the possible special purposes.) > My apparent confusion is that you seem to feel that using a > superior attitude to decry the same quality in another is not > somehow hypocritical... Well, perhaps this will help you relate: If someone challenges you to a brawl, you may not believe in fighting, but if you give the impression that your non-combatal stance is because you are UNABLE to fight, the challenger will never let you alone. Once you show that you are willing and able to defend yourself if necessary, then you can start talking about not really wanting to fight with the person in the first place. If you put it on a verbal level, it comes out to, "We are both able to take a superior stance with each other in conversation, so why don't we drop the stance and just talk to each other like equals instead." >IE- I can do the same thing that you do, but I can ream you out >for doing it. That sounds logical. :^0 No, actually, it comes out to, "This is what you often do to me and now you know that I can do it to you as well. So neither one of us needs to continue it. Let's just talk to each other as equals." I'm not suggesting that it always works (or even works very often.) But polite requests and ignoring condescending attitudes don't work either, so at least the humorous aspect is left for some folks in Group A. Sometimes, that alone makes the whole thing worth it. :-)
310.60		HANNAH::MODICA		`Thu Dec 22 1988 16:32`	20
	A most revealing couple of notes .57/.59 Suzanne, which I found thought provoking and I'd like to share some of those thoughts. Might make a fascinating new topic actually. This use of group A, group B smacks of us vs them thinking which in my opinion serves to do nothing but further redefine and reinforce differences in the continuing embrace of conflict. Condescension is at best an attitude of disrespect for others, at it's worst, a tactic of intimidation and derision. I personally feel that condescension is never justified. By the same token, I understand the analogy you offered and at a cursory glance I may agree with it. But upon deeper reflection I must disagree. I feel that there must come a time when the cycle of confrontation must be broken; that people must learn to stop and listen to each other, that we must stop holding each other accountable for what transpired before and move forward. Hank
310.61	great note, Hank	ERLANG::LEVESQUE	I fish, therefore I am...	`Thu Dec 22 1988 17:07`	6
	re .60 Maybe we CAN rise above the pettiness, if more people have that attitude. Mark
310.62		NEXUS::CONLON		`Thu Dec 22 1988 17:30`	25
	RE: .60 Exactly, Hank. But how do you break the cycle of confrontation and start learning how to talk to each other? You might notice that my stance in talking about this is not condescending (although I have engaged in a bit of friendly teasing here and there.) :-) It's jes the devil in me. :-) Seriously, though... By my revealing things here, you realize that I've left myself somewhat vulnerable (in certain areas,) which gives others the opportunity to choose between slamming me against the wall or just talking to me. You, personally, chose to talk to me. That's one way to get things started and I appreciate it. Using a condescending/superior tone can be used as a way to distance yourself from certain kinds of unfriendly interactions (and entertaining yourself in the process, in some cases.) However, you're right. Talking is better (and is far and away more enjoyable than the alternative.) Happy Holidays!
310.63	Peace and friendship for us all in the New Year...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Thu Dec 22 1988 17:31`	4
	RE: .61 Happy Holidays to you, too, Mark!