Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    One thing to keep in mind is that all the surveys (Nielsen, etc.)
    show that women watch more television than men.   This could go
    a long way toward explaining the anti-male bias on television that
    I have noticed and that has turned my TV into nothing more than
    a monitor for my VCR.
    
    
    

    
    
     How about "Family Ties"? Alex (Michael J. Fox) is always running
    down on his sister Mallory about her lack of intelligence.
    
     Just an observation.....
    
    Mike.
    

    Is this another case of trying to *balance* male=female/female=male.
    
    In any case an attempt to show one person better that another at the
    expense of the other is *WRONG*.

 I think what we are seeing is a case of "turnabout's fair play." For years and 
years it has been almost drilled into us that men are smarter than women, etc
etc. Now we have some people trying to undo those years of conditioning. And
perhaps they are doing more of it than is necessary. However, I think what we
are noticing as anti-male bias is exactly what women have had to deal with for
centuries; we are only noticing it because it affects us.

 The Doctah

    but does that make it acceptable doc?
    
    I dont think so. The ole "hows it feel" mindset is nto a good way to
    gain support.

Re: .6

My experience was different.  I went to a "prep school" that had been
boys-only for many years.  My senior year they admitted one girl, the
joke then being "If you've seen one Hebron co-ed, you've seen them all!".
The next year they went fully co-ed.  From looking at the news I get from
the school, the girls have almost uniformly taken over the top scholastic
ranks, and get almost almost all of the scholastic acheivement prizes.

I don't think that girls are necessarily smarter by nature, but on the average
they do seem to be more serious about learning than boys.

				Steve

    Mass media entertainment has never made a claim to being anything
    but a low nutrition, watered-down, vanilla flavoured representation
    of someone else's perception of what will sell to the public.
    
    So Steel Magnolias and the Cosby show are not accurate in their
    portrayal of sexes and 10,000 movies/year show women with cleavage
    enough to make jogging impossible.  If you permit your idea of reality
    to be a reflection of these 2-D images then you deserve to have
    a warped sense of reality.  
    
    Being offended by these images is like being offended that the Big Mac
    you just purchased doesn't look like the picture behind the counter and
    doesn't taste like anything but mushy biomass.  What did you expect;
    Chateau Briande?
    
    What did you expect; reality?
    
    Kris

>     <<< Note 394.5 by CONURE::AMARTIN "U-Q36-Explosive-Space-Modulator" >>>
>
>    but does that make it acceptable doc?
    
    Well, yes and no. It isn't acceptable (fundamentally). It is actually a
    good thing (sort of) because it shows men dramatically exactly what the
    women have been complaining about for years (and what we've been seeing
    without really seeing). It IS lousy. It IS offensive. It IS an insult.
    But if it hastens the time when we're all treated fairly and equally, I
    can't say the momentary discomfort I feel from watching a blatantly
    biased representation of men is that high a price to pay.
    
    re: Mike_Z
    
    Big deal- all 135 members of my class were male. :-) So all the top 135
    were male. (Course, the bottom 135 were male too. :-)
    
    The Doctah

Is it acceptable (turning the discrimination tables)?  It depends on 
the percentages.  I don't think that it is discriminatory to "tell the 
truth."  To me, it is true that boys disinterested in school do exist.

I think all I would ask would be that TV come closer to looking like 
what I see in my life.  In my life, I see some stupid boys.  I also 
see some stupid girls, smart boys, and smart girls and _lots_ 
in between.  

Something else that TV should watch out for is that kids change as
they grow.  It can be true that a boy disinterested in grade school
studies may become a bright student in highschool or college.  It
would be nice to see some of that flexibility displayed by some TV
characters. 

If we start seeing almost all boys being portrayed as stupid jocks on
TV, then I think that we would have a right to complain and to ask for
the other types of boys to be represented on TV as well (the brains,
the theatrical boys, the artists, the sensitive ones, the smart jock,
the artistic jock, and so forth).  It is the overall TV portrayal of
boys that I would watch out for. 



							--Gerry

>      <<< Note 394.6 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "I no gonna choot you, Frank" >>>

>	In my high school class, the top 10 students were male.



	 Hahahaha....in my graduating class, the top 45 students were
	 female.......#46 was a male, and the next male didn't hit the
	 scene until #63.
	 


	 kath

    OK, OK... lets take this terms Honor Roll in Nashua....
    
    I shall only use the names that, to the best of my ability, appear male
    or female.
    
    All A's (grades 10, 11, and 12)
    
    11 females and 7 males with males holding two of the three top spots
    
    Top five in grade 10 , all female except one. (male was 3rd)
    Top two (only two) grade 11 one male and one female (the male was first)
    top four (only four) grade 12 two females and two males (male being
    top)
    
    All A's and B's (grades 10, 11, 12)
    
    (there are too too many to go through it all so Ill do the top ten in
    each class)
    
    grade 10
    
    top place to female and second to male
    total of 6 females and 4 males within the top ten
    
    grade 11
    
    top place to male and second to male also
    total of 5 males and 5 females within the top ten
    
    grade 11
    
    top place to a female and second also
    total of 6 females and 4 males within the top ten
    
    BTW: all names were OBVIOUS male or female names, with none to leave
    out or guess at.
    
    draw your own conclusions.
    
    another tid bit:  Going through the tenth grade only, I noticed that at
    least , oh, say, 65 - 70% of the honor class were females.
    

    Hard to believe that some of you folks can remember those top ten
    stats.  I'm impressed.
    
    But if you really wanted to do some comparision between the sexes, it
    wouldn't be fair to women.  One can look into almost any area and find
    that men take all honors.  That's not to say women are less, but it's
    a fact.  There are many reasons for this.  It's not really anyone's
    fault.  The universe is/had unfolded as it should.
    
    Furthermore, men and women are NOT the same.
    
    Dwight

    	RE: .13  Dwight
    
    	> But if you really wanted to do some comparision between the 
    	> sexes, it wouldn't be fair to women.  One can look into almost 
    	> any area and find that men take all honors. 
    
    	Your "any area" must not include education, since it's been my
    	experience from grade school through college - and the experience
    	of others here as well - that the top honors were very often taken 
    	by women.
    
    	Your "any area" must not include the entertainment field, such
    	as movies, since there are more multiple/memorable Oscar winners
    	among the women actors than there are among the men actors.
    
    	Your "any area" must not include Nobel prize winners, since women
    	have taken top honors in areas such as medical research.
    
    	Your "any area" must not include a lot more "areas" I could mention.

    -1
    
    Entertainment, politics, sports, writers, military, medical, ....
    wow... there are so many more....
    
    Heck, even business... after all, we both work for the same MAN, don't
    we?
    
    Dwight

    	RE: .15  Dwight
    
    	> Entertainment, politics, sports, writers, military, medical, ....
    	> wow... there are so many more....
    
    	Well, I disagree with your statement that men hold "ALL" the top
    	honors in "almost any area" you can name.  They may hold many, but 
    	it is certainly a delusion to claim that men hold "all" (as you said.)
    
    	> Heck, even business... after all, we both work for the same MAN, 
    	> don't we?
    
    	That's not the only "top honor" in this company, unless you only
    	count something as an "honor" when men do it.
    

    I didnt remember them all silly... I read them outah the paper.
    
    Re SUe, All he did was reverse your attitude and violla! HE is the
    sexist....

    	RE: .18  AMartin
    
    	> Re SUe, All he did was reverse your attitude... 
    
    	Show me where I have *ever* said that women hold ALL the top
    	honors in almost any area you can name.
    
    	> and violla! HE is the sexist....
    
    	Hey, *you* are calling him that.  I did not.
    

>    Re SUe, All he did was reverse your attitude and violla! HE is the
>    sexist....

 It didn't appear that way to me. 

 The Doctah

    
    
    This argument about who is smarter really kills me.  I am a female
    engineer and have heard this so many times.  My observations have
    been that the folks who worry about it the most are usually the
    least smart (if that term can be used).  What difference does it
    make who is smarter.  The fact still remains that each sex is entitled
    to be whoever each individual wants to be.  All of us are born with
    brains in our heads.  It is the individuals choice as to how they
    use their brain.
    
    Michele

    re.  16  colon
    
    To answer in your own style of noting...
    
    
    >>> That's not the only "top honor" in this company, unless you only
    	count something as an "honor" when men do it.
    
    I never said that it was the "only top honor," did I???
    
    Dwight

    	RE: .22  Dwight 
    
    	> I never said that it was the "only top honor," did I???
    
    	It was the only top honor you saw worth listing.
    
    	If you're willing to recognize now that women also hold top honors 
    	in Digital (along with "almost any area" you can name,) I would
    	agree with you.
    

    
    I get the feeling my question has gotten misconstrued. I didn't
    mean for this topic to turn into a men vs women, who's smarter debate.
    
    I too, as some of you have mentioned, feel that there are just as
    many smart females, as there are smart males. This is why I get
    so distressed with the seemingly one-sidedness of television writers.
    I was only curious to see what everybody thought of the way television
    is portraying the male siblings of the "TV sitcom family".
    
    Ron

    re:  .22
    
    I didn't try/want this to go to a rathole.  I was calling'em like I
    see'em.  It really doesn't matter though.  I've seen these topics
    debated many times, to no avail.  I also never jumped into the
    "smarter" attitude either.  It's silly.  If I said, "Look at the man on
    the moon," it would cause an arguement with some ..... individuals.
    
    Dwight

    Turnabout *is* fair play.  The tired old argument, "But that isn't
    the way to win someone over" or to "win support" as one noter said
    it, is irrlevant whining.  The men who notice the new wave of negative
    male treatment are seeing only 1/10th of what women for centuries live
    every day of their lives.  If you think this relatively miniscule
    phenomenon isn't fair, isn't nice, doesn't feel good, you are still 
    further ahead than the women who are and have been experiencing the
    same thing only nastier, more often, and from far more sources than
    a few tv shows.  
    
    You really can't expect sympathy from women on this kind of an issue.  
    So you see it on tv.  We see it on tv, the movies, the billboards,
    novels, live it in our work lives, our social lives, etc.  We LIVE the 
    negative images that are invented of us.  So far, you still move in 
    society with relative freedom.  You haven't lost a job promotion
    because some woman assumed you were a 'classic male bimbo' despite
    your qualifications, have you?  
    
    You're simply joining the club women have been exclusive members of 
    forever and are probably just irked that you shouldn't be because
    you're male (as in, 'maybe women get treated like this, but MEN?'). 
    
    I wish the media wouldn't be sexist at all.  But as long as it's
    going to continue being sexist to women, and that hasn't abated
    much, I am more than happy to see some overt sexism being slung the 
    other way.  Yes, how does it feel?  
     

    
    re: .26
    
           I'm trying to stay out of this "poor opressed male/female"
    syndrome, but since reading your reply left me DOWN at that level, 
    does the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right" ring a bell?

    re: 26...
    You must be a real ball at parties....
    

    re:  .26  ciccolini
    
    >>>>     society with relative freedom.  You haven't lost a job promotion
    because some woman assumed you were a 'classic male bimbo' despite
    your qualifications, have you?  
    
    There are "endless" times when a man "missed" a job entirely, only
    because he "was" male.
    
    >>>>     much, I am more than happy to see some overt sexism being
    slung the  other way.  Yes, how does it feel?  
    
    Happy, really?  Then I'm happy for you.
    
    DB
    
    

Re: .26

Hi Susan,

First off, I don't want to blast you for your reply or your anger
(if I'm reading anger where there isn't any, I apologize).  I feel
a lot of anger too, sometimes, and I think it's healthy to be able
to let of steam verbally from time to time.  But I want to ask you
some questions, because I'm curious what statements are coming from
your realistic views, and which are coming from your anger.

>				The men who notice the new wave of negative
>    male treatment are seeing only 1/10th of what women for centuries live
>    every day of their lives.

>								We LIVE the 
>    negative images that are invented of us.  

>    You're simply joining the club women have been exclusive members of 
>    forever 

Questions:

	Do you think every woman has had the same experience you have
	had, and thereby, every woman has had the same experience of
	negative treatment?

	Do you think that any men have felt opressed and negatively
	defined by society?  If so, is it true that no man has 
	experienced this to the extreme that all women have felt?

	Do you really think that women are exclusive members of this
	"club"?  What about (in our society) blacks? American Indians?
	Japenese (during world war II)?  Gays?  Lesbians?  (I purposefully
	chose groups that include both men and women).

To give some of my own opinions, so you can see where I am coming from,
to question one, I think, no not every woman has had the same experience.
I think that many factors other than sex contribution to the *definite*
elements of negative treatment that women experience.  Economics, social
class, race, appearence... all these things play a role in each individuals
experience.  I would also assert that men have have also always faced
*definite* elements of negative treatment from society.  

You seem to be asserting that, since you believe that the negative elements
that women face are more overt and negative than those that men face, a men
complaining of oppression is a silly creature (correct me if my paraphrase
is incorrect).  But, to follow that logic, it seems to me that *only* the
group that has been *the most oppressed* ever has any right to complain.

But if this is the case, then it would seem that black women have it over
white women, and jewish people who lived through the holocost might have 
it over them (not necessarily my real opinions, I'm just trying to illustrate),
and so on and so on.

I certainly have sympathy for the struggles that you have most definitely
faced through your life.  And I have sympathy for the fact that you have
probably received precious little sympathy for those struggles and that
oppression.  But I think it's unfortunate when we start to think, "I have
suffered, therefore noone has a right to talk about suffering to me."

Question two, yes I think men have felt oppressed and negatively defined
by society, be they gay or weak or ugly, or anything that society says
they shouldn't be.  It may seem silly to you, but just as you say men
have never experienced what it is like to be a woman, women have never
experienced what it is like to be a man.  It can be tough for some men.

Question three, as mentioned above, I think many different groups have
experienced what you're talking about.  I don't think that belittles 
your very real experiences of pain and victimization, or cancels them.
I don't think everyone has experienced these things, but I don't think
any one group has an exclusive hold on it.

I'm looking forward to your comments.

Kerry

>    You really can't expect sympathy from women on this kind of an issue.  
    
    Actually, it might make a whole lot more sense for you to say "See what
    _we've_ been dealing with?" and being sympathetic instead of saying
    "Tough crap." I don't mean you have to say "Oh, my, that's not fair;
    we'll stop it immediately." 
    
>But as long as it's
>    going to continue being sexist to women, and that hasn't abated
>    much, I am more than happy to see some overt sexism being slung the 
>    other way.  Yes, how does it feel?           
    
    I wouldn't say I'm "more than happy," but I tend to agree with you. If
    anything is going to spur men into action, it's perceived injustice.
    And part of the problem is that some forms of sexism are so ingrained
    and subtle that they are not recognized as being sexist anymore. So
    when stuff like this happens, I say "Boy, is this aggravating!" But I
    also think about how much of the exact same treatment women get on a
    regular basis, so I think I can better empathise with women when they
    complain about sexism after sexism affects me personally.
    
     The Doctah

    	RE: .30  Bellerose
    
    	> Hi Susan,
    
    	The woman's name happens to be Sandy!  If you confused her with
    	me, my name is not Susan either.  I'm Suzanne.
    
    	> Do you think every woman has had the same experience you have
	> had, and thereby, every woman has had the same experience of
	> negative treatment?
    
    	Why are you personalizing this to Sandy's life when she was
    	obviously talking about the societal treatment of women as a
    	group?
    
    	Do you deny that women are regarded with more negative images
    	in our society than men are (as a group)?
    
    	> Question three, as mentioned above, I think many different groups 
    	> have experienced what you're talking about.  I don't think that 
    	> belittles your very real experiences of pain and victimization, or 
    	> cancels them.
    
    	I wonder if you have any idea how patronizing that sounds.

    	RE: .27  Mills
    
    	>  does the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right" ring a bell?
    
    	Allow me to quote an important part of Sandy's reply that *some*
    	here apparently didn't see very well:
    
    	.26> I wish the media wouldn't be sexist at all.  
    
    	Do you wish the same (or not)?
    
    	.26> But as long as it's going to continue being sexist to women, 
    	.26> and that hasn't abated much, I am more than happy to see some 
    	.26> overt sexism being slung the other way. 
    
    	Do you feel that it is *more* wrong (or some kind of "second wrong"
    	to go along with your "two wrongs" statement) for both women *and*
    	men to experience this kind of negative treatment, or do you think
    	there is some justification for WOMEN to be subject to sexism while
    	MEN are not?

    	RE: .33 Mike Z.
    
    	> I deny that women, as a group, are regarded with more negative
    	> images in our society than men are, as a group.
    
    	There is a marked difference between the kind of negative images
    	that I think you may be to referring to (versus the ones that
    	were on my mind when I asked the question.)
    
    	Many/most of the negative images attributed to men in our society
    	involve the qualities of strength and/or aggression (which are
    	often considered positive attributes when taken by themselves or
    	in other contexts.)

    	RE: .36  Mike Z.
    
    	> Are you claiming that women are portrayed in more (re: quantity)
    	> negative ways, or that the negative portrayals of women are more 
    	> severe?
    
    	Are you talking about television portrayals, or how our society
    	regards women and men in general?
    

Re: .32

Hi Suzanne!

Sorry about the name mixup (to both you and Sandy).  I was addressing 
Sandy, at least, I *think* I was... in any case, I was responding to 
the author of reply 26.

First off, in a later note you ask if "we" wish that the media was
not sexist at all.

YES YES YES YES YES!  I think it's extremely damaging to see attributes
as "feminine" or "masculine" rather than "human."  That makes those who
strive to be only masculine or feminine only half a person.  I think
that these images are so prevelant it's very difficult to see them
after having lived in a society for all your life (not impossible
by any means, as this discussion testifies).

I think certain devaluing of what is "feminine" does exist in our
society (I studied the History of Women in Modern Europe in college
under an excellent professor).  I've studied feminism in other areas
of my life starting in high school (I was lucky to have a sister
and a mother who were both strong feminists).

Unfortunately, a side of that was that "masculine" attributes were
strongly devalued in my family, and my own experience has been one
of valuing what is "female" and devaluing what is "male."  This is
hard for many people to understand given the prevalence of male 
sexism in our society.

I wouldn't call my mother and sister female sexists, they seem to
me much less bias than some of the men I've met.  My point is that
each person has very different experiences in life.  It's true, I
believe, that by virtue of our sex, men and women have different
experiences.  And, it seems to me, that more of that comes from 
"political" struggles rather than physical differences.  But sexual
differences are not the only (and perhaps not the strongest) 
differences that exist.  Class differences, race difference, cultural
differences, all these things and more, combined with sexual difference,
are what influences a person's experiences.

What bothered me in Sandy's note (no flame here Sandy, I understand
where you are coming from), was the impression I got that men, by
virtue of their sex, can not understand what it is like to be oppressed.
Some men certainly have had little experience with it, I agree whole
heartedly, but some men have felt opression and devaluing, and I don't
think discounting those experiences is good for us (except, maybe when it
lets us blow of some steam).  I hoped to find out from Sandy if she
was blowing off some steam or if she really believed that men, by
virtue of their sex, were incapable of understanding who poorly some
women are treated by our society.

>    	> Question three, as mentioned above, I think many different groups 
>    	> have experienced what you're talking about.  I don't think that 
>    	> belittles your very real experiences of pain and victimization, or 
>    	> cancels them.
>
>    	I wonder if you have any idea how patronizing that sounds.

Gee, Suzanne, I don't know what to say.  I phrased my question like
that because I have felt, in the past, that I had no right being 
angry at my own victimatation because other people had been victimized
worse.  I'm finally (somewhat shakily), allowing myself to be symphathetic
to my own pain as well as that of others.  I wanted to make it clear to
Sandy that I didn't mean to say that she had nothing to complain about.
In short, the statement was more something I have to remind myself about
so I thought it might be helpful for her.  

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

    
    RE: .34  Conlon
    
    >  .26> I wish the media wouldn't be sexist at all.
    
    >  Do you wish the same (or not)?
    
    That's just the point... I am the author of this note... I DO wish
    the media WOULDN'T be sexist.
    
    > Do you feel that it is *more* wrong (or some kind of "second wrong"
    > to go along with your "two wrongs" statement) for both women *and*
    > men to experience this kind of negative treatment.
    
    I think you will agree that it is difficult to change what has happened
    in the PAST. I am trying to say that the negative treatment of women
    in the past was wrong, and the negative treatment of men now is
    not going to change what women have already had to go through...
    AKA - Two wrongs don't make a right.
    
    Do YOU think the negative treatment of men is going to make it "ALL
    BETTER"? Or will it just make YOU feel better? 
    

    Consider the following:
    
     Many of us are familiar with (and like) the network TV show called
    "Beauty and the Beast". This show revolves around the
    love/attraction/relationship between a strong, intelligent, beautiful 
    woman (Catherine) who lives in downtown New York, and a strong,
    intelligent, disfigured man (Vincent)  who lives beneath the city. 
    
     According to a recent usenet posting, the new season of the show will
    have 'more car chases' and 'more action scenes' so that it will attract 
    the male audience, and not be a 'woman's' show.
    
    				Without comment
    					Nigel

>    Do YOU think the negative treatment of men is going to make it "ALL
>    BETTER"? Or will it just make YOU feel better? 
    
    If I may interject...
    
    (And I promise not to push this point anymore)
    
     IF the devaluation of men on TV makes men sit up and take notice; and
    if this prompts men to accelerate the cessation of devaluation of both
    men and women, then I think it is like cutting the skin to suck the
    poison out of a snakebite and is therefore a good thing.
    
    The Doctah 

    	RE: .39  Mills
    
    	> That's just the point... I am the author of this note... I DO wish
    	> the media WOULDN'T be sexist.
    
    	That's how *I* feel, too!
    
    	> I think you will agree that it is difficult to change what has 
    	> happened in the PAST. 
    
    	It's hard to change the negative treatment that is still happening
    	to women in the *present*, too!
    
    	> I am trying to say that the negative treatment of women in the past 
    	> was wrong, and the negative treatment of men now is not going to 
    	> change what women have already had to go through...
    
    	The problem I have with what you are saying is that I don't agree
    	that the negative treatment of women (in the media *and* in society
    	in general) is "in the past"!
    
    	What you are still missing is Sandy's statement:  "But as long as 
    	it's [the media] going to continue being sexist to women, and that 
    	hasn't abated much, I am more than happy to see some overt sexism 
    	being slung the other way."
    
    	I agree with her that the media *still* projects negative images
    	of women (as well as men.)  
    
    	> AKA - Two wrongs don't make a right.
    
    	This almost implies to me that you think women are doing this to
    	men out of spite.  Since men still control the media, I have reason
    	to doubt that this is the case.
    
    	> Do YOU think the negative treatment of men is going to make it "ALL
    	> BETTER"? 
    
    	Is there some reason why you think I should protest sexism against
    	men *more* than sexism against women (even though sexism against 
    	women exists in *far* greater volume, and over thousands of years 
    	longer than sexism against men)?
    
    	While I don't really think that the negative treatment of men is
    	going to make it "all better" (except in the sense that the Doctah
    	mentioned about making people more aware of sexism in general,)
    	neither do I see it as a "second wrong" that needs to be corrected
    	before we're able to correct the "first wrong" (of negative images
    	of *women* in the media.)
    
    	It's just a new sellable twist on the same wrong, and I agree that
    	it would be *far* better if there were no sexism in the media AT
    	ALL!
    
    	> Or will it just make YOU feel better? 
    
    	I never said it made me feel better.  I only question the idea of
    	fighting the media's sexism towards men more than the media's
    	continuing sexism against women.  
    
    	If the media is going to be sexist towards one gender group, it
    	only seems fair that they're sexist towards both (until we can get
    	them to stop being sexist ALTOGETHER, which is the best possible
    	goal for all of us.)

    	RE: .38  Bellerose
    
    	Thanks for your thoughtful note.
    
    	> Do you understand where I'm coming from?
    
    	Yes, more so now than I did before.
    
    	What bothered me about your personalizing Sandy's comments to
    	her own alleged "pain" (etc.) was the idea of making an assumption
    	about her own life based on what she said about negative images
    	of women and men, in general.
    
    	Far too often, people tend to make assumptions about women when
    	they speak openly about injustice to women in general (as if women
    	only have opinions about such things if we've been seriously and
    	quite personally victimized in some way.)
    
    	Although I'm sure you didn't mean it this way at all, the assumptions
    	about a woman's personal victimization are often made as a way to
    	discount/disregard what women say - ("Oh, you just feel that way
    	because you've had bad experiences with men" or whatever) - as if
    	"normal women" would never say such things.
    
    	There's no need to make assumptions about one's personal life (or
    	bring up the person's own experiences as a unique individual) in a
    	discussion like this *at all* if s/he doesn't voluntarily mention 
    	these things her/himself.
    
    	That's all I meant.  Thanks again for your explanation.
    
    						    Suzanne ...

Re: .44

Hi Suzanne,

Your welcome and thanks for your explanation of you point.  I agree
with you about how people can make assumptions (like if a person 
supports gay rights s/he is assumed, by some, to be gay).  Thanks
for pointing out that that is how my comments could be interpreted,
I hope to be more careful in the future.

Kerry

    
    	   I, for one, am glad the media promulgates negative
    	sexist imagery.  It makes it all so much easier to see
    	and deal with when they portray it so openly.  It keeps 
    	us conscious of the fact that there is still much work
    	to be done before our society drops these archaic notions
    	of sex-based roles.
    
    	- Greg

    Men and Women have suffered equally thru the centuries!!!
    
     Countless WARS...where men have suffered most.
     COuntless plagues that have killed many are not gender selective.
     Women being oppressed at home thru the years.
     Men under great social and economic pressure support the family unit
    thru the years.
    
        ALL things considered I'll say its EVEN.  Only a very select few
    have escaped oppresion of some sort. ( i.e. kings,queens,etc)
    

>    Men and Women have suffered equally thru the centuries!!!
    
    I'm not going to debate with you who has suffered more. Just one
    thought, though. Why is it that men seem to suffer as a result of those
    that hate them whereas women suffer from those that "love" them?
    
    The Doctah

.49>	And it's easier to see a broken arm than a broken heart.


	 And it's quite often easier to mend a broken arm than a
	 broken heart.


	 k

    	RE: .47  Flathers
    
    	> Men and Women have suffered equally thru the centuries!!!
    
    	...and much of it has to do with culturally-imposed sex-based
    	roles, according to your list.
    
    	> Countless WARS...where men have suffered most.
     
    	Had women gone to war along with men, women would have died with
    	guns in their hands instead of being raped and killed as unarmed
    	civilians in war zones, and men would have been relieved of the
    	burden of being the only sex allowed to fight in battle.
    
    	> COuntless plagues that have killed many are not gender selective.
     
    	A tremendous number of women also died in childbirth (until fairly
    	recently,) yet wives had a religious and/or legal obligation to risk
    	pregnancy and death because society felt that *husbands* had certain
    	rights of sexual access to their wives' bodies.
    
    	> Women being oppressed at home thru the years.
     
    	Hopefully, you are including the fact that women did not have
    	the right to vote and/or own property (until twenty years into the
    	20th century) and were regarded as the "property" or "chattel" of
    	their fathers/husbands/sons.
    
    	> Men under great social and economic pressure support the family 
    	> unit thru the years.
    
    	...while women were under the pressure of finding husbands to "own"
    	them (or face having *no* real future at all and being regarded as
    	even *less* than useless/worthless, in many cases.)  Until fairly
    	recently, that is.
    
    	Men who didn't get married were better off financially and were
    	referred to as "bachelors" (a label that usually has a decidedly 
    	*positive* connotation, often evoking envy in the hearts of those 
    	men who entered into marriage by their own clear *choices*.)
    
    	Women who didn't get married were dependent on the charity of
    	male relatives (unless they had some kind of inheritance) and
    	were referred to as "old maids."  In the early history of our
    	country, many unmarried women who didn't fall into conventional
    	roles (even as conventional "old maids") were regarded as witches
    	and were burned at the stake.
    
    	> ALL things considered I'll say its EVEN.  Only a very select few
    	> have escaped oppresion of some sort.
    
    	Ok, I'll *grant* you that - but men and women have suffered in
    	vastly different ways, for the most part.
    
    	It's like saying that the rich and the poor suffer equally (because
    	the rich have to worry about how to spend all the money and fill
    	out complicated tax forms, which the poor have to worry about feeding 
    	and housing themselves.)
    
    	The two kinds of suffering are different.
    
    	> Men and Women have suffered equally thru the centuries!!!
    
    	Getting back to your opening statement, I'd like to suggest that
    	much of the male version of sex-based suffering happened precisely
    	*because* men bore the burden of adult responsibilities in our
    	culture alone for so many centuries.
    
    	Therefore, regardless of who suffered the most (or if it can be
    	proven that men and women suffered to the *same exact degree*,)
    	*both* sexes would benefit if men and women had equal rights.

    War is not a parallel example.  Men suffering at the hands of men
    is a fair fight.  Women don't start wars yet we suffer from them
    too.  Man-to-man "suffering" has nothing to do with it just as
    woman-to-woman "suffering" doesn't.
    
>Do you think every woman has had the same experience you have
>had, and thereby, every woman has had the same experience of
>negative treatment?

Of course not. But I do believe every woman has had experiences of
negative treatment at the hands of men.  I'd find it hard to believe they 
all had the same ones as I did.  Misogyny has many, many faces.

>Do you think that any men have felt opressed and negatively
>defined by society?  

"Felt opressed"?  Generally, no.  I don't think they "feel opressed"
such that they would ever lament to be a woman.  Women wishing to be
men, or at least live like them though, are very common.

>Do you really think that women are exclusive members of this
>"club"?  What about (in our society) blacks? American Indians?
>Japenese (during world war II)?  Gays?  Lesbians?  (I purposefully
>chose groups that include both men and women).

Everyone who is not a white heterosexual male has felt it.  I'm adressing
the white hetero males here who are complaining.  I just can't sympathize.    

>You seem to be asserting that, since you believe that the negative elements
>that women face are more overt and negative than those that men face, a men
>complaining of oppression is a silly creature...

Yes, I do.  And not because "society" is a third thing that oppresses us
both.  Society, don't forget, is male.  They make the rules.  It's like
a prisoner who's been abused by a guard.  Years later, on the outside,
he sees the guard in a bar fight begging for help or mercy.  I'd laugh
in his face.

>But, to follow that logic, it seems to me that *only* the group that has 
>been *the most oppressed* ever has any right to complain.

No, I believe the group that does the oppressing, white males, have no right 
to complain.  Whether or not any white male reading this feels he's never
oppressed any woman personally, (and I'd be hard pressed to believe it
but for the sake of argument, ok), they all have benefitted greatly from
their male-created society that does it for them.  They get the benefits
anyway.  And they support that status quo that gives them the benefits.

>I certainly have sympathy for the struggles that you have most definitely
>faced through your life.  

Thanx, but I don't need any.  My life has really been no tougher than the 
average woman's.

>But I think it's unfortunate when we start to think, "I have suffered, 
>therefore noone has a right to talk about suffering to me."

"We" are not thinking this.  We are thinking white males have no right to 
talk about the same kind of suffering to women who suffer it from white males 
every day.  And certainly shouldn't expect sympathy from women!

>Question two, yes I think men have felt oppressed and negatively defined
>by society, be they gay or weak or ugly, or anything that society says
>they shouldn't be.  

But do they get paid less because of it?  Do they get raped because of it?
Do they get beaten by their lovers because of it?  You're saying merely
*being* outside the norm is the same.  I say it isn't.

>It can be tough for some men.

I will readily trade male challenges for mine.  Will you trade yours for a 
woman's? Think seriously about this question.

>If anything is going to spur men into action, it's perceived injustice.

Not just perceived injustice, but perceived injustice *against men*.  They
are perfectly comfortable with perceived injustice against women and all
other non-white, non-hetero males.

>so I think I can better empathise with women when they complain about sexism 
>after sexism affects me personally.
 
Exactly, Doctah.  And this is why I am "happy" to see it.  Because no amount
of telling them how it feels, works.  Making them feel it, just might.  But
so far, you're the only one who's said, "Hey, this stinks all around".  The
impression I get from the basenote and some replies is, "This stinks, don't
do this to us, it isn't right, you're not going to win my support..."
   
>  does the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right" ring a bell?

I like what Suzanne said.  Thanx, Suzanne!  Is it right that only one
wrong is done, then?  Since asking, telling, pleading, patiently explaining,
over and over again to men that we find their images of women negative and 
nasty, doesn't work, what do you suggest?  I'd like a serious answer to this
question.  What will it take?
    
>What bothered me in Sandy's note (no flame here Sandy, I understand
>where you are coming from), was the impression I got that men, by
>virtue of their sex, can not understand what it is like to be oppressed.

Nope, I think they understand it very well.  They just don't like it done
to them.  Nobody does.  And many *do* like the effects of oppression on
women.  The fun in skin mags without worrying that "she" is doing the same
thing, the security in the belief that their women will be monogamous, the
fact that women decorate themselves to catch men's eye while men don't have
to work nearly that hard, spend nearly that cash, the belief that a woman
most likely won't make as much money, (and therefore will be a little lower on
the power scale), etc.

>I hoped to find out from Sandy if she was blowing off some steam or if she 
>really believed that men, by virtue of their sex, were incapable of under-
>standing who poorly some women are treated by our society.

Neither.  They are not incapable.  They merely refuse to try because it
buys them nothing and could cost them everything.  You ask any man if 
he'd rather be a woman.  Since most would recoil in horror at the thought, 
it's clear to see they understand very well that women's lives are not all 
that pleasant, even if they refuse to examine the specifics which would
point, every time, to men, their societies and their rules.

And one last thought to the guys who say they too wish the media would be
less sexist.  The first thing you'd have to give up are all those commercials 
for beer, perfume, cars, jeans; all the gratuitous T & A all over the place.  
Are you really willing to give that up for your ideology?  Think tonite as you
watch tv how much fun you get to have; how many times a minute you get a little
tease just for the hell of it.  It would all be gone in a non-sexist world.  
Beer commercials would tout the benefits of their beer over others rather
than showing a picture of the beer, a picture of a tit, a picture of the
beer, a picture of an ass, etc.

If I were a man I'd shut up about a few stupid young boys portrayed on a few 
sit-coms.  You still win in the trade-off.  And I suspect most men know this
and know they will never really have to give up their tv skin.  So talk is 
cheap.  I want to see a man who lives equality.  So far I've only met one.
And I'm not letting him go!  ;-)

PS:  I'm a blast at parties!
                           

    UNBELIEVABLE!  Sandy, in my humble white male trash opinion, your note
    reaks of hatred toward men.  If a male were to write even half of the
    things you wrote in "that other file" he would have his nads handed to
    him on a aluminum platter. (silver is too good for whit het male trash)
    
    I resent your assumption that I LOVE seeing "tit", as you so
    wonderfully put it, on the tube.  I DONT!  I think it is as wrong as
    showing off some male buns on the jockey short comercials.  Its sexist
    plain and simple.  I also resent your implications that I love the
    bennies of other mens opressive attitudes.  
    
    Oh, and one last thing, if it were as bad as you so stated, and IF
    white male het trash weren't listening (and learning), you certainly
    wouldnt be here spouting off about how awful white male het thashs are. 
    You would still be "where us scum of the earth would prefer you to be",
    in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
    
    The rape stats would never be, the spoucel abuse stats wouldnt be, the
    sexual harrassment stats wouldnt be there, non of it would be there!
    
    This is mennotes, NOT WOMANNOTES. Males must put up with these sort of
    acusations there, but not here.
    
    all in my humble white het trash opinion, of course. 
    
    

	 RE: .53 (Sandy)


	 I have to agree that your note is filled with hatred and lack
	 of understanding.

	 It personifies, in my opinion, a female version of male
	 chauvinism.

	 I've always subscribed to the idea that you should let dead
	 dogs lie and get on with life.  I live in the here and now, I
	 don't live in the past where women were suppressed, I live in
	 the present where life is better and is getting better all
	 the time for women.

	 I also firmly believe in the saying "give and ye shall
	 receive." I don't feel that any woman in her right mind can
	 expect equality when she doesn't offer it herself.  I don't
	 believe any woman in her right mind can expect peace when she
	 doesn't offer it herself.

	 I hope all the men here in MENNOTES understand that there are
	 some women that want to work *with* you to make this a better
	 world for all.


	 kath

                           

    re .53, Sandy-
    
    In regards to .54-.56, well, that was predictable.  But some of
    us are listening.
    
    >> Do you really think that women are exclusive members of this
    >> "club"?  What about (in our society) blacks? American Indians?
    >> Japenese (during world war II)?  Gays?  Lesbians?  (I purposefully
    >> chose groups that include both men and women).
    > 
    > Everyone who is not a white heterosexual male has felt it.  I'm
    > adressing the white hetero males here who are complaining.  I just 
    > can't sympathize. 
    
    First observation- Al and Mike seem to think this shows your hatred.
    I read it as your vision.  Very clear; you think that when white
    hetero males start whining about 'opression' as reflected in some
    tv sitcoms that its probably time to remind them about what real
    oppression is like.  I agree. 

    > No, I believe the group that does the oppressing, white males, have no 
    > right to complain.  Whether or not any white male reading this feels 
    > he's never oppressed any woman personally, (and I'd be hard pressed
    > to believe it but for the sake of argument, ok), they all have
    > benefitted greatly from their male-created society that does it for 
    > them.  They get the benefits anyway.  
    
    Oh, some men squirm when you put it like this.  I know I do.  Yes,
    I will claim I didn't make this society.  I will claim I inherited
    these institutions and this culture that belittles women, opresses
    you; and I will deny that I am to blame for the sins of my
    predecessors.  But I will also cop to benefitting from the fact 
    that I'm born white male in a culture where that fact gives me a 
    head start.  If some of the white males here can't own up to the 
    fact that being white male gave them a head start over women and
    others, they're only fooling themselves, not you, not me; and it
    *really* looks ludicrous to watch the whining over sitcoms, and
    to watch pathetic charges of hatred hurled at you.
                                            
    > And they support that status quo that gives them the benefits.     
      
    Yup...merely by holding down a job in a Fortune 50 company.  Merely
    by taking that paycheck home.  I recognize that by participating in 
    this culture, in this economy, in this business, in all aspects of 
    this complex society, that I am "supporting the status quo" in a 
    culture that rests on institutions and attitudes that oppress women.  
    
    How can I do that?  How do I justify that to myself?  Frankly, its 
    a compromise; my other options look worse to me.  I work for a company 
    that professes to "Value Differences"...ok, its not radical.  Its not 
    barricades.  Its not 'tear down the patriarchy!'  It isn't even
    risky.  One has learned perhaps too much caution...but personally
    speaking, I hold great hopes for this society.  I don't know of
    any others on the planet that are doing any better.  And I hope
    that evolutionary changes in our treatment of our oppressed members
    will accelerate, despite the backlash of those who still can't seem
    to understand.
    
    >> so I think I can better empathise with women when they complain
    >> about sexism after sexism affects me personally.
    >
    > Exactly, Doctah.  And this is why I am "happy" to see it.  Because
    > no amount of telling them how it feels, works.  Making them feel it, 
    > just might.  But so far, you're the only one who's said, "Hey, this 
    > stinks all around".  The impression I get from the basenote and some 
    > replies is, "This stinks, don't do this to us, it isn't right,
    > you're not going to win my support..."
    
    Bingo.  And for this tiny little bit of sexism against them, all
    they can see is "Sexism against men? hurts feeling! must be bad!
    no more of that!"  Join my voice to Mark's- it stinks all around,
    and *some* of us are awake enough to see it and honest enough to
    admit it.
    
    > If I were a man I'd shut up about a few stupid young boys portrayed 
    > on a few sit-coms.  You still win in the trade-off.  And I suspect 
    > most men know this and know they will never really have to give up 
    > their tv skin.  So talk is cheap.  I want to see a man who lives 
    > equality.  So far I've only met one.  And I'm not letting him go!  ;-)
                                            
    Al must have missed this, he thinks you hate men.  But cheap talk...
    what, were you paging him? ;-)
    
    re .54, Al-
    
    > If a male were to write even half of the things you wrote in "that
    > other file" he would have his nads handed to him on a aluminum platter.
      
    Gosh Al, you must have missed it.  I've written things quite similar
    to Sandy's "over there" in =wn= and never lost a 'nad yet.  They
    generally don't have such a virulent response to truth over there,
    though, as you seem to want to promote in this file.
    
    > I also resent your implications that I love the bennies of other 
    > mens opressive attitudes.  
      
    That isn't what she said, Al.  She implied you benefit from it anyway,
    whether you love it or not.  And she's right, whether or not you'll
    admit to knowing it.           
    
    > This is mennotes, NOT WOMANNOTES. Males must put up with these sort of
    > acusations there, but not here.
    >
    > all in my humble white het trash opinion, of course. 
      
    Guess what, Al- truth belongs everywhere, no matter how much you'd
    like it to go away.  And the 'humble' act needs some polish.
    
    DougO
                        

    re .58, Mike-
    
    >.57>    head start.  If some of the white males here can't own up to the 
    >.57>    fact that being white male gave them a head start over women and
    >.57>    others, they're only fooling themselves, not you, not me; and it
    >
    >	Yes, let me fool myself into believing that all I worked for,
    > all I sacrificed, and all the enrgy I expended getting where I am
    > today was just a show.  Yes, let me fool myself.
      
    Did I say that?  Read the quoted extract from .57 again, Mike.
    What it implies is that any non-white-male who matches your
    achievements probably had to work harder to get there.  Doesn't
    take *anything* away from you to admit that other folks had it 
    tougher, does it?  But admitting that other people *were*
    disadvantaged seems to be beyond some folks.
        
    >	Coming from the man who treats entertainment as reality,... 
      
    Missed again.  I didn't say that either, and I told you before that
    you'd clearly misunderstood my position since you summarized it
    incorrectly before...I see time and re-reading hasn't improved your
    comprehension.  If you really want to attribute this sentiment to
    me, quote me, because your inaccuracy gets tiresome.
                                                                   
    > Last time I related a joke from a sitcom, though, *you* were the 
    > one to make a stink.
    
    And I later modified the title of the note that my comment appeared
    in, to indicate that I realized mine was a cheap shot.  How many
    apologies for that do you want, anyway?
                    
    DougO           

    Re: .54 (Al)

> UNBELIEVABLE!  Sandy, in my humble white male trash opinion, 
> your note reaks of hatred toward men. 

	   Al, your pretense of humility comes across as both 
	disingenuous and downright laughable.  How much easier it is 
    	to dismiss what Sandy says with your decree that her words
	come from hatred.  How much more difficult to listen and 
	hear the truth in what she's saying.

> I also resent your implications that I love the
> bennies of other mens opressive attitudes.  I think it
> is as wrong as showing off some male buns on the jockey
> short commercials.  Its sexist plain and simple.  
    
	   The sexism towards women in television is not likely to
	go away soon whether any of us love it or not, so it seems
	only fair (and not a matter of hate at all) for there to
	be sexism against both sexes if there is any at all.  Besides,
	what's so bad about giving the ladies a peek at a cute butt?
	I mean, as long as it isn't covered with boils or tattoos,
	what's the problem?  Are you really so offended by a 
	little cheek (be it male or female)?  What about the huamn
	body repulses you?

> Oh, and one last thing, if it were as bad as you so stated, 
> and IF white male het trash weren't listening (and learning), 
> you certainly wouldnt be here spouting off about how awful white 
> male het thashs are.  You would still be "where us scum of the 
> earth would prefer you to be", in the kitchen barefoot and 
> pregnant.
    
	   Are you suggesting that Sandy should be so eternally
 	indebted to white heterosexual males for having the
	graciousness to allow her to educate us that she ought to
	keep her mouth shut when it comes to expressing her opinions?
	Seems a rather counterproductive kind of listening you
	are talking about, in that it involves 'granting' women
	the right to speak, then dismissing everything they say
	because you sense anger in their words.

> This is mennotes, NOT WOMANNOTES. Males must put up with these 
> sort of acusations there, but not here.
    
	   Is the truth more allowable there than it is here?
	Is there some reason why I shouldn't express opinions that 
	are quite similar to Sandy's in this conference?  I find it
	rather amusing that you presume to speak for all male 
	members of this conference.  Were you appointed as 
	spokesperson, or did you just make a false assumption?

	- Greg

re.53
I feel oppressed just reading your note. You do display a great deal of hatred
in t.53 and others.
You speak as though you know what it is like to be a man but your note displays
a clear lack of understanding.
-j 

    	RE: .53  Sandy
    
    	It shouldn't surprise me - and yet it always does somehow - that
    	some can see hatred that simply isn't there in a note.
    
    	As always, it was also *great* to see others (like DougO and Greg)
    	who saw the real content of your reply (as I did.)
    
    	Thanks very much for your note!
    
    						    Suzanne ...
    

    RE: Doug0
    MAybe I misread it. So I reread it. Nope, still looks like the total
    condeming of the white male het species.  MAybe you misread it.
    
    RE: Greg
    Hmmmm, I dont recall ever saying that she should thank "us" for
    allowing her blah blah blah.... I was merely saying that if "we" are so
    blind to whats going on, (along with loving our positions) how could
    women (actually Minorities) have come as far as they have?  From
    messages like Sandy's? WOW, I dont recall MLK ever talking like that.
    
    RE: Sue  Jumping on the ole slap the bum band wagon again eh?
    
    
    

    What really scares me when I read the interaction of people under 35
    (an age that Mike Z referenced) is the feeling that the world is okay
    and because it is okay we should forget the past.
    
    Sexism still exists, but it is more insidious then it ever was before.
    Years ago I was told outright why I didn't make as much money as a 
    man with the same experience and qualifications. 
    
    It is happening here at Digital, it happens when we have our car
    repaired, it happens when we purchase a car, it happens when we have
    our suits cleaned.
    
    And someday the lightbulbs will go off and we will have to start over
    again.
    
    We have come a long way but we aren't there yet.  Admitting there is a
    problem does not constitute blame.  
    
    

> I also resent your implications that I love the
> bennies of other mens opressive attitudes.

Sorry, that's your interpretaton, not my words.  You don't have to
"love" them.  Hell, you've had them for so long you may no longer even
"recognize" them.  But you still get them.

>The sexism towards women in television is not likely to
>go away soon whether any of us love it or not, so it seems
>only fair (and not a matter of hate at all) for there to
>be sexism against both sexes if there is any at all.  

Exactly.  Thank you, DougO.  There is no hatred here whatsoever, (despite
the accusations of the possibly defensive).  Whatever we choose as a
society, sexism or no sexism, (and I would choose no sexism and so maybe
you would, too!  Great!), it should apply equally to both.  That is my 
major point.  We will either eliminate sexism against women or include
a little sexism against men.  I have my preference, but since they didn't
ask me, at least there will be more equality.  Any route to equality
is better than no steps taken at all.  Even if it "bothers" men.

> Oh, and one last thing, if it were as bad as you so stated, 
> and IF white male het trash weren't listening (and learning), 

"Trash"?  My goodness.  Are you seeing a little more about men, (from your
interesting perspective as a man), than even I'm talking about?  Hate,
trash, scum... only men have used those words here.

> You would still be "where us scum of the earth would prefer you to be", 
>in the kitchen barefoot and  pregnant.
    
Ha ha, like hell!  Is that where men, (your alleged "scum"), prefer me to be?  
Is that where you'd prefer me to be?  Gee, where did you get an idea like 
this?  Men don't *really* feel that way about women, do they?  ;-)

And further, this statement seems as thought you think women who are not 
"in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant" are that way because they live in the
here and now where men are move benevolent toward them.  I wouldn't, in
any age, be barefoot and/or pregnant.  I have never given men that kind
of control over my life.  Women who do, tho, generally turn out to be the
"man-haters".  

I treat men as (mere!) equals.  They get my respect when they earn it and 
I believe I deserve and have as much autonomy as they do.  Therefore, I have 
nothing to hate about them.  I don't see them as gods or superior in any way, 
even though I recognize most men do, our society does, and I'm supposed to, 
too.  I consider myself personally free from male social oppression, and I 
always have.  No man has treated me badly, socially, though many, many have 
tried.  I personally think men are a riot.  I like them a lot.  When they're
in macho pursuit trying to flim-flam their way around me, and I call them
on it, (which of course I always do), we generally have a good laugh and
they stop being 'me tarzan' and start being human.  I'm one of those women who
is more like a man.  I feel comraderie with men.  I'm poking you in the
ribs and laughing, "Come on, now, tell the truth, come on!", and you are
seem to be reacting with, "Who the hell does she think she is?!"  because
you thought "the truth" was well hidden or at least that I should go along
with the game and keep quiet about it like a good girl.  Nein, sorry!
Come on now, tell the truth!  ;-)
    
I've never hated men, (truthfully, I hated women until feminism taught
me that hatred of women was what I learned from men).  I just don't deify
and idolize them.  But since deifying and idolizing men is expected of
women in our society, one who simply sees men as average people appears to
do out of hate or scorn or contempt for men.  But I do it out of a desire
to drop the pointless pretenses and let's just all be human.  I believe
the similarities between men and women, because they are both humans,
are far greater than the differences between their genders.  I believe
patriarchy wants to deny that and say gender is more important with
male gender being the "standard" and female gender being the "deviation".
        
    
>       Seems a rather counterproductive kind of listening you
>	are talking about, in that it involves 'granting' women
>	the right to speak, then dismissing everything they say
>	because you sense anger in their words.

Thanks again, DougO.  This is a common ploy used against women who make
a point.  We can say anything we want, but it must not reveal anger to-
ward men in any form.  Above all else, we must not put men down or re-
veal truths that appear to topple them from their towers.  In a book ex-
amining the Adam and Eve myth I read, this was the "knowledge" that was
forbidden.  No one was to question male superiority and men were not 
ever to be told that they weren't superior, just equal.  But Eve just
couldn't go along with that fantasy.  Nor can I.

One other thing - so many men here take this very personally and say
"But *I'm* not like that" and "don't blame *me* for this" and "it's not
my fault society is this way" and so on.  In the *exact same vein* I
do not hate you, or you, or you.  *I* am not to blame for what I see,
either.   And I am not to blame for pointing it out.  This has nothing
to do with either you personally or me personally.  But some men find
it very hard to discuss this academically.  And I find *that* very in-
teresting.  Methinks thou protest too much!
        

    RE: Sandy
    Although the hatred (noted in your first entry) has somewhat subsided,
    there are still accusations that I feel are unwarranted.  
    
    The "scum, white male het trash" comments were made because I felt that
    your entry was saying that, in a nice corta way.
    
    I don't HONESTLY know of any men that feel they way that you are
    accusing ALL MALES of feeling.  
    
    I may not be the most enlightened male in this here parts, but I sure
    in hell dont feel they way that you accuse me (re men) of feeling,
    acting, doing etal.  It jes aint so.  I have no doubts that there are
    males in this world (and women, lets not be sexist) that would like
    nothing better than the barefoot and pregnant scenerio, I am not one of
    em.  
    
    You make it sounds as though white male hets have a corner on the
    market of sexism and bigotry.  That is the point that I do not care
    for.  There are things in this world that I notice everyday, 'specially
    on the tube, that makes me feel like poop. WHy?  Because I see a woman
    treated in a demeaning way, or like meat at the market, and I know that
    there is somen woman out there saying, "look at that! all men are
    dogs!"  Then I see where males are portrayed as ignorant buttheads and
    I think to myself, I betcha there aint a woman out there saying, "LOOK
    AT THAT!".  Why should they? I think its wrong, period! You know what
    they are probably saying?  "HEHEHEHE, look at that Honey, Hows it
    feel?"  
    
    the shits wrong, plain and simple.  When I can have an effect on the
    outcome of a possible sexist act, I DO SOMETHING!
    
    maybe not real big things but its the little subtle things that add up.
    
    
    al

    re: .53
    
     The entire entry is filled with anger, bitterness, and resentment. It
    also has a number of interesting points and persepctives (which you can
    see when you sift through the emotionally charged words and identify
    the underlying meanings). As for whether it contains "hate" per se,
    let's just say it dances around that particular emotion. And if "hate"
    indeed exists, it is directed at the system of oppression and
    institutions rather than those of us who unwittingly benefit.
    
    re: .68
    
>I treat men as (mere!) equals.  They get my respect when they earn it and 
>I believe I deserve and have as much autonomy as they do.  Therefore, I have 
>nothing to hate about them.
    
    That's a pretty flimsy argument. The fact is that men are seen by
    society as being more autonomous, respectful, etc than you simply
    because you lack gonads. That in itself COULD be enough for you to
    hate. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you DON'T
    hate men.
    
>I personally think men are a riot.  I like them a lot.  When they're
>in macho pursuit trying to flim-flam their way around me, and I call them
>on it, (which of course I always do), we generally have a good laugh and
>they stop being 'me tarzan' and start being human.
    
    I, for one, would probably find this byplay to be endlessly amusing to
    watch, and only slightly less amusing to engage in myself. :-)
    
>I'm poking you in the
>ribs and laughing, "Come on, now, tell the truth, come on!",
    
    I like that about you. Especially since you make no bones about telling
    the truth yourself. But, you should perhaps make a few less asumptions
    about the truth of how men feel when you ask them. If they say
    something and you jab 'em and they still say it. It just could be that
    it's the truth.
    
    The Doctah

    re: .64 (Al)
    
>    Hmmmm, I dont recall ever saying that she should thank "us" for
>    allowing her blah blah blah.... I was merely saying that if "we" are so
>    blind to whats going on, (along with loving our positions) how could
>    women (actually Minorities) have come as far as they have?
    
    	   Al, please note the tone of your question.  It implies that
    	without the consent of the presumed white-male-majority women
    	would never have been given the right to speak their minds.
    	Are you at all familiar with the sufferagette movement during
    	the early part of this century?  I'd hasten to remind you that
    	most men (white or otherwise) did not support their movement,
    	and yet they spoke out anyway.  It was not the result of caring
    	concerned white males listening to them, it was the result of
    	insensitive males ignoring them.  Because they were ignored and
    	ridiculed they spoke out even louder and with more force.
    
    	   That tradition lives on today.  To assert that their opinions
    	only have merit when they are being sweet and demure is to admit
    	that you are not listening so closely as you say you (we) are.
    
    	   Sexism against women has been with us for quite some time
    	now.  in many cases we've grown so familiar with it that we
    	hardly even notice it is there any more.  Sexism involving
    	males is a much more recent occurrence, and therefore one which
    	gathers unto itself more current attention.  If we can accept 
    	the one, we cannot logically argue against the other.  If we
    	demand action against the one, it makes no sense to limit the
    	demands in that manner.  Since sexism involving females is so
    	pervasive and intractable, we had better prepare ourselves to
    	accept the inevitable introduction of increased levels of 
    	sexism involving males.
    
    	- Greg

    re .68, Sandy-
    
    You thanked me for two quotes you got from Greg's .61!  
    I agree with Greg, but lets be careful with our credits! ;-)
    
    DougO

    re .60, Mike-
    
    >.59>    What it implies is that any non-white-male who matches your
    >.59>    achievements probably had to work harder to get there.  Doesn't
    >
    >	If I look at the people I work with, who are my age or close,
    > those who are not while males had to work no harder than I did to
    > get into college, or DEC.
    >
    >	In fact, they may have had an easier time with both.
     
    I am not interested in tearing down your achievements, Mike, and
    comparing people in your immediate experience will make you feel
    that I'm trying to do that.  But your statement about 'those who 
    are not white males had to work no harder than I did' begs the 
    wrong question.  I don't want to compare them to your personal 
    experience, because the point of this examination is not to make 
    you feel personally devalued by recognizing that our society has 
    given you more breaks on average than it gives non-white-male people. 
    
    But think about what you're saying.  'to get into college'.  How
    does one 'get into college'?  One generally has to spend many years
    in secondary schools learning the prerequisites.  One generally
    has to acquire attitudes that predispose one to the pursuit of
    college-type learning experiences, 'academics', if you will accept
    the term.  Do you think that non-white-males have equal access to
    the kinds of secondary schools that accomplish these necessary steps,
    as do white males?  Do you think that the subcultures of minority
    children, and the societal attitudes towards females in our culture,
    encourage these people towards college in the same ways that white
    males are generally encouraged?  If you do think so, I consider
    you woefully uninformed on the topic.
        
    Do you really think that they had it easier, on-the-average, than
    most white males?   These are the kinds of subtle attitudinal
    differences that I am referring to when I say our society gives
    white males a head start.
    
    > Those who are 35 or younger, rode on the wave of heightened 
    > discrimination awareness.
    
    But that 'awareness' did *not* remove all barriers.  How many women
    VPs are there in DEC, Mike?  How many female VPs in the Fortune
    500? Considering that most women are in the workforce today, and 
    good numbers have been going to college since the early 60s, wouldn't 
    you expect to see more progress, if that wave of awareness had really 
    removed all the barriers?  Just possibly, maybe, perhaps you can
    admit that white males are not quite-so-handicapped in this society
    as are all other competitors?
    
    > That aside, why is it whining when someone else, besides you,
    > complains about what they see on TV?
      
    Check out the first full paragraph of .57 again, the one that ends
    with the two-word sentence, "I agree".  Your answer is there.
    
    > Don't you think you're being just a little demeaning of others
    > with that phrase?
      
    When I see someone point out a petulant argument (the last 2
    paragraphs of Sandy's .53) and get accused of being a hater 
    (Al's .54 and your .56), seems to me that if I agree that the 
    original argument was whining, no, I'm not demeaning anyone.
    I'm defending someone who was inaccurately accused of writing a
    hateful reply, by people who hadn't understood the point.
    
    DougO

    re .69, Mike-
    
    OK, I saw no hatred, and said so in .57.  Greg didn't see it and
    said so in .61.  Suzanne mentioned it also (.63, I think).  But
    Al, Jerry, and Mike think Sandy's .53 is just dripping with hatred.
    
    So Mike just had to ask...
    
    .66>   I haven't heard Sandy say that there is no hatred in that note.
    .66>
    .66>   Well, Sandy?

     > .68> There is no hatred here whatsoever, (despite
     >
     >	There is something to be said for masking one's words with
     >  thinly drawn veils.
     >
     >	But I won't say it.
    
    If you aren't willing to accept answers given to your direct questions,
    then it doesn't look like you're interested in trying to understand
    this at all.  Are you (just barely refraining from) accusing Sandy
    of arguing with a lack of integrity?
    
    DougO 

    You may feel that I (I can't speak for Mike) didnt understand, than say
    so. You do not know me Doug.
    
    As for the Veeps argument.... What the hell do you expect?
    all of the white male hets to stop down graciously and say, "here, you
    poor misunderstood opressed woman, take my job, I want to make things
    right."
    
    Women have to work too ya know!  Do you think it takes a couple of
    years to kae a veeps job? Guess again.  My father has been with DEC
    for 20 years, he isnt a veep, and he has a damn masters!
    My Uncle (Henry Crouse) has been with DEC for many years, he is a veep,
    are you saying that he didnt earn his position? Guess again.
    
    Are you accusing My Uncle of being a sexist? or a Bigot?  Your
    accusations of all males (BTW, youre one also ya know) get the
    advantages is full of freakin holes.  It may appear to the closed
    minded, that males (white hets) get all of the breaks, but Ill tell you
    what, we don't.  
    
    Whe get crap like this thrown into our faces everyday, becasue of your
    extra apendage, color.  We have walls going up (*while Minority walls
    are coming down) everyday to "make things right".
    
    Slappin the white male hets in the face with shit like this is one way
    to insure that more and more white male hets start giving the ole eye
    for an eye crud back.  The old "how does it feel" will continue to be
    said, only the white male hets will start saying it.
    
    Sounds far fetched, maybe it is, but you never know...
    ever hear, "what goes around, comes around"?  
    
    I want people to be people.  To be treated as people. I dont want to
    constantly be told that I had it made.  I DIDN'T!  I didnt even have a
    mother and a father until I WAS 13!!!! Had it made my ass! 
    I was beaten to a pulp constantly by those "people of god" (Nuns) for
    any god darn thing they could think of.  Had it made, my ass!
    
    That is why I get ticked off when someone tells me that I have had it
    made and still continue to, because I am a white male het. I don't
    if anything, I have people like you to contend with, constantly
    reminding me of my forefathers ignorance to the human race, ALONG with
    these new walls everyday.  HAd it made, MY ASS!
    
    AL

    re: .77 (Al)

    	   Al, it sounds to me as if you had a tough childhood.
    	You have my sympathies for that.  Nonetheless, it does not
    	alter the fact that society, on the whole, has still treated
    	you in a specific manner simply because you have testicles
    	and pale skin covering them.

    	   I don't recall anyone asserting that those of us in the
    	"white scrotum club" have "had it made".  The assertion I 
    	read was that the way was less difficult for us, and that
    	is undeniably true (whether we, as individuals, choose to
    	acknowledge it or not), simply because it was our ancestors
    	who set up the framework of the society in which we now live.

    	   Denying this truth does not lessen its impact, nor relieve
    	one of the benefits gleaned over the years.  Indeed, such 
    	denials serve to show exactly how pervasive the problem really
    	is.  It is so prominent, in fact, that many (including yourself,
    	apparently) have come to take it so much for granted that they
    	can now deny its impact upon their lives.

    	   Do you (or anyone) honestly believe that these "sexist"
    	images will negatively impact the role of the white hetero
    	male in our society?  Do you think that because Eddie Murphy
    	makes jokes about the sizes of white male genitalia that our
    	genitals actually shrink in response?  Do Rosanne Barr's jokes
    	about couch potatoes lessen the credibility of white males
    	in the work force?  Do images of stupid white boys being 
    	manipulated by smart women really have any impact overall on
    	the intelligence level of the average white male?  In other 
    	words, what about this depiction of sexism really bothers 
    	you?

    	   When you come up with your answer, examine it carefully and 
    	see how the same principles apply to women (and other minorities).
    	
    	- Greg

    re .78, Mike-
    
    The point we were discussing was whether or not this society gives 
    white males a head start over others.  Lets review...
    
    >.75> Do you think that non-white-males have equal access to the kinds
    >.75> of secondary schools that accomplish these necessary steps, as do 
    >.75> white males?
    >
    >	Historically, no.  In the last 15-20 years, yes.
     
    I disagree that access has been equal in the last 15-20 years;
    I assert that secondary education nationwide provides better service
    to white males than to all other citizens.  In the last 15-20 years
    some things have improved, perhaps, in some areas.
    
    >.75> Do you think that the subcultures of minority children, and 
    >.75> the societal attitudes towards females in our culture, encourage 
    >.75> these people towards college in the same ways that white males 
    >.75> are generally encouraged?
    >
    >	If their parents are enlightened, yes, if not, no.
     
    Partially correct, imo.  Parental support is one of the key supports
    that encourage white males to pursue higher education.  Peer group
    support is another.  Institutional support is a third.  I suggest
    that these latter two factors are not present in this society except
    for most white males.
                    
    >.75> Do you really think that they had it easier, on-the-average, than
    >.75> most white males? 
    >
    >	Some, no, many, but not all, have had it easier by virtue of
    > their being in a politically correct group at the right time. Be
    > that group female, African-American, Asian, Indian, etc.
      
    'Being in the right group' might have helped with college entrance
    criteria.  It didn't help through 12 years of substandard secondary 
    school.  It didn't help through 18 years of peer group non-support 
    for the thought of (and mental preparation for) college.  
    
    Did you see the point of the questions, Mike?  They weren't just to 
    be answered and forgotten.  They illustrate the fact that 'going to 
    college' is one of the ways that the entire culture conditions a kid 
    from the time s/he is born in a supportive manner towards college IF 
    you're a white male but not so strongly otherwise.  Thus, I call that 
    "society giving white males a head start".
    
    >.75> But that 'awareness' did *not* remove all barriers.  How many women
    >.75> VPs are there in DEC, Mike?  How many female VPs in the Fortune
    >
    >	This question is loaded - it implies that women are being
    > discriminated against for admission into high-ranking positions
    > in DEC.
    >
    >	Tell me how many qualified female applicants have been
    > rejected on the basis of sex.  That is a better indicator.
    > Don't you agree?
      
    Nope.  First of all, my question doesn't imply what you said.  
    It implies that societal barriers to getting ahead are still in 
    place and reflected in the lack of proportional representation among 
    top executives.  NO, it doesn't imply that DEC discriminates on the
    basis of sex among qualified candidates; it implies that the entire
    society discriminates at all levels and doesn't PRODUCE enough
    qualified women candidates.  OR, you can read it to imply that women
    are inferior and that no discrimination at all exists.  I don't
    suppose you are entertaining *that* notion.
    
    So answer this:  How many women VPs are there in DEC?  And WHY ARE 
    THERE SO FEW, since we both agree DEC (probably) isn't discriminating 
    among qualified applicants at that level?  Could it just possibly
    be that the discrimination happens upon a societal, cultural basis,
    where women are not/have never been encouraged to push their careers
    forward as strongly as white men have always been pushed?  Perhaps,
    just maybe a signpost to indicate that this society gives white
    males a "head start" in this area too? 
                                          
    > 	But, 4 people, no 5 now, have read the same kind of anger in that
    >   reply as I did. 
    
    Hmmm, I saw the Doctah mention 'bitterness'.  Only three of you
    have mentioned "hatred" (you, Al, and Jerry Gortmaker).  
    
    > 	Coincidence you say?  Or maybe insight.
                                                                    
    Actually, I'd call it "changing your stance mid-stream"; I noticed 
    you changed your words.  You used the word "hate" in .56 and .66, not 
    "anger".  You're probably more accurate this way, good change.
                                         
    >	Perhaps she refuses to recognize the anger, perhaps she sees
    > it but refuses to admit it.            
    
    Oh, I think Sandy knows precisely what she's said.  But she answered
    your question about "hatred" honestly, don't you agree?
    
    > In either case, it is my opinion that reply 394.53 is a obvious 
    > expression of anger to all but the most optimistic of readers.
      
    Thanks for softening your accusation of "hate"; perhaps Al and Jerry
    will also reconsider.
    
    DougO                                      

>               <<< Note 394.63 by CSC32::CONLON "Feministique" >>>
    
>    	It shouldn't surprise me - and yet it always does somehow - that
>    	some can see hatred that simply isn't there in a note.

	 I see it............I see it in small jibes like "I have no
	 simpathy" and "they have no right"....etc......

	 I know what Sandy is trying to say, but I don't feel she's
	 going about it the right way.

	 Her note portrays, to me, an unwillingness to worth with men
	 to iron out differences.

	 I find the best way toward equality is compromise, kindness,
	 and the ability to work together.

	 I know what Sandy is trying to get across, but the tone of
	 the note overpowers the point.  The tone of the note is a
	 turn-off, it puts men on the defense when they shouldn't be
	 on the defense......


	 just an observance.

	 kath    

    re: .83 (Mike)
    
    Let me try this from another direction.  When you say "I'd
    rather see honesty", the clear implication is that you
    haven't seen it.  I believe the logical extension of that
    sentence goes:  "I'd rather see honesty than what I am seeing".
    Logically you're saying that what you're seeing is not
    honesty and it follows that what you feel you're seeing is
    dishonesty.  
    
    If that's not what you mean, could you rephrase it to clarify
    what you do mean (or explain to me why my reading is incorrect)?
               
    Steve
    

    re .83, Mike-
    
    >.81> I assert that secondary education nationwide provides better service
    >.81> to white males than to all other citizens.
    >
    > 	On what evidence do you base this assertion?

    Lots of things.  First, that historical basis you already admitted.
    Second, my knowledge that societal change doesn't happen overnight,
    cannot happen overnight.  Third, my readings of local issue fights
    over school bussing, school closings, school redistricting, and school
    board election issues in the four areas I've lived since the early
    70's, two of which are major metropolitan areas, indicate to me
    that access to quality schooling is nearly always available to white
    males and nearly always sought by other populations.  Fourth, my
    readings of social sciences literature in the mid-80's documented
    several cases of unequal access, usually framed against the idea:
    30 years after Brown vs Board of Education (1954), (which overturned
    the doctrine of "separate but equal" as a justification for segregated
    schooling) how much progress has been made?  Fifth, my personal
    experiences in discussion with women and peers indicate that overt
    and covert societal influences act to deny non-white-male people
    equal access to college preparatory even today, and always have.
                                            
    OK- five reasons.  Each can be defended at greater length if you
    can show cause.  Now for your turn- what 'evidence' do you have for 
    denying the obvious, that white males are effectively granted a head 
    start in this society?
    
    >	We disagree.  I don't see the encouragement for college or
    > career being more prevalent for white males, than for others.
    >
    >	I can only speak from experience, and I know it does not
    > mean the rest of the world is like this, but this is my piece
    > of data, and I don't think it's all that unique.
     
    I suggest you are uninformed upon the topic.  Anecdotal evidence
    from your cousins' family certainly forms the basis for your opinion,
    but has little to recommend it as a basis for changing my position.
    Sadly though, in one thing you are correct; your opinion is not
    all that unique; lots of men, as Sandy herself pointed out, fail
    to even recognize the benefits they've enjoyed so long.
    
    >.81> Actually, I'd call it "changing your stance mid-stream"; I noticed 
    >.81> you changed your words.  You used the word "hate" in .56 and .66, not 
    >
    >	You assume too much.
    
    No assumption in those statements of mine at all.  You changed your
    wording from accusing .53 of 'hatred' in .56 & .66, to 'anger' in
    .78.  I even gave you credit it for it, 'anger' is (to me) a much 
    closer description for the position Sandy took in .53.  Are you going 
    back to the wording I previously objected to?
    
    For the record: accusing other people of dishonesty, merely because
    they hold an opinion contrary to your own, is reprehensible, imo.
    (I had to rewrite that sentence three times to tone it down.)
     
    DougO

This partially-extracted book review was published in the
Political Science Quarterly edition of Spring, 1987, pp 130-
131.  I refer to it briefly in my next reply.  The PSQ is
published four times yearly by the Academy of Political Science, 
New York, NY, and is "a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study
of contemporary and historical aspects of government, politics,
and public affairs." (quoted from inside front cover.)

DougO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
    Equal Education Under Law: Legal Rights and Federal Policy by
    Rosemary Salomone.  New York, St Martin's Press, 1986.

    Reviewed by Jennifer L. Hochschild, Princeton University.

"This is a rather pedestrian, though useful account of recent American
educational policy toward various types of underdogs.  More precisely- 
a point that accounts for both utility and lack of depth- it is an account
of the federal government's responses to the needs and demands of blacks, 
linguistic minorities, the handicapped, and women in elementary and
secondary education since 1954.  In the process it develops, more by
organization of the material than by self-conscious analysis, three themes:
"the interplay among the three branches of givernment, the role of interest 
groups in shaping public policy, and the tension between equality and
diversity as policy objectives"(p.193).  It concludes with a peroration 
against the Reagan Administration's "disinvestment in public schooling
and...retreat from the equality principle"(p.195) and a call for a
federal-state partnership to "put substantive force into *Brown's*
mandate of equal educational opportunity based on individual freedom
and dignity" (p.203).

"Some virtues of this book are apparent in this brief summary.  Its topic is 
important and timely; it is organized upon significant analytic dimensions;
it has a strong and carefully-argued normative slant.  Other virtues become
apparent in the reading.  The book presents and always keeps under control
a wide array of facts backed by impressive references.  It makes acute comments
about the political context and legal consequences of actions taken by the
courts.  It seeks to put American educational policy in a broad philosophical
context; we are treated to an intelligent if rambling discussion of the meaning
of equality from Aristotle to John Rawls before the actual story begins.

[...]

"In sum, _Equal Education Under Law_ succeeds admirably as a compendium of 
events of the past thirty yeaars in the field of educational policy from 
the perspective of a deeply knowledgeable and sophisticated liberal.  It
does not succeed in telling us all we want to know about why these events 
occurred as they did or how to think about their occurrence."
    

    re .87, Mike-

    Just to maintain context...a recapitulation.  (I'd hate to get to the
    end of this and have the stack unrewindable.)

    From my emphasis upon Sandy's point in .53, reiterated in her .68, that
    white males benefit in this society merely be the fact that they are
    white males, which I paraphrased into "white males get a head start",
    you wrote (.60) that those in your general age bracket who are not
    white males 'had to work no harder than you did' and 'in fact, may have
    had an easier time' (at getting into college and getting a job at DEC.)

    I went with your example of 'going to college' and have been
    endeavoring to show you why I think that this society *does* in fact
    make things less difficult for white males than for any others.  It
    seems you accepted my thought that 'getting into college' is not the
    issue, rather, the entire lifetime of secondary school preparation
    which I claim is not as supportive to those who are not white males.

    If any of your recollections don't match mine, please correct this summary.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Onward.

    You asked for evidence for my assertion that schools in the last 15-20 
    years haven't yet provided fully equal access.  I gave five reasons
    that seem compelling to me.  Lets review them and your objections...

    >.86> Lots of things.  First, that historical basis you already admitted.
    >
    >	I'm talking about the people in my age group, 20-30 years old.

    Hold it.  My evidence, right?  Lets start where I want to start.  
    Now, you accepted this premise earlier, to whit...

.75>    the term.  Do you think that non-white-males have equal access to
.75>    the kinds of secondary schools that accomplish these necessary steps,
.75>    as do white males?
   
.78>	Historically, no.  In the last 15-20 years, yes. 

    You qualified it (not to include the last 15-20 years) so I'm taking
    only that period as in dispute.  Until 20 years ago, you've agreed that
    access hasn't been equal.  So now we know where we've started; unequal.

    >.86> Second, my knowledge that societal change doesn't happen overnight,
    >.86> cannot happen overnight. 
    >
    >	This tells me nothing tangible.  To paraphrase, you seem to agree
    > that things are getting better, or were getting better, but you say we
    > never got there (equality) because these things take time.  We've had
    > time.

    I agree, there has been sufficient time to rectify the inequities.  
    I doubt, however, that the inequities have all been resolved.  Societal
    change doesn't work that speedily on issues of less-than-revolutionary
    import.  It would be going way too far afield for me to demonstrate
    this further, so I'll provide only a quote and a reference.
                     
    "...there are the pressures created by a disequilibrated social 
    system- a society that is changing and in need of further change if 
    it is to continue to exist.  [...]  The conditions generated by a
    disequilibrated social system--"social problems"--[...] create demands
    that the system be adjusted, through political action, to the changed
    circumstances.  While policies for adjusting the system are being
    created and implemented, the society will face rising rates of
    deviancy, increased status protests, rapid circulation of ideologies,
    and so forth."
    pp 93-94, _Revolutionary Change_ 2nd Ed, Chalmers Johnson, 1982.
    [Johnson's book is directed towards the study of societies in severe
    disequilibrium, as they approach and either receed from or carry
    through with revolutionary change.  His analysis of societal change 
    is fascinating, and recommended.]

    While this extract does not directly butress my argument that societal
    change does not happen overnight, it begins to sketch for you the
    depths of the problem area.  I suggest that the historical inequity
    we've previously discussed, and the entire societal movement away from
    it, represents exactly the type of disequilibrium studied by Johnson.
    My contention that it doesn't happen overnight, nor even completely in
    15-20 years, rests upon a thorough study of that book.  I refer you to
    it for further detail.

    My third point regarded local school issues I've witnessed in four
    different areas of the country since the early 70's.  I didn't see
    you take any huge issue with it, yet.

    >.86>                                                      Fourth, my
    >.86>readings of social sciences literature in the mid-80's documented
    >.86>several cases of unequal access, usually framed against the idea:
    >.86>30 years after Brown vs Board of Education (1954), (which overturned
    >.86>the doctrine of "separate but equal" as a justification for segregated
    >.86>schooling) how much progress has been made?
    >
    >	You have not shown why you think unequal access would result in
    > superior education for white males. 

    I didn't think I had to!  That's been the assumption ever since the
    case I just cited, in 1954!  Why would they bother to overturn
    'separate but equal' if they hadn't proven it didn't work?!

    > Nor have you stated how many cases
    > of unequal access there were, what other schooling was avaliable to
    > those denied equal access, and how many people were affected.
    > 
    >	How can I, or you, assess damage without this information?
     
    No statistical buzzsaw, I.  I have seen enough damages and enough
    evidence to convince myself.  I've entered a book review in the
    last reply which doesn't cover the whole of what I've seen, but
    indicates the amount of reading I have done on this topic.  At this
    hour, its the only thing I can lay my hands on.  If you haven't seen
    evidence of damages, I don't think you've been looking.

    >.86>                                               Fifth, my personal
    >.86>experiences in discussion with women and peers indicate that overt
    >.86>and covert societal influences act to deny non-white-male people
    >.86>equal access to college preparatory even today, and always have.
    >
    >	My personal experience contradicts this.

    Noted.

     >	Funny you should use your own anecdotal evidence in .86.
     >
     >	Can you see it?  Is yours more significant?
      
    I tend to think so.  You now have further indications of why I hold my
    position, including references to two published sources.  My position
    is not strictly based upon personal experiences.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two other issues;

    >	I did cite one particular excerpt as hateful.  Actually I said,
    > after including the excerpt, "Hatred, hatred, and more hatred".  My
    > memory is quite clear on this; I do know what I have said, and what
    > I have not said.  That snippet of text was full of hatred.
 
    That was the first time you used the word.  How about this?

    .66> I haven't heard Sandy say that there is no hatred in that note.
       >
       > Well, Sandy?

    Which when followed by this...

    .69> .68>Exactly.  Thank you, DougO.  There is no hatred here whatsoever, (despite
       >
       > There is something to be said for masking one's words with
       > thinly drawn veils.

    seems to me not only to be calling her hateful, but dishonest as well. 
    You've asked me to quit reading between the lines, so instead...I'll
    ask you to spell out exactly what you meant, if my interpretation is so
    far off the mark.

    >.86>For the record: accusing other people of dishonesty, merely because
    >.86>they hold an opinion contrary to your own, is reprehensible, imo.
    >
    >	I have done no such thing.
    >
    >	I challenge you to show otherwise.

    My sentence in .86 was written and entered before I'd seen your .85.
    I withdraw it.  Instead, you were accusing me of dishonesty because my
    .75 wasn't timely enough, you thought I was dishonestly avoiding your
    arguments from .60.  I think it says more about your impatience than
    your reprehensibility.

    >	I also ask you to stop trying to read between my lines.  You
    > haven't been able to, and you may never be able to.  It costs me time
    > and energy to correct your assumptions and misinformation.  I have
    > tried to present your side as well I understand it.  You could return
    > me the favor.

    Well, fine.  I'll try to stop misinterpreting you as long as you start
    answering all the questions I ask when you don't specify something
    completely...and as long as you don't duck my questions by calling them
    'loaded'.

    DougO

    	RE:  Hate
    
    	After reading all the replies tonight, I have a serious question
    	(and I would like an answer to this.)
    
    	Why is it that some people can read a woman's reply, and decide
    	that it's filled with "hate" because of the phrases "I have no
    	sympathy" and "I'd laugh in his face!" - yet *none* of these
    	same people have commented on the words of another (male) noter
    	whose words sound incredibly more hostile and filled with hate
    	and anger than Sandy's words sounded.
    
    	Please explain to me why the following excerpts (from a certain
    	male noter) are 'acceptable' while Sandy's "I have no sympathy"
    	and "I'd laugh in his face!" are *not* 'acceptable.'
    
    	Check this out:
    
    	.54> UNBELIEVABLE!  Sandy, in my humble white male trash opinion, 
    	.54> your note reaks of hatred toward men. 
    
    	Sandy didn't call anyone trash.
    
    	.54> IF white male het trash weren't listening (and learning), you 
    	.54> certainly wouldnt be here spouting off about how awful white male 
    	.54> het thashs are. You would still be "where us scum of the earth 
    	.54> would prefer you to be", in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
    
    	No one called men trash *or* "scum of the earth" - yet he's telling
    	Sandy that we'd be barefoot and pregnant (where men would *prefer* 
    	women to be, he says) if not for men listening and learning.
    
    	.54> all in my humble white het trash opinion, of course. 
    
    	.64> -< Oh, wow,like, I got this job handed to me? Oh, thanks for 
    	.64>      tellin >-
    
    	.64> RE: Sue  Jumping on the ole slap the bum band wagon again eh?
    
    	Gratuitous goading for a very short reply that only thanked Sandy and
    	two other male noters.
    
    	.77> As for the Veeps argument.... What the hell do you expect?
    	.77> all of the white male hets to stop down graciously and say, 
    	.77> "here, you poor misunderstood opressed woman, take my job, I 
    	.77> want to make things right."
    
    	.77> Women have to work too ya know!  Do you think it takes a couple 
    	.77> of years to kae a veeps job? Guess again. 
    
    	Is he suggesting that women do *not* work??
    
    	.77> Are you accusing My Uncle of being a sexist? or a Bigot?  
    	.77> Your accusations of all males (BTW, youre one also ya know) get 
    	.77> the advantages is full of freakin holes.  It may appear to the 
    	.77> closed minded, that males (white hets) get all of the breaks, 
    	.77> but Ill tell you what, we don't.  
    
    	.77> Whe get crap like this thrown into our faces everyday, becasue 
    	.77> of your extra apendage, color.
    
    	.77> Slappin the white male hets in the face with shit like this is 
    	.77> one way to insure that more and more white male hets start giving 
    	.77> the ole eye for an eye crud back. 
    
    	Threats of white male reprisal?
    
    	.77> I dont want to constantly be told that I had it made.  I DIDN'T!  
    	.77> ... Had it made my ass! 
    
    	Now he's yelling and swearing (while no one else in the discussion is 
    	doing so.)
    
    	.77> I don't if anything, I have people like you to contend with, 
    	.77> constantly reminding me of my forefathers ignorance to the human 
    	.77> race...  HAd it made, MY ASS!
    
    	More yelling and swearing.
    
    	**********************************************************************
    
    	Now will someone please tell me why a male can demonstrate this kind
    	of attitude and use this kind of language without being told that he
    	is filled with hate and anger (while a *woman* is regarded as having
    	*both* hate and anger for saying, "I have no sympathy" and "I'd laugh
    	in his face!")???
    
    	Could it possibly be because society *expects* men to talk like this,
    	but can't yet handle the thought of a woman refusing to offer sympathy 
    	to a group of men (and literally shudders at the thought that a woman
    	could actually consider - horrors!! - laughing in a man's face?)

Thanx, Suzanne.  My biggest faux pas here is not in what I'm saying,
it's that I'm not 'being nice'.  Even Kathy Gallup took me to task for
not being nice while a lot of the guys here are doing plenty of swearing
and screaming.  It's funny, isn't it?  ;-)  Oh and sorry, Chainsaw,
for not crediting you with your quotes.  I've avoided that error here.
        
CONURE::AMARTIN 

>    As for the Veeps argument.... What the hell do you expect?
>    all of the white male hets to stop down graciously and say, "here, you
>    poor misunderstood opressed woman, take my job, I want to make things
>    right."
 
You're so riled up you can't see straight, can you?  No one hands a job
"over" to someone.  A third person, a higher up, decides.  And because
*that* person is generally, (in the VP category), a 50-ish white male,
chances are durn good that he's not going to hire some equally qualified
hot shot female over a 50-ish white male, now isn't it?  Think about what
you're saying.  The VPS aren't to blame - the white males that hired
them are.  Sheesh.

>    My Uncle (Henry Crouse) has been with DEC for many years, he is a veep,
>    are you saying that he didnt earn his position? Guess again.
 
Don't be silly.  No one is saying men don't earn what they get.  You're
thinking of this whole thing backwards. Of COURSE they earn it.  But
women who do an equal amount of "earning" don't similarly do an equal
amount of "getting".  And hmm, I wonder why that is.  I would *never*
dare suggest plain ole' sexism just may be at work there!  ;-)
   
>    Are you accusing My Uncle of being a sexist? or a Bigot?  

I'd have to see his applicants and his hirees to determine that and not
his actual position in the company.

>Your accusations of all males (BTW, youre one also ya know) get the
>advantages is full of freakin holes.  

I don't think so.  I just punched a few in your defenses, though.

>It may appear to the closed minded, that males (white hets) get all of 
>the breaks, but Ill tell you what, we don't.  
    
Typical misunderstanding.  White males don't get all the breaks!  You
get all the chances to WORK for SUCCESS!  Most women simply get to work.

>    Slappin the white male hets in the face with shit like this is one way
>    to insure that more and more white male hets start giving the ole eye
>    for an eye crud back.  

And that's ok, huh?  Back to the topic at hand, the sitcoms being whined
about here are the "ole eye for an eye crud".  Thank heavens you finally
seem to understand that concept and how it applies here.

>The old "how does it feel" will continue to be said, only the white male 
>hets will start saying it.
 
And then it will be ok, right?.  We women will be only getting what we
deserve. But us feeling, (and actually saying!) the same thing to you now 
doesn't count, does it?  It's not right for us to say it to *you*, is it?
   
>    ever hear, "what goes around, comes around"?  
 
I rest my case.  You're hearing it now.  You're seeing it on tv.  Get
ready for more.
   
> HAd it made, MY ASS!
  
Calm down, Al.  What you "had" was the *chance* to make it for yourself.
What women want is simply the same chance.  That's all.  I don't want
anything handed to me.  I want the same rewards for the same effort
and ability that men get.

MILKWY::ZARLENGA
    
>   Tell me how many qualified female applicants have been
>    rejected on the basis of sex.  

Just myself, many, many times.  Even recently here at Digital.  THat's why
I quit and I'm now a contractor, (at twice my Dec pay!)  Ladies, shall we 
start a new string where we can tell them how many jobs we've lost to less 
qualified men?  I realize, Mike, you don't see it, so how would you know?  
Here's an exercise for you - start sincerely asking your women friends.

>	How many women are garbage workers?  

Not nearly as many as want to be.  And they want to be for the same reasons
the male garbage workers do.

>	I accused her of writing a reply that contaianed an awful lot
>    of hatred.  

That's an "accusation"?  Women shouldn't discuss hate in any form, should 
they.  I've been accused of being "not nice".  Gee, I'm bummed.  You're not
being very nice, either.  Now aren't you upset I told you that?  ;-)

>	But, 4 people, no 5 now, have read the same kind of anger in that
>    reply as I did.

>	Coincidence you say?  Or maybe insight.

What, you want to take a poll to see if the majority backs you up?  Say what
you mean and stand alone if you have to.  I'm obviously willing to stand
alone for my beliefs.

>	I am (or, I was) refraining from accusing her of not stating
>    the truth, for whatever reasons she may have.

I have stated my truths as I see them.

SSDEVO::GALLUP 

>	 I know what Sandy is trying to say, but I don't feel she's
>	 going about it the right way.

The classic smokescreen challenge.  If you know what I'm trying to say,
why don't we discuss *that*?  The "right way" to say something in notes
is to put fingers to keys.

> it puts men on the defense when they shouldn't be on the defense......

Maybe they should be.  Maybe the truth puts them on the defensive and not
me.  Maybe only *some* of them are on the defensive in which case it's a
function of how they feel about themselves rather than my words.

LOOK at this string!  Some white males are whining about being portrayed
as less than the standard American-defined-masculine.  I tell them they're
wasting their breath and I tell them why I think so.  And look at all
the furor!  OK, folks, let's kill off the older kid in growing pains,
let's get rid of Theo and what, one or two more?  Let's replace them with
more cute chicks or, to be more "fair", more "balanced", let's leave all
the cute chicks that are already there, and just replace the few sexist 
portrayals of males with neutral ones.  OK?  Is that what you guys want?  
Let's leave all the bimbos right where they are since no man in mennotes, 
*or anywhere else* has ever complained about that kind of sexism.  

And in case I'm wrong, moderators, please point me to the string where men 
are actually complaining about the sexist treatment of women on tv, (or
anywhere for that matter - I'll give you guys a real chance, here!), and 
demanding that it be stopped.

>    	   I don't recall anyone asserting that those of us in the
>    	"white scrotum club" have "had it made".  The assertion I 
>    	read was that the way was less difficult for us, and that
>    	is undeniably true (whether we, as individuals, choose to
>    	acknowledge it or not), simply because it was our ancestors
>    	who set up the framework of the society in which we now live.
    
     Perhaps as a group, but certainly not as individuals. And I think this
    is a specific bone of contention. No group has a corner on the market
    of having it tough, or having it easy. We can make some generalizations
    on a group to group basis, but everybody knows a member of a group that
    has it better or worse than us that isn't supposed to, based on the
    generalizations.
    
    The Doctah

    	RE: .95  Mike Z.
    
    	> There was hatred in that note.  It was blatant in the excerpt I
    	> included in .56.  I still stand by this. 
    
    	In your reply .56, you cited the quotes I mentioned in my reply
    	.92 ("I have no sympathy" and "I'd laugh in his face!")  Just
    	including this as a reminder...
    
    	> It is possible that Sandy does not recognize that particular
    	> emotion [hate] for what it is.
    
    	So, are you suggesting that you know what is in Sandy's heart
    	better than she does herself?  Or are you just very determined
    	to stick by your claim that the words (as cited above) are the
    	evidence of hate (for reasons that you haven't shared with us)?
     
    	> Have I avoided ANY questions you, or anyone else has asked?
	> I hope not.  In any case, feel free to ask them again.
    
    	I'd like you to answer my questions in my .92 reply.
    
    	If you do decide that the words of the male noter I quoted in that 
    	reply are *not* the evidence of hate, even though they are *far* worse 
    	than anything Sandy has said to date in this topic, I'd like to request
    	a detailed explanation of how you came to this conclusion.
    
    	Thanks.

    	RE: .96  Mike Z.
    
    	.93> [Sandy] not being nice while a lot of the guys here are doing 
    	.93> plenty of swearing and screaming.  It's funny, isn't it?  ;-)

	> Perhaps, when you're done with the salutations and gratuitous
    	> put downs, you would care to reread .56 and answer the questions I
    	> asked in that reply.
    
    	Is it a putdown to note that someone is using profanity as well as
    	punctuation to indicate a rise in the volume of his voice (and to
    	regard it as humorous in light of the fact that the only one who'd 
    	been accused of hate was someone whose notes were significantly
    	calmer)?
    
    	> There'll be no dessert for you tonight.
    
    	Surely you won't try to tell me that this was *not* meant as a
    	gratuitous put-down.
    
    	Is your put-down more "acceptable" than remarking on the humor of the
    	situation above, or were you simply retaliating?
    
    	If your put-down was more "acceptable" - why is that?  Does your
    	being a man using language that implies that a woman is a child have
    	anything to do with the remark being more acceptable (per chance)?
    
    	If it was an attempt to retaliate, then why is it ok for you to do
    	some retaliating against what you regarded as put-downs (but *not*
    	ok for television to use negative portrayals of men in retaliation
    	for the negative portrayals of women that still exist on television?)
    
    	Or, do you think that it's fitting that negative images of men are
    	shown on television now?

    Suzanne,
    		You asked a serious question.."Why is it that some people
    can read a womans reply and decide that its filled with hate....etc"
    I would like to explain that from my pont of view if I may.
    When reading many replies (some by yourself) on various topics I
    have been concerned at the level of "implied" agression in them.It
    appears to me that quite often the anger that you feel can be
    interpreted as being directed against the vehicle of injustice
    (mankind) rather than the injustice itself (inequality). I would
    also say, to keep things balanced, that I have exactly the same
    concerns regarding certains solutions to the horrible crime at Montreal
    suggested by someone in Womannotes. (Obviously Wyatt Earl still
    lives..(I tend to flippancy sometimes).
    What concerns me is that in fighting for equality you are interpreted
    as making men the enemy rather than injustice, and this then begins
    to foster feelings of resentment which then generates a backlash
    of opinion hence we end up in a conflict situation. The ultimate
    is that we end up with a society where everyone is equal but totally
    polarised. ( Not sure I explained that too well but this is coming
    of the top of my head).
    Please don't interpret this a an attack I am genuinely trying to
    explain why certain comments I have read lately can be interpreted
    as over agressive (hateful seems a little too strong).
    
    By the way (and please don't shoot me for it or take as a sexist
    comment), regarding "Women don't start wars", you should try a certain
    Margaret Thatcher for ten years. Thats a political statement not a
    sexist one.
    
    Glyn Whitley

    RE: (*
    you just love to justify sexism toward males dont you?  As long as its
    sexism toward men and NOT BY MEN, you're happy....
    
    WOW!
    
RE: Sandy
 
>You're so riled up you can't see straight, can you?  No one hands a job
>"over" to someone.  A third person, a higher up, decides.  And because
>*that* person is generally, (in the V.P. category), a 50-ish white male,
>chances are durn good that he's not going to hire some equally qualified
>hot shot female over a 50-ish white male, now isn't it?  Think about what
>you're saying.  The VPS aren't to blame - the white males that hired
>them are.  Sheesh.

I would have to agree on this Sandy.  BUT, I would like to think that there
are at least a few white males up there that aren't like that.

 
>Don't be silly.  No one is saying men don't earn what they get.  You're
>thinking of this whole thing backwards. Of COURSE they earn it.  But
>women who do an equal amount of "earning" don't similarly do an equal
>amount of "getting".  And hmm, I wonder why that is.  I would *never*
>dare suggest plain ole' sexism just may be at work there!  ;-)
 
I have a hard time believing this Sandy.  There has to be someone out there 
that doesn't think so lopsided.  Isn't there?
  

>>Your accusations of all males (BTW, youre one also ya know) get the
>>advantages is full of freakin holes.  

I was refereeing to Greg I think Sandy.

>I don't think so.  I just punched a few in your defenses, though.

I have no defenses, that's why I am getting jumped on by persons that have 
nothing to do with "our conversation", isn't it??

>>It may appear to the closed minded, that males (white hets) get all of 
>>the breaks, but Ill tell you what, we don't.  
    
>Typical misunderstanding.  White males don't get all the breaks!  You
>get all the chances to WORK for SUCCESS!  Most women simply get to work.

This is hard to swallow.  I cannot believe that its all a white male world.
Seeing my mother start in the mail room at Filenes and ending up running 
the mens department before leaving, I cannot believe that women are ALWAYS 
oppressed and made to work harder than the white male het.


>And that's OK, huh?  Back to the topic at hand, the sitcoms being whined
>about here are the "ole eye for an eye crud".  Thank heavens you finally
>seem to understand that concept and how it applies here.

I have always knew that it "applied" to the topic at hand.  I jest feel 
that "an eye for an eye" is wrong.  There must be other ways to correct way 
of going about it. My opinion only.

>>The old "how does it feel" will continue to be said, only the white male 
>>hets will start saying it.
 
>And then it will be OK, right?.  We women will be only getting what we
>deserve. But us feeling, (and actually saying!) the same thing to you now 
>doesn't count, does it?  It's not right for us to say it to *you*, is it?
 
No, it isn't right.  and it isn't right for MEN to be saying it either.
 
 
>>    ever hear, "what goes around, comes around"?  
 
>I rest my case.  You're hearing it now.  You're seeing it on TV.  Get
>ready for more.

Yes, I have been seeing it on the tube.  I have also noticed it with women 
too!  Its wrong either way.  
   
>> HAd it made, MY ASS!
  
>Calm down, Al.  What you "had" was the *chance* to make it for yourself.
>What women want is simply the same chance.  That's all.  I don't want
>anything handed to me.  I want the same rewards for the same effort
>and ability that men get.

What is this "chance" that you keep speaking of? Could you elaborate?


RE: yours to Mike Z.

>That's an "accusation"?  Women shouldn't discuss hate in any form, should 
>they.  I've been accused of being "not nice".  Gee, I'm bummed.  You're 
>not
>being very nice, either.  Now aren't you upset I told you that?  ;-)

I don't believe that women shouldn't discuss hatred.  But labeling all 
males the way you "have appeared to do", seems a tad on the obscure side.

RE: yours to Kathy G.

>Maybe they should be.  Maybe the truth puts them on the defensive and not
>me.  Maybe only *some* of them are on the defensive in which case it's a
>function of how they feel about themselves rather than my words.

That could very well be, I'd have to look at it again.


>LOOK at this string!  Some white males are whining about being portrayed
>as less than the standard American-defined-masculine.  

Tis funny, really.  When a male states that a woman is "whining" its taken 
as an insult.  Should this line also be considered an insult?
I don't think I am "whining".  I am merely expressing my feelings.  Is that 
still a crime for a man to do?


>OK, folks, let's kill off the older kid in growing pains,
>let's get rid of Theo and what, one or two more?  Let's replace them with
>more cute chicks or, to be more "fair", more "balanced", let's leave all
>the cute chicks that are already there, and just replace the few sexist 
>portrayals of males with neutral ones.  OK?  Is that what you guys want?  
>Let's leave all the bimbos right where they are since no man in mennotes, 
>*or anywhere else* has ever complained about that kind of sexism.  

I don't know too too many males that would say no to the "chicks", but I 
also think that if you're going to "delete" all of the typical female 
stereotypes, and create new ones for the sake of "how's it feel", you're 
still wrong.

>And in case I'm wrong, moderators, please point me to the string where 
>men 
>are actually complaining about the sexist treatment of women on TV, (or
>anywhere for that matter - I'll give you guys a real chance, here!), and 
>demanding that it be stopped.

Good question. I agree with you.


RE: Conlon Comments...


>    	Why is it that some people can read a woman's reply, and decide
>    	that it's filled with "hate" because of the phrases "I have no
>    	sympathy" and "I'd laugh in his face!" - yet *none* of these
>    	same people have commented on the words of another (male) noter
>    	whose words sound incredibly more hostile and filled with hate
>    	and anger than Sandy's words sounded.
 
It isn't a crime to have poor communications skills Sue.

   
>    	Please explain to me why the following excerpts (from a certain
>    	male noter) are 'acceptable' while Sandy's "I have no sympathy"
>    	and "I'd laugh in his face!" are *not* 'acceptable.'
 
Cut the bull dance, Sue.  Use my damn name will you?.
   

>    	Check this out:

we all did, and it has been hacked to death... Please see my communication 
problem stated above.
    
>>    	.54> UNBELIEVABLE!  Sandy, in my humble white male trash opinion, 
>>    	.54> your note reaks of hatred toward men. 
    
>    	Sandy didn't call anyone trash.
  
No, this is true, she didn't.  So why are you taggin along... for the fun?
  

    
>    	No one called men trash *or* "scum of the earth" - yet he's telling
>    	Sandy that we'd be barefoot and pregnant (where men would *prefer* 
>    	women to be, he says) if not for men listening and learning.
 
Again, see above.  I never said that personally, and if I recall correctly, 
it was in ()'s for that specific reason.  Her note appeared to be telling 
me that all males want women to be in the old fashion place.
   

    
>    	Gratuitous goading for a very short reply that only thanked Sandy 
>and
>    	two other male noters.
 
I agree.  But I do also recall the same sort of stab coming from you when I 
gave the ole "thanks a lot note" to a specific someone.
You know, what goes around, comes around?
   
    
>    	Is he suggesting that women do *not* work??
 
Never did such a thing.  Don't play word games with me.  I don't like them.
If you cannot understand me, please ask for clarification. 
   

>    	Threats of white male reprisal?
 
See above.  read the lines Lady, don't try and identify me with an obvious
tag of the male pig.
   
>    	More yelling and swearing.
 
You know, if you dig any deeper for clues of the ole underlying chauvinist, 
you might make it to China.
   
    
    
> Now will someone please tell me why a male can demonstrate this kind
> of attitude and use this kind of language without being told that he
> is filled with hate and anger (while a *woman* is regarded as having
> *both* hate and anger for saying, "I have no sympathy" and "I'd laugh
> in his face!")???
    
> Could it possibly be because society *expects* men to talk like this,
> but can't yet handle the thought of a woman refusing to offer sympathy 
> to a group of men (and literally shudders at the thought that a woman
> could actually consider - horrors!! - laughing in a man's face?)

More childish word games.  When are you going to stop the finger pointing 
game?  If Sandy felt that my words pulled liquid through a straw, then she 
will say so (she did).  I am pretty sure that she need not your creative 
noting styles to defend her.  

Sandy, If I worded my entries wrong (probably did), I am sorry, Your entry 
struck a nerve and I was merely trying to identify that nerve.

I have a very difficult time feeling sorry for a woman yelling and 
screaming like that (by appearance only) when a male can (and does) get the 
same treatment it it is completely acceptable.  We (males and females) must 
work together to stop these injustices, not against each other.

By replacing the problem, one does not correct.  
    

    	RE: .100  Al
    
    	> RE: (*
    	> you just love to justify sexism toward males dont you?  As long 
    	> as its sexism toward men and NOT BY MEN, you're happy....
    	> WOW!
    
    	It's not clear who you were addressing here.  Perhaps you would
    	care to elaborate.
    
    	> [To Sandy]  I have no defenses, that's why I am getting jumped on 
    	> by persons that have nothing to do with "our conversation", isn't 
    	> it??
    
    	At what point did your participation in this discussion become a
    	private conversation with Sandy?  She wasn't even addressing you,
    	originally, as I recall.
    
    	>> [From me] yet *none* of these same people have commented on the 
    	>> words of another (male) noter whose words sound incredibly more 
    	>> hostile and filled with hate and anger than Sandy's words sounded.
 
	> It isn't a crime to have poor communications skills Sue.
    
    	Is that how you explain the hostility, hate and anger in your
    	notes?  Sandy's "I have no sympathy" reaks of hatred (in your
    	words,) but your screaming and swearing is just a matter of
    	poor communication??
    
    	Interesting.
    
    	> Cut the bull dance, Sue.  Use my damn name will you?.
    
    	More poor communication this time, Al, or is this hate finally?
    	It sounds like hate (and anger.)
    
    	>> [From me]  Check this out:
    
    	> we all did, and it has been hacked to death... Please see my 
    	> communication problem stated above.
    
    	Again, you characterize your hostile and hateful words as a mere
    	communication problem.  
    
    	>> [From me] Sandy didn't call anyone trash.
  
	> No, this is true, she didn't.  So why are you taggin along... 
    	> for the fun?
    
    	Yet another communication problem, I presume.
    
    	> But I do also recall the same sort of stab coming from you when I 
	> gave the ole "thanks a lot note" to a specific someone. You know, 
    	> what goes around, comes around?
   
    	This time I agree that it is a matter of poor communication.  I
    	have no idea what you're talking about.
    
    	.77>>> Women have to work too ya know!
    
    	>> [From me] Is he suggesting that women do *not* work??
 
	> Never did such a thing.  Don't play word games with me.  I don't 
    	> like them.  If you cannot understand me, please ask for 
    	> clarification. 
    
    	On this one point, your meaning was only too clear.
    
    	>> [From me] Threats of white male reprisal?
 
	> See above.  read the lines Lady, don't try and identify me with 
    	> an obvious tag of the male pig.
    
    	Sounds like poor communication *and* hate (working together.)
    
    	>> [From me] More yelling and swearing.
 
	> You know, if you dig any deeper for clues of the ole underlying 
    	> chauvinist, you might make it to China.
    
    	Ok, now I'm really curious as to how you justify a comment like
    	this one.  Is it more "acceptable" because you're a man talking
    	to a woman?  Do you honestly consider this less hostile than
    	saying "I have no sympathy?"
    
    	> More childish word games.  When are you going to stop the finger 
    	> pointing game? 
    
    	At some point, are you going to agree that you are showing pretty 
    	serious hostility when you hurl statements like this around?  If you
    	won't agree to it, then how can you call words like "I have no
    	sympathy" hatred (while your words are so much worse than that?)
    
    	> If Sandy felt that my words pulled liquid through a straw, then she 
	> will say so (she did).  I am pretty sure that she need not your 
    	> creative noting styles to defend her.  
    
    	Of course Sandy didn't need anyone to defend her.  
    
    	We're all just folks here (talking things over.)  You expressed
    	your opinions, and I'm expressing mine.
    
    	> Sandy, If I worded my entries wrong (probably did), I am sorry, 
    	> Your entry struck a nerve and I was merely trying to identify that 
    	> nerve.
    
    	How sweet.
    
    	> I have a very difficult time feeling sorry for a woman yelling and 
	> screaming like that (by appearance only) when a male can (and does) 
    	> get the same treatment it it is completely acceptable. 
    
    	In other words, *you* "have no sympathy" either??  
    
    	> By replacing the problem, one does not correct.  
    
    	What did your yelling and screaming correct?

    
    Suzanne, you have anything constructive to offer to this topic
    or are you only here to offer personal attacks on AL?
    Everything you've accused him of you too are guilty of, both
    in this forum and others. This includes swearing, accusing,
    and goading. I see you've also tried to include others in
    condemning Al by extracting quotes from his notes and asking
    others to comment. This is uncalled for. If you disagree
    with Al, show some courage and rebutt the points he's made.
    
    
    
    On the topic, to no one in particular....
    Negative portrayals are wrong, period. This I've learned with the
    help of my African-american friends, friends from the =wn=
    community and elsewhere. To assert that negative portrayals of
    women are wrong while at the same time justifying negative
    portrayals of men is pure hypocrisy.  
    
    Re: society is male.
    This strikes me as a statement that completely ignores and
    devalues any and all contributions women have made to society
    over the years and are making today.
    
    Re: Oppression
    The oppression of women has been raised here, blaming men.
    Fair enough. But let's not be so selective and myopic.
    Let's also include the oppression of blacks in this country.
    But I suspect you wouldn't want to. Because then, to use
    a variation of Sandy's phrase, society is white! And 
    white hetero women are enjoying the benefits of being white
    and the inherent advantage that has offered. Tell me, how's
    it feel to be an oppressor?   
    
    My final comment....This whole topic has exemplified the
    double standard that exists today. On the one hand, we're all
    (hopefully) working towards the day when everyone is treated with
    equality and doesn't have to be subjected to oppression, negative
    portrayals, and stereotyping. Towards that end, we try to identify
    these occurrences and find ways to prevent it from happening again.
    But when a man notices these occurrences as it pertains to men,
    in mennotes no less, it is dismissed as whining. Is that how
    we encourage each other to work towards a common goal?
    I think not.
    
    								Hank
     

Its fascinating how you can guess, with about 98% accuracy, which of these
replies are written by men and which aren't.  Before you ever see the actual
sign-off.

    	RE: .102  Hank
    
    	> Suzanne, you have anything constructive to offer to this topic
    	> or are you only here to offer personal attacks on AL?
    
    	It isn't up to you to judge whether my opinions are constructive
    	or not.  I'm allowed to express them regardless of how you choose
    	to judge them.
    
    	> Everything you've accused him of you too are guilty of, both
    	> in this forum and others.
    
    	At no point have I tried to characterize Al's writing without
    	providing extracts to demonstrate the points I was making.
    
    	You, on the other hand, are making sweeping generalizations about me 
    	(regarding a number of forums) without providing any substantiation
    	through quotes of my text whatsoever.
    
    	> I see you've also tried to include others in condemning Al by 
    	> extracting quotes from his notes and asking others to comment. This 
    	> is uncalled for.
    
    	My extractions of his notes were provided as a clear demonstration
    	of the differences between what is considered "acceptable" language
    	for men versus what is "acceptable" language for women in our society
    	(which was very much to the point in the discussion we've been having.)
    
    	> If you disagree with Al, show some courage and rebutt the points 
    	> he's made.
    
    	Show some courage, Hank?  Is this another example of an "acceptable" 
    	(albeit demeaning) remark to make to women in our culture?

    	RE: .104  Mike Z.
    
    	> "yes, I am convinced because I gave it much thought and have not 
    	> changed my mind" [about what is in Sandy's heart]
    
    	In that case, you wouldn't want to object if Sandy (or any other
    	woman) chooses to become convinced of what lies in many/most men's
    	hearts (as long as we give it much thought and don't change our
    	minds about it, either, right?)  :-)
    
    	> More likely, it can be seen that Al Martin's note was a response,
    	> not a provocation. 
    
    	In that case, why can't you see Sandy's note as a response (and not
    	a provocation) to thousands of years of the oppression of women?
    
    	> I see it as a response to an attack.  An undeserved attack.
    
    	Again, why can't you see Sandy's note as a response to the attack
    	of societal sexism?  Wouldn't you agree that sexism in our culture
    	is an undeserved attack against women?
    
    	> Under different circumstances, they could very well be indicative
    	> of deep-seeded anger, hatred, or sexism.  That would depend on what
    	> brought about the response.

    	In other words, if the provocation is sufficient, then the response
    	can be considered justified.
    
    	> Under these circumstances, I see it as defending one's self.
    
    	Why do you consider *one note* to be enough provocation to justify
    	Al's response, thus characterizing it as "defending one's self,"
    	yet thousands of years of oppression is *not* enough of a provocation
    	to justify Sandy's response?
    
    	> I've grown weary of playing fair, and not being return the favor.
    
    	Bingo.  Now perhaps you can see how (after thousands of years)
    	women could *also* be tired enough of sexism to have some difficulty
    	feeling sympathy for a group of men who complain about the portrayal
    	of a couple of stupid boys on television.  Thank you.
    
    						     Suzanne ...

    
    
    "The simple realization that there are other points of view is the
    beginning of wisdom.  Understanding what they are is a great step.
    The final test is understanding WHY they are held."
    
                                                       C. Campbell

I'd like to ask folks to take a break from this discussion.  And perhaps to
allow at least several hours after replying before replying again.  I think
this will help produce more light than heat.

And since the subject was brought up several times, I'd like to emphasize
that MENNOTES is a place where EVERYONE's opinion is respected, and that
no special privileges are granted to any group.  At the same time, I will
point out that this IS a place where it makes sense to keep in mind and be
sensitive to the male culture and men's feelings.  And as for feelings,
they ought not to be subjects for debate, be they of men or women.

				Steve

Mike, gee, I misdirected my "attack" toward people who have nothing
at all to do with [sexism]?  Well the base note author has directed
his question likewise.  So I guess we should just delete the whole
string since that's a wrong thing to do, yes?
    
And you're convinced of my feelings but I have no right to be convinced
of anyone else's, huh?  You wouldn't last a minute if you and Suzanne,
or you and I were talking face to face.  Your last notes sound like
you're really digging in and trying to stick to your guns and your
arguments are getting weaker and weaker, i.e. the "think whatever you like"
response to Suzanne's direct application of your words.  I wish
you had answered her question rather than brushed her off.  But most
people brush off that which they either don't know the answer to or
don't like the answer.  I think your case is the latter.  Don't bother
to reply, just "think whatever you like".    
           
BRICHS::WHITLEY_G

>    What concerns me is that in fighting for equality you [Suzanne]
>    are interpreted as making men the enemy rather than injustice, and 
>    this then begins to foster feelings of resentment which then
>    generates a backlash of opinion hence we end up in a conflict situation. 

Heavy sigh here as yet again I explain that "society" is not a third
thing that oppresses its people.  Society is the collection of rules men
have agreed upon without asking women.  And to the noter who said this 
devalues everything women have done, yes, society does that.  Dealing with the
obvious here is wasting time.

>The ultimate is that we end up with a society where everyone is equal but 
>totally polarised. 

For my money, that's STILL better than what we have today.  Men and women
will always come together in love and lust.  I'm not worried about your
"polarization".  In fact, the problem is just that men and women HAVE been
and ARE polarized.  Feminism is trying to de-polarize society.

HANNAH::MODICA

>    Everything you've accused him of you too are guilty of

Hank this is *exactly* relevant to this string.  Everything white males
are looking for sympathy for they are guilty of perpetrating and to a much, 
*much* larger extent.  Suzanne is making a very subtle but very strong point -
when men do it, (or say it or shout it), it's ok.  When women do it, it's a
different matter and the "doing it" becomes the focus of the conversation
rather than the "it" we are all trying to do.  Hense the endless and tedious
words around style and emotion and my personal feelings towards men and
on and on, that take the focus off the subject being discussed and put it 
squarely on the woman involved in the discussion.

> Negative portrayals are wrong, period. 

Everyone agrees with this idea in theory.  In practice, the group who is
portrayed more negatively seems to believe it, (and live it),
just a little more.

> To assert that negative portrayals of women are wrong while at the same 
> time justifying negative portrayals of men is pure hypocrisy.  
    
Sure.  But what more often happens, (a la right here), to assert that 
negative portrayals of men are wrong while at the same time keeping quiet 
and saying nothing about negative portrayals of women "is pure hypocrisy".

>    The oppression of women has been raised here, blaming men.
>    Fair enough. But 

Why?  Why always BUT?  You can't stop with "Fair enough".  You DO think it's
fair?  Why do you think it's fair?  And if you think it's fair, then can I
assume you understand, (betraying some of your sex), why I might have "no 
sympathy" for a man whining about being oppressed?

>Let's also include the oppression of blacks in this country.
 
No, let's not.  We're talking about sexism.  Let's stick to that.

> Because then, to use a variation of Sandy's phrase, society is white! 

You got it!  White and male.

>    But when a man notices these occurrences as it pertains to men,
>    in mennotes no less, it is dismissed as whining. 

It is dismissed as whining because, and *only* because he, (the generic 
"man" in your paragraph), has, through the centuries, turned a deaf ear to 
women's complaints.  This is nothing specific to men and women.  Any human, 
if ignored or laughed at long enough, is eventually not going to feel much 
sympathy, and may even feel a little glee, when the tables get turned.  Even 
the men here who are so kind and benevolent as to never hate anything or 
anyone for any reason or at least never talk about it to anyone at any time,
ever, can be made to feel this way.

>Is that how we encourage each other to work towards a common goal?
>    I think not.

OK, Hank, you know how we *shouldn't* do it.  Several guys have said how we
*shouldn't* go about achieving equality.  How then *should* we do it?  Women
do not need to be convinced to work toward equality.  Please, please tell
me how do we convince men to?  Talking doesn't work.  Showing them how it
feels is "wrong" and "hateful", and will only make them "justifiably"
angry at us.  Of course we still have to live with the "wrong" and
"hateful" portrayals, images and beliefs of women but Shhh, we can't talk 
about that and we *certainly* can't expect that *our* anger would be seen
as justified!

So what's next?  I have my ideas.  (Reeking with hate again!).  I say we 
leave them all to their societies.  I say we boycott marriage and baby-making.
No, I'd never advocate a boycott on sex!  ;-)

Let them have the world they love so much.  I guarantee it would be about a 
month, no, yeah, a month, before they trickle back, one by one, asking what it 
would take.  I don't have to hate to simply believe this is what would happen
and suspect that it may be the only thing that will ever work.  As long as men
get what they want from women, they have no motivation to listen to them and
take their words into consideration when forming their societal rules.

In lieu of of that fast presto-chango, get ready for a world where sex
will slowly replace sexism.  Sex for both men and women, stereotypes for both 
to laugh at, to lust over.  The world's going to hell in a handbasket allright
but it can be stopped if, and only if, women get equal say in the world.  Till
we do, may I present "Growing Pains"!  Pun intended.
    

>Sure.  But what more often happens, (a la right here), to assert that 
>negative portrayals of men are wrong while at the same time keeping quiet 
>and saying nothing about negative portrayals of women "is pure hypocrisy".
    
    No it isn't. It shows a lack of consistency for the higher level
    evaluation but it isn't hypocritical unless you say one is ok but the
    other isn't. Just a nit.
    
>> Because then, to use a variation of Sandy's phrase, society is white! 
>You got it!  White and male.
    
    I disagree. And I'm sure we'll never come to an agreement on that. I
    think "society" is made up of ALL individuals, powerful or not. 
    
>It is dismissed as whining because, and *only* because he, (the generic 
>"man" in your paragraph), has, through the centuries, turned a deaf ear to 
>women's complaints.
    
    I understand your point. However, it does seem kinda ridiculous to say
    "this is not ok when it happens to me, but if it happens to you and you
    complain, then you're whining." (Yes, I know men do this too.)
    
>    (Reeking with hate again!).
    
    Actually, I think resentment and frustration are more accurate. 
    Displeasure too. Hate is a very strong term.
    
>    In lieu of of that fast presto-chango, get ready for a world where sex
>will slowly replace sexism.
    
    Do we really have to wait? :-)
    
    The Doctah

    RE: conlib
    
    Tis like reading your own notes eh?
    
    I think Mike Z correctly sums up this Mystical beast called Sexism
    (male only, of course)....
    
> 	It's not a big deal, anyway.  There are plenty of women out
>    there who are not into mind games, power struggles, gender conflicts,
>    and generally pissy attitudes.

Nuff said.  I am done sue.  You can have the whole note to yourself now.
    
    Time to go home and Oppress my cha... er... wife.

    	RE: .108  Mike Z.
    
    	Mike, you said in your note that women "can think whatever
    	they like" about you, and that you "can only hope that [your]
    	words and actions speak for themselves, and that if people are
    	going to judge [you], that they do it correctly."
    
    	According to the rest of your note, your main objection to what
    	Sandy said was that her comments about white males reflected on 
    	you (as an individual) which you felt was undeserved.
    
    	On the one hand, you're saying that you don't mind how you are
    	personally judged, but on the other hand, you're assuming that
    	comments made about white males in general include comments
    	about you (and you mind *very much* how you feel you are being
    	personally judged in that situation.)
    
    	What you don't seem to acknowledge is that our society is still 
    	very much controlled by white males, so most negative criticisms
    	about the way our society is run are ultimately criticisms about 
    	white males.
    
    	Therefore, all the rest of your assertions (about how Sandy's 
    	comments regarding our white male society are undeserved attacks 
    	against you, as an individual) are completely meaningless.
    
    	If you are going to equate yourself with the group that holds
    	most of the power in this country, you have to understand that
    	you are directing criticism of the group (positive or negative)
    	to yourself deliberately, as a matter of conscious choice. 
    
    	That doesn't negate the fact that women have the right to be
    	critical of how our society is run, and how we are treated.

    	RE: .99  Glyn
    
    	> You asked a serious question.."Why is it that some people can 
    	> read a womans reply and decide that its filled with hate....etc"
  
    	Actually, I knew the answer to this one before I asked the question
    	(and when I presented the quoted text from a man whose words were
    	exceptionally more hateful and violent that those of the woman who
    	was told her replies were filled with hate, I never doubted for a
    	single minute that at least one person would return to justify the
    	greater aggression in the quoted man's replies.)  It was inevitable.
    
    	In our society, it is so much more "acceptable" for a man to show
    	anger than it is for a woman, that there is already a built-in
    	assumption (in most cases) that if a man is angry, it is justified.
    	
    	Rarely are men expected to explain or excuse their anger the way
    	that women are.  In fact, anger is one of the most acceptable emotions
    	for men to display openly in our culture (and for some men, it's the 
    	*only* one they feel comfortable showing in public.)
    
    	For women in our culture, though, anger is rarely (if ever) regarded
    	by our society as being justifiable.  Women's anger is often considered
    	an affliction rather than an emotion, and a woman who is angry is
    	often presumed to be quite literally *ill* with hatred and bitterness,
    	even if the level of anger being displayed has only a *fraction* of
    	the intensity displayed by some men on an every day basis.
    
    	One of the disadvantages for women in debates with men about hot
    	issues (especially those involving women's rights) is the fact that
    	it is "acceptable" for men to show anger at women during a debate,
    	but is not at all "acceptable" for a woman to make statements that
    	even *allude* to the possibility that she is angry, without having
    	the entire topic literally turned over to a discussion of the
    	woman's emotions.
    
    	What we've seen in this topic is that a woman wrote a note containing
    	two statements that alluded to the possibility of anger (without ever
    	amounting to anything close to an actual display of anger) - "I have no
    	sympathy" and "I'd laugh in his face."  Some people were so appalled 
    	by her willingness to allude to anger that they made the standard 
    	societal assumption that such a woman must surely be filled with hate.
    	One man responded to her "I'd laugh in his face" with the comment:
    
    		.56>	Hatred, hatred, and more hatred.
    
    	Clearly, the mere suggestion of a woman laughing in a man's face
    	was evidence (to some) of the woman's anger.  And, if the woman
    	was angry, surely she was also filled with hate (in their minds.)
    	It was an inescapable conclusion for some people to draw (based on
    	how our society regards women's anger.)
    
    	When some of us challenged the assertion that the woman's note
    	was evidence of hatred and anger, one man asked the woman herself:
    
    	.66>I haven't heard Sandy say that there is no hatred in that note.
	.66>Well, Sandy?
    
    	When the woman denied feeling hatred/anger, the man who posed the
    	question to her refused to believe what she said.  In a response
    	to another query, he said:
    
    	.78> Perhaps she refuses to recognize the anger, perhaps she sees
	.78> it but refuses to admit it. 
    
    	When asked if he knew what was in her heart better than she did
    	herself, he said no, but then gave as his basis for believing that
    	she was feeling hatred/anger:
    
    	.104> "yes, I am convinced because I gave it much thought and have 
    	.104> not changed my mind"
    
    	In our culture, it is "acceptable" for men to make decisions as to
    	the form and content of women's feelings (in spite of objections
    	voiced by the woman or women who are experiencing them.)  It is
    	acceptable for men to simply *decide* what women are feeling, and
    	expecting that their decisions carry more authority than the voice
    	of the woman or women whose feelings are the subject of debate.
    
    	When it comes to women discussing what *men* feel (even in the most
    	general of terms,) it is not "acceptable."  Due to the fact that
    	men essentially "outrank" women in our society, the idea of a woman
    	characterizing the behavior or feelings of men is regarded as an act 
    	of insubordination, almost.
    
    	When the woman in question made very general statements about how
    	men treat women in our society, the same man who made a decision 
    	about her hatred/anger (based on his own thoughts about it) called 
    	the woman's general characterization of men "slander."
    
    	.108> ...it was directed at "white males", and that includes
	.108> me.  She attacked me by virtue of her slander against white
    	.108> males.
    
    	Apparently, when it comes to women talking about how men feel, the
    	process of "giving it a lot of thought and not changing one's mind
    	about it" isn't good enough (although a man can use it to tell an
    	individual woman what she is feeling despite her personal insight 
    	to the contrary.)
    
    	Thus, when you see a woman's anger being discussed in a notesfile,
    	it's important to remember *why* the focus of a given debate has
    	turned away from the subject at hand in favor of offering a woman
    	(or women) unsolicited psychological evaluations of our emotional
    	states.  It's simply part of the way our society characteristically
    	deals with women as lesser citizens of our culture.
    
    						    Suzanne ...

    	RE: .117  Mike Z.
    
    	.116> was told her replies were filled with hate, I never doubted 
    	.116> for a single minute that at least one person would return to 
    	.116> justify the greater aggression in the quoted man's replies.)  
    	.116> It was inevitable.

	> It was not inevitable justification of male aggression.
    	> Why must you bend the truth like this?
    
    	Mike, in my opinion, it was inevitable that someone would return
    	to justify the greater aggression in the man's replies.  
    
    	That's what I said, and it doesn't amount to bending the truth
    	(although I can certainly see how much it upset you.)  :)
    
    	.116> In our society, it is so much more "acceptable" for a man to 
    	.116> show anger than it is for a woman,

	> You are right.
    
    	Thanks.  I know.  :)
    
    	.116> that there is already a built-in assumption (in most cases) 
    	.116> that if a man is angry, it is justified.

	> You are wrong.
    
    	When you justified Al's anger, all it took was the provocation
    	of one note written by Sandy.
    
    	When it came to justifying Sandy's words (which were a lot less
    	aggressive than Al's,) thousands of years of oppression were not
    	enough to justify what she said (according to you) since she
    	hadn't been personally oppressed for thousands of years herself.
    
    	If it only takes a note to justify a man's anger, but thousands
    	of years of injustice is not enough to justify a woman's "anger,"
    	then, in my opinion, society already has some degree of built-in
    	assumption that a man's anger will usually be justified.
    
    	.116> it is "acceptable" for men to show anger at women during a 
    	.116> debate,

	> You are wrong.  Debates are not a place for anger.
	> Anger clouds the mind and makes for less effective realization of
    	> the facts.
    
    	However, it happens all the time anyway, and when it does, it is
    	more acceptable for men to show anger at women than it is for
    	women to show anger at men.
    
    	.116> Some people were so appalled by her willingness to allude to 
    	.116> anger that they made the standard societal assumption that 
    	.116> such a woman must surely be filled with hate.

	> This is false.  And, I wish you'd stop doing this.
    	> Not only is that not the standard societal assumption, and
    	> not only is there more there is more to .53 than those 2 out-of-
    	> context quotes you've supplied, there is also a significant
    	> difference between expressing hatred and being "filled with hate".
    
    	Mike, I've made my argument as to why our society regards women
    	who show anger as showing hatred as well.  If you disagree with
    	this, let's hear an argument (instead of angry-sounding denials.)
    
    	> You have chosen to abandon arguing the truth, and have chosen,
    	> instead to argue a distortion of the truth.  I will not allow 
    	> you to bend reality with subtle adjustments to suit yourself. 
    
    	The dynamics of how women are treated in our culture (including
    	in this very note) can be very disturbing, especially when
    	viewed up close and demonstrated by your own replies.  I don't
    	blame you for being upset about it.
    
    	> Yes, it is.  It is also acceptable for women to judge men.
	> What is wrong with either of these?  What are you trying to say?
    
    	If it's as acceptable for women to judge men (as it is for men
    	to judge women,) then why did you judge Sandy despite her telling
    	you how wrong you were, then call her characterizations of white
    	males "slander"?
    
    	Obviously, you must have felt it was more "ok" for you to tell
    	her how she felt than it was for her to tell men how men (in
    	general) feel.
    
    	.116> When it comes to women discussing what *men* feel (even in 
    	.116> the most general of terms,) it is not "acceptable."

	> You are wrong.
	> And the evidence that contradicts your statement is right here,
    	> in this topic, in most every topic, in most every other notes con-
    	> ference on the network.
    
    	I disagree.  The evidence supports my contention, quite clearly.
    
    	.116> about her hatred/anger (based on his own thoughts about it) 
    	.116> called the woman's general characterization of men "slander."

	> Are you saying it wasn't slanderous?
	> I've got quite a large dictionary right here, if you'd like me
    	> to define "slander" for you. 
    
    	Yes, I am stating emphatically that her characterization was not
    	slander.  (I know the definition of the word.)
    
    	The fact that you used this strong term (as a protest of her
    	having made general statements about what men think and feel,
    	even after *you* did the same to her as an individual) is more
    	evidence of how our society regards women judging men as less
    	acceptable than it regards men judging women.

	 RE. .92-.93 (Suzanne and Sandy)

	 Reverse the roles.

	 If Sandy's initial note had been written in WN by a man, with
	 the same attitude toward women, would you deny that you would
	 react the same way as many men are acting in here?

	 If a man has seemed to display hatred for women, lack of
	 sympathy toward them, etc.  What would be your response?
	 (I don't really need to adk, I've already seen some of your
	 responses to men in WN that has written a note like this).

	 Yes, many of the men in here are angry? Why?  Because of
	 the perceived lack of caring/sympathy/unwillingness to work
	 together in Sandy's note.

	 I maintain that YOUR reaction, should the roles be reversed,
	 would be almost identical to Mike's, Al's ... reaction to
	 Sandy's.

	 No one likes being attacked (especially with absurd
	 generalizations about the entire group).....  Perhaps if
	 Sandy's note had shown a little more compassion and
	 willingness to work together, I be there wouldn't be this
	 uproar.  And I bet we would get MUCH more accomplished.

	 In other words, she could have got her ideas/opinions across
	 and avoided this entire reaction.
	 
>The classic smokescreen challenge.  If you know what I'm trying to say,
>why don't we discuss *that*?  The "right way" to say something in notes
>is to put fingers to keys.

	 Well, perhaps if you took the time to express your opinion
	 without all the hoopla about no sympathy and all, we would be
	 discussing it right now instead of discussing this BS.
	 
>Maybe they should be.  Maybe the truth puts them on the defensive and not
>me.  Maybe only *some* of them are on the defensive in which case it's a
>function of how they feel about themselves rather than my words.

	 Obviously your truth and my truth are different.  I just
	 graduated with a degree in engineering a couple of years ago.
	 When I attempted to get scholarships I felt SO SORRY for
	 white males, because it is virtually impossible for them to
	 get scholarships anymore.

	 There were more minorities and women in engineering than
	 white males..many more.  And the white males were the ones
	 struggling (because they couldn't get
	 scholarships/loans/grants....jobs!)

	 Your truth might be truth in the older generation...but there
	 is a TOTALLY different younger generation coming along.  I
	 can tell you right now, I've NEVER had a problem with being a
	 woman in my profession.  Even in high school, *I* was the
	 minority so *I* got to go to the Pre-Engineering
	 workshops....not a single white male was allowed.

	 No, I think right now, the system is working against white
	 males....at least in the younger generation.  Answer me
	 this....do these young white males deserve this?
	 

         	 kath

	 I give up...I refuse to read the last 10-20 replies..I just
	 don't have the time and they aren't full of much information.

	 I would, however, like to make some comments.

	 First off, Sandy mentioned back there that she just wishes
	 women had the CHANCES to achieve.  I like to know, from her,
	 just what she means by "chances."

	 In the younger generation (as I've stated in my last reply)
         women are getting more chances than men in many cases these
         days.  The top 9% of my graduating in high school was WOMEN 
         (ie, NO MEN in the top 40).  Many of these women got
         scholarships and grants.  *I* had so many scholarships I
         didn't know what to do with them all. *I* got the highest
         starting salary (and the first job offer) out of my Computer
         Engineering graduating class....and most of them were men
         (btw, this is not the fault of men that this is so...many
         women drop out of engineering to pursue other options...that
         is their choice, they did not "have it harder", in fact, as a
         woman, I found I had it easier).


	 Second point is directly related to this topic.  For every
	 occurance of men being portrayed as the less intelligent on
	 TV, I can come up with an occurance of women being portrayed
	 as the less intelligent.  I don't see an overwhelming
	 one-sided portrayal.

	 Take for example _A Different World_...Whitley vs
	 What's_his_name_with_the_round_glasses.  Also, on the _Cosby
	 Show_, take Denise's new husband (an academy graduate) as
	 compared to Denise.  Also, while you're at it, take Sondra
	 and Elvin.....EQUALS!!!!  Or what about _Roseanne_ where one
	 daughter is portrayed as being popular and pretty, yet not so
	 smart, and the other is nerdy and plain and intelligent.

	 I don't see a single-sided oppression of men or women.  I see
	 TV making an attempt to show all sorts of people with all
	 sorts of makeup.  The problem here is that people see what
	 they want to see....  Even in _Growing Pains_, look how Mike
	 is acheiving in acting!  No, Mike is not portrayed as being
	 dumb at all......he's got the 'act' down as so many women and
	 men do, but each time he drops that facade for a second and
	 you see a very intelligent, caring person.

	 Intelligence doesn't only come in 1s and 0s...nor does
	 intelligence only come in schoolbooks.......

	 I, obviously, see the portrayals on TV of men and women in a
	 much different, diverse light than many others.

	 kath

	 

    	RE:  .119  Kath
    
    	> Reverse the roles.
	> If Sandy's initial note had been written in WN by a man, with
	> the same attitude toward women, would you deny that you would
	> react the same way as many men are acting in here?
    
    	As a matter of fact, I deny it emphatically.  
    
    	There are so many worse things that men say to women other than
    	"I have no sympathy" that such a comment would be highly unlikely
    	to arouse my attention, much less my ire.
    
    	It is for that reason that I barely acknowledged it when one man
    	admitted that he had no sympathy for women, either (and didn't
    	mention it *at all* when I found that a second man in this topic
    	said the same thing as well.)
    
    	I simply don't regard the lack of sympathy as an indication of
    	hate, regardless of who says it.  Poor taste?  Possibly.  Lack
    	of sensitivity?  Maybe.  Hate?  Let's not get ridiculous.
    
    	> If a man has seemed to display hatred for women, lack of
	> sympathy toward them, etc.  What would be your response?
	> (I don't really need to adk, I've already seen some of your
	> responses to men in WN that has written a note like this).
    
    	Every time I've commented on an individual's response in this
    	topic, I've provided quotes (from this topic) rather than
    	the stereotypes and generalizations (of individuals) that you
    	are offering about me.  If you can't stick to what's been said
    	in this topic, don't bother to bring it up (because you lack
    	the authority to decide what's in my heart or what I might do
    	in another situation.)
    
    	> Yes, many of the men in here are angry? Why?  Because of
	> the perceived lack of caring/sympathy/unwillingness to work
	> together in Sandy's note.
    
    	How little it takes to make some men angry (and to be regarded as
    	*justified* for their anger)!  Yet even thousands of years of
    	the oppression of women is not "enough" for those same people to
    	justify what Sandy said.
    
    	It would appear that *talking* about oppression is a worse offense
    	than the injustice of having been oppressed.
    
    	> Perhaps if Sandy's note had shown a little more compassion and
	> willingness to work together, I be there wouldn't be this
	> uproar.  And I bet we would get MUCH more accomplished.
    
    	Now you're starting to get the point.  The entire problem is that
    	they felt Sandy wasn't "nice enough" about the way she phrased her
    	note, so her straight-forward way of expressing herself didn't fit
    	in with society's idea of the respectful ways that women are
    	supposed to address men.  Therefore, although Sandy's note was 
    	*not* hateful, but merely conveyed a lack of sympathy for a couple
    	of boys being portrayed as stupid in sitcoms, suddenly she is seen
    	as expressing hatred.  That's quite a leap of logic that can only
    	be explained by looking at the societal attitudes about women that
    	were at play in this topic.
    
    	> In other words, she could have got her ideas/opinions across
	> and avoided this entire reaction.
	 
    	Kath, that's a point that both Sandy and I have acknowledged
    	already:  It's not as "acceptable" for women to express anger
    	as it is for men to express anger.
    
    	Kindly remember that Sandy's .53 was a *response* to an earlier
    	reply, and was not a stream of consciousness out of nowhere!
    
    	Therefore, what you are saying is that the men who responded in
    	anger to Sandy were *justified* for their anger because of Sandy's
    	note, but Sandy was *not* justified in her response even though
    	someone else originally provoked *her* (although I wouldn't be
    	surprised to find that nearly everyone had forgotten by now that
    	Sandy's note .53 was indeed a *reply* to someone else.)
    
    	> Your truth might be truth in the older generation...but there
	> is a TOTALLY different younger generation coming along.  I
	> can tell you right now, I've NEVER had a problem with being a
	> woman in my profession. 
    	
    	One of the strongest feminists I know is a woman engineer who is
    	your age exactly, and I'm sure she would disagree with you that
    	there is as much of a generational difference as you claim in how 
    	women perceive we are being treated in our culture.

    	RE: .120  Mike Z.
    
    	.118> When you justified Al's anger, all it took was the provocation
	.118> of one note written by Sandy.

	> And provocation is all that I require to justify a woman's anger.

    	Great, then you'll be happy to be reminded that Sandy's .53 was a
    	reply to a note that provoked *her*, so now her anger is justified
    	as well!
    	
	> You are still wrong when you say a man's anger is more justifiable.

    	Prove it to me.  Tell me that Sandy was absolutely justified in 
    	what she wrote, and that she was provoked (which means that she was
    	every bit as justified as you felt Al was when he wrote his replies.)
    
    	.118> When it came to justifying Sandy's words (which were a lot less
	.118> aggressive than Al's,) thousands of years of oppression were not
	.118> enough to justify what she said (according to you) since she
	.118> hadn't been personally oppressed for thousands of years herself.

	> Correct.  In addition, her animosity was misdirected.
    
    	Wrong!!!  Her "animosity" was directed at the person to whom she
    	was responding.  The note was not directed at you or anyone else
    	who happened to eavesdrop on her remarks.
    
    	> I did not say her anger was unjustified.  
    
    	Yes, you did.  See above - I asked you if thousands of years of
    	oppression were not enough to justify what she said and you
    	responded, "Correct."
    
    	> I did cite her note for what I thought it was, angry, and the 
    	> extract for what I thought it was, hatred.
    
    	But you did *not* cite Al Martin for what was much *angrier*, and
    	expressed *far* more hate than anyone else in this topic.  Why not?
    	Since we now know that both Sandy and Al were "provoked" into writing
    	their responses, do you still consider Sandy's reply worse than Al's?
    
    	> I make no judgment re: if she is justified in feeling those
    	> emotions. I take exception to being the target of her aggression.
    
    	You were not the target, though.  You claimed that honor for yourself
    	without her permission, then condemned her for it.
    
    	> Suzanne, I do not object to her, or people, judging me.
	> All I ask is that they make an effort to do a good job.  I'm
    	> not fond of being misjudged, but what can I do about it?  Nothing.

    	Why are you assuming that Sandy did not make an effort to do a
    	good job of characterizing men (in general)?  I think her comments
    	were quite accurate in many cases.
    
	> I called it "slander", because that's what it was, in my judgment.
    	> You see, the characterization is part of the judgment, just as her
    	> characterization of white males is part of her judgment.
    
    	Above you said that you don't object to anyone judging you, but now
    	you are calling a judgment "slander" because you don't happen to care
    	for it (even though it was not directed at you, nor was it specifically
    	about you!)  That's hardly reasonable (and it contradicts your claim
    	that you don't object to people judging you.)
    
    	> Ok, where have I not accepted your discussion of what I feel?
    
    	I suppose it depends on how you define "accepted."
    
    	At the beginning of your note, when I said "I can certainly see
    	how much it upset you," your response was:
    
    		"You're still trying to read between my lines; to
    		argue intent, rather than content.
    
    		"I wish you wouldn't do it..."
    
    	When I later said, "I don't blame you for being upset about it,"
    	you said,
    
    		"You are still arguing from non-facts.  And you are
    		still arguing INtent rather than CONtent."
    
    	Those sound like objections to me. 
    
    	> Where have I stood in anyone's way of expression negative emotions
    	> towards men?
    
    	You called it "slander" (which I regarded as an attempt to dissuade
    	someone from expressing negative comments about men in the future.)
    
    	> Show me.
    
    	I just did, although I'll wager that you'll quibble endlessly over
    	semantics and will deny everything.  :-)
    
    	.53> [From Sandy] Yes, I do.  And not because "society" is a third 
    	.53> thing that oppresses us both.  Society, don't forget, is male.  
    	.53> They make the rules.  It's like

	> This is not true.  Society is not "male".

    	Society is overwhelmingly controlled by males - economically,
    	politically, men hold most of the power in our society.  This
    	is a provable fact.
    
	> It damages the reputation of innocent men to characterize all men
    	> as in power, and oppressive.
    
    	It only damages those men who are as quick as you were to grab the
    	comment and claim it as applying to yourself.
    
    	Sandy would be quite safe in court in a slander suit, believe me.
    
    	[A number of your other claims of slander occurred because you
    	*ASSUMED* that Sandy's remarks applied to all men, when she was
    	making general comments.  Your assumptions led you to false
    	conclusions.  Slander was not involved!]
    
    	.110>And you're convinced of my feelings but I have no right to be 
    	.110> convinced of anyone else's, huh?  You wouldn't last a minute 
    	.110> if you and Suzanne,
	
	> This is not true.  It makes a false stament about myself.
    	> A statement that I have refuted by example and explanation.
	> It damages my reputation by casting me in a negative light.
    
    	Wrong!  You claimed to be convinced of her feelings after you
    	"gave it much thought and [had] not changed [your] mind," but
    	meanwhile you said that *she* committed slander by commenting
    	on her thoughts about men (after having given it much thought
    	and not having changed *her* mind, either.)
    
    	Not only that, but *YOU* slandered Sandy by attempting to
    	damage her reputation (and casting *her* in a negative light)
    	with all your comments about her anger and expressions of
    	hatred (in your estimation) - not to mention accusing her of
    	slander repeatedly!
    
    	> I have now showed 6 examples of slander from Sandy.  I have
    	> explained why they are slanderous: they are both untrue, and 
    	> damaging.
    
    	If Sandy is guilty of slander here, then so are you (and others!!)

    	RE: .124  Mike Z.
    
    	Well, you didn't disappoint me - my prediction came true!
    
    	Got to give you credit for nerve, if nothing else.  :-)
    
    	Then again, the way society treats women is pretty nervy all
    	the way around, so I'm used to it.
    
    	> Neither do I.  Only a fool would.
	> And no one, I repeat, no one, here has regarded a "lack of
    	> sympathy as an indication of hate".
    
    	If you are now saying that Sandy's lack of sympathy should not
    	have been any sort of problem at all, then I agree.
    
    	This is Step Forward #1.
    
    	> You have you used out-of-context quotes at least twice.
    
    	Only twice (out of all the quotes I've supplied in this topic
    	so far?)  Anything other than deliberate malice can attribute
    	these two small instances to accident.  Sounds like I'm doing
    	well - thanks!  :-)
    
    	This is Step Forward #2.
    
    	.122> [To Kath] this topic, don't bother to bring it up (because 
    	.122> you lack he authority to decide what's in my heart or what I 
    	.122> might do in another situation.)

	> You do not like it when others read your intentions as less
    	> than honorable, yet you do the same to others.
	> This is not a falsehood, just ironic.
    
    	Well, you missed the boat on why I made the comment to Kath, but
    	you're right about the irony - it was deliberate.  I was making
    	a tongue-in-cheek comment on her not having "the authority" since
    	it is my contention that men outrank women in our culture enough
    	to make some men feel they can "decide" what women's emotions
    	are.  Obviously, that priv would not apply to Kath.
    
    	I'm encouraged that you caught a sense of irony, though!
    
    	This is Step Forward #3.
    
    	.120> And provocation is all that I require to justify a woman's anger.
	.120> I did not say her anger was unjustified. 
    
    	You have contradicted yourself on this point (and I've quoted you
    	doing so,) but since you're at least doubling back on your story
    	in the right direction, I won't argue with you about it and will
    	simply say how glad I am that we both now agree that what has been
    	referred to as Sandy's "anger" was not unjustified (eg, it *was*
    	justified!)  We'll work on the fact that she wasn't actually angry
    	later.  :-)   We've made enough progress on this point for the moment.
    
    	This is Step Forward #4.  
    
    	.122>It would appear that *talking* about oppression is a worse offense
	.122>than the injustice of having been oppressed.

	> This is sarcasm, and I can see why you'd say it. 
    
    	It was not meant as sarcasm, but I'm glad you can see why I'd say
    	it.  
    
    	A number of times, you stated that Sandy directed her comments to
    	the wrong people (as if you feel that discussing oppression is not
    	appropriate unless one's audience happens to be guilty of said
    	oppression.)  Judging by the harsh reaction that her discussion of
    	societal oppression has received - you're writing notes over 300
    	lines long now, for example!! - it appears to be considered worse 
    	that Sandy brought up oppression than the fact that oppression existed 
    	in the first place.  Thanks for the chance to expand on this.
    
    	This is Step Forward #5.
    
    	.122> It's not as "acceptable" for women to express anger
	.122> as it is for men to express anger.
    
    	> Feel free to rephrase it, if  you'd like, to exclude me from 
    	> the domain of "people who find it unacceptable".
    
    	No problem since you misquoted me - what I said was that it is
    	not "as acceptable" for women to express anger in our culture
    	as it for men to express anger, which never did define a domain
    	of people that would have explicitly included you in the first
    	place (therefore, my statement does not need rephrasing, and
    	you do not need to be excluded!)  So everyone's happy!  :-)
    
    	This is Step Forward #6.
    
    	> I refuse to judge whether or not Sandy was justified.  I am not
    	> in a position to feel what she's feeling.  
    
    	Great!  Now we're making giant leaps of progress!  I'm pleased!
    
    	This is Step Forward #7!
    
    	> I do not say she is unjustified, just that she has misdirected 
    	> animosity.
    
    	We'll get you straightened out on this one, too, eventually.  :-)
    
    	> For what we have here is one noter whose careless use of the
    	> language resulted in an attack upon all white males, and one noter 
    	> who sees it as an attack against some white males.
    
    	What we have is your inference that an attack was launched on all
    	white males.  However, I'm sure we'll clear this one up eventually,
    	as well.
    
    	.123> Yes, you did.  See above - I asked you if thousands of years of
	.123> oppression were not enough to justify what she said and you
	.123> responded, "Correct."

	> I said no such thing.  You are guilty of incorrect assumption.
    
    	You said "Correct" to my question in reply .120 - it is a matter
    	of record - however, if your denial is a form of a retraction,
    	then I accept it.  At least you're still moving in the right
    	direction.  :-)
    
    	This is Step Forward #8!
    
    	> I already explained.  I saw his cause as suitable provocation for
    	> an angry reply.  His was an angry response to an angry note, directed
    	> at him.  And he directed his reply at the appropriate person.
    
    	Since you don't feel that women's anger is less acceptable than 
    	men's anger - and since Sandy's note was an angry-sounding response
    	to an angry note, directed at the author of the angry note and no
    	one else - then Sandy's note was also clearly provoked by an angry
    	reply.
    
    	Now I know you will not want to disagree with me on this since
    	you've already indicated that you do not wish to judge Sandy.
    
    	This is Step Forward #9!
    
    	> Sandy's is more offensive to me by virtue of its attack on me
    	> as a white male.  Al's is less offensive to me by virtue of its
    	> retaliatory nature aginst someone who attacked me because of my
    	> race and gender.
    
    	In my case, I found Al's reply more offensive to me by virtue of
    	the fact that he assumed the worst possible intentions for what
    	Sandy said (and displayed the emotional violence that men often
    	extend towards women in our culture when we act in ways that are
    	less than completely respectful of men as a group.)
    
    	However, our reactions are a matter of opinion, so I'm sure we can
    	simply agree to disagree on this point.
    
    	This is Step Foward #10!
    
    	> I am white.  I am male.  Therfore, I was referenced by Sandy's
    	> note.
    
    	In the absence of copious disclaimers, you make the assumption
    	that the word "men" means "every man who has ever walked the
    	face of this Earth, including *YOU* males who are reading this
    	right now!!" which is quite obviously a preposterous notion.
    
    	However, I'm sure that will come clearer to you, eventually, too.
    
    	> I think for the most part, she is right, in her characterization
    	> of society, as a whole.
    
    	On this, we agree!!
    
    	This is Step Forward #11!
    
    	> Why am I calling it slander?  Because it is!
    
    	Why am I not calling it slander?  Because it isn't!  (Isn't this
    	fun?)
    
    	> I also explained that, with the full dictionary definition, 6 
    	> examples and reasoning.
    
    	You also pointed out that slander has been the incorrect term 
    	all along - it should have been libel.
    
    	> It is very reasonable to call slander "slander".
	> There is no conflict, no ambiguity, no inconsistency here, in my
    	> replies.  I challenge you to show one.
    
    	Ok.  How about this:
    
    	> Of course.  Legally speaking, it was libel, not slander.  :^)
    
    	This is Step Forward #12!
    
    	.123> Society is overwhelmingly controlled by males - economically,
	.123> politically, men hold most of the power in our society.  This
	.123> is a provable fact.

	> And this is an accurate statement.
	> I do not argue this.  
    
    	Very nice - we agree on this!
    
    	> It does not lump all white males into the oppressing group.
    
    	Your flaw in all this is your assumption that Sandy meant to
    	include all white males in her general statements about how
    	our society treats women.
    
    	If you noticed, Sandy mentioned a white male SO who is *not*
    	included as partaking in the kinds of behavior she described,
    	therefore, there is no possible way that she could have included
    	"all" white males in her statements (regardless of your dogged
    	determination to infer otherwise.)
    
    	In order to disprove that that she included "all" white males in
    	her discussion, I only have to show that she excluded ONE from
    	the domain of "men."  If one man in our society is excluded, her
    	definition of men cannot possibly mean "all" men.  Read it and
    	weep.  (It was included in her next note after .53).
    
    	This is Step Forward #13!
    
    	> No, Suzanne, the way Sandy wrote it, it affects ALL men.
	> The way you wrote it, it doesn't.
    
    	Her comments don't affect all men unless she *says* they affect
    	all men (or unless she implies all men without producing a man
    	to which her comments do not apply.)  She produced the man,
    	therefore her comments can not be proven to include all men.
    
    	This is Step Forward #14!
    
    	Now, see how easy that was??  (Who says I'm not willing to try
    	to work together towards progress in this!!)
    
    						    Suzanne ...

>              <<< Note 394.122 by CSC32::CONLON "Feministique" >>>
    
>    	the stereotypes and generalizations (of individuals) that you
>    	are offering about me.  If you can't stick to what's been said

	 Ehem...Suzanne, thou protesteth too much.  I never ONCE
	 referred to you.  In fact, I've BARELY even read your notes
	 in this topic (because I find myself having no desire to read
	 your replies).

	 Why would you think I was talking about you?  Unless your
	 name is Sandy, I have no idea what you are talking about.

>    	How little it takes to make some men angry (and to be regarded as
>    	*justified* for their anger)!

	 No, Suzanne......how little it took for you to get angry at
	 me in WN just last week.  How little it took for you to twist
	 my intentions all around.

	 
>    	It would appear that *talking* about oppression is a worse offense
>    	than the injustice of having been oppressed.

	 No, TALKING about oppression is NOT 'bad'.  However,
	 accusations of oppression are......Sandy's note, to me,
	 seemed to blame *men* (in general) for oppression.  I didn't
	 see her talking about anything, I saw her very angry and
	 raging about something.

	 Talk means to talk WITH people...not at them.
	 
>    	Now you're starting to get the point.  The entire problem is that
>    	they felt Sandy wasn't "nice enough" about the way she phrased her
>    	note, so her straight-forward way of expressing herself didn't fit
>    	in with society's idea of the respectful ways that women are
>    	supposed to address men.

         You've made one fundimental error, Suzanne.  Not 'how women
         are supposed to address men' but rather 'how people are
         supposed to effectively address other people.'  I don't get a
         d@mn whether Sandy is a man or a woman...she will NOT
         effectively get across her point about ANYTHING when I
         perceive an attitude like that in what I read(an attitude,
         incidently, that I perceive in your writing, Suzanne, as well
         as Sandy's.  I, for one, rarely read your writings any more
         nor Sandy's....)
	 
>    	as expressing hatred.  That's quite a leap of logic that can only
>    	be explained by looking at the societal attitudes about women that
>    	were at play in this topic.

	 And just what 'societal attitude' do I have toward women,
	 Suzanne?
	    
>    	Kath, that's a point that both Sandy and I have acknowledged
>    	already:  It's not as "acceptable" for women to express anger
>    	as it is for men to express anger.

	 BS.  It's not 'acceptable' for anyone to cop an attitude in a
	 note.....
	    
>    	Kindly remember that Sandy's .53 was a *response* to an earlier
>    	reply, and was not a stream of consciousness out of nowhere!

	 I'll have to look.....
	    
>    	Therefore, what you are saying is that the men who responded in
>    	anger to Sandy were *justified* for their anger because of
>	 Sandy's

	 I challenge you to find where I said anyone was justified in
	 their attitude in response to Sandy.  I saw some really
	 rotten things thrown at Sandy because of what she wrote (ie,
	 white het trash, etc), but I also see very clearly how Sandy
	 envoked those responses.

	 I'll have to look back to see just what note Sandy was
	 responding to, and to see what envoked Sandy's response
	 (BTW...I came into this discussion after Sandy's note....I
	 didn't follow the entire string).
	 
>    	One of the strongest feminists I know is a woman engineer who is
>    	your age exactly, and I'm sure she would disagree with you that
>    	there is as much of a generational difference as you claim in how 
>    	women perceive we are being treated in our culture.

	 Different people, different experiences, different
	 perceptions.  That does not invalidate my perceptions, not
	 Mike Zarlenga's, nor anyone else's.  Would you like stats
	 proving the availability of scholarships to white males vs
	 minorities/women?

	 kath

    	RE: .126  Mike Z.
    
    	.125> If you are now saying that Sandy's lack of sympathy should not
	.125> have been any sort of problem at all, then I agree.

	> Yes, I am saying that.
    
    	So my Step Forward was correct.  Great news.
    
    	.125>You have contradicted yourself on this point (and I've quoted you
	.125>doing so,) but since you're at least doubling back on your story

	> What?!  I have?
	> Ok, show me and I will publicly acknowledge the contradiction,
    	> and apologize to you.  I'm waiting...
    
    	Well, I showed you once and you denied it, but here goes again:
    
    	.120> .118> When it came to justifying Sandy's words (which were 
    	.120> .118> a lot less aggressive than Al's,) thousands of years 
    	.120> .118> of oppression were not enough to justify what she said 
    	.120> .118> (according to you) since she hadn't been personally 
    	.120> .118> oppressed for thousands of years herself.

	.120> Correct.  In addition, her animosity was misdirected.
    
    	In my note, I said that thousands of years of oppression were "not
    	enough to justify what she said (according to you)" and you quoted
    	this in your note and responded with "Correct."
    
    	Then you said, "I did not say her anger was unjustified."
    
    	Now you say that her anger was neither justified nor unjustified,
    	which sounds like political doubletalk (a non-denial denial.)
    	
    	Now, go ahead and deny it *again* (telling me I made an assumption
    	about the meaning of the word "Correct" or something.)  Don't
    	worry, I won't mind.  It's becoming amusing.
    
    	> I misquoted you?   That's what you said?   Ok, let's see ...
    
    	Yes, you misquoted me!  You asked me to "exclude [you] from
    	the domain of 'people who find it unacceptable'" after quoting
    	my own words that said "It's not as 'acceptable' for women to
    	express anger as it is for men to express anger."
    
    	You put the words "people who find it unacceptable" in quotes
    	when I mentioned no such people.  I simply it was not as
    	acceptable, etc.
    
    	Go ahead and deny this one a second time, too (although we've
    	included these quotes together three times now between the two
    	of us.)  
    
    	> All you had to do was ask, rather than assume I felt her anger
    	> was unjustified.  And please, do not assume that I now feel it is
    	> justified.
    
    	There's your non-denial denial.  So Sandy's emotions are neither
    	justified nor unjustified.  Ok, I suppose that makes sense to you
    	somehow.
    
    	.125> then Sandy's note was also clearly provoked by an angry
	.125> reply.

	> Why yes, of course.  That should be obvious.
	> Just as the murders in Montreal were a provoked expression of 
    	> anger, on a much larger and more serious scale.
    
    	Interesting to see how low you're willing to sink (to compare
    	Sandy's note to the murder of 14 women as a protest against
    	feminism.)  I suppose you also like to compare Holocaust victims
    	to Hitler when they make you angry.
    
    	You're a real sweet guy, Mike.

    	RE: .128  Kath
    
    	>> the stereotypes and generalizations (of individuals) that you
	>> are offering about me. 
    
    	> I never ONCE referred to you. 
    
    	Wrong, Kath.  I was responding to your note .119, in which 
    	MY NAME appeared at the top:
    
    		.119>  RE. .92-.93 (Suzanne and Sandy)
    
    	> Why would you think I was talking about you?  Unless your
	> name is Sandy, I have no idea what you are talking about.
    
    	You must not read your own notes very well.  (See above.)
    
    	If you weren't referring to me, you shouldn't have addressed
    	your note to *both* me and Sandy (my name *is* Suzanne, you
    	know.)
    
    	> No, Suzanne......how little it took for you to get angry at
	> me in WN just last week.  How little it took for you to twist
	> my intentions all around.
    
    	How little it took for you to dredge up (and/or allude to) our
    	discussion in not one, but two conferences now.  I haven't done
    	that.  I wonder why you're doing it.
    
    	> I, for one, rarely read your writings any more nor Sandy's....
    
    	That was obvious from your comments about our notes.

>              <<< Note 394.130 by CSC32::CONLON "Feministique" >>>

>    	>> the stereotypes and generalizations (of individuals) that you>
>	>> are offering about me.
>    
>    	> I never ONCE referred to you. 
>    
>    	Wrong, Kath.  I was responding to your note .119, in which 
>    	MY NAME appeared at the top:

	 Of course your name appeared at the top!

	 Perhaps it would have been clearer for me to say, "I never
	 one offered stereotypes and generalizations about you."

	 I simply asked you a question about how you would act.
	    
>    	You must not read your own notes very well.  (See above.)

	 You see above.  I've never commented about you, but rather,
	 simply asked you questions.  I was, however commenting about
	 Sandy.
	    
>    	How little it took for you to dredge up (and/or allude to) our
>    	discussion in not one, but two conferences now.  I haven't done
>    	that.  I wonder why you're doing it.

	 Perhaps because I've perceived you to be jumping on me since
	 that time in every conference.  You've been more than willing
	 to jump on me in the last week.....everywhere.
	    
>    	That was obvious from your comments about our notes.

	 Tsk tsk....petty jibes do not become you, Suzanne.  I refuse
	 to read 100+ replies, let alone the 200+ you've been putting
	 in here directed at Mike Z.

	 kath

    	RE: .132  Kath
    
    	> Of course your name appeared at the top! [Next to Sandy's name]
    
    	> You see above.  I've never commented about you, but rather,
	> simply asked you questions.  I was, however commenting about
	> Sandy.
	 
    	When you address two people at the same time, it's helpful if
    	you point out the specific remarks meant for each person (which
    	you failed to do.)
    
    	> Perhaps because I've perceived you to be jumping on me since
	> that time in every conference.  You've been more than willing
	> to jump on me in the last week.....everywhere.
    
    	That's a stereotype and generalization.
	 
    	It may seem true to you, but you participate in a great many 
    	more conferences and topics than I do.  I saw your notes
    	everywhere I went, but only responded to you in one specific
    	discussion in each of two conferences (before this one.)
    
    	In here, I specifically avoided your reply in .55 and didn't
    	write to you *at all* in this discussion until you addressed
    	me by name in your .119 reply.
    
    	If you didn't wish to converse with me, you did have a choice
    	about it.
    
    	> I refuse to read 100+ replies, let alone the 200+ you've been 
    	> putting in here directed at Mike Z.
    
    	If you don't read them, then your comments on them aren't worth
    	much (so why bother?)

    	RE: .127  Mike Z.
    
    	> Note .126 was re-edited to remove an example of how a derogatory
    	> remark, adressed towards a group of people, specifically "feminists"
    	> is directed against ALL feminists.
    
    	Your note was edited to remove the example of a derogatory remark 
    	you made which was a slur against a protected minority (*other* than 
    	women) within Digital.  
    
    	> Suzanne, I believe you now agree that when a quote refers to 
    	> "white males", and no effort is made to qualify the phrase "white 
    	> males", that quote refers to all white males.
    	> Correct me if I am wrong.
    
    	You are wrong.  When women and minorities discuss the treatment
    	they've received at the hands of a white-male dominated society,
    	it would be preposterous to assume that they are talking about
    	every single white male in the entire culture.  
    
    	I don't believe it's an insult to say that a certain group has
    	power (especially when it's true,) nor do I think it reflects on
    	every member of the group if the society as a whole (dominated
    	by this group) treats others badly.
    
    	However, I don't feel that the introduction of minority slurs
    	(for comparison/demonstration purposes) is going to furthur the
    	discussion of this point at all.
    
    	Criticizing groups who have power is not the same thing as
    	launching slurs at minority groups who have no power.  The
    	impact is entirely different, and can't be compared fairly.
    
    	If you're unable to continue this discussion without relying
    	on the use of minority slurs, then do not address them to me.
    	
    	From this point on, if you intend to write slurs about minority
    	groups, I hereby request that you direct them to someone else.

    	I am glad this company is exporting computers rather than culture
    from the U.S..

    Re.92
    Re.116
    
    Consider:
    		"I have a serious question"
    		"I would like an answer to this"
    
    		"Actually I knew the answer before I asked the question"
    
    Conclusion: "Goodbye"

    RE:  .75   OLSON_DB
    
    >>>>     But that 'awareness' did *not* remove all barriers.  How many
    women VPs are there in DEC, Mike?  How many female VPs in the Fortune
    500? Considering that most women are in the workforce today, and  good
    numbers have been going to college since the early 60s, wouldn't  you
    expect to see more progress, if that wave of awareness had really 
    removed all the barriers?
    
    Perhaps you've answered your own questions by asking them...
    
    -dwight
    

    
    My vote:  Yes.  I felt anger and hate from the note.  I wouldn't feel
              comfortable with my back to this person.
    
    
    
    -dwight

    Women generally have to watch behind their backs all the time! 
    I have far more to fear from you than you do from me.  Besides,
    despite what many have decided, I have no animosity toward you guys.
    Jealous as hell sometimes when I'm asked to train one for a higher
    position than mine, but basically I would have to personally perceive
    them as better or something in order to be that angry about them.
    
    Truthfully, though I don't feel sympathy about them seeing sexist
    stereotypes of them in the media, I do feel sometimes that many
    are incapable of dealing effectively in society without the safety
    net of acceptance of their superiority.  Marc Lepine's just one
    example.  Many are having a very difficult time adjusting
    to being knocked down to equality with women but it's never going
    to go back the other way.  If men don't destroy the world with their
    one-upmanship, I believe women will eventually become, once again,
    the societal leaders.  Women will be the healers, the spiritual
    guiders, the instructors.  This is a time of major transition in
    humanity and if I had the comfort of the tradition of supremacy,
    I don't think I'd take this sitting down, either.  But I'd feel
    foolish expecting women to stop regarding me in "that way", because
    I'd know damn well what way that was.
    
    But it's going to happen despite what any of us wants individually.
    Kathy Gallup says she's noticed it in her generation already.  In
    my old high school, girls can take anything they want now.  I was refused
    entrance into a drafting class when I went there and I was forced
    to take Home Management where we all sat around and talked about
    how to create a nice nest for a man.
    
    In a way, it isn't fair for women to treat men the way women have
    been treated, (we won't say by whom), because frankly, women can
    take it.  We're tougher.  We're more durable.  It doesn't make it
    right, but we live among sexist and negative stereotypes our whole
    lives and try to make the best of it.  I do feel for the anger and
    confusion of men today.  They grew up expecting to emulate their
    fathers and found that contemporary women not only don't act like
    their mothers did, but they display scorn for the role.  In one
    fell swoop, men feel that they and their mothers have been insulted
    by contemporary women.  Now, seeing sexist stereotypes of men on
    "innocent" little tv sitcoms doesn't seem so isolated but rather
    another nail in the coffin of tradition.  But not even a nut with
    a gun can stop equality from happening.  There really is no turning
    back and as women learn to accept their new responsibilities and
    give up their fantasies of handsome husbands who will love and support
    them forever, men must learn to accept their new roles and gracefully
    surrender their fantasies, too, however painful.

Seeing that folks ignored my request to space out replies in this topic,
I've disabled further replies to this note for a day or so in order to give
people time to cool down.

I am frustrated in seeing reply after reply that just repeats arguments from
earlier replies, and each time person A puts in a rebuttal, person B repeats
their earlier rebuttal several minutes later.  This can't go anywhere 
reasonable.

When I reopen the note, I want people to leave a minimum of 12 hours between
their replies.  (So if you write a reply, you don't write another one for
12 hours.)  This is the rule I generally follow myself when noting (though
I leave 24 hours) and I find it works well in giving me perspective on
the subject.  Maybe it will work for some others.

If you wish to discuss this with me, please send me mail.  I am open to
calm and reasoned opinions.

					Steve

This topic is now available again for continued discussion.  I do intend to
enforce the 12-hour rule I mentioned in the previous reply - it is my
belief that this should not prevent anyone from expressing their opinion.

I really hate to have to take actions like this here.  MENNOTES is usually
not subject to runaway topics of this nature.  I hope it will be a long time
before such actions are again necessary.

As always, if you have questions or concerns about moderator actions or
conference policy, use SEND/MODERATORS.

					Steve

    We're awaiting your theories, too, Mike.  Write a note with no
    extracted references.  Tell us what *you* really think about the
    situation and tell us why you think that.  So far, your notes seem
    just like comments from the peanut gallery.  Now it's your turn.
    Stand up and be counted.

    	RE: .140  Mike Z.
    
    	> "I do not know whether or not Sandy's anger was justified.  I am 
    	> not qualified to cast such judgment over her emotions in this case 
    	> because I cannot empathize with her situation".
    
    	Thanks much for the improvement in your stand over the course of
    	the note (*away* from deciding she was angry by "giving it much
    	thought and not changing your mind about it," etc. and *towards*
    	the realization that you have no idea what she was really feeling
    	when she wrote the note.)  I agree that you still don't know.
    
    	.134> [From me] Your note was edited to remove the example of a 
    	.134> derogatory remark you made which was a slur against a protected 
    	.134> minority (*other* than women) within Digital.  
    
    	> My comment was an insult directed at "feminists".

    	Your comment was an insult to homosexuals (since you seem to imply
    	that it should be regarded as an insult to be *called* homosexual.)
    	This is a bias that you, apparently, didn't know you had, but to
    	which I objected in your note.  You still don't seem to understand
    	what I'm talking about, so I'll try to explain it again here.
    
    	In no way do I regard being called "homosexual" as an insult, any
    	more than I would be insulted if someone called me Italian, Jewish,
    	black or Polish.  The label would be inaccurate, but I do not think
    	it is a *negative quality* to be homosexual (and furthur, I think
    	it is an insult to homosexuals for you to offer it as an insult
    	that can be considered parallel with someone else being called a
    	"sex-crazed thief.")
    
	> You took it to mean "all feminists".  I wonder why?

    	No, I didn't.  My objection was to your slur against homosexuals
    	(by your assumption that it is an insult to be called homosexual.)
    	A similar example of such a slur would be if I asked someone how
    	they would enjoy the insult of being called Italian.  
    
    	In case you deny the source of my original objection, please notice
    	that I mentioned (in .134 quoted above) that your slur was about
    	a "protected minority (other than women) in Digital."  Feminists
    	are *not* a protected minority in DEC, but homosexuals are!
    
    	> Tell me, how do those shoes feel, now that they're on your feet?
    
    	Familiar, Mike, very familiar indeed (when it comes to seeing slurs
    	written or spoken about minorities.)
    
    	You apparently forget that seeing someone in our culture use slurs
    	against minorities as a way to press their advantage in an argument
    	(or in our culture in general) - whether the slurs are meant as 
    	alleged "examples" or not - is the whole reason we got to the
    	predicament (of trying to explain/demonstrate to white males what 
    	it feels like) in the first place!  The rest of us already know
    	what it feels like after thousands of years, I can assure you.
    
    	The gigantic oversight you are making when regarding it as an
    	insult for white males (as a group) to be called the oppressors
    	of non-white-males groups is the fact that the *main focus* of
    	remarks like that is **not** white males at all (but rather,
    	the treatment being given to women and minorities!)
    
    	Non-white-male groups have exceedingly legitimate complaints about
    	the way we have been treated in our culture, and although it may
    	not be "pleasant" for white males to hear us talk about it, the
    	unfair treatment is a well-documented part of our history (and,
    	as such, should be a sanctioned subject for conversation whether
    	any "guilty" male caucasion Americans happen to be present or not, 
    	and whether it makes so-called "non-guilty" male caucasion Americans
    	uncomfortable to hear about it.)
    
    	Endless nitpicking about which male caucasion Americans are guilty
    	or not, and whether statements about society reflect negatively
    	on individual members of groups who hold the power in our society
    	are *not* central to the point of discussions like these at all!
    
    	If it's so uncomfortable to hear about the ways women and minorities
    	dislike the way we are treated, then help us CHANGE it (whether you
    	like any of us as individuals or not, and whether or not you possibly
    	think that some of us *DESERVE* to be treated badly by society because 
    	we do not always raise our concerns with our nicest possible voices.
    
    	If women and minorities are equal with white males, we shouldn't
    	*have* to take extra care to be "nice" at all possible times to
    	be treated equitably in our culture (any more than all white males
    	are required to take extra care to be "nice" at all possible times
    	in order to enjoy *their* status in our culture, either.)
    
    	If it's right for women and minorities to have equal rights, it
    	should be right regardless of what you think of any of us as
    	individuals.

    
    	This note seems to be turning into a notesfile's version of a 
    filibuster......more of the same, ad nauseum.....
    
    next unseen,
    Paul C.

	 The following is a portion of a note that I entered in .121
	 of this string.  I pertains to the basenote, and seemed to
	 have been lost in the fray.


	 <...some text deleted from .121...>	 


	 Second point is directly related to this topic.  For every
	 occurance of men being portrayed as the less intelligent on
	 TV, I can come up with an occurance of women being portrayed
	 as the less intelligent.  I don't see an overwhelming
	 one-sided portrayal.

	 Take for example _A Different World_...Whitley vs
	 What's_his_name_with_the_round_glasses.  Also, on the _Cosby
	 Show_, take Denise's new husband (an academy graduate) as
	 compared to Denise.  Also, while you're at it, take Sondra
	 and Elvin.....EQUALS!!!!  Or what about _Roseanne_ where one
	 daughter is portrayed as being popular and pretty, yet not so
	 smart, and the other is nerdy and plain and intelligent.

         I don't see a single-sided oppression of men or women.  I see
         TV making an attempt to show all sorts of people with all
         sorts of makeup....in other words.....real life.  The problem
         here is that people see what they want to see....  Even in
         _Growing Pains_, look how Mike is achieving in acting!  No,
         Mike is not portrayed as being dumb at all......he's got the
         'act' down as so many women and men in real life do, but each
         time he drops that facade for a second and you see a very
         intelligent, caring person....that is ALL part of the script.

	 Intelligence doesn't only come in 1s and 0s...nor does
	 intelligence only come in schoolbooks.......

	 I, obviously, see the portrayals on TV of men and women in a
	 much different, diverse light than many others.


	 I think I would sell my TV if they started portraying
	 everyone, on every show, as equals on every subject.  Blek.
	 That's a fairworld I've I've ever seen one.
	 
	 kath

	 

    re: .143 (Mike)

>            Men: destructive, one-upmanship, angry, confused, nut with
>                  a gun, must surrendur.
>
>          Women: future and past leaders, healers, sprititual guides,
>                  instructors, tougher, more durable.
    
    	   Well, I notice for all your cutting and pasting, you never
    	refuted anything she said.  Furthermore, extracting words out
    	of context is rather a silly game, and one that I had thought 
    	was beneath your dignity.  However, as the next excerpt displays,
    	it seems you have lost your dignity altogether.
    
.140>	I submit the following 4 sentences   AS EXAMPLES ONLY:
.140>	   "Feminists are ugly, homosexual women"
.140>	   "Black males are sex-crazed thieves"
.140>	   "Hispanic males are lazy good-for-nothing bums"
.140>	   "White males are the oppressors in society"

    	   Mike, what did you hope to prove with those examples?
    	I know what you asserted you were trying to prove.  I 
    	saw you strut and parade after you perceived the victory
    	over Suzanne after your prior use of this tactic.  It 
    	was a sleazy tactic then, and it is a sleazy tactic now.
    	
    	   The tone of Sandy's note was far less abrasive than
    	the tone you have taken with your "EXAMPLES ONLY".  That
    	she ascribed negative values to men is not in the least
    	bit surprising.  Men *do* have negative character 
    	attributes (especially from the female perspective).
    	There is no implied hatred or anger in that observation,
    	nor in Sandy's quotes.
    
    	   You, on the other hand, have chosen to directly insult
    	others as a means of pointing out how insults can be 
    	all-inclusive of specific groups.  This might be an 
    	acceptable approach had Sandy used similar tactics.
    	She did not.  You have not refuted any of the statements
    	she made that you consider so hateful.
    
    	   Men are destructive.  We do play one-up type games.
    	You have displayed much confusion and anger in this
    	topic (just as Sandy predicted).  You own a gun.  You
    	will eventually have to surrender your fantasies...
    	even if you hold them until your death.
    
    	   And there are examples of women leaders, past and present.
    	They do tend more toward the curative and healing arts
    	than men do.  Indeed, the very traits which are so necessary
    	for healing (caring, compassion, sensitivity, etc) are generally
    	thought of as "feminine" traits, and are frowned on in the 
    	world of manly men.  As for being spiritual guides and 
    	instructors, I ask you to consider what percentage of 
    	the teachers of our children are women.  As for being 
    	tougher and more durable, it can accurately be said that
    	women tend, on the average, to live longer than men.
    
    	   Now, having made these observations, we may acknowledge
    	that what we have here is most definitely *not* a complete
    	picture of either sex.  Yes, believe it or not, men do have
    	some redeeming qualities.  We're strong, intelligent, 
    	cocky, and fast.  These are only a few of our many fine
    	points.  Note how well aligned our good points are with
    	our bad.
    
    	   And yes, women have their flaws as well, which, incidentally,
    	also align quite well with their good points.  They tend to 
    	be more focused on emotion, less industrious, and more
    	dependent upon others.
    
    	   Sure, Sandy's picture was unbalanced.  Does that necessarily
    	imply any particular emotion?  Not to my mind.  I had no problem
    	envisioning Sandy quite calm while keying in that text.  It's
    	just a statement of her world view.  It is not inherently hateful.
    	Sandy has said she did not mean it in a hateful way.  Why do you
    	persist with these wild accusations and bogus counter-EXAMPLES?
    
    	   For the record, I feel your .140 should be deleted.  Despite
    	your disclaimer, much can be read into your choices of EXAMPLES.
    
    	- Greg

    Um, Greg, Mike doesnt hold the market on sleazy tactics ya know....
    unless, of course, you are blind to it, as you appear to be ...
    
    oh, and speaking of sleazy tactics, what the hell does Mike owning a
    gun have to do with anything here??? speaking of sleaze....
    
    I submit that making it, no, BROADCASTING that he owns a gun was
    nothing but an attempt to show some sort of machoism that isnt
    there....
    
    Now, back to our regularly scheduled sleazy program......
    
    

Just to change the focus a little:

I read that there are thousands of years of oppression from white males.
Can we have some constructive suggestions as to what we (white males)
need to be doing to change things.


Roger

	 RE: .151 (Roger)

	 Seems no one wants to talk about this topic here........

	 Why does everyone want to fight all the time, eh?


	 What happened to reason?

	 kath

    	RE: .152  Mike Z.
    
    	Your reply was written 9 hours and 15 minutes after your earlier
    	one.  So much for being willing to follow the rules of the topic,
    	I guess.
    
    	> Alas, I've grown tired of babysitting ...
    
    	Well, Mike, it doesn't surprise me to find you avoiding the points
    	I raised (and feeling the need to resort to another one of your
    	deliberately condescending remarks, similar to your earlier comment
    	to another woman: "No dessert for you tonight.")
    
    	> Now, that said, let's get down to business ...
    
    	Let's not kid ourselves here, Mike.  Using a stereotypical putdown
    	from your lofty stance as a white male *was* the business portion
    	of your response to me. The questions that followed were superfluous.
    
    	.149> [Greg] You, on the other hand, have chosen to directly insult
	.149> others as a means of pointing out how insults can be 
	.149> all-inclusive of specific groups.  This might be an 

	> [To Greg] It sounds to me like you think I insulted someone.
    
    	Mike, let's not kid ourselves at this point, either.
    
    	You used the list of negative stereotypical minority slurs in a 
    	failed attempt to extort a concession from me about whether or 
    	not the words "white males" could be interpreted to mean "all
    	white males" (in statements about the source of the oppression
    	of women and minorities in our culture.)
    
    	What you also fail to understand about slurs is that the words
    	themselves are relatively *meaningless* when taken out of a cultural 
    	context (and measured side by side for comparison) without any thought 
    	given to their societal impact.
    
    	In our culture, minority slurs are used to justify and perpetuate
    	oppression.  When negative stereotypes are used against groups
    	that have no (or very little) power in our society, it doesn't
    	matter in the *LEAST* whether anyone takes such slurs to mean
    	"all" of a certain group or not.  
    
    	The point is that the group is being judged as a whole by the
    	people who *do* have power (as a way to justify and maintain
    	the status quo.)
    
    	Such statements are not inherently damaging because they hurt the 
    	feelings of some members of the groups being slurred, but rather 
    	because of the political consequences for the group in question 
    	when negative stereotypes are used to keep the group from moving
    	towards equality.
    
    	When remarks are made about white males being responsible for
    	some/much of the oppression of women and minorities that exists
    	in our culture, the only danger posed to white males from such
    	remarks is that they might lose *some portion* of their hold on
    	the power in our society.
    	
    	Obviously, since maintaining the status quo in our society is such
    	a high priority to some/many male Caucasions (whether they realize
    	it consciously or not,) there will sometimes be fierce, violent 
    	resistance to the idea of accepting any statements that could possibly 
    	reflect negatively on the roles that white males (as a group) have 
    	played in the oppression of non-white-males.
    
    	If you want to persist in claiming that your main argument about
    	the statements involving white males was for the concerns of those
    	white males who are "innocent" of oppression (or oppressive
    	tactics,) then I have to seriously question why you failed to show
    	the same concern for the innocent feminists, homosexuals, blacks
    	and Hispanics who saw your "EXAMPLES" of gratuitous minority slurs
    	(without having done *anything to you* to deserve your having
    	written out the slurs to be read by everyone who has access to
    	this conference.)

TO SUE CONLON...

<FLAME ON>

Sue, anyone can understand what Mike's examples were all about.  You seem to
be arguing for the sake of "winning" some type of battle to add a notch to
your gun.  My guess is that it makes you feel good, doing verbal/written battle
with any male and makes you feel macho if you play the "distort your comments"
game and have your female buddies slap you on the back and praise you for your
efforts.

It's clear to me what Mike's position is and has been in this topic.  It's also
clear to me that you understand his points, but are playing ignorant by taking
his replies down other roads, upon which you hope to build a rathole.  

If I were Mike, I wouldn't waste my time, but I feel like Mike is also probably
tired of having seen you play these popular noting games in the past, as I have
also witnessed, and is being persistent in not letting you make something out of
his replies that simply isn't there.

I suppose you need your crusade.  Like a religious cult, you support your
soapbox with weak, ignorant, and shallow points, twisting facts and truths,
like a rebel without a cause, desiring nothing more than attention, cloaking
your soapbox with some sort of, "I'm out to save the whales" type of scenario,
beating your chest, like empty cans...making a lot of noise, playing old tapes,
and making a general nuisance of yourself, making the readers have to hit their
"next note" or "next unseen" every time they open this conference.

<FLAME OFF>

Now, go right back to beating this topic and my note to death....

-dwight

    
    	RE: .156   Steve, there has been very little "rational debate" in
    this note since it was written. There obviously (to me) appears some
    contributors who feel it necessary to pick apart every word of other
    noter's replies, and force their one-sided opinions down every other 
    reader's throat over and over and over and over again. In other 
    notesfiles, this would be known as a rathole, (since it has no end)
    and eventually be writelocked since it served no purpose other than
    serving as a soapbox. But, it appears this note will continue unabated
    until it consumes every last bit of disk space on the host system.
    
    Sigh......
    Paul C.
     

    
    RE: .148
    
    Kath,
    
    Thanks for your reply, it's more like what I was hoping for as a response,
    rather that the "battle of the sexes". I see your point and it's
    well taken.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ron

>Note 394.160      What is television trying to tell the public?       160 of 160
>CSC32::CONLON "Feministique"                           1 line  20-DEC-1989 11:26
>         -< .159 - Your questions were answered in last half of .154 >-
    
hmmmm I read .154 again.

It appears to me that what you're trying to tell us white males is 
that it is OK for a politically correct minority of the day to slur 
white males but it is politically INcorrect for white males to slur 
minorities.....

Do I have this correct??? is this your whole ball of, er...um...wax?

    THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION....but...
    
    Why don't you all just give it a REST!  I have seen enough!  I don't
    even want to get into the conference when stuff like this is going
    on...and whoever said that hitting next unseen is what to do, I've
    blocked out the whole file.....let it die!  No one will ever be
    right, no one will ever be wrong, and no one will admit to either
    side...so rest your fingers and your minds....that is, if there
    is any left after this tirade!
    
    JayCee
    
                             

Hi folks!

(Oy!  Take a course and take a day off; look at all the fighting I 
miss!)

Let me try to make this short.  I feel really sad after reading the 
last .80 replies.  I wonder what anyone ever hoped to accomplish.  
Sometimes I hate notes.  I have deleted most files from my notebook; I 
remain in MENNOTES because, in my Valuing Differences work, I have 
decided that my "white maleness" is something I need "work on" (it 
would take a while to explain to some why I have to work on something 
that I am; all I have time to say is that people aren't always 
understanding and aware of all they are and all the dynamics that play 
out on and from them).

Sometimes I get discouraged with "men."  Around the time period of last 
Spring and Summer, I was about ready to give up.  I had found my 
dealings with men too difficult; they (99%) were unwilling/unable to
examine stereotypes and assumptions, and were unwilling to acknowledge
that wittingly or unwittingly, subtly or overtly, they might
contribute to a system that oppresses, maims, and even kills women and 
minorities (and themselves, with increased stress from workaholism and 
stress that comes from trying to follow a Marlboro Man gender role).  
I wanted to give up on them.  Some of my separatist lesbian friends 
had gone that route, and, franky, I really, really wanted to follow.

It was then that I had to laugh (and cry).  It was as if the universe 
had played some kind of sick joke on me.  Not only had nature made me 
male, but it engineered it so that I fell in love with men, that I 
looked to men as people with whom I wanted to build my home.  Giving 
up on men would be giving up on me and on my home.  "Homophobe": one 
who hates what he is.  I had grown to hate men, but my biology kept me 
connected.

So where is this screwed up gay man now?  He's accepted the 
moderatorship of MENNOTES.  He's attending male workshops.  He's 
putting some gay rights work aside to do "male" work.  He doesn't want 
to hate his maleness any more than he ever wanted to hate his 
feminism, his gayness, his tallness, his thinness, his black hair, his 
intelligence, his foolishness, himself.

I feel very sad when I read this note.  I remember starting the "Steel 
Magnolias" and "Free Falling" notes as a way to try to spark men, in 
this MENNOTES community, to begin to examine the "male" image that is 
being spoonfed to us through movie and song (it's fed to us through 
lots of other sources, but I enjoy talking about movies and songs, 
so....)  When Ron Mills started this note about the oppressive images 
of young males in sit coms, I wanted to jump for joy.  "Yes!  They are 
beginning to examine those harmful gender roles!"  This is exactly the 
direction that I would like to see MENNOTES move in (not entirely, but 
a little bit); the direction of discussing--in all its 
complexity--what it is to be male and what it is that people "say" it 
is to be male (and the huge gap between the two that sometimes 
exists).  I actually kind of pictured it as a kind of "male" step in 
the WOMANOTES direction.  In my Valuing Differences kind of thinking, 
I thought that maybe a better understanding of the harm done by the 
"enforced" male gender role could be a good stepping stone to the 
damage done by the "enforced" female gender role.  Examining the male 
gender role, in my opinion, is good feminism; I wish it wasn't such a 
big secret that the "best" of feminist philosphy will free men from 
their roles as much as it aims to free women.

Then what happens?  I see people of my political "persuassion" saying 
that men should just ignore the oppressive roles in TV sitcoms 
because, sitcoms aside, we still have it pretty good.  It was a call 
to stop examining, to stop thinking about the male gender role, to 
stop talking about men in MENNOTES.

Oy!  I suppose we can talk about vasectomies, divorce lawyers, and 
cologne.  (Note: nothing is wrong with those topics, but, if seen from 
a period of a few months last year, it appeared that these were the 
only interests of men in MENNOTES.  It's kinda narrow to me.)

If I had a wish for the feminists in this discussion, it would be to 
reevaluate what results you want from your noting in here.  If you 
want to put out the feminist platform regardless of the context of 
MENNOTES and the context of what some folks are trying to accomplish 
here, then I think you've succeeded.  If you want to foster growth in 
men, bond with men, understand men's point of views, empathize with 
men, help men to see "what's in it for them" in feminism, then I think 
you've failed miserably; from what I've seen, you've derailed a 
feminist discussion (examining of male gender roles in TV).  Also, if 
the WOMANNOTES culture is to be respected in order to be "effective" 
in that file, then the same goes for MENNOTES.  The issue is not 
"doing the same thing" in both files.  According to Valuing 
Differences philosphy, the issue is respecting a culture when you 
enter into their space.  If men should respect feminism when noting in 
WOMANNOTES (and I think they must), then feminists must respect where 
people are in MENNOTES.  

The feminist dogma in this note string--as much as I agree with it
all--is totally out of synch with the culture of this file, and the
"talking at you" fighting tone of subsequent notes proves that.  The
notes from feminists in this reply reminds me of the eager missionary
who, on his sighting of Amazon natives, raised his hand to say hello
and smiled.  The natives pierced him through the heart with spears. 
Seems the missionary was ignorant that, in that culture, a raised hand
and bearing of teeth were signs of aggression.   Oh, the missionary 
was certainly "right" in smiling and waving; nothing wrong with being 
friendly!  It's just that he didn't get the results he was looking 
for.  I don't think the feminist notes in this strings accomplished 
much more than "being right."  (Nothing wrong with that, if that is 
your goal.)

Just for the record, MENNOTES is not a culture that I am completely
comfortable with, but it is a culture that I am trying to respect and
become familiar with.  I'm not here to spout my feminism (though I am
a feminist); I'm here to learn to stop hating my maleness and to start
rebuilding my male family.  I am increasingly humble in here; though I
am a man, there is much that I need to learn about being a man,
lovingly, with other men. 

If I have one wish for the nonfeminists in this file, it would be to 
stop disregarding the anger of women.  Even misplaced, even plopped 
into MENNOTES, even directed at men, it is real and there are some 
reasons for it that involve the actions (and just and importantly 
"inactions" of men).  I know that it was hard to read Suzanne's and 
Sandy's notes, but it's really bush to invalidate someone's anger (and 
please don't lecture me on how bush they are; right now, I'm talking 
about what the nonfeminists did).  I grew up with my mother's 
frustration with the oppressive female gender role, her attempts to 
circumvent that role to support her family in light of my father's 
acoholism, and the hatred that she inspired for "not being woman" 
enough.  My mother is a very bitter woman today.  She does things that 
are "hateful," destructive, and all together not nice.  But she's did 
not operate in a vacuum; my father and societies rigid definition of 
how she could and could not act as a woman were key players (as was 
she) in the psychodrama that led her to be the bitter woman she is 
today.  Without an understanding of what led up to the bitterness, you 
won't understand the woman.

Also, for the record, I am amazed at the buttons that Suzanne's notes 
push.  I have been reading a lot of her notes for a few years now, and 
I do not find her to be the hateful, rude noter that many folks paint 
her out to be.  From what I have seem, she speaks for herself, she 
does not generalize when it is important, she is "inclusive," and she is 
aware of other differences besides gender differences.  I understand 
that you might not agree with her, and that it is aggravating that she 
is such a good debater and is a relentless noter, but I ask that you 
reevaluate her being hateful.  I have rarely seen anything from her 
that didn't include lots of heart and razor sharp intelligence.

...and please watch it with the accusations of "hatefulness."  I got 
accused of being hateful twice this past fall.  The instance that 
involved face-to-face exchanges was one in which they were right; I 
was being hateful.  The one that took place over the net in SOAPBOX 
was completely off the mark; I was angry but not hateful.  Notes stink 
for conveying emotion, especially anger.  Just because someone is 
angry does not mean that they are hateful.  You read letters on a 
screen, you feel, you map those feelings onto the author.  Don't go 
ascribing hate without a face-to-face meeting; I'll bet that 90% of 
the time you'll be wrong about the person.

I've said enough.  Feel free to toss out all that I've said if you 
don't agree.  I just wanted the chance to speak my peace.  I won't 
bother you all with this topic again (in this notes string).

Take care.  (Your "opponents" really aren't that bad, you know.  
They're just people.)



						--Gerry

RE -.1

"Short," eh.  That's a laugh!


			--Ger

    Say- Ger, great note.
    
    I've been trying to avoid the insanity, and, being able to see glimmers
    of truth from both sides, had an altogether unsettled feeling about the
    whole thing. Your note helped me better understand what I was going
    through. Thanks-
    
    The Doctah

    I'm glad my NEXT UNSEENs were timed so I didn't miss Gerry's reply.
    
    One comment about hating notes:  Bear in mind that the number of
    replies was high compared to the number of repliers, and very high
    compared to the number of readers.  Most readers can figure out for
    themselves when someone's arguments are inappropriate; just because you
    don't get "agreeing" replies while you do get disagreeable (: >,) ones
    doesn't mean that you've lost the argument or that you have to restate
    your case more loudly - or (especially) that your effort was a failure.
    
    I know that's been said before and is pretty obvious, but I have to
    mention it because writers like Gerry getting burned out is what makes
    _me_ feel really sad.
    
    Ray

    	RE: .163  Gerry
    
    	Great note!  Thanks very much for everything (including your kind
    	words about me.)  I appreciate it!
    
    	
    	RE: .169  Mike Z.
    
    	Back again, eh?  It seems like most everyone else is winding down
    	in this topic (including me.)  This is my first long reply here in
    	over 24 hours.
    
    	Is it really that hard for you to let go of this, Mike?  While I'm
    	off the net on a personal outing for the next two days, will you be
    	here pummelling me and pounding on me in my absence (in the faint
    	hope that someone will think you finally managed to scare me off?)
    	It's not an accusation, Mike, just a rhetorical question.  *sigh*
    
    	Ok, let's see what you're up to this time...
    
    	> Slurs are slurs are slurs.  Period.
    	> It makes *no difference* who the target is, minority or not.
    
    	It makes a *big* difference when one group makes the rules (for
    	society) about what does or does not constitute a slur.  As long
    	as white males (as a *group*, and not you personally) continue to
    	dominate our culture, the two situations can't be compared.
    
    	After white males (as a *group*, and not you personally) relinquish
    	their hold on the power in our society, only *then* will a slur be
    	a slur.  While we're still on uneven footing in our culture, the
    	difference (in the relative impact of slurs) will continue to exist.
    
    	.154> it consciously or not,) there will sometimes be fierce, violent 
	.154> resistance to the idea of accepting any statements that could 
    	.154> possibly reflect negatively on the roles that white males (as 
    	.154> a group) have played in the oppression of non-white-males.

	> I will not allow myself to be slandered here.
    
    	The subject of this paragraph was a type of behavior, and not a
    	specific person or group.  *Anyone* in our culture could react
    	violently to the changes we're seeing (including NON-white-males.)
    	Of course, you could take it as a slur against "humans," I guess.
    
    	If I were to say that I don't like white bread or slender tubes of
    	white toothpaste, *some* white male could claim that I was expressing
    	bigotry towards white males by rejecting white phallic symbols, I 
    	suppose.  It wouldn't surprise me much, after what I've seen here.
    
    	> I will not tolerate bigotry.  And that includes the Suzanne
    	> Conlon brand of anti-white prejudice.
    
    	The Mike Zarlenga brand of prejudice is what I've seen in this topic.
    	It's possible that tempers may blow sky-high over this comment,
    	since it is easier for our society to justify *almost anything* that
    	white males care to say or do (and almost *impossible* for society 
    	to justify what women and minorities do, even in parallel situations.)
    
    	Your prejudice is in the lack of tolerance you show for non-white-
    	males (and your definition of *any* sort of criticism of our
    	white male-dominated society *at all* as being slander directed 
    	at you personally.)  Accusing someone of slanger repeatedly for
    	statements that don't even *mention* persons or groups AT ALL
    	is a form of slander and bigotry in and of itself, Mike.
    
    	You can 'have at it' about that one while I'm away from the net. :)
    
    	> If not, then take the time now to answer my questions. 
    
    	.140> Now, Suzanne, do feminists, black males, and Hispanic males
	.140> have any reason to feel referenced in the first 3 sentences?
	.140>
	.140> Do white males have any reason to feel referenced in the 4th?

    	As I mentioned before, *some* white male could "feel referenced"
    	in a discussion about white bread or toothpaste.  If you "feel"
    	that every word said about society is a direct reference to you
    	personally (Mike Zarlenga), you have the freedom to "feel" any
    	way you like.  So does everyone else.
    
    	Does that mean that the statement "white males" means (in reality)
    	"every white male on the face of the Earth, INCLUDING Mike Zarlenga
    	personally and specifically"??  No, it does not, unless you CHOOSE
    	to feel referenced in that particular way (out of some combination
    	of ego-centricity and paranoia, if that's what it is.)
    
    	As for whether or not your minority slurs were offensive, one
    	doesn't have to *be* a member of any of those groups to be offended
    	by the circumstances in which you brought those slurs up.
    
    	Not that it does any of those groups much good to be offended, of
    	course, since you found a way to justify including those remarks
    	in your note.  Like I mentioned before, it's always easier to
    	justify it when a white male makes a slur against a minority than
    	the other way around (some opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.)
    
    	The ironic thing about this situation is that you did what you felt
    	I would have to admit was *wrong* (in order to try to prove to me
    	that the so-called slur against white males was *wrong*, too) -
    	except that you found a way to justify *your* use of slurs, while
    	refusing to admit that there is *any possible way* that so-called
    	slurs against white males can be justified by a woman or minority.
    
    	.163> [Gerry] I wonder what anyone ever hoped to accomplish.  

	> I hope to stop the bigotry against white males.
	> Failing that, I want to expose it, so that it is recognized by
    	> the participants here.
    
    	You hoped to stop a possible cultural phenomenon by pounding on
    	one or two women in a notesfile?  That's quite a claim, Mike! :-)
    
    	If you simply wanted to "expose" it, all you had to do was to
    	point it out.
    
    	Yet, what you've been doing is to demand that I respond to your
    	questions (in the midst of your attempt to coerce me into a
    	concession, regardless of what you have to do to me in notes to
    	get that concession.)
    
    	It is my opinion that the real point of this exhibition was to
    	try to prove that women can still be beaten into submission (if
    	one is willing to beat long and hard enough on a given woman.)
    
    	You haven't even *noticed* that I have mostly been treading water
    	in this topic for some time - I don't demand that you change your
    	mind or respond to my cross-examinations.  I've simply availed
    	myself of the opportunity to stand up for what I believe (and to
    	expand on some of my philosophies) while you flail and pound away
    	at me to no avail.  No way will I turn my back on my beliefs as
    	a way to escape from you.  It simply isn't necessary.
    
    	I've found it quite interesting to watch how upset *some* white 
    	males can get when one or two lone women refuse to capitulate to 
    	one man's persistent demands for concessions on a single point or 
    	two of debate.
    	
    	It demonstrates a lot of what is wrong with the way women are
    	treated in our society (in general) by some white males (as a
    	*group*, and not necessarily you personally.)
    
    	Have fun with this topic while I'm away on my trip with my SO.
    	I won't be thinking about it *at all*, I can assure you!  :-)

    	RE: .171  Mike Z.
    
    	You are really something.  When I steadfastly refuse to give you
    	the answers you demand from me, you give them *FOR* me (not once,
    	but twice.)  Why bother asking me questions at all - why don't you
    	simply claim that I am writing notes from your account and sign
    	my name to them.
    
    	Such an action couldn't *possibly* be any worse than what you
    	just did!  
    
    	> You started this most-recent exchange.  I'll finish it.
    
    	My response didn't "start" anything new, but like hell will 
    	*you* finish it!
    
    	Mike - get it through your head that I did ***** NOT ***** say
    	that it was reasonable for a white male to "feel referenced"
    	by the term "white males" - you keep claiming it, but it is
    	pure fantasy.  I said no such thing.  I said that people
    	can feel what they want, but that doesn't change the fact that
    	the words "white male" *** DO NOT *** mean you and every other
    	white male in the world, personally and specifically!
    
    	In mail, I was offended by your slurs against homosexuals and
    	asked you to remove the comment.  I then asked you *** NOT ****
    	to speak for me - at no point have I been willing to agree that
    	it was reasonable for you to assume that "white males" referenced
    	you personally.  Claims to the contrary are deliberate falsehoods!
    
    	You want so badly to beat me into a concession that you're willing
    	to claim that I have made one, when I haven't.  In case you ask,
    	*****NO***** you do not have permission to post my mail messages
    	in here - I don't trust you not to edit and/or otherwise repeat
    	your misrepresentation of them.
    
    	Say what you like about your position in this matter, but do not
    	speak for me again - I do not agree to the words you have spoken
    	for me so far, and never will.  Ever!!
    
    	You may be desperate to beat a woman into submission out on the net
    	(for your own sick reasons,) but you'll never do it with lies.  I can
    	guarantee you that much.  And it won't be me.
    
    	Have fun over the next two days, but if you're going to lie about
    	my notes and/or mail, you had better be prepared to be called on it.

I didn't want to do this, but I don't feel I have a choice anymore.

This note is now write-locked.

If there are people who would like to discuss the topic of the base note, please
contact me by MAIL and perhaps we can arrange something.

Happy Chanukah/Merry Christmas/Joyous Winter Solstice to you all.

					Steve