Conference quark::mennotes-v1

I'll start worrying about it when White Males are no longer occupying every
single pinnacle of power and influence in the U.S.

I'll start worrying about it when White Males earn as little as women.

I'll start worrying about it when White Males have to worry about job
discrimination because they are expected to stay home and raise children.

I'll worry about it when a woman Supreme Court nominee gets accused of
sexual harassment.

Till then, I've got more important things to worry about.

	-- Charles

    
    I new this would happen ....mention the fact that your white, then it
    becomes a racial issue.  We can call this the Pandora's box note.
    
    _da
    p.s. its not pc to say anymore

    
    
    I speak here in Wayne's defense.
    
    An incident that's not totally separated here involves the creation of
    a "Men's Rights Association" at the University of Toronto.  The Women's
    Rights Association say (so I've heard) that it is totally ridiculous
    and will overshadow their group.  They are most definitely opposed to
    this new organization and think it will make their causes seem trite in
    comparison.
    
    All I can say is ...
    
    
    It's about time....
    
    
    How do I enroll??
    
    Greg

    Wayne is far from alone in his feelings.  One of the ironies I've
    noticed is that even in "Mens'" publications there lies a barely
    submerged undercurrent of guilt.  Ostensibly they have to 'celebrate'
    their masculinity, but then they trip over in their haste to assure
    everybody of how incredibly sensitive and nurturing they're becoming,
    and how raised their consciousnesses are.  That's one of the problems many
    have with people like Robert Bly.  While I have my own critique to
    make, he at least has the honesty to stand up and say: "God damn but
    it's good to be a man!"

    re.0 Bravo! I agree completely.
    
    -j

    Gosh, I don't know. I'm a white man and I think I get treated great
    compared to other ethnic-or-sexual groups.
    
    And, as I remember, the bishop's Famous Quote doesn't start out "First
    they came for me, and I said nothing..."
    
    Ray

    "In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak 
    up because I wasn't a Communist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't 
    a Jew.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because 
    I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was 
    a Protestant.

    Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up."

	- Pastor Martin Niemoller

	Wayne (I think) brought up a subject that sort of tickles me.

	He mentioned the so-called "men's groups" that stumble all
	over themselves trying to be "sensitive" and all that
	baloney.

	I recall one bunch of chumps getting together to sit in
	a "sweat lodge", and to bay at the moon, because this is
	the essence of "man-ness".

	They had one of these B.S. groups on the news last night....
	a group of oh-so-sensitive men ( wearing Birkenstock sandals )
	beating on hide-covered drums.

	What a crock !

	What's really funnier than these guys ( who are apparently VERY
	uncomfortable with the gender they were handed at birth ) is
	the reported cases of women turning away from these "Wet-Nurses"
	and becoming more interested in regular guys !  The term
	"wimp" comes to mind, apparently, for most women !

	I have met more "real men" (and heck, "real women" ) when
	out at the airport skydiving or flying, or wind-surfing, than
	I ever expect I would at some "seminar".

	These guys are trying too hard....

	Steve H

    
    Have you read Bly's book.  
    
    The essence of your position is articulated throughout.  I found the
    depiction to me very enlightening. 
    
    -Bob
    

    Hey, hey ! We are going South on this one again! What is a white male
    anyway: do Jews qualify ? How about Italians, Spanish, Greek ?
    
    I think it is males who are under attack, not just "white" males,
    whatever they are.

I think Charles speaks for me in his .1.  I don't feel "under attack" nor do
I feel any need to "close ranks".  Indeed, this last seems pointless, since
the ranks of white males have been closed tight for a long, long time.  Maybe
it's time instead to open our eyes and minds.

				Steve

    Now, that's scary!
    

    OK, so it's ALL men who are under attack the same way the Jews were in
    1930s Germany?  That means the oppressors have to be women, right,
    since there are only two sexes?
    
    Wow. I had no idea that you guys took your "feminazi" slur so
    seriously. You're really in that much fear?
    
    Don't worry, George Bush and Dan Quayle are real mensches and aren't
    about to let us get herded into the camps by the goosestepping heavily
    armed female conspiracy.  Why, Bush sometimes even finds cushy high
    level guaranteed lifetime jobs for us...
    
    Ray

>    668.8                       
>    PS. Everyone is welcome to put in their favorite myth that the radical
>        fringe element has used to abuse us.

	I can't take any credit for .8 but consider it my entry.

	There is a Zen saying 'The finger pointing at the moon is not
	the moon'. I haven't taken up any invitations to participate in 
	sweat lodge rituals, drumming, mythopoetic movement activities
	for various reasons but the men that I do know that do participate
	do so to connect with other men. Some men here obviously have
	male friends that they can talk to about feelings that are not
	traditionally discussed among men or use this notesfile. I think
	.8 dismisses the methods that men are using to explore new
	aspects of their lives by placing it up for ridicule.

>	What's really funnier than these guys ( who are apparently VERY
>	uncomfortable with the gender they were handed at birth ) is
>	the reported cases of women turning away from these "Wet-Nurses"
>	and becoming more interested in regular guys !  The term
>	"wimp" comes to mind, apparently, for most women !
>
>	I have met more "real men" (and heck, "real women" ) when
>	out at the airport skydiving or flying, or wind-surfing, than
>	I ever expect I would at some "seminar".
>
>	These guys are trying too hard....

	This so narrowly defines men who are exploring. What is the 
	difference between men expanding their own potential by learning to 
	fly or skydive versus learning and participating in Native American
	rituals ? The implication above is that one keeps a woman's interest
	and the other doesn't and based on the tone of ridicule in .8 it
	seems to suggest that maleness is defined as not being considered
	a wimp by women. So women define what a 'real man' is. I don't have
	a reference, but it seems that many women are concerned that men 
	project their need to be affirmed as a 'real man' onto women. Sam
	Keen's book may have spoken about this aspect. 

	Some men and women are trying very hard to explore new aspects of 
        being a whole person. It isn't something to be held up to ridicule.
        It certainly seems to me insensitive to men that do participate in
        drumming, etc.
    
    	My opinion.

	Ray Hayes



    

>   <<< Note 668.18 by PENUTS::RHAYES "Raymond F. Hayes, Jr. DTN 275-3628" >>>

	Hi,

	By scoffing at these little gatherings, I merely wanted to
	point up that this is NOT manly behaviour.  Manly behaviour
	is NOT primitive beating of drums, howls at the moon, and
	other such claptrap.  By attending these seminars, and 	
	going along with this self-conscious manure, these guys
	are playing right into the hands of the man-haters (of
	both genders):

	"See, they're just being typical men....sitting in a hot
	tent, beating tom-toms, shouting at the moon.  Men are just
	primitive beasts.  How could they be rational ?  Look at them !"

	My contention is that this sort of junk is just more of
	the same self-conscious dribble you get from a Woody Allen
	movie:  "Oh dear, I'm so worried.  I'm neurotic.  I'm a
	failure.  Gee, was it my mother's influence ?"  And on and on.
	Too much contemplation of one's own navel leads to a distorted
	view of the world and oneself.

	If it weren't the current vogue to beat drums and howl, it
	would be EST, or Rolfing, or crystal worship.

	The flip suggestion "Get a life!" contains much wisdom.  The
	smartest thing for any man to do to understand himself is to
	challenge himself.....push his own limits.  I gradually
	changed from a shy, quiet, un-adventurous person to a fairly
	outgoing, pretty confident person after:

	1) Learning to skydive, and becoming pretty competent at it.

	2) Getting my pilot's license, and pushing myself to fly some
		tough, challenging airplanes.

	3) Learning to sail my own catamaran in stormy weather.

	The point isn't that these things are required to "find oneself".
	The important part is that you've got to do something *genuine*,
	push yourself beyond conventional limits to know what you're
	capable of, and what kind of person you are.

	Participating in contrived "male bonding" conferences is no
	substitute.

	Steve H

    re: .19
    1) 2) and 3) are all pretty conventional.   Nor do they define
    manliness.  Nor is becoming an outgoing confident person necessarily
    a step toward realizing your manhood.  I don't know whether
    drum-beating is genuine or not.  Nor am I sure high-techno-sports
    are genuine either.  That's all I have to say, I think, because if
    I knew what were genuine I probably wouldn't be going through my mid-life
    crisis.
    					- Vick

    .19> By scoffing at these little gatherings, I merely wanted to
       > point up that this is NOT manly behaviour.  Manly behaviour
       > is NOT primitive beating of drums, howls at the moon, and
       > other such claptrap.
    
    Did the Goddess Herself appoint you to define manliness??!  No one's
    forcing you to perform "claptrap", so stop informing us what manliness
    is or isn't. 	
    

>	The point isn't that these things are required to "find oneself".
>	The important part is that you've got to do something *genuine*,
>	push yourself beyond conventional limits to know what you're
>	capable of, and what kind of person you are.

I agree.  This is an entirely gender neutral statement.  Each of us can
benefit from pushing until we find our capabilities and limits.  Its
good for the self esteem, and helps each of us understand how we are
unique individuals, valuable for ourselves.  Some of the stuff that has
been mentioned here smacks of a new kind of conformance.

Interestingly enough, I skydive, and fly too.

    Male feminist?  Me?  Can't pin that rap on me.  I tried calling myself
    a feminist once in =wn= and got my doors blown off.  Male feminists a 
    radical group?  I've never even heard of them.  But neither do I feel
    discriminated against in any way.  So they portray men as silly in some
    of the sitcoms.  Big deal.  In this day and age that's proof that we hold 
    the big stick.  I frankly don't think you want to make waves by starting 
    a male movement,  because I think you got it pretty good as is.  
    
    Actually, I am pro equal rights.  But I consider that one of my more
    manly attributes.  I don't think it makes me a feminist any more that
    does the fact that I love my wife.
    						- Vick
    
    P.S.  What is crap going for these days?  I take it it's a seller's
    market.

Re: .26

Enough what?  What's the problem?  Are you being paid less than women with
the same qualifications doing the same work?  Are you underrepresented in
government?  Do people tell you that you can't take certain high-paying jobs
because you're a male?  Or is it just that some people are saying that white
males have had it too easy for too long that bothers you?  You're long on
rhetoric but short on substance.  Just how are men being oppressed in your
opinion?

			Steve

 I have avoided this fray all day, but seeing as my car is in pieces and not 
about to become real today, now is as good a time as any.

 What I see here is two factions that are unwilling to consider the fact
that all things do not necessarily apply to all people. There are points
to be made on both sides. Once the finger pointing and accusatory language
has died down, we might find that both sides have something worthwhile to
contribute.

 Maybe I'm a special case, because I don't really fit in with either group.
(Par for the course with me.) I have aspects of both groups that comprise what
and who I am. And what and who I am is an ever-progressing evolution, a process
more than an entity. Whenever I think I've gotten things pretty much figured 
out, some time passes and I look back upon what I considered to be "the way
things are" and I'm ashamed that I held such faulty notions.

 When it comes to being a man, I am not a purist. Therefore I am entitled
to abuse from both sides, which is part of the polarization process that
inevitably occurs when two differing opinions exist on a particular subject.
Well I for one am not about to allow my opinions to be dictated to me by 
anyone. Screw it. I'm not 8 years old anymore- and I didn't like it then
either.

 I find value in my life from the gamut of male experiences. From being
sensitive to women and women's issues to male bonding rituals like telling
dirty jokes around a campfire while swilling beer. I find there is room
for all of that in my life; I am not willing to deny myself experiences
because of what someone else thinks. Why should I? Who's living my life,
me or someone else?

 I find much value in testing my limits, particularly when danger is involved.
Adrenaline is ever so much fun. it's God's way of reminding you that you are
alive and not a lifeless stone. And I also find value in introspection
and contemplation- playing with the mind. Why should I give up part of my
experiences?

 There are some aspects of both sides that I am uninterested in. I love to
hunt, but the joy is not in the killing, but in the entire experience. I
value life- even the lives of the creatures whose lives end at my hand. But
I don't have an interest in killing animals for the sake of killing them.
It's not me. On the other hand, I find myself singularly uninterested
in these drum beating "real men" get togethers. I don't find value for myself
in barking at the moon. To me those sorts of things are a sort of remedial
"finding yourself" therapy, only to be resorted to when one's sense of self
is seriously out of kilter. But others find value in them, so I restrain
my urge to make fun of them (even though they are a ripe target.) 

 So many people seem to be out to define what men are, or, more properly,
what "real" men are. I don't have that need. I am what I am. You don't like
it, don't buy it. 

 I think that people are infinitely more complex than some people like to
think, and that trying to generalize and simplify people is both futile
and counterproductive. Be what you want to be, explore your horizons in the
way that makes you most comfortable, and you'll be able to sleep well.

<endbabble>

 The Doctah

    
    
    Well I, for one, am not paid more for simply being a man than a woman
    doing the same job and dislike this constant reference to men in general.
    
    I also find it quite unusual how some of the loudest supporters of
    women's rights are men.
    
    If the women's rights groups want more respect from men, they should start 
    exercising some themselves.
    
    Greg
    

    
    I think it is much clearer now that you've said that you want to talk
    about male frustrations. That puts a context on what you're saying and
    on the fact that some of what is being said is venting against the
    'system' and how it treats males. I've been through a divorce and it
    wasn't easy but it wasn't that bad either (no kids involved) but I've
    looked into adopting children as a single parent(I love kids) and 
    believe me there are radical differences between the treatment of single 
    men vs single women. All based on the assumption that women can nurture 
    and raise a child better than a man and that single men only want children
    for illicit purposes. There is a bias in the system that was designed
    to protect innocent children and it generates lots of frustration. We
    can talk about frustration!!! No problem. I can relate to specifics
    much better though; generalities just beg to be contradicted by someone
    with other experiences and down the rathole we go.
    
    	Ray Hayes  
    
    
                                                       

> The problem as I see it is there are special interest groups that
> would like to clone our minds to march to their tune. I resent that.

But you feel free to ridicule groups that don't march to yours. I resent THAT.

	-- Charles

> Don't the apologists get it. I am not trying to define masculinity.
> What I am saying is I will not accept men who relate better with women
> defining it for me.

*You* don't get it. By rejecting the definitions of "men who
relate better with women" you ARE defining masculinity. You are
defining men who relate better with women as "non-masculine." That's
certainly your right, but it is also a definition.

I am a man. I am a masculine man (!) I enjoy my manliness. I also
relate better to most women than I do men like you.

> Men should not be afraid to say enough is enough.

Enough is enough.

	-- Charles

    What Wayne and men like him are reacting to is more subtle than that. 
    Feminists are exhorting us to come to terms with our femininity but
    refuse resolutely to make any attempt to reciprocate with their
    masculinity.  Masculinity has been redefined as nasty, brutish and
    thoroughly undesireable and more than a few men are fed up to the back
    teeth with being told that they are innately inferior or inadequate
    simply because of what they are.  This attitude has permeated through
    our culture for around a century, and is well summed up by the old
    nursery rhyme:
    
    		What are little girls made of?
    		Sugar and spice and all things nice,
    		That's what little girls are made of.
    
    		What are little boys made of?
    		Slugs and snails and puppy dogs' tails,
    		That's what little boys are made of.

    I was brought up in Oklahoma, and there was never any question but what
    men were better than women, that I should consider myself lucky to be
    a boy instead of a girl.  Can you be a little more specific about how
    masculinity has been redefined to be nasty brutish and undesirable?  
    I don't see it.  If you forget about stupid situational comedies for
    a moment, and look at TV and movie drama or adventure, men are still 
    masculine and admired for it most of the time.  Indiana Jones, Top Gun,
    Hunt for Red October, Dances with Wolves, etc, etc.  There is no lack of 
    images of men being men in the media.  Far from nasty and brutish (I 
    notice we haven't had our image changed to be "short" as well, phew), 
    it seems no longer unmanly to have feelings, to cry, to nurture.  
    And why don't you think that women are reciprocating?  I'd say they are 
    doing their damnedest to compete in all areas of endeavor that were 
    once reserved for men.  They are meeting a lot of resistance, though,
    usually from men who are "real men" and want their women to be
    "real women".
    
    As for your poem, the version I grew up on was:
    
    		    What are little girls made of?
                    Sugar and spice and everything nice,
                    That's what little girls are made of.
                    
     		    What are little boys made of?
                    Frogs and snails and puppy dogs' tails,
                    That's what little boys are made of.
                     
    I loved this poem and thought how lucky I was to be a boy.  I loved
    wading in brooks to catch a frog or watching a snail slowly cross a
    leaf or pull into it's protective shell.   And what's more fun then
    a puppy dog's tail, wagging happily.  The thought of just being sugar
    and spice and everything nice was scary.  It's so inanimate.  The poem
    does not deliver the message that it is nasty to be a man, far from it.
    It says that men are full of action and adventure and a closeness to
    nature, whereas women are delicate and pretty and stay at home and
    cook.  So who should take offense at that poem?  You tell me.
    
    					- Vick

    
    
    Vick, I don't think that poem was written for such high psychological
    scrutiny (here in mennotes).
    
    Greg
    

    >Think a 6-year old can see that? 
    
    I was 6 years old when I saw it (or felt it).
    
    Children's poems have high psychological content and effect.  The scrutiny 
    of them is therefore worthwhile.
    
    					- Vick

While I agree that (caucasion, hertersexual) men are being unjustly blamed for
all the ills of society, I don't believe that men should try to start claiming
victim status for themselves as many other groups have.  With all of these
various groups of human beings declaring themselves as victims of society (or
some portion of it), we end up with a society that does nothing to improve the
problems that people have when they have to deal with each other.

Rich

    
    Well said, Hoyt, and I agree with you to a certain extent.  However:
    
    >    51% of combat fatalities are female;
    
    	It is men who have kept women out of combat.  There are plenty
    	of women who want to go but are frustrated by the patronizing
    	attitudes of congressmen and military leaders.
    
    >    49% of contested custody fights award custody to the father;
    
    	Maybe that's reasonable.  I could accept it more fully if all
    	men embraced their own femininity, their nurturing capability,
    	or if I came to believe that children don't need that kind of
    	nurturing.
    
    >    Men pay equal premiums for equal auto insurance coverage;
    
    	Then either you have to force insurance companies to abandon
    	the actuarial basis of premiums or you have to get men to stop
    	driving like maniacs.
    
    >    51% of workers in two-adult-one-worker households are female;
    
    	Let women have the good jobs at equal pay and get men to do the
    	housework and care for the kids, and, hey, no problem.
    
    >    49% of alimony awards go to men;
    
    	Should follow from -1
    
    >    Children with scrapped knees cry "Daddy! I'm hurt!" half the time.
    
    	That's up to us guys.  This has nothing to do with women.
    
    					- Vick

I agree with most of what Vick says in .45, except for the part about nurturing.
There is nothing "feminine" about nurturing other than that men as a class have
abandoned that role to women.  It's up to each individual man to decide how
much a participant in his child's life he wants to be, and to not let others
decide it for him.  Men at least, for the most part, have that choice - most
women do not; the role is theirs whether they want it or not.


I'd like to ask those who are saying "close ranks" just what they are afraid
of.  It's certainly possible to enjoy being male (and even a white male) and
at the same time have sympathy for the plight of others whom our society
deems less worthy.  Do you feel "less of a man" if it's brought to your
attention that our society puts those who are not white males at an automatic
disadvantage?  

					Steve

> What has NOT happened is a male framing of men's disadvantages. In the
> style of Chuck's .1 -- I will stop worrying about the treatment of men
> when:

Just FYI, I prefer Charles unless you are being deliberately insulting, in which
case I have no preference as to what epithet you use. :-) Also FYI I agree with
your basic premise, and many of your specifics. To wit:
    
> 51% of combat fatalities are female;

Well, ok, except that 51% of 0 is 0. I hope for no combat fatalities, but if
there are, I think anyone who wants to fight should be allowed to.
    
> 49% of contested custody fights award custody to the father;

Gender blind custody - sounds good to me, actually I prefer custody that looks
first at the needs of the children. What that has resulted in in California at
least is a dramatic rise in shared custody situations. Children need BOTH of
their parents - that means the father too.
    
> Men pay equal premiums for equal auto insurance coverage;

I believe this is a red herring. Auto insurers are pretty hard nosed and
pragmatic. Auto premiums are based on actuarial data, not prejudice, it just
depends over what population you want to spread risks. If we want risk sharing
of auto premiums to be gender blind - I'll sign up.

> 51% of workers in two-adult-one-worker households are female;

Well yes, of course. I personally believe that to make that happen we have to
improve hiring, promotion, and wages for women so that a woman has a chance of
supporting a husband and kids, but yes - I agree.
    
> 49% of alimony awards go to men;

Sure - but see above.
    
> Children with scrapped knees cry "Daddy! I'm hurt!" half the time.

Mine does.
    
>... I seek represent a gender-blind justice/economic system.

Sounds good to me. You realize that this is the classic definition of feminism?
That this is precisely the definition of feminism that most feminist groups use?
Finally that it is the definition of feminism that *I* use?
    
> mine is finding a role other than "Bring home the paycheck, give it to the
> wife and kids, then die, having experienced about one-tenth the warmth and
> intimacy enjoyed by nearly all women/mothers."

Me too. I'm with you 100% man.
    
	-- Charles

>  I would not condone taking away any rights from any race, ethnic group, or
> the other gender but by golly they can keep their d*mn political hands off
> mine.

Hmm. As laudable as that is, I sense a problem. Whether I like it or not
the modern business world is, in many ways, a "zero-sum" game. There are a
certain fixed number of jobs, there is a certain amount of money to be
spent on wages. If we agree that two groups - White Men and X have a inequitable
disparity in something, wages say, or number of jobs, then by the very nature
of a zero-sum game, if we improve group "X's" lot, White Men will as a
consequence suffer.

What do we do about this?

	-- Charles

    What I really don't understand, Wayne, is exactly which feminist 
    group has taken away which right of yours.
    
    Have you lost any rights?
    
    What are they?
    
    Who took them from you?
    
    This would help me in understanding your position, because I can't see
    as we white males have lost any of our rights. I also haven't heard any
    feminist group trying to take anything away from me.
    
    Thanks,
    
    -roger
    

     Hoyt-
    
     Please stop calling him "Chuck." He prefers Charles. That _is_ his
    name. There is no reason to call him "Chuck." Please chuck Chuck.
    Thanks. :-)
    
     Roger-
    
     You don't understand because you aren't interested in understanding. 
    
     re: general
    
     Alot of people don't understand why some men are beginning to feel
    like we are being given the short shrift. Look at who it is ok to hate.
    What group is politically correct to rank on. It isn't gays, blacks,
    lsbians, women, ethnics. it's men- and white men in particular. Is
    there any wonder why there is a backlash? The problems of
    discrimination cannot ever be solved while there remains a group, any
    group, that is ok to discriminate against.

    RE .54
    
    AMEN!
    
    
    I have suffered DIRECTLY because I was a white male. 
    
    Givmt: 'sorry, you are a white male, if you were a (named protected
    	    groups) we could help you with your labor dispute with your 
    	    employer'.
    No big deal to you, you say...
    
    
    I always thought the Consitiution said "all...equal"
    
    RE insurance:
    
    The great American way is to get some ELSE to pay for what you want or
    need. Leave the insurance the way it is both for men/cars and women/SS.

	Yep.  I got told at a job interview one time ( in 1973 or
	1974) that they needed to hire a black person....

	Nothing wrong with that, per se, except that I'd been 
	working at the station as an unofficial "apprentice"
	for two years, the hiring manager knew my work, and
	wanted me for the job !

	On the subject of some women's continuous denigration
	of men, I saw a bit of an interview with singer Helen
	Reddy.  While the content of her speech is utter
	nonsense, the message communicated is the same old
	tune:

	She said that she was atoning for "previous lives" in
	which she was convinced she had been a man.....

	Steve H

    RE: .54
    
    RIGHT ON!
    
    Bubba

    	I am only replying to .0 coz its probably the one that applies 
    best.....IMHO I tend to think that the white male has had it so good
    for so long as far as dishing out the dirt that now other groups are 
    standing up & being counted the white male is feeling "out of sorts"
    with the situation.
    
    	I would agree that not all white males(WM) are responsible for the
    things that they get blamed for but I wouldn't mind hazarding a guess 
    that wm's by proportion offer up a fair amount of the "knuckle
    dragging,rapist,child molesters & God knows what else."I also think
    that the WM's who are most offended by other groups (& please don't
    take this as a personal attack on .0) standing up for themselves tend
    to be the WM's most likely to try & kick other groups "Back where they
    belong - in the dirt".
    
    	I do not believe in any type of discrimination whether it be 
    positive or negative.I do not feel as if WM's (Certainly in the UK)
    are particularly discriminated against.There may now be a shift  of
    balance away from the WM being supreme but its about time this did
    happen.
    
    	Just my tuppence worth & no offence meant to any other readers. 

    
    can you show us that whitemen are responsible for a disproportional
    share of the henious crimes?
    
    does the suspected existence of a whitemen's backlash justify an
    officially sanctioned discrimination against native born whitemen
    in favor of the official minorities and immigrants?
    

    re .53, no educational moneys due to race
    
    hmmm, wayne, my little brother (white) had no problems getting grants
    according to need or scholastic merit when he went to (a private)
    college.  i was in school at the same time, and the family paid less
    for him than for me despite similarly sized budgets...
    
    lee

    Wayne, what is your target?
    
    In .0, you say men must band together to avoid being put down by women,
    as child molesters, etc. AND that black men are the next target after
    white men.
    
    In .53 you imply that money is not available to your white son, not
    because of some feminist taking it away, but because the son of that
    black man gets it first.
    
    As I see it, the feminists have done nothing to you, as you have
    provided no examples of it happening to you, and you are opposed to
    Affirmative Action that would set aside educational money for
    minorities, to redress hundreds of years of racial oppression.
    
    It terms of you, Wayne Linville, being personally oppressed, there
    isn't any examples, Wayne.
    
    If you choose to feel victimized as a white man, that is your choice.
    
    I think it is much ado about very little.
    
    -roger
    

>    I think it is much ado about very little.

 Yeah, it's nowhere near as important as, for example, the name of the
baseball franchise in Atlanta...

    >                <<< Note 668.53 by CSC32::W_LINVILLE >>>
                                 -< How about >-

    > How about:

    >        I have two sons who won't get a shot at educational moneys due
    >to their complexion. But they will be allowed to work and create those
    >moneys.  
    
    I assumed the implication was that they were to be denied money
    because of skin color. What does this mean, Wayne, that they will
    be denied money because of acne, perhaps? Please explain.
    
    -roger
    
    
                                                                      

    >I don't have a target I just don't want to be one. Can you comprehend
    >that statement.
    
    Sure can. But what I don't see, is any evidence that you have been a
    target, other than verbal, which is a side effect of everyone having
    freedom of speech in this country. Anybody can say anything about
    anybody, and anybody can disagree.
    
    >If you can prove that I have committed hundreds of years of racial
    >oppression I will gladly pay. If you can't then somebody is stealing
    >from me.     
    
    Stealing? Says, who? The government calls it taxation. They steal from
    me, too, Wayne, and make me pay for idiot defense programs that waste
    giant amounts of money. I have the choice of not paying, and going to
    jail.
    
    Does modern society have any responsiblity to right hundreds of years
    of wrongs? Do you feel that you have any responsiblity to society,
    that there are ideas that are good for the community as a whole?
    
    >The feminists have used me as male first and a white male second to
    >justify their march for control and power. Other protected groups are
    >using the same scapegoat mentality to gain power,money,jobs, etc.          
    
    What feminists? How have they used you, Wayne? What have they done to
    you? 
    
    Haven't they been scapegoats, all these groups? You don't want to see
    to deal with these issues. Is there not sexism, racism around us today?
    
    It all sounds like "Me first"ism to me, which is a viewpoint I run into
    a lot here. "I didn't do it, so don't bother me, I got what I got and
    I got my rights and I don't owe anybody anything."
    
    You don't have to do anything you don't want to do.
    
    But don't try to make me believe that you are oppressed.
    
    -roger
    
                                                               
                                                                           

    RE .65
    
    Please re-read .55
    
    Is that oppression or discrimination? A real event to a real person.
    
    You HAVE an example.
    
    Steve

500 years ago Native Americans were slaughtered in the name of God.  It was
thought that committing genocide on Native Americans would somehow make the
world a better place to live.

500 years ago African's were enslaved and brought to the Americas to work
in the sugar fields in order to bring economic order to Europe.

The Spanairds used the South American Native to mine silver.

The British exploited the Indians.

The Australians exploited the Aborigines.

Idi Amin and other Black leaders have committed genoicide on their own
people.

The list goes on and on including women and now the list is occupied by
men.

Exploitation comes in different flavors.  There needs to be no iron chains
or cruel prisons.  Males have a much lower life expectancy.  Our spouses
will outlive us.  Males have fought all the wars and I resent the myth that
men ENJOY war.

Amos and Andy would not make it on the radio today but we can kick Al Bundy
around as much as we want.  Millions of dollars are being made by depicting
men as testorone driven *ssholes.  Best example is 'Thelma and Louise'.
The husband is a chauvanist jerk, the guy she sucks face with in the bar is
such an imbecile he doesn't even know that he's about to be shot by a woman
with an attitude, the red-neck truck driver, the police and on and on. It
was disturbing that a woman would reach middle age before reaching a sexual
climax (the man's fault) but did she have no say?

I think everyone should have an equal shot at jobs, colitis and early
death.  I also think that we need to realize that political genocide is
incorrect; for anyone.

patrick

>Exploitation comes in different flavors.  
    
    Including illusory.
    
>Males have a much lower life expectancy.  Our spouses
>will outlive us.  
    
    In India the traditional solution for that was for the woman to
    jump on her husband's funeral pyre.  What did you have in mind?
    But, again, give women equal participation in the job market, and
    the life expectancies will even out modulo whatever base physiological
    factors are at work.
    
    Besides, if my wife died first who would feed me?  Besides, I don't
    begrudge my wife an extra couple of years.
    
    >Males have fought all the wars and I resent the myth that
>men ENJOY war.

    The privilege of being the only gender at the front is one that
    men have fought hard to keep.  Again, it is the women who are pushing
    for equal treatment at the front.  
    
>Amos and Andy would not make it on the radio today but we can kick Al Bundy
>around as much as we want.  
    
    Who's Al Bundy?
    
    >Millions of dollars are being made by depicting
>men as testorone driven *ssholes.  Best example is 'Thelma and Louise'.
>The husband is a chauvanist jerk, the guy she sucks face with in the bar is
>such an imbecile he doesn't even know that he's about to be shot by a woman
>with an attitude, the red-neck truck driver, the police and on and on. It
>was disturbing that a woman would reach middle age before reaching a sexual
>climax (the man's fault) but did she have no say?

    I still claim men are fairly represented in the movies and on TV. 
    There are exceptions, but who cares.  When blacks first started being
    portrayed more positively (relative to whatever) in the movies, whites
    took a beating in those movies personality-wise.  A lot of whites
    didn't like it.  But the blacks didn't take over the U.S.of A. as a 
    result, and in fact, there is still plenty of discrimination against 
    blacks twenty years later and blacks are getting less air time again.  
    The movies aren't reality and they don't have THAT MUCH influence on our 
    lives.  
    
>I think everyone should have an equal shot at jobs, colitis and early
>death.  I also think that we need to realize that political genocide is
>incorrect; for anyone.

    Aside from the fact that this is an absurd use of the word "genocide",
    I will answer again, as I have answered before, that the solution to the
    (supposed) problems you enumerate is equal treatment of women.
    
    					- Vick
    
    
    

    re: .69
>  Now let me gently remind you. WE LIVE IN THE U.S.A
    
    	Now maybe gender wars are confined to the U.S.A., but let me gently
    remind you that Easynet has nodes from Hungary to Hong Kong, from
    Norway to New Zealand. I don't remember anything in the base note
    saying "U.S. citizens only".
    
    	I know we are doing software engineering in India since programmers
    come less expensive there, though I must admit I haven't heard of an
    Easynet node there *yet*.
    
    	Less than half the people with access to this notes file currently
    live in the U.S.A., and I know of several people of Indian nationality
    even if they don't currently live in India. One colleague of mine has
    an arranged marriage. His parents gave him a choice of three women, and
    he was allowed to meet them before making his choice since it was a
    fairly enlightened upper class family. I never discovered whether the
    women would have had any choice. Are you intending to exclude a comment
    from him about men's and women's rights and position in society?
    
    Dave (living in France).

>	  I didn't vote for that privilege. Did anyone else here vote for this great privilege 
>and not tell the rest of us.
    
    No, but one might presume from the tone of your notes that you wouldn't
    vote for the ERA either.  Which would be a mistake if you want women
    at the front.  You are spending too much time pointing your finger
    at women and not at the real enemy...  "We have met the enemy, and
    they is us." - Pogo
    
    |    Who's Al Bundy?
    
    Honest to god, guys, I haven't a clue who Al Bundy is.
    
    >If you identify with incompetent and bumbling men you have my sympathy.
    
    Well, I identify a lot with Woody Allen, but also with Captain Picard.
    The minorities complain legitimately that there are very few positive
    role models for their children.  I don't think white males can claim
    that without appearing foolish.  That there are some negative role
    models is obviously true, but they are so obviously negative.  You see
    what I mean?  Nobody's going to emulate a boorish idiot if there is a
    strong good male role model to emulate instead.  
    
    >We are in mennotes not womennotes talking about men's issues not
    >women's issues. 
    
    You were asking about how men could get equal treatment.  I told you
    my solution.  Since you are claiming that women are the problem, you
    cannot tell me that I can't talk about women and how they relate to 
    the perceived problem.
    
    >Go over in womensnotes and ask them what they
    >would do to men and specifically white males if they had
    >the power. It would not be a pretty sight.
    
    I don't experience women in the same way you do, apparently.  I monitor
    the womannotes conference and have not noted any genocidal
    conspiracies.  Most seem to feel that men are important to them.
    I feel that my best interests would be served by living in a society
    which had truly achieved equal opportunity for all.  I don't feel that
    that is the case yet, and I can understand why women and minorities
    feel frustrated that a country that talks so big doesn't produce the
    goods.
    
    					- Vick

    Wayne,
    
    I strongly suspect that if you asked *individual* womannoters what
    they would do to *particular men* that it would be anything but
    "not a pretty sight". 
    
    
    Bonnie

re:  .68

Vick,

1.  I'm not saying that we should kill women when their husbands die, I'm
saying that we should look at ALL inequities including the imbalance in the
mortality rate.  We should find a way to let men live longer and better not
how to kill women.  I consider your response to this an obvious absurdity.

2.  Why is 'Political Genocide' such a difficult phrase to consider.  If
the Russians carry out pograms it's Genocide.  If Christian Missionaries go
to South American and strip the natives of their culture and turn them into
Christians it's Cultural Genocide.  If the media back in the fifties depict
Blacks as shufflin', yasa masta, sub humans in my opinion it's a form of
genocide as they have perpetuated a myth about blacks that continues to
this day.  In my opinion the contemporary rush on male bashing including
Ophrah, Donahue and shows like 'Married With Children'(Al Bundy) teaches
self hate to males.    

3.  I don't want to spend time, money and lawyers to get women into combat;
but rather I would like to spend these same resources to find a way to get
men OUT.

4.  If you are truly interested in leveling the playing field you will
sooner or later have to realize that it has to be level for everyone.  You
don't have to attack males in order to benefit women.  I too support
women's right to equal pay etc. but let's look what men have given up to
get to the top of the pay mountain including their livers, prostrate
glands, families, children, houses and in many cases their lives.  Women
have looked at men and saw the money power etc. and not seen the
sacrifices.  JFK (John F. Kennedy, former president of the United States)
was depicted as Sir Lancelot of Camelot; he was powerful and rich.  We
found out later that he paid a great price for all this and eventually it
cost him his life.  There are women in this country who want to follow in
his footsteps because they see only the glamour, just like there are women
in this country who want to go into combat for the same reasons.  40% of
the homeless in this country are veterens.  This should give any thinking
person cause to rethink the benefits of combat veterens.

patrick

                     <<< Note 668.73 by BSS::P_BADOVINAC >>>

>1.  I'm not saying that we should kill women when their husbands die, I'm
>saying that we should look at ALL inequities including the imbalance in the
>mortality rate.  
    
    Well, I guess we can look at it, but if we decide it's just nature and
    not nurture, then I don't think it is an appropriate area for pursuit
    of equality.  
    
    >We should find a way to let men live longer and better not
>how to kill women.  I consider your response to this an obvious absurdity.

    I respond to the absurd with the absurd.
    
>2.  Why is 'Political Genocide' such a difficult phrase to consider.  
    
    The phrase isn't difficult to consider.  The context in which you
    used it was difficult to consider.  I don't see how men are being
    politically killed off in great numbers in the US or world at large.
    To juxtapose the horrible image of "genocide" with a few negative
    images of men in the media, is to trivialize the word.
    
>3.  I don't want to spend time, money and lawyers to get women into combat;
>but rather I would like to spend these same resources to find a way to get
>men OUT.

    Oh, I agree with you there.  I'm against war, no question.  But that
    doesn't have anything to do with your initial assertion that it was
    unfair that men and not women were at the front.  You can say that you
    want men to have the same treatment as women, i.e., not have to fight
    a war, but you must then first answer the question of whether or not
    fighting wars is necessary.  You see, if you assume that fighting wars
    is unnecessary, then men and women are automatically equal in terms of
    whether or not they have to fight at the front.  It's only when you
    assume that war is necessary that the question of inequality comes up.
    
>4.  If you are truly interested in leveling the playing field you will
>sooner or later have to realize that it has to be level for everyone.  You
>don't have to attack males in order to benefit women.  I too support
>women's right to equal pay etc. but let's look what men have given up to
>get to the top of the pay mountain including their livers, prostrate
>glands, families, children, houses and in many cases their lives.  Women
>have looked at men and saw the money power etc. and not seen the
>sacrifices.  JFK (John F. Kennedy, former president of the United States)
>was depicted as Sir Lancelot of Camelot; he was powerful and rich.  We
>found out later that he paid a great price for all this and eventually it
>cost him his life.  There are women in this country who want to follow in
>his footsteps because they see only the glamour, just like there are women
>in this country who want to go into combat for the same reasons.  40% of
>the homeless in this country are veterens.  This should give any thinking
>person cause to rethink the benefits of combat veterens.

    Women are not so naive as to not see this.  In fact, I wasted a lot of
    time down in womannotes arguing this very same point in much the same
    way you are arguing it.  But the real answer is, I think, that women
    want the opportunity to choose the power over the dependency, to pay
    the price if they want to, to make the same mistakes, and to have access
    to the same successes.  They aren't asking for the good without the
    bad, or at least they don't realistically expect it.


    					- Vick

    There are some of us who believe that war is a neccessary evil and some
    who do not. Bottom line. There are more men killed off for the game
    than women. We are asked to go lay down our lives at the drop of a
    political belief, weither we believe it or not. At the ripe age of 18,
    some kids/men would get to shoot another human before they get laid.

    RE .67
    
    A minor rathole, but I disagree with your example.
    
 >    Millions of dollars are being made by depicting
>men as testorone driven *ssholes. 
    
    And depicting women as brainless sex object, hysterical shrews,
    breeding machines and a variety of other tedious, two-dimensional
    stereotypes.
    So both sexes suffer from media stereotyping.
    So what's new?
    
  >   Best example is 'Thelma and Louise'.
  > The husband is a chauvanist jerk, 
    
    True. I've seen real life examples too.
    
  >  the guy she sucks face with in the bar is such an imbecile he doesn't 
  >  even know that he's about to be shot by a woman with an attitude, 
    
    That guy was shot because he was *raping her friend*, not simply
    because she had "an attitude". 
    
  >  the red-neck truck driver, 
    
    So who hasn't met one? You deny they exist?
    
  >  the police and on and on.
    
    The police chief was one of the good guys (as it were).
    He wasn't perfect, but he was human and tried to understand.
    As the women had tried to understand the society they live in for
    a long time.
    
    Also, Thelma's boyfriend (who you chose not to mention) is arguably
    a "good guy".
    
    But people aren't good and bad in neat categories.
    Do you find this an uncomfortable idea?
    
    > It was disturbing that a woman would reach middle age before reaching 
    >a sexual climax (the man's fault) but did she have no say?
              
    Of course she had a say. But, as you said yourself, her husband
    was a total a**hole and some men just don't/won't/can't listen.
    Just like some women on some subjects.
    
    'gail            

    um, George, who made the rules that resulted in more men being killed
    off for the game than women?
    BJ

    RE .77
    
    Bonnie: In =WM= someone, maybe you wrote a note about the 10 and 1
    comparison. Put 10 men in a room with 1 woman and the result will be 1
    additional person (baby, multiple births excepted). Put 10 women in a
    room with 1 man and the results will be 10 additional persons
    (infertility excluded in both examples too)
    
    It ain't rocket science here that you are better off sending men into
    combat than to send (child bearing age) women. In combat/war, the name
    of the 'game' is to win, not deplete your population (SH may be an 
    exception to this)
    
    So who wrote the rules? Dosen't really matter. Logic would say that 
    regardless of who wrote the rules, everyone would agree with the
    findings. Any other solution/proposal could result in a greatly
    weakened society, or even the end to that society.
    
    Steve
    
    Disclaimer: Modern advances in warfare partially negate the above
    		assertions. However, in the past this was the way it was.
    		In any long protracted (land) war that would expect to have
    		high numbers of combat casualities, the above holds true.

    re .77
    
    I didn't make the rules. Did you? I am shure that over the many years
    women have been able to vote, women have voted for the presidents who
    have sent men off to war. Just as men have voted for these presidents. 
    But, dhats life.

    Steve
    
    I *know* that! I got the impression that George was blaming women for
    the fact that fewer of them died in war time.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
    	No, I am not blaming anyone about anything. Please don't put words
    in my mouth that I didn't say.

    George,
    
    Getting an impression and trying to clarify it is not, the last
    time I checked any way, putting words in someones' mouth.
    
    Bonnie

    Excuse me, but I am confused Bonnie. What exactly are you trying to
    make me say?

    George,
    
    I'm not trying to *make* you say anything. I got the impression 
    back in .75 that you were in some fashion blaming women for the
    fact that more men than women die in combat. I was trying to
    determine if that was what you really meant, and to point out -
    if you did mean that - that the rules that produced that result
    have been, by and large, set by men not women.
    
    Bonnie

    Women voted for presidents, in the Viet Nam days, for men to go to war too.
    Don't give me that 'Peace Dove' crappie that they did not. Men who
    were 18, and were drafted, and were too young to vote. Age at the time
    for a time was still 21 to vote. 
    
    I beg to differ insofar as trying to make me say what you want me to
    say. Lets let it rest here. 

    George, I am not asking you to say anything nor am I baiting you. BJ

    The 10 to 1 argument is nonsense.  It only makes sense in a polygamist
    society.  To my knowledge, no modern society has ever turned polygamist
    because of war deaths among males.  This includes the Soviet Union
    (RIP) which suffered incredible male casualties in the war.  
    
    					- Vick

    What aspect of the baby boom would you like me to review?  American
    male casualties were relatively light in the war.  After the war
    families had beaucoup kids.  As far as I know, there wasn't much
    polygamy going on, nor were there significantly increased levels of
    illegitimate births.  I.e., it would have been the same if women had
    served on the front and had similar casualty levels.  Now the Soviets
    did have trouble after the war.  Their baby boom was not really
    sufficient to staff the factories, etc.  This is because they had far
    higher percentage of male casualties, military and civilian.  If they
    had adopted polygamy, then perhaps things would have been different.
    But they didn't, thus negating the 10 to 1 argument.
    
    					- Vick

    >the rules that produced that result
    >have been, by and large, set by men not women.
    
    But my woman friend. You voted for them just as much as the men have.
    You have helped make this all possible. And agian... It was a case of
    bate'em, hang'em high. Need a tall tree, a long rope, and a skidish
    pony.

           <<< Note 668.79 by AIMHI::RAUH "Home of The Cruel Spa" >>>

    re .77
    
    I didn't make the rules. Did you? I am shure that over the many years
    women have been able to vote, women have voted for the presidents who
    have sent men off to war. Just as men have voted for these presidents. 
    But, dhats life.
*************************************************************************
For what it's worth when I went to Vietnam I was not old enough to vote for
or against anyone and neither were most of my buddies.

    RE .88
    
>    The 10 to 1 argument is nonsense.  It only makes sense in a polygamist
>    society.  
    
    Nonsense? It makes sense if the society may die AND in a polygamist
    society.
    
    >To my knowledge, no modern society has ever turned polygamist
>    because of war deaths among males.  This includes the Soviet Union
>    (RIP) which suffered incredible male casualties in the war.  
    
    I never said a modern society. Many/most of societies rules are based
    upon precedent. I'll bet in day of old, real old that
    this thought/idea was not lost upon the leaders and the 'tradition'
    began.
    
    Steve
    
    BTW: The ONLY US war that had a significant number of deaths was the
    Civil War. Not to discredit any other deaths, but if you look at deaths
    per total population, only the Civil War has any relevance.

    George
    
    I've never voted for such rules, I've never had an opportunity to
    do so since I've been an adult voter. I have supported the ERA which
    would over turn those rules, however. 
    
    Bonnie

    You never voted for such rules. Neither did I my friend. How can you
    say to me other wise. You can quote that your 'Woman of Peace' posture
    when you wish to resolve yourself of that fact. But WOMEN did vote
    for these people. Just as men did and BOTH parties sent them to war.
    And if a woman wants to go up front with the men to fight. Let them.
    Draft them just as you have done the men. Let them have the night
    mares, let them listen for the helecopters in the night. Let them sniff 
    the agent orange, and the smells of death.
    
    I once suported ERA too. My divorce has left me with a re thinking of
    my political posture.  
    

    I think traditionally men have been sent off to war because they were
    physically stronger and because they lacked the equipment for suckling
    children.  In general, throughout history, polygamous societies have
    been few and even these were polygamous only in a limited way (usually
    only the ruling class had multiple wives/concubines).  Human beings
    seem pretty fundamentally monogamous ("Clan of the Cave Bear"
    notwithstanding).  But, anyway, then was then, now is now.  The 10 to
    1 argument doesn't work now.  It is nonsense.  If you want to argue
    that under certain science-fiction-like scenarios it might have some
    meaning, then I will grant you that much, but no more.
    
    					- Vick
    

    Fine George,
    
    but it is still not the fault of *women* that men are the ones that
    go to war..
    
    Bonnie

    Your right. Its not womans fault, its not mans total fault. Who cares.
    It just doesn't matter. Its over with. But to say that your resolved
    from this notion is totally wrong. Reguardless of how old you are or
    are not. Bottom line. WE all are at fault. 

    Furthermore...  I would contend that in a monogamous society like ours,
    the best possible plan (unless you want the population to decline,
    which would be another subject) would be to send equal numbers of men
    and women to the front, or at least, whatever numbers would result in
    equal casualties in both genders.  This would ensure the mininal
    reduction in child-rearing COUPLES after the war.
    
    					- Vick

    Vick,
    
    	I wanna volinteer you for front line duty. I figured with that BS
    you gave us in .98 you could be a great wepon. Just BS them to
    death.:-)

>>       <<< Note 668.96 by WMOIS::REINKE_B "all I need is the air...." >>>

>>  Fine George,
>>  but it is still not the fault of *women* that men are the ones that
>>  go to war..

>>  Bonnie

Bonnie,

There was a great line in the movie 'Parenthood'.  Steve Martin's character
wants to quit his job and Mary Steenburgen's character (his wife) says:

"Why don't you just quit?"

"I can't just quit!"  he says.

"Why?" She pleads "Why is that not an option?"

"Because women have options, men have responsibilities."

While I don't see it that way for all situations especially as a single
parent with two kids I know what a lot of single mothers go through and
that their options are not all that great either.  But when it comes to
war, at least in my case I didn't like the options (go to Canada etc).

While it's true that for the most part it's not womens fault that men go to
war it's not entirely true.  Margaret Thatcher sent thousands of British
soldiers, sailors and marines off to war and many did not return.  I could
cite Golda Meir etc.

While women are certainly not usually in a position to declare war or order
troops, that is changing.  Cori Aquino, Chummorro and others are emerging
and that could change at any moment.  Even in this country women like Pat
Schroeder have great influence over this and at least in Pat's case she is
advocating giving women equal opportunity to have their guts dropped into
the mud of combat just like the men.  While this would prove that women
bleed just like men and of course give them opportunities that they don't
now have (40% of the homeless are veterens), I feel that it's INSANITY.  If
war is insane, and as one who fought I saw no better example of insanity,
then sending women into battle will not irradicate the insanity but only
perpetuate it.

patrick

		The American Male:  Species is now endangered

			by R. Emmett Tyrell

	Having now observed that grim coterie of feminists whom
	network television enlisted to lecture us heretofor free
	Americans on this terror they call "sexual harassment," 
	frankly I'm scared.  He (or for that matter she, for children
	can accuse all adults of sexual harassment) who stands 
	accused of sexual harassment loses a reputation and
	quite possibly a job.  The day may come when conviction
	on this charge might even conduce to a stretch in the
	hoosegow.  Such feminist breakthroughs are not unthinkable,
	and there may be no statute of limitations; ask Justice
	Clarence Thomas.

	Adjusting one's behavior to the objective standards of a
	community can be difficult even for the born gentleman. To
	adjust one's behavior to the subjective standards of a neurotic
	woman or a mischievous child will be impossible.  If unsubstantiated
	charges of sexual harassment make life for the American
	male as embarrassing as they recently made life for Justice
	Clarence Thomas, I suggest one vast all-male exodus to a 
	freer society.  The New Russia comes to mind.

	Conforming to objective social standards is never easy for
	a young man.  But in time we all learn how to avoid blowing 
	our noses full blast, belching aloud, and those other
	indelicacies that still offend.  Though is it not ironic
	that as social standards unravel and the list of indelicacies
	shortens, suddenly we have this explosion of prudery over
	indelicate language ?  According to the indignant feminists,
	we are not allowed to use in private language that they
	and their liberal fellows have made unavoidable in public,
	particularly if uttered for art's sake or on behalf of some
	bizarre politics.

	No lady walking the streets of the republic has any protection
	against a foul-mouthed psycho, and now no man reposing in private
	has any protection against the unsubstantiated charges of a
	woman -- and who knows ? possibly a man -- possessed of a
	dirty mind and a deranged personality.  It is all a matter of
	how the deranged personality "feels."  According to the
	codes of sexual harassment, if an aggrieved person has felt
	"a hostile atmosphere," well, the alleged creator of that
	angry air is condemned to opprobrium.

	I believe it was the Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe
	who recently complimented feminist theorists for their
	"insights" into law, insights that he expects will multiply
	with time.  What he calls insights are actually acts of
	magic.  The feminists have palmed off "feelings" as
	objective conditions.  This is to say they have done the
	impossible, for feelings are never objective conditions,
	just as an unsubstantiated outbreak of hysteria is never
	admissible evidence.  As nearly as I have been able to ascertain,
	what the feminists call sexual harassment is what in calmer
	times was called extortion, and if the  extortionist could
	be proven to have obtained sex, money or favors of any sort
	by threatening his victim he would be punished.

	That sexual harassment depends on something so flimsy as feelings
	is characteristic of the whole feminist ideology.  Feminism
	is the only authoritarian movement in the history of the world
	whose promised land is measurable solely in subjective terms.
	Feminism's goal will never be reached until millions of
	women feel good about themselves.  What other standard have
	they established ?  Equality in the job market ?   But what
	if the feminist "feels" a hostile atmosphere ?  What if she
	does not "feel" fully empowered ?

	Every other authoritarian or totalitarian movement has had 
	goals measurable in objective terms.  The Nazis had their
	Aryan nation.  The communists had the classless society. Other
	movements have had the imposition of monarchy, of priests, of
	philosophers, and so forth.  The feminists' promise is that
	at the end of their heroic struggle all women will feel good
	about themselves and, according to my readings of their
	sacred tracts, that all men will feel like women who feel good
	about themselves.

	Of course, the feminist goal is impossible, and just a little
	crackpot.  Fortunately, most Americans recognize this.  During the
	Thomas hearings men and women were pretty much in accord.  Now
	Karlyn Keene, the very bright and, dare I add, elegant editor
	of The American Enterprise, has come forth with polling 
	material demonstrating that while American women appreciate
	their new opportunities, only a declining minority identify
	with feminism.  Hold those boats, I'm staying in America.

    re .102
    
    Ooo, I do so love a good dose of rabid rhetoric with my afternoon
    snack!  
    
    	deb

    RE .100
    
    Women sending men to war.
    
    You forgot Indra Gandhi
    
    The three; Indra, Golda and Maggie also dispell the 'theory' that if
    women ran the world it would be w/o war.
    
    Steve

     re:  .102
    
    	Interesting article. Thanks for entering it.
    And as Mr. Simpson said, it seems to be right on target.
    
    						Hank

    re: .102 
    
    Sounds like Friend Emmett has a severe case of raging hormones.

>                 -< He'd be funny if he weren't so sincere... >-


	Actually, I've read a bunch of his  stuff, and he usually
	tries to make his points with a touch of wry humor.

	He publishes "The American Spectator", and his editor's
	column "The Continuing Crisis" is just hysterical....

	Steve H

    re .100, I agree with you about sending women to war.  That's one
    option I'd never care to have, and on one level I can't help but think
    that any woman who would is nuts.  (I think any man who wants to go to
    war is nuts, too, though.)  Of course, there are a lot of other options
    that men have, that women don't, that I would have liked to have had 25
    years ago.  But, not war.  
    
    The trouble with that conversation from the movie Parenthood is that
    all women don't have the option of not working either.  Most women
    today have to work, too.
    
    re .105, I'm not sure that what those 3 women did dispells the theory
    that if women ran the world there would be no war.  I don't think that
    those 3 are very representative of most women.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE Lorna and 'represenative of women'
    
    I think that those 3; Maggie, Indra, and Golda ARE represenative of
    women leaders who could run a country. Not that their actions were
    justified, however in the case of Israel, Golda (and Israel) could not
    afford to have a wishy-washy leader. The consequences are too
    permenent. i.e Pat Schroder (IMHO) could never be elected pres of the
    US.
    
    Steve

.109>    re .105, I'm not sure that what those 3 women did dispells the theory
.109>    that if women ran the world there would be no war.  I don't think that
.109>    those 3 are very representative of most women.
    
    I don't think that the men who run the various countries of the world
    are representative of most men either. The conclusion I draw from this
    is that the people who end up running things tend to be more aggressive
    than those who don't.
    
    I'd like to see kinder, gentler people running the world, irrespective
    of their gender - but I don't see many such people seeking positions of
    power, let alone attaining them.
    
    	Andrew.

"In the development of a feminist discourse which empowers women to become 
other than an attractive presence or oppressed other in men's lives, 
masculinity has repeatedly been construed as an impoverished and negative 
form of being, the antithesis of what any woman would want to be.  Such a 
construction has been used by radical feminists to celebrate being female and 
to enable women to assert themselves in male spheres without feeling that 
they have to be like a man to be effective in those spheres.  At the same 
time it has been used very effectively to keep women out of male spheres of 
power by defining the very desire to be in them, to want power, as masculine 
and therefore, by definition, unpleasant and something that no woman in her 
right mind could want.  In the context of such discourses it is hard to 
imagine anyone, even men, wanting to be masculine."

"Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales", Bronwyn Davies, p 88

And tell us, does Bronwyn Davies provide any references to these oh-so-commonly
observed examples of "feminist discourse"?  

DougO

Re: .115

George, didn't you already say that?  Isn't anyone allowed to express
skepticism?  Or is it only views you agree with which are allowed to pass
unquestioned?

As for the skittish pony, maybe it's time to come down from the high horse
and look around.

					Steve

    <isn't anyone allowed to express skepticism?>
    
    Sure, Steve of course. On the other hand, wouldn't you agree that it is
    the height of insensitivity bordering on maliciousness to be
    deliberately and strongly and clearly and snidely and sarcastically
    baiting/provoking that particular author?

    Oh, I thought George was planning to end it all.  Now I understand.
    Of course, he was going to send me to die in combat for my "BS".
    I should have known.  George, it's not considered polite to wish 
    people dead.  
    
    					- Vick

Re: .117

Sure.  But I didn't read it that way.

		Steve

    Vick,
    
    	No, my friend, I wasn't wishing you death on the front line. Just
    though that sometimes your ideas are like mine. Off the wall. :)
    
    
    Steve,
    
    	I donno bud, I was making remarks to DougO's. For if you feel that
    people are allowed to express themselves in this wounderful note .113
    has has comments and valid points too. Reguardless if we believe it or
    not. The pony and rope was that I can see a linching a coming on
    ::simpson by some of the male feminist here. And being me. And trying
    to add some funny to it all was just doing that. Gee, Steve, gotta
    relax some. Nashua can be a tuff place to live and work. Yha know...
    Gotta get out to the country side once in a while.
    
    Peace

    re .119
    
    Are we both referring to .114, Steve?
    
    
    			herb

    I'm very confused.  Think I'll go back to sleep.  - Vick

    Vick,
    
    	Don't do that! Yha gotta go home in an hour. Its the weekend! Time
    to party! Get rest at home. Wake up!:)
    
    Steve,
    
    	High horse?? Wow! Look at the pot calling the kettle black! Gee, I
    cannot understand why someone like yourself would also write a letter
    to a guy who was looking to make peace with all here saying something
    like do disturb the notes file with your silly baseball game with the
    gays. Wow? You confuse me totally Steve. Or is this your personal
    brand of politics to make people think just like you?? 

George, I'm sorry, but I just can't make any sense out of what you said.  I
think it should be obvious that I am trying to create a level playing field
for all manners of "personal politics", as long as the discussions are held
to a civil manner.  My objection is to your repeated attempts to derail
discussions by claiming "lynching" anytime anyone dares to express doubt
about a statement you agree with.  Really, it's getting rather boring.
The least you could do is to pick a new cliche. 

If I really wanted to make everyone think the way I do, I'd delete any
notes with which I disagree.  Since I certainly haven't done that, I don't
understand why you try to accuse me the way you do.  Or rather, I do understand
it; you're using the typical "best defense is a good offense" tactic in order
to muddle the field.

Now in the case of .113, David entered a quote from a book or article.  It's
certainly not a surprise to me that there are people who would make such
statements, but grand statements such as "Such a construction has been used by
radical feminists..." naturally invites a query as to the sources.  Perhaps
the book has footnotes which give these sources.  This is what DougO asked.
As for the title of Doug's note, he's suggesting that the author "has an
axe to grind".  This shouldn't be astonishing, most everyone does in some way
or another.  But just because someone makes such statements that doesn't
automatically make them true, no matter what how much we agree with them
personally.

Someone commented, perhaps in another note, that it was a pleasure to find
folks here actually discussing something rather than debating it.  The
difference is not subtle, and I wish there were more discussion and less
"shouting at".

					Steve

    Steve:
    In re my response .117 to .114

    Which of the verbs do you disagree with
    	to be baiting
    	to be provoking
    Would you like to suggest an alternate verb to characterize the effect
    of Olson's reply?

    If you agree with at least one of the above 
    which of the adverbs
    	deliberately
    	strongly
    	clearly
    	snidely
    	sarcastically
    do you disagree with.
    
    I will acknowledge that my reply might be a bit hyperbolic. But, if
    reply(.114) had been directed at me, I would have gotten hot under
    the collar, and sure would have felt like I were being baited.
    And I would be very surprised if there are many who would NOT get
    angry.
    George and I independantly felt that Olson was playing some kind of
    game with Simpson. Perhaups taunting him, perhaps tweaking him, perhaps
    laughing at him. Call it what you will.
    I thought it was pretty stupid and pretty insensive to the last few
    weeks of discussion and felt obliged to respond. I would again, and
    feel very sceptical -in fact non-plussed- that you don't understand
    -and agree with- most everything I have said.

				herb

    Doug's point was a good debating point.  Sarcasm is allowed in debate.
    There was nothing in the way of a personal attack in the response.  
    You have to really stretch the definition of baiting to call it that.
    ("To attack or torment, esp., with persistent insult, criticism, or
    ridicule.")  By "provoking" do you mean "thought provoking"?  Otherwise
    it isn't provoking either.  He simply pointed out that no examples of
    the kind of discourse mentioned were present in the quote, possibly 
    implying that Davies is not trying to demonstrate a point so much as 
    to grind an axe.
    
    					- Vick

    You're doing a super job, Steve, and I agree with just about
    everything you say (or have said so far).  George and others who
    can't seem to refrain from insults and name-calling in this notesfile
    are way out of line and make this file so much less enjoyable than 
    it should be.  
    							- Vick

    Steve,
    
    Funny that you can never make sence out of what anyone says when it
    doesn't fit your adgenda. Creat a level what? What do you mean Steve?
    Who is playing who? 
    
    In reguads to the vax mail that we sent in reguards to the baseball
    game. I still have it. The mail message was that that you felt,
    personally, that I or we would be waisting good disk space to get
    together this gays vs the hets baseball game. Last thing I want to do
    is to go up agianst a notes mod and get shut down. Or have you say
    naughty things to me about doing something that would not be in the
    best interest of the notes. Does this help bud? 
    
    The lynching part is just that. Someone is going to get a rope and a
    poney agian. And Gee whiz Steve. Just like on TV, ( knowing that
    most of us lower forms of life watch it) one can tell when the car
    chase seen is going to make the plot go on longer or is going to end. 
    In westerns there is a similar pattern which, if there is a shoot out
    early in the show, its to keep you interested till the good guys catch
    the bad ones. If the shoot out is at the end of the show. The bad guy
    gets shot. Well in a lynching, cliche, the same holds true, execpt
    the good guys get saved from the hang mans noose for the caverly has
    shown up. Confused now? What was just said is that one can see when
    someone is going to hang, shoot, lynch another member of this file. 
    Does that make sence? I know to us lower forms of life, I have made
    lots of sence. 
    
    Peace
    And have a good weekend.

    Vick, 
    
    You can be such a nat in life. Name calling? You should read some of
    your own notes. I think your doing fine too Vick. Your showing many
    folks that you just love sturing the pot. Yha know, creating alittle
    hate and discontent-ment. Did I say something confusing Steve? Can you
    understand me? Earth to Steve..... Earth to Steve.... Come in
    Steve..... Over..... <insert static noise here>

    Where is that pony and rope? I think I am about to be the guest at my
    own neck tie party... Does anyone wanna bring the chips? :)

re .114 (Olsen)

As it happens I took the book home, so if you insist that I produce her 
footnotes and/or bibliography (which is fairly extensive) then you'll have to 
say so and wait until I can bring it back in to work.  Bronwyn Davies is a 
well known Australian feminist who has published several books, and that 
extract is, I think, an all too rare honest self-critique.  She actually goes 
on to say that masculinity is not what feminism traditionally has made it out 
to be, which she has to for her own poststructuralist theory to be 
consistent, but that was not germane.

Since some foolish people inproperly infer that you only have one source if 
you choose only to quote one source I was going to add another, but I brought 
in the wrong book.

    George,
    If I knew what a "nat" is, I'd know whether or not to be offended.
    As for name-calling, you again do not seem to be distinguishing
    between argumentation and personal attack.  You certainly don't try to
    disentangle the two in your own writing, and you don't seem to be able
    to tell the difference in other people's writing.  I may have ridiculed
    the things someone else said, or satirized someone's position, or
    indulged in sarcasm.  These may be annoying to those on the receiving
    end, but they are legitimate styles of argumentation or debate, and are
    not directed at the other person, but at the things the other person
    is saying.  And even then, I've never said that what someone else was
    saying was stupid, just that I didn't agree with it.  I certainly have
    never called anyone a moron, or a butthead, or even a "nat".  I do like
    stirring the pot, I do like yanking chains, but so what?  That has
    nothing to do with name-calling or bad manners.
    
    					- Vick

    >Well now, it appears that at least a few guys here are
    >not going to take it anymore. As they said in old Rome "Let the games
    >begin".
    
    I'm reminded of the current goings-on in Outland.
    
    Of course, in the Roman games, defenseless women (Greek poets and 
    musicians were also crowd pleasers) were slaughtered by wild animals.
    Women were also raped by chimpanzees specially trained for that
    purpose.  I trust you had something more civilized in mind.
    
    					- Vick
    
    P.S.  George,  The reference to Outland is mild ridicule.  If you read
    Outland, you know that Opus, Bill the Cat, and the cockroach are
    sitting around in their BVD's and drinking beer and complaining about
    what women do to them and how they aren't going to take it anymore.
    The reference to the Roman games is taking Wayne's metaphor and applying
    it (or expanding it) to my own purposes.  I am in no way saying even
    that his metaphor was wrong for his argument.  I am not saying anything
    at all about Wayne.  I respect Wayne for saying what he believes.  As
    far as I can recall, he hasn't resorted to name-calling or personal
    attacks. 

    re .-1,.-2.
    
    Those two offerings as well as some earlier ones by the same author,
    make clearer to me why I have chosen not to communicate with that author.

    but by saying that you aren't, you are.

    Herb,
    	Why?  One might think that someone who is a victim of the blacklist
    would not be so quick to try to put someone else on it.  You will note
    that I have never refused to reply to your notes, though apparently
    you wish I would.
    					- Vick
    

re .136 (Simpsen) -

My request for the feminist sources Davies used to criticize all feminists
was not really "insisting" upon footnotes or bibliographies; I'm sure it 
would be interesting to see how selective she had to be to make her accus-
ation come out right, but its really not all that important.  What my earlier 
note intended to focus upon was yet another attack upon *all* feminists, all 
feminist theory, as if they're monolithic, as if all writers who have jointly 
recognized that in large measure women have been dominated by patriarchal 
institutions throughout recorded history, also all thought exactly alike in 
the analysis of that phenomena and in their prescriptions for change.  Its a 
patently ridiculous lumping-together of some pretty drastically different 
thinkers and their analyses, more a method of dismissing feminist thought 
than of attempting to analyze and comprehend the diversity apparent to any 
who take the time to read it.  I wonder, not having read Davies myself, just 
how selective *you* had to be to bring that quotation forth.  Standing alone, 
it sounds like Davies rejects feminist thought entirely as it pertains to 
masculinity.  Yet your more recent explication of her position as a "well-
known Australian feminist" makes the earlier reading seem to be paradoxical; 
how can she be a feminist if she rejects feminist definitions of masculinity?  
Does she, indeed, reject her own definition?  Or, as now seems more likely, 
did you quite selectively quote her to make her appear antogonistic towards 
feminism when such is not really the case.  You term it an "all-too rare 
honest self-critique", and it may indeed be...but I consider it an immoderate 
attack upon all sorts of thinkers who are none of them entirely comfortable 
with all of the things that have been written in the name of feminism.  I'm 
none too comfortable with a lot of it myself.  But I have the ability to 
recognize that I can't indict the entire movement, the entire body of thought, 
just because some of the individuals who profess it are 'round the bend from 
my perspective; an ability that Davies, in the quote you provided, seems to 
be lacking.

Herb- 

...ah, never mind.  You still don't get it, do you?

DougO

RE .142
    
All of what follows, you said in .142
    I have rearranged one section which appears to be in conflict with what
    you said about feminism
    
    
>Its a 
>patently ridiculous lumping-together of some pretty drastically different 
>thinkers and their analyses, more a method of dismissing feminist thought 
>than of attempting to analyze and comprehend the diversity apparent to any 
>who take the time to read it.  I wonder, not having read Davies myself, just 
>how selective *you* had to be to bring that quotation forth.  Standing alone, 
>it sounds like Davies rejects feminist thought entirely as it pertains to 
>masculinity.  
    
    >Yet your more recent explication of her position as a "well-
>known Australian feminist" makes the earlier reading seem to be paradoxical; 
>how can she be a feminist if she rejects feminist definitions of masculinity?  
    
    How can she? I thought you said they (or any other recogniseable group
    of people) could have different opinions. (see below)
    
    
>What my earlier 
>note intended to focus upon was yet another attack upon *all* feminists, all 
>feminist theory, as if they're monolithic, as if all writers who have jointly 
>recognized that in large measure women have been dominated by patriarchal 
>institutions throughout recorded history, also all thought exactly alike in 
>the analysis of that phenomena and in their prescriptions for change.  
    
    

Is that a question?  Let me give you my perspective (others obviously exist.)

.113- Davies is quoted.
.114- I wonder aloud after references that Davies may have provided to back up
      her apparent disdain for feminist theories of masculinity.
.136- Davies is identified as a feminist, engaged in "honest self-criticism",
      surprise, surprise.  She has her own theories.
.142- I point out that the original quote makes it appear that Davies is 
      against feminist theories of masculinity.  Yet she apparently has one
      of her own.  Is she also against that?  Probably not.  Why, then, was
      the quote in .113 provided?  To mislead us about one feminist's opinion
      of (presumably some, but apparently all) other feminists' theories of
      masculinity?  Well, I think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people are probably bored with this.  Me, too, but probably for quite a
different reason.  I see "quotes" of this sort offered as butress for David's
contention that feminism can easily and honestly be dismissed from the realm
of serious consideration.  Read .113 and see what kind of impression you get
about Bronwyn Davies; then see if it is still what you think after you read
.136.  The difference between the two is illuminating; its a classic example
of how people try to discredit feminist thought.  I know who I think loses
credibility when I see it, though; the person who offered the misleading quote
in the first place.

DougO

    <but by saying that you aren't, you are.>
    
    true enuf.

re .142 (Olson)

>ation come out right, but its really not all that important.  What my earlier 
>note intended to focus upon was yet another attack upon *all* feminists, all 
>feminist theory, as if they're monolithic, as if all writers who have jointly 

Since she didn't say that, I'll repeat what she did say:

"In the development of a feminist discourse which empowers women to become 
other than an attractive presence or oppressed other in men's lives,"

Reference to a feminist discourse is not the same as referring to specific 
ideologies within feminism.  It is legitimate to refer to trends, and within 
that trend:

"masculinity has repeatedly been construed as an impoverished and negative"

Doing something repeatedly is not the same as having everybody doing it, or 
having it done all the time.  Thus:

"form of being, the antithesis of what any woman would want to be.  Such a 
construction has been used by radical feminists to celebrate being female and" 
 
Davies now focuses within the broader discourse upon certain elements deemed 
radical (and we all know how much attention a loud but unrepresentative group 
can get).  This is legitimate, and defeats your proposition that she is 
attacking feminism per se.  Having pointed implictly to different strands of 
thought within a general context she concludes:

"right mind could want.  In the context of such discourses it is hard to 
imagine anyone, even men, wanting to be masculine."

>who take the time to read it.  I wonder, not having read Davies myself, just 
>how selective *you* had to be to bring that quotation forth.  Standing alone, 
>it sounds like Davies rejects feminist thought entirely as it pertains to 
>masculinity.  Yet your more recent explication of her position as a "well-
>known Australian feminist" makes the earlier reading seem to be paradoxical; 

I didn't have to be very selective at all (as I said earlier, I would have 
added other quotes but I brought the wrong book in).  It is the opening 
paragraph from Chapter 5, 'Male Power' (which follows Chapter 4, 'Female 
Power').

Davies is part of a trend I have perceived recently where, in recognising that 
feminist attacks upon masculinity are as damaging and non-productive as 
androcentric attacks upon femininity, some polemicists are attempting to break 
the blame nexus by proceeding directly to a new human synthesis.  It is in 
this way that writers like Davies attempt to resolve the paradox of 
celebrating their femininity without disparaging masculinity or men.

I have problems with her theory per se, but that falls outside the province of 
this argument.

re .144 (Olson)

>of how people try to discredit feminist thought.  I know who I think loses
>credibility when I see it, though; the person who offered the misleading quote
>in the first place.

I know who loses credibility when people blatantly project instead of reading 
what is there and thinking about it.

    Vick,
    
    	A nat is a small bug. Like a mayfly that gets cought in your hair.
    I wasn't calling you naughty names. :_)
    

 That's gnat, George.

    That's gnot gnice doctah
    
    
				_______
				|||||||
				 ~   ~
		@ @		(o) (o)    	@ @
		 >	       O|  ^  |O	 <
		\_/		| \-/ |		\_/
				 `---'
    				
				_______
				|||||||
				 ~   ~
		@ @		(o) (o)    	@ @
		 >	       O|  ^  |O	 <
		\_/		| \-/ |		\_/
				 `---'
    				

    Sorry, spelling and answering the phone is a tuff one! I'll harder next
    time.:)

re .146, your explication is interesting.  I'll offer a different:

> "In the development of a feminist discourse which empowers women...
> ...masculinity has repeatedly been construed 

Subject: "the development of a feminist discourse" pertaining to "masculinity".

> as an impoverished and negative 
> form of being, the antithesis of what any woman would want to be.  Such a 
> construction has been used by radical feminists to celebrate being female and 
> to enable women to assert themselves in male spheres without feeling that 
> they have to be like a man to be effective in those spheres.  At the same 
> time it has been used very effectively to keep women out of male spheres of 
> power by defining the very desire to be in them, to want power, as masculine 
> and therefore, by definition, unpleasant and something that no woman in her 
> right mind could want.  In the context of such discourses it is hard to 
> imagine anyone, even men, wanting to be masculine."

Argument: subject negatively characterizes masculinity.

Brief summary: within a discussion of "feminist discourse" Bronwyn Davies
describes it as having developed entirely negatively.  She does not identify
other parts of feminist discourse which have treated masculinity differently.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within her book, I'm sure that when such an opening is given under a chapter 
titled "Male Power" following a chapter called "Female Power" that you had no 
difficulty discerning the context and pulling out the relevant active (though 
disguised as passive) "radical feminists" qualifier.  Strange how your quote
in .113 neglected this additional context.  Strange how my original request
for supporting references would, if answered, have helped make this context
more apparent.  Not at all strange, how the casual reader lacking this context
would find Ms Davies to be attacking "feminist discourse" re masculinity.

DougO

DougO, I'm not at all sure what you're on about.  The last sentence of the 
quote, as seen in .113 originally, puts the context you claim is missing.  
Therefore it is not and never was missing, except in your mind.

No David, the context you supplied much later is what was missing; ie,
the chapter heading in which this excerpt appeared, and its position
as the lead paragraph to that chapter.  That does not appear in .113, 
nor in .136; not until .146 did you see fit to mention it.  I find it
relevant.  As you've never seen the quote without that additional
context, I think you should take my word that it is indeed relevant.

DougO

    re <what dance are the angels dancing?>
    
    My guess is that Olson would like to show that it wasn't necessary to
    ignore Simpson. That Simpson can be "brought under control" with raw
    intellectual power.
    
    Two questions come to my mind in that connection...
    
    1	Does he have it? (the power)
    	(and assuming that answer is yes)...
    2	Does it matter? 
    
    
    				herb

No, Herb, you still haven't got it.  Bringing David or anyone 'under control'
is not one of my goals, but one of yours.  I have no trouble with the positions
he has taken; he believes strongly in certain things I find unusual, but more
often than not he'll defend those positions lucidly.  I choose my own methods
to explore topics which interest me.  I certainly feel no need to explain my
methods or my motives to you.

On one meta-topic, however, I'll comment; I reserve blacklisting for noters
who have consistently, over periods in excess of months, exercised habits of
inconsideration and rudeness to annoy dozens or scores of noters, disrupting
entire conferences.  One testy week does not a shunning earn.

DougO

    <I certainly feel no need to explain my methods or my motives to you.>
    
    nor did i ask for an explanation. i guessed on an answer

    ouch

    Re: .161
    
    So, Wayne, is it that those males who don't think it's proper to
    "slap up" women should be silent here?  Why do you consider an
    expression of a difference of opinion as oppression?  
    
    This conference is indeed for discussion of issues pertaining to men.
    There is a wider range of views expressed here.  If I read you
    correctly, you'd like those who disagree with you to be gagged.  Is
    this really what you mean?  Aren't you trying to convince others
    of YOUR position's "correctness"?  Or is this just to be a place
    to gripe and not discuss issues?
    
    				Steve

    I think you're way off, Steve. You ask:
    
So, Wayne, is it that those males who don't think it's proper to "slap up"
women should be silent here? 

    First, the way you've used the expression "slap up" is gratuitous: 
    it reads as though you're suggesting that Wayne would condone violence 
    against women. Wayne's prose:

My question is why whenever a male wants to talk or complain about issues
pertaining to themselves, feminists ( male and female ) feel compelled to slap
us a round a bit and educate us on right thinking. 

    uses "slap uS" (not "slap uP") figuratively and refers to men; it has 
    nothing to do with violence and has nothing to do with women. It seems
    like a cheap shot to me. (Maybe I'm making all this up. I hope so. What 
    ARE those quotes doing around "slap up"? WERE you allegedly quoting Wayne?)

    Second, Wayne is NOT saying that MENNOTES participants should be
    silent on the topic of women's treatment. HE'S ON ANOTHER TOPIC!
    Wayne's talking about MEN, and why it's so hard to have a discussion
    about MEN around here. WOMEN ARE NOT WAYNE'S TOPIC. Your reply, Steve, 
    is a perfect example what happens when he attempts to discuss men: the
    topic is changed to women.
    
Why do you consider an expression of a difference of opinion as oppression? 
    
    I think the oppression Wayne's attempting to discuss is real and
    substantial, NOT conversational style in notes conferences. Real
    public policy and real society changes are effecting men in negative
    ways, and Wayne would like a forum for discussing those. MENNOTES
    doesn't support this goal, because support for men is interpreted
    as attacks on women. Witness your reply, Steve: "...'slap up' women...".

This conference is indeed for discussion of issues pertaining to men. There is
a wider range of views expressed here.  If I read you correctly, you'd like
those who disagree with you to be gagged. 

    Rather the opposite. Wayne explicitly advocates freedom of expression
    in .161:

...I will speak out when the protected groups try and hamper men. 

    He complains that raising mens issues ONLY GETS ONE RESPONSE in
    MENNOTES: "what about women?" Wayne is stating that MEN's problems are 
    ALSO legitimate topics for discourse, or _should_ be. The fashionable
    "what about women?" rat-hole forestalls discussion of men's issues in
    MENNOTES.

    Do you want to be an advocate for women? Great! So do I! Let's take it 
    to another topic, OK?!! THIS ONE IS ABOUT MEN. Check the base note if
    you don't believe me!

Is this really what you mean?  Aren't you trying to convince others of YOUR
position's "correctness"?  Or is this just to be a place to gripe and not
discuss issues? 
    
    Wayne is TRYING to discuss issues. YOU aren't letting him.

    The continual feminist attacks on Wayne are uncalled for, IMO. In .161
    Wayne states that he has "no desire to hamper women in their quest 
    in business" and that men should "let them [women] take care of
    themselves." These statements are PRO-women!!! IMO, the oh-so-PC
    "what about women?" responses are patronizing! And it's the MENNOTES 
    Femsymp League (tm) who are doing the patronizing, not Wayne!

    THE ISSUES SHOULD BE SEPARABLE. I, for example, advocate men's rights. 
    I also advocate women's rights. Occasionally they conflict, but more 
    often the two are complementary! Your reply, Steve, seems to be based on
    the theory that "You're either fer 'em or agin 'em." I KNOW your mind
    is more complex than that (great Guide to Modular Procedures, BTW)!!

    Separability lets the conversation go forward. Men <interrupt> But what
    about women? Whites <interrupt> But what about blacks? Straights 
    <interrupt> But what about gays? Middle-class <interrupt> But what about
    the poor? Married <interrupt> But what about singles? Christian <interrupt> 
    But what about non-Christians? Parents <interrupt> But what about 
    non-parents? U.S. citizens <interrupt> But what about citizens of other
    counties?

    Good questions, all these interrupts. I agree that we male, white, 
    straight, middle-class, married, Christian parents in the U.S. often 
    require reminding that our experiences are not universal. If we happen to 
    want to discuss US, however, we can't get past the first word due to all 
    the interrupts! 

    So separate the issues. IMO, the oppression of women SHOULD be discussed 
    in MENNOTES, so let's take up that discussion in an appropriate topic.
    In the meanwhile, can we stick to THIS topic?

    Let men discuss men. It's that simple.

    Person A says:  We men aren't going to take it any longer, we're
    starting a men's movement.
    
    Person B says:  I don't think men really have it badly enough for it
    to make much sense to start a movement.
    
    Person C says:  You feminists are always slapping us around.
    
    
    Now the language may be more emotional on both sides than the above,
    but the content is pretty much as stated.
    
    If you want to talk men's issues, then bring up some issues.  If the
    issue you want to talk about is starting a men's movement, then fine.
    I thought that's what we were talking about.  Again and again and
    again, some people are confusing disagreement with some kind of
    bashing.  Just because you say we should start a men's movement doesn't
    mean that I'm a feminist if I disagree, or that I'm slapping anyone
    around.  
    					- Vick

    Sorry, Hoyt, it doesn't seem that simple to me.
    
    If, as Wayne maintains, men are being subjected to genocide (!) the
    only category which can be doing the oppression is women. HE brings
    feminism into it by claiming that feminists are wiping out men; HE
    brings racial matters into it by claiming that "white men" are
    mistreated; HE brings sexual preference into by claiming that "straight
    men" are mistreated; and when someone else asks how he can possibly say
    that white straight men are undergoing genocide from those other
    groups, he (or you) says we're misdirecting the discussion.
    
    So far, the only decent example of mistreatment I've seen documented is
    in divorce rulings (which would explain why I personally haven't
    experienced any). A topic on unfair divorce rulings and what to do
    about them wouldn't get any "misdirection" from me. (In fact, I believe
    there's a number of them here already.)  
    
    But claiming that white het men are being DESTROYED by occasional
    generalizations (as though men never do that!) and by the existance of
    aid programs meant for other groups is obviously absurd.
    
    Ray

    Here is an excerpt from Wayne's basenote:
    
I feel that gay and straight men of all ethnic backgrounds who want to maintain
their privacy and integrity have to fight back and not be bullied by these
radical groups.
    
    He is expressly inclusive of gays and racial minorities.
    
    You state, Ray, that "the only category which can be doing the
    oppression is women." What a bizarre statement! TRUE FACT: MEN CAN BE
    OPPRESSED BY MEN. This should be obvious, since it's obvious that men
    exert so much power in this world. When men are screwed in divorce
    court, the legislatures and courts which do the screwing are
    predominantly male. When men get slaughtered in war, the generals are
    male. When men accede to job demands which preclude their having a
    decent relationship with their children, the demanders are male (their
    boss, probably, and (importantly) themselves).
    
    A first step toward changing these circumstances is some male
    solidarity, a perception that we as a gender have a stake. Wayne's
    citing the civil rights movement and feminist movement as examples
    should inspire us to similarly focus on our collective male interest.
    The extent of our (men's) weakness in this regard is that, even in
    MENNOTES, practically no one is prepared to even acknowledge the
    legitimacy of the claim that men as such have problems in common.
    
    Well, let me promise to get past the debate about whether we may
    debate. Substance (IMO) will follow.

    Exactly.  Inasmuch as I, as a man, feel oppressed (which doesn't happen
    often), it's almost entirely by other men.  Who then are the bullying
    radical groups against which I'm being asked to unite? I have a feeling
    that bashers, militaristic adventurers, gleefully hypocritical
    greedheads, aesthetiphobe papmongers, and the collective ivy-covered
    boards of the Fortune 500 (not to mention pressure for "traditional
    family values" with Dad working himself into a lonely grave and Mom
    alone with the kids) aren't among them. I have a feeling that the
    groups working AGAINST those oppressors are precisely the "radical
    bullies" being targeted here. 
    
    I've already answered your other points as far as I can tell, and
    neither you nor Wayne show any interest in mine as far as I can tell. I
    wouldn't be surprised if y'all felt the same about me. Obviously we
    read the same rhetoric with different blinders. That's the problem with
    rhetoric, I guess.
    
>    Well, let me promise to get past the debate about whether we may
>    debate. Substance (IMO) will follow.
    
    I look forward to it.
    
    Ray

    I don't have the least bit of interest in whether there are grounds for
    complaining that radical groups are bullying men. Bullying or not, men
    as such have interests which we (men) should be pursuing. 
    
    When you accuse Wayne of making issues of race and sexual orientation,
    and I point out how Wayne's basenote specifically included _all_ men
    regardless of race/orientation, aren't I responding to you, Ray?
    
    It's hardly news that we cannot expect uniformity of opinion with _any_
    group, much less the half of the population which is male. Feminists
    were only known as "radical feminists" at the outset of their movement,
    and they were subject to heavy criticism from _most_ women. Phyllis
    Schafly has/had a very large draw among women. Even today, it may be
    the case that a majority of women would not characterize themselves as
    feminists. Even today, many women resist the goals of feminism, and
    this resistance hinders progress toward those goals. We do not discard
    feminism because women are part of the problem.
    
    Pointing fingers at bullies isn't the point. Let's chalk it all up to
    Society, that Great Satan of sophomore year dorm hall talks, and go on
    to devise real solutions to real problems.

    I'm smarting under the "you don't respond to my points" claim, Ray. My
    first sentence in .168 was a direct response to your point about race
    and sexual orientation. A couple sentences later I QUOTE you, and
    devote a paragraph at least to my response. What's not responding?
    Maybe our minds really do exist on alternate planes, because to me it's
    very plain that I AM being responsive.
    
    In .169, you state that you have the feeling that the very groups that
    are supposed to be bullying men are those which are working to relieve
    us from male oppression. I alluded to the same idea when I stated that
    the women's movement is often complementary to the men's movement. I
    think a good example is parental leave. It is increasingly common that
    new parents are allowed some period of time away from work to tend
    their new babies, with a legally-protected right to resume their jobs
    afterwards. Parental leave exists because there are many women in the
    workplace and the Great Satan (I mean, Society) recognizes the benefits
    of mothers being with their newborns. ALSO, because women (in large
    part) have established (to varying extent) the principle of gender-blind 
    laws and policies, the same parental leave policies often apply to men.
    I get to stay home with my newborn (someday, I hope, I hope) for some
    period of time. This is good. Feminism is my friend and ally.
    
    Please don't tell me that the preceding paragraph is not responding to
    your point (unless, of course, you believe that's the case).
    
    Parental leave for fathers is important because it early on promotes
    the engagement in their children's lives which will help sustain
    continued involvement and intimacy. ("Fathers," by the way, is not
    heterosexist, Charles; men of all sexual orientations can become
    fathers.) This is an issue for men as such, and thinking of ourselves
    as men-the-interest-group enables us to speak to this issue.

    .171 makes perfect sense to me (other than the first paragraph, of
    course (: >,). 
    
    Ray

    I feel the same way about .172, with the same exception. ;^) ;^) ;^)

One of the most infamous strands of feminist misandry is the 'All men are 
rapists" catch-cry.  It was first put forward by Susan Brownmiller in a 
dangerous polemic called 'Against Our Will'.  Its unreasonable and untenable 
conclusion is a sterling example of the kind of attitude that men are 
increasingly facing.

The intellectually astute will, of course, recognise both that it is not my 
intention to quote in full Faust's own views on rape, or even to fully critique 
Brownmiller, but simply to focus on Brownmiller's ultimately absurd tenet which 
fooled so many of the gullible then and now:

"There are so many opinions within feminism, even among the ideologues, that it 
can be rash to take any one book as typical or any one woman as spokesperson.  
Yet some women and some books achieve such eminence and uncritical acclaim that 
they may be accepted as representing at least one strand in the feminist 
orthodoxy.

Susan Brownmiller is one such woman and her book, Against Our Will, is easily 
the most widely known of feminist writings on rape.  It is carefully researched 
but the author interprets the research data in a sensational way.  I read the 
book in a sweat of irritation that anyone could approach the truth so closely 
and then veer so far from it.

Ms Brownmiller identifies rape as the cause of women's subordination from 
prehistory to the present.

'Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear 
must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along 
with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe.  From prehistoric times to 
the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function.  It is nothing 
more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which *all* men keep 
*all* women in a state of fear.'

This is a wonderful literary gesture.  The facts about prehistoric man are lost 
in the swirling mists of time, so imagination may play freely.

Are *all* women kept in a state of fear?  The answer has to be 'no'!  A lot of 
women never even thought about rape until the women's movement told them that 
they should.  Since then, rape has become a focus for women's resentment at 
their subordinate position and also for a lot of free anxiety that has nothing 
to do with sexual politics.

...

According to Against Our Will, eliminating rape brings women within reach of 
emancipation.

'A world without rapists would be a world in which women moved freely without 
fear of men.  That *some* men rape provides a sufficient threat to keep all 
women in a constant state of intimidation, forever conscious of the knowledge 
that the biological tool must be held in awe for it may turn to a weapon with 
sudden swiftness born of harmful intent.  Myrmidons to the cause of male 
dominance, police-blotter rapists have performed their duty well, so well in 
fact that the true meaning of their act has largely gone unnoticed.  Rather 
than society's aberrants, or ''spoilers of purity'', men who commit rape have 
served in effect as front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerillas in 
the longest sustained battle the world has known.'

Would women really be free in a world without rapists?  Or would they still 
have economic problems and childcare problems and welfare problems that would 
restrict their freedom to move?  If women are kept subordinate by fear of rape, 
how do we explain those women who get to the top?  There seem to be some good 
opportunities for women to achieve autonomy in the world as it is - rapists and 
all.

Brownmiller's sweeping generalisations are easily refuted, precisely because 
they are so sweeping - yet this is also the secret of their attraction for a 
certain kind of feminist.  Women who would strain at a gnat have swallowed a 
camel because this argument has helped them avoid confronting one of the most 
serious questions about women's subordination while simultaneously pandering to 
their sexual prejudices.

...

Ms Brownmiller provides the original one-go, labour-saving answer: women's 
universal subordination is due to rape and the fear of rape.  Women who entered 
feminism in reaction to sexual exploitation by men of the New Left find this 
answer especially congenial because it extends their individual experience to 
include *all* men.

...

Criminologists would object to the idea of a typical rape offender because it 
mistakenly suggests that there is only one type of offence and one type of 
criminal.

In Australia, for example, pack rapists tend to be young and single while 
solitary rapists tend to be older and married.  There are also significant 
differences in the venue, timing, modus operandi, and degree of violence used.  
In America, the man who rapes with violence has a different profile from the 
man who just rapes, homosexual offenders have a different profile from 
heterosexual, and there are differences between men whose victims are legally 
children, minors, or adults... [It] is important to see that rape can be 
slotted into a taxonomy of sex offences which presents both crime and offender 
in a different light.  These distinctions are not merely hair splitting; if 
rapists are not one of a kind and rape is not a single crime but a group of 
related crimes, then different programmes may be required to eliminate rape as 
a threat to women.

Ms Brownmiller chooses to ignore taxonomy; she even ignores glaring indications 
of race and class bias.  By defining men as the enemy, she is able to preach a 
sex war as Muslims preach a holy war.  And feminists answer her call.  She 
extends the guilt of the police-blotter rapist to men of all ages, groups, 
races and social background by a sophisticated literary device that is also a 
cheap trick.  Concluding her account of the police-blotter rapist, she writes 
'on the shoulders of these young men there rests an age-old burden that amounts 
to an historic mission: the perpetuation of male domination over women by 
force.'

There are legitimate objections to the idea that all rapists fit the police-
blotter profile.  Ms Brownmiller herself raises one when she admits that rape 
statistics are notoriously unreliable.

...

Against Our Will is carefully researched and fluently written.  The unique 
weakness in the book's argument suggests that the author is less concerned to 
discover truth than in pandering to feminist misandry.  She is obliged to 
follow the party line, even when it guides her away from her liberal 
convictions.  She has to construct a net big enough to catch all men and prove 
that rape is a historical conspiracy.  By avoiding the facts about class 
differences in rape offences, she avoids the implications about class 
differences in society.

...

The Myrmidon theory does not deny the *facts* of rape, but, by a splendid 
sleight of hand, it confuses the issue.  This obfuscation is bizarre if we note 
that Ms Brownmiller's liberal credentials are impeccable: she learned that rape 
is a political crime during the McCarthy era.  Her teacher was a communist 
historian.

...

Australian feminists do not have to consider capital punishment in rape cases 
and the problem of discrimination against coloured or ethnic minorities is much 
less intense.  Yet anti-rape propaganda treats the antipodean situation as if 
rape injustice were the same in Australia and America.  This is partly a 
reflection of American hegemony; it also reflects the anti-male motive behind 
anti-rape activities.  When I tried to investigate the difference between rape 
laws and procedures in Australia compared to America, an activist told me not 
to worry about cross-cultural data.  "After all,' she wrote, 'men are the same 
the whole world over.'

...

I am not arguing that men suffer from discrimination in rape and that women do 
not.  Actually, a large part of the hostility towards the victim derives from 
the fact that rape is both an extremely serious offence, *and* one that many 
men can identify with.  The ambiguity surrounding the offence also leads to 
discrimination against women.  What I am concerned about here is the place of 
rape in feminist ideological misandry."


"Women, Sex & Pornography", Beatrice Faust, 1980, (extracts from Chapter 12, 
"Rape: The Ultimate Denial")

    If that's the best book you can find to support your beliefs, then we
    mustn't be as "oppressed" as you'd leave me to believe.  Brownmiller's
    book is considered, even in most feminist circles, to be a broad
    overgeneralization and on the radical side.  In fact, I've seen her
    book pointed out as an example of how one person's writings can greatly
    distort what the majority think/believe.
    
    I've read it and think that there's a valid thread hidden in there, but
    overall the book is simply antagonistic.  It's also about 15-20 years
    old, if memory recalls correctly.
    
    Jim

    It's been a while since I read "Against Our Will", but I remember
    finding it pretty reasonable (and, as stated twice, "carefully
    researched" -- we mostly get goofy rhetoric in 668.174).  I
    certainly didn't notice her "preach a sex war as Muslims preach a holy
    war".
    
    But I admit to being amused by the thought of Mistah Simpson reading
    the entire book "in a sweat of irritation".  By the way, if you're so
    certain of knowing the truth which Brownmiller swerves from, I assume
    you've done MORE research on the topic.  Any chances of you writing the
    definitive all-time reference work on the subject of rape so we don't
    have to deal with such absurdly flawed dangerous polemics?
    
    Or might merely studying rape and publishing your results count in
    itself as "dangerous polemic"?  After all, more women get raped then
    men, it raises some dangerous questions; maybe it's best to just ignore
    the whole thing...
    
    Ray

    By the way, I still see a quantitative and qualitative difference
    between "fear of reading something one disagrees with" (which seems to
    be what got Simpson all in a muck) and "fear of rape" (which
    Brownmiller is talking about), as well as "fear of being rounded up and
    sent to gas chambers" (which is what the base note seemed to be talking
    about).
    
    Ray

Careful, Ray- Simpson didn't spout all that directly, he's quoting.  Wonder
if he'll claim Faust is another "well known" (Australian) feminist.  Hey,
nobody tell him about Whats-his-name's ;-) favorite writers, Michael Levin
and Nicholas Davidson, or he'll regale us with dubious rhetoric from their 
anti-feminist tomes as well.

DougO

    Yeah, I could tell he'd just reposted the wind-filled body of the text
    but I thought the prefatory remarks might be mostly original...
    
    Ray

Aw, I was just wondering if you weren't giving him more credit than due; he
never did quite claim he'd read Brownmiller at all, did he?  So picturing him
sweating it out, so oppressed and all, was more than I could ...stomach.  But
never mind.  Disagreement with some of Brownmiller's rhetoric and some of her
conclusions will not invalidate the vast scope of her research, huff and puff
though Simpson (or his proxies like Faust) may.

DougO

    In general, I worry when someone compliments an author on her research
    then attacks her conclusions without a) showing how her research didn't
    support her conclusions or b) coming up with a better conclusion
    supported by the research.  All I saw in Simpsfaust was two paragraphs
    of conclusion being yelled at.
    
    My fuzzy recollection is that Brownmiller did a good case of showing
    that rape existed through history as a way to punish women, to keep
    them in their place.  (I just ran into the concept again last month
    while reading a book on slavery in ancient Greece -- women got a
    chapter as a subcategory...) 
    
    It's not true that all women fear rape (although all the women I know
    who've been raped certainly seem to), and I disagree with Brownmiller's
    typical researcher-tunnel-vision notion that it's the ONLY weapon used
    to perpetuate sexism.  But inasmuch as rape became defined as a "fate
    worse than death" for women and was then applied as such, I can't
    dispute that the long-range effects hurt women as a class.
    
    Still having a hard time seeing why this should scare me,
    Ray

The lack of simple comprehension in these replies, let alone intellectual 
capability, astonishes me.  Wayne's .0 (deleted since the PC crowd threatened 
him and his job) was a little overboard but essentially correct: there is a 
significant body of thought that holds that masculinity is innately bad.  It 
is authors like Brownmiller (her book was and is very popular in some 
circles) who have fueled this myth.  In particular her Myrmidon analogy is 
vicious and degrading to all men.

The essential point of the critique is that Brownmiller's thesis is 
predicated upon misandry.  Good research is not the same thing as good 
analysis, which is why Brownmiller can come so close and yet 'veer so far'.

I repeat: I am not about providing Faust's own views on rape, partly because 
rape per se is not the topic here, partly because they are too long (and far 
more sensible and even-handed than anything Brownmiller has written), and 
partly because if people are interested then they can do something for 
themselves and read the books.

I'm also surprised at Ray's hostility.  Faust's own ideological framework 
appears very close to his (biosociology).  In any event, her feminist 
credentials are far superior to those which any here will attain.  Nor is it 
the only quote I have provided nor need it be the last.  

    re: .182
    Oh, David, you just HAD to prove me wrong about having seen the LAST
    offensive note from you.  Ah, well, for me it has become more amusing than
    annoying.
    						- Vick

> I'm also surprised at Ray's hostility.  Faust's own ideological framework 
> appears very close to his (biosociology). 
    
    Yo, Mr. Intellectual-Capacity!  Neither you nor Faust has gotten a good
    look at my "(biosociology)" as far as I know, and I'll thank you to
    leave it out of your Fear and Loathing in the Library polemics.
    
    Give my love to the kids,
    Ray

<The lack of simple comprehension in these replies, let alone intellectual 
<capability, astonishes me.  

    There he goes again!
    What's the matter, doncha understand ridicule?

<I'm also surprised at Ray's hostility.>

    see above.

    I think they are ridiculing you, David.
    I found their use of ridicule amusing, and insightful. Of course,
    I wasn't on the receiving end.

    It seems you understood the advice, admonition, and castigation and chose
    to ignore them.  I guess if you choose to ignore ridicule as well, you can
    continue your pontifications, blinded to the likelihood that your 
    offerings on this, or -possibly- any other matter will be ignored.

    This would really have been such an easy matter to have settled, had you
    simply heeded some of the more considerate and polite communications
    earlier on.
    Alas, I fear now that your intransigence on this matter precludes a
    harmonious resolution. I fear that the only way you will feel that you can
    save face is to stop corresponding in this conference.
    That's a shame, because -attitude aside- I think you have something to
    offer.
    
    				herb

>capability, astonishes me.  Wayne's .0 (deleted since the PC crowd threatened 
>him and his job) was a little overboard but essentially correct: there is a 
    
    By the way, inasmuch as I could gather any information from Wayne's
    farewell notes, he wasn't threatened but he had a friend who heard
    about someone else being threatened (with something like "continuence
    of employment", but I figured that was a typo (unless he's a District
    Manager in the field)).
    
    Ray

Vick, quite frankly I think you are looking to be offended.

    Dave,
    
    Quite frankly, I think you tend to be unaware of how offensive your
    writing style can be at times.
    
    Bonnie

 Put the two together and what have you got? :-)

    Vick and Bonnie,
    
    	Yes Mr. Simpson might be alittle offensive in his writings. But you
    two birds have been as equal in many cases. And the wild part of it is
    that Simpson ISN'T a note mod! :) So, it kinda looks to little ol me
    that the pot(s) are calling the kettle black. And gotta say it, looks
    like you two birds are out to alittle witch hunting. Remember! When in
    danger, when in doubt, run in circles and yell and shout!:)

    I'm not witch hunting, I think that Mr Simpson has a lot of good
    things to say, but that sometimes his style puts people off so
    that they don't listen to him.
    
    Bonnie

David is well aware of how his writing style affects others.

			Steve

    re:  .188  Since your comments were not directed at me, David, I was not,
    myself, taking offense.  
    
    
    George,  I reserve the right to be my normal obnoxious self when I am
    not specifically performing the duties of a moderator.  As for the pot
    calling the kettle black: so far, in over five years of active noting
    I have never had a note deleted as being offensive, nor have I ever, as
    best as I can recall, had any kind of stylistic disagreement with a 
    moderator.
    					- Vick

    I could not stand back and watch a high tech lynching of David by
    certain people in this conference. I will warn certain individuals now,
    do not insult me or my thoughts and ideas. If you want to discuss
    something with me, fine, if not read another conference. I will not
    tolerate overblown egos. Any sniping will be met with unbelievable
    resolve. That said, let us party......



    		I'm baaaack...............


    		HAND
    		Wayne

    
    welcome back Wayne.
    and I agree with you.

    Hi, Wayne!
    
    If anything, Mr. Simpson is _overly_ well-prepared to take care of himself. 
    If he was LESS confident/competent he'd be more susceptible to the
    negative remarks his writings evoke. His ability to forge ahead without
    any apologies or change in style indicates to me (anyway) that he
    doesn't need anyone's sympathy or support (Wayne). Nor does he a whit
    about the complaints (Bonnie, Vick, etc).
    
    Why not simply agree to discuss the content and leave Mr. Simpson's
    style out of it? The discussion isn't accomplishing anything anyway.

Wayne, I think we should all chip in and get you a revolving door for
Christmas.

				Steve

 Was that Steve the moderator or Steve the noter? :-)

    Hey Steve it's just the feminine side coming out......
    
    
    		HAND
    		Wayne

    <Why not simply agree to discuss the content and leave Mr. Simpson's
    <style out of it? 
    
    Because writing as arrogant and insulting as his is, does not deserve the
    courtesy of a civil response.

    Fa crise sakes, don't allow the fact that most of his critics are
    PCers, cloud the fact that he deserves to be criticized.
    
    
    What would YOUR response if he made the following comments to YOU in
    person?
    
    The following is an extract of his writing in 658. The stuff in <> was
    being quoted in those entries.

================================================================================
flimsy 

================================================================================
...ideological  objections will be based upon the similar distortions of
reality that have served <them> so badly elsewhere 
I don't respect <that conference> enough to bother noting there.
================================================================================

I thought you were more discerning, <name>.  Obviously I was wrong.  

You are projecting your own insecurities onto my words.  

Damn right you didn't.  You read what you wanted to read, saw what you wanted 
to see.  

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

Go immediately and take an intensive remedial  course in English comprehension.

This is crap.  

Again, you leapt to conclusions and came a-giant-cropper.

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

Generally I find people complaining about 'rudeness' and suchlike are trying to
distract attention from their embarassment at having their nonsenses thoroughly
trashed.  

Such fundamental  intellectual laziness is insulting to the original author and
to every reader.

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

You clearly have never studied this area.  

At the same time, to give the lie to your repeated assertion 

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

You're putting me on, right?  This *has* to be bait.  

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

No reputable scientist today will deny any of this.  You're a century out 
of date.

No way, this is too obviously bait.
================================================================================

I offer these slices as a hint to the genuinely interested and the monstrously
ignorant (like good friend <name>) who wish to deny the reality not only of
an Everest of evidence, published in the most reputable scientific journals of
the world, but simply of their own eyes as well.

================================================================================
... and it is with a degree of wry amusement that I note how much my
expectations of  hysteria, woolly thinking, distortion, wilful
misunderstanding, dissembling and  deceit have been exceeded.

This is a sterling case of poor thinking.  

It would serve little purpose, either in the public domain or here,  for such
important ideas to be presented in such a way that they cannot be  understood
or debated by 'rabble' such as you.

monumental specimen of irrational thinking:

These quotes all contain the same assumption.  To make that assumption Mr
<name> requires either:

	1.  The distinct inability not only to read but to think about what was 
said;

	2.  The author has no regard for truth (This is also known as telling 
lies).

================================================================================
...its  immediately apparent that the objections are based on prejudice,
ignorance and  poor thinking.  

It is prima facie absurd ...

================================================================================
<name>, you really are a most tiresome fellow.  Did you take a course in 
sloppy thinking?


A sterling example of how to ignore context and thus distort meaning to suit 
your own ends.

Really?  Oh, you do surprise me!  Go away and teach your grandmother to suck 
eggs - you'll have more luck and a better reception.

================================================================================
Before you dismiss the evidence as pseudo-scientific why don't you study it
first?  Or is that too logical?
================================================================================

    If people don't like Mr. Simpson's notes they should just ignore them
    unless of course they hit close to home. I noticed he always left the
    door open for response but of course the response had better be well
    thought out. I find his style making me want to hone my thought
    processes. I sure wouldn't want to argue a half thought out topic with
    David.
    
    		HAND
    		Wayne

    re:  discuss the content
    
    The medium is the message.
    
    							- Vick

    >If people don't like Mr. Simpson's notes they should just ignore them
    >unless of course they hit close to home. 
    
    Please don't lecture me on what I should respond to.
    
    >I noticed he always left the
    >door open for response 
    
    He is always hiding behind that door with a baseball bat.  Why are you
    speaking of David in the past tense.  He's still with us.
    
    >but of course the response had better be well
    >thought out. 
    
    It really doesn't matter, he will be insulting if you disagree with
    him, whether your response is well thought out or not.
    
    >I find his style making me want to hone my thought
    >processes. I sure wouldn't want to argue a half thought out topic with
    >David.
    
    Go ahead, be my guest.  Disagree with David on something.  But I forget
    myself, you're the president of the David Simpson fan club.
    
    					- Vick
    

    There are some inarticulate louts who frequent this conference. I think
    their communication style should be given considerable latitude.
    
    Simpson is hardly inarticulate. 

    There is no question in my mind that _he_ understands the impact of his
    language. If he didn't before, he no longer has that excuse. He
    certainly does now. I believe he is trying to use the rules to flaunt
    the rules. I used to do that when I was 15. 

    Bottom line, he is saying something like we have no right to be
    offended by his communication style. 

    Which makes about as much sense as saying nobody has a right to feel
    offended if somebody pharts at a table in the cafeteria. If a person
    has an illness perhaps we overlook it, with silently wrinkled noses,
    and maybe stop sitting at that table.
    On the other hand,  if some childish person were to do it deliberately we
    -usually- would take offense.

    >If people don't like Mr. Simpson's notes they should just ignore them
    >unless of course they hit close to home. 
    
>>    Please don't lecture me on what I should respond to.

	  Kind of arrogant aren't we. What makes you believe I was even 
	  thinking of you.
    
    >I noticed he always left the
    >door open for response 
    
>>    He is always hiding behind that door with a baseball bat.  Why are you
>>    speaking of David in the past tense.  He's still with us.
  
	  Bad grammar huh. You pay particular attention to those type of 
	  things don't cha.
  
    >but of course the response had better be well
    >thought out. 
    
>>    It really doesn't matter, he will be insulting if you disagree with
>>    him, whether your response is well thought out or not.
  
	  I don't know that for a fact. I sure wouldn't alter my thoughts
	  based on your opinion.
  
    >I find his style making me want to hone my thought
    >processes. I sure wouldn't want to argue a half thought out topic with
    >David.
    
>>    Go ahead, be my guest.  Disagree with David on something.  But I forget
>>    myself, you're the president of the David Simpson fan club.
    
    		My my, but you are arrogant. I know you do not think well of 
	  my opinions so to be fair I don't think much of yours.


	  	HAND
	  	Wayne
    

                    <<< Note 668.208 by CSC32::W_LINVILLE >>>
                                -< Ok now what >-

>	  Kind of arrogant aren't we. What makes you believe I was even 
>	  thinking of you.
    
    I can only go by what you say, I'm not a mind reader.  You were
    referring to "people" who don't like David's notes.  That group
    includes me as you must by now be aware, so I had to infer that you 
    were including me in the statement.  
    
>	  Bad grammar huh. You pay particular attention to those type of 
>	  things don't cha.
    
    No, I don't think I'd call it bad grammar.  I just kept trying to reply
    in the past tense to parallel your sentences and found it annoying and
    so commented on it.  I never pick on someone else's grammar.  Sometimes
    I pick on a word usage, but mainly to better understand what was meant.
  
>    		My my, but you are arrogant. I know you do not think well of 
>	  my opinions so to be fair I don't think much of yours.

    If arrogance is the worst sin of which I'm guilty then there's hope for
    me.  But I will continue to base my opinion of your opinions on what
    they (your opinions) are, not on how you feel about me and my opinions.
    The only opinion of yours that at this moment I am sure I disagree with
    is your assessment of David's behavior.  For that matter, I've never 
    even said I disagree with David.  I just don't choose to debate with 
    someone who refuses to be civil. 
    
    Believe it or not, Wayne, I'm glad you came back.  
    
>	  	HAND
    		HANDY
    			- Vick
    

    OK,

    		Thanks Vick. I vote we tone down, that type of noting
    bothers me, I don't like sniping. I just want to talk to men about
    things that interest us all. 

    	I am pleading that we MEN stop the defensive noting and get
    constructive. Let's try a few parameters on this string as a test.

    		1. Assume my original complaint in this string is valid from my
    perspective of course.

    		2. Now, rather than discount my allegation, let's explore
    it. 

    		3. We can find out if other men feel the same or similar.

    		4. Let's brain storm the issue TOGETHER.

    		5. If we disagree fine, but let's not discount or deny
    anyones perspective.

    	For Gods sake the world is crazy enough without us manufacturing
    problems in our work environment. Why can't we share our fears and 
    anger without having to defend them. Guy's can't we get by our hormones 
    and actually help each other.

    		  
    		I have one agenda. That is that we learn to help and
    support each other the way women have. That is why I don't worry about
    defending women, they are light years ahead of us.


    		HAND
    		Wayne

    Wayne,
    Oh, that's right, I disagree with you on the need for a men's movement.
    I knew there was something else.  :^)  But I agree we should be 
    supportive of each other in any way that makes sense.
    
    					- Vick

    I'm all for toning down. My hot reaction to the original note was
    because it seemed extremely inflammatory.
    
>    		1. Assume my original complaint in this string is valid from my
>    perspective of course.
>
>    		2. Now, rather than discount my allegation, let's explore
>    it. 
>
>    		3. We can find out if other men feel the same or similar.
>
>    		4. Let's brain storm the issue TOGETHER.
    
    1. Can you re-enter the original (deleted) complaint?
    
    2. OK, but remember that "explore" doesn't mean "agree", and "discount"
    doesn't mean "dispute".
    
    3. The first time, I didn't feel the same or similar.
    
    4. I said why the first time, and I got told I was a lynch mob.
    
    I don't mean these to sound like fighting words.  I just want to make
    sure that you realize that one (meaning me, meaning you) CAN be wrong
    and CAN legitimately be disagreed with. I don't talk about being
    lynched when someone argues with _me_... hell, I even _like_ it when
    it's done well...
    
    Ray

Just for kicks I pulled this from ::WOMANNOTES:

>    2) If a note sounds offensive, give the benefit of the doubt; think the
>    best rather than the worst.  The other person may be having a bad day;
>    *you* may be having a bad day; their native language might not be
>    english; maybe they just misunderstood; maybe they're afraid.  Ask.

I think that there are a few people here who seek to be offended; who want to 
see the worst and so project meanings into statements which were not intended 
and cannot be properly be inferred from them.

It amuses me that my critics deem my style monolithic.  It is the sort of 
error I expect.  More veteran noters will remember around the time of the 
Gulf war when I had a run in with Messrs Pinar & Co., and I defy anyone to 
show that my style then, such as it was, was innately offensive.

I was further amused when it was sugested that my critics not be dismissed 
simply because they were part of the PC crowd.  Since the essence of PCism is 
to channel language and thought into narrowly defined corridors I leave the 
consequences of this statement to the reader.

It does not amuse me when those among my critics distort my words and ideas 
beyond recognition and claim them as mine.  For example, in 660 Vick, using 
his particular weapon of sarcasm, twisted my words so as to suggest that I 
supported rape.  It is very hard to offend me but Vick succeeded, and without 
a single 'offensive' word in sight.  He correspondingly has little or no 
credibility in my eyes when he accuses me of being offensive.

It has been suggested to me that I am facing a cultural problem.  I see no 
substantive difference between saying "You are being rude" and "You are being 
stupid", yet one is acceptable here and one is not.  I have a hard time 
accepting the cultural argument but I'm increasingly being left without an 
alternative explanation.  If so, then that in and of itself is not an 
argument for my style to necessarily change, since I do not concede that I 
should change for the sake of an alien cultural plank which is demonstrably 
illogical within its own parameters, or to concede any inferiority of my own 
culture (which is admittedly closer to the British than the American).  Also, 
if this is so then it negates Steve's snipe that I am fully aware of the 
impact of my words.

In any event, the astute will notice how my critics invariably ignore the 
fact that whenever I say someone said something stupid I invariably provide 
argument as to why it was so.  They ignore paragraphs of argument to cry to 
the world how ill-done by they are, since I dared use a word whose meaning is 
negative.  By this tactic they hope to divert attention from their own 
general lack of argument and evidence.  The end result they desire is a state 
wherein anyone can say any outrageous thing and not be called on it.  
Directness and plain speaking are increasingly derided in favour of 
indirectness and double speak.  To me it speaks more of their own 
insecurities, and I would not be otherwise concerned except that they attempt 
to make me conform to their irrational, twisted and shallow ways.

So, in the course of a night I have acquired a fan club?  I think not.  I 
think, instead, that my positions and arguments are sufficiently realistic 
and well-grounded that a number of people will support them.  At the same 
time I expect a degree of at least tacit support from those who may not agree 
with me, but disagree more with the way the PC crowd attack me, which is to 
say on style and not on substance.

    re .208-.213 How 'bout that!
    Those entries are very heartening for me. Some gentility -if not
    gentleness- would be welcome.
    
    Wayne, I too would like to see the original entry. (not sure i'm up to
    responding to it, but that's my issue).
    
    
    				herb

    re .214
    Poppycock, etc!
    There is no benefit of doubt. The doubt has been long since erased.

    I will not accept that your communication style is our issue and not
    yours.  If your problem ought to be recognized as a cultural problem
    then I believe that 'culture' ought to be defined as 'humanity'. I feel
    comfortable with my speculation that you are just as isolated in your
    own culture as you are in our culture. 
    
    Perhaps there are some sub-cultures where ad-hominem -in a human sense
    not necessarily a formal logic sense- communication is not only
    acceptable but even encouraged. Indeed, to some limited extent, I think
    of it as being relatively common among males twixt twelve and -say- 
    twenty five. But these sub-cultures are generally recognized as
    exceptions, and in any case are hardly thought of as paradigms.

    Since i'm the one who admonished people not to reject arguments just
    because they were coming from PCers -which rejection, of course,
    suffers from its own ad-hominem-ness, I feel comfortable affirming that
    this is not a matter of political correctness/incorrectness. With the
    possible exception of our esteemed good Doctah, I consider myself one of
    the least politically correct people in the conference.

    In closing -and to reiterate, as long as one's manners are execrable, one's
    facts, logic, opinions etc are irrelevant to me and I hope to most.

>    In closing -and to reiterate, as long as one's manners are execrable, one's
>    facts, logic, opinions etc are irrelevant to me and I hope to most.

 So process outweighs content? No wonder discussion here is the way that it is.

 People get their nose out of joint and then adopt an attitude, and the facts
be damned. I'm not saying you have to like Simpson (or anyone else.) I'm not
saying that process is irrelevant. But at some point you have to decide whether
you are debating the issues or the personalities. Don't purport to do one and
then do the other and expect to be perceived as being honest. It doesn't
fly. And it's obvious.

 I'll be honest enough to admit I haven't followed this particular string
very closely for the last 100 replies or so. That's because every time I try to
read something, I am overwhelmed by the pettiness displayed by people
purporting to have the high ground. No doubt there are valid points to be
made by both sides. The doubt is whether egos can be checked long enough for
any real communication to occur.

    <so process outweighs content?>
    
    At some point, you betcha.
    In my opinion that point has long since been reached.
    I am happy to say that I don't even know what the substance of .0 was.
    
    <at some point you have to decide>
    I have long since decided that I am deploring the substance of the
    personality. (n.b. that is singular not plural)
    The personality IS the issue. (to paraphrase another resident of the
    British Commonwealth, Marshall Mcluhan (sp?) 
    I do not believe there is any ambiguity or inconsistency on this in any
    of my writing in this topic. So I don't guess you intended to be
    questioning my honesty
    
    
    				h

    I will restate my premise.

    		I believe that men ( meaning the average man ) are being
    used by special interest groups to achieve goals that are inconsistent
    with goals of equality for all.

    		Each male subgroup has stereotypical blames associated with
    it.

    		Special interest groups include male ( congress comes to
    mind )and female groups. 


    		White males, at this particular time are being trashed. If
    white males can't get their dignity and respect back how are we to help
    our brothers when it's their turn to be trashed. We are being used as
    the bogy man and I'm tired of it.

    		I am not putting the Women's movement down, but when they
    or any special interest group tries to use the average man as a
    scapegoat it's time to say "whoa". 


    		When I have talked of pulling together I am suggesting they
    we talk and band together in any manner, support groups, political
    action groups, etc. There are powerful and protected men in our society
    who are using us to satisfy special interest groups while not being
    subject to the same losses.


    		That said let us discuss and disagree with respect for each
    other.


    			HAND
    			Wayne  

    I am going to go out on limb here and state that " rather than have
    someone snipe at a note I have written call me before you reply ( if you
    want ) so that I can clarify my statement. I truly believe that if we
    can talk we won't fight and I believe in this day and age we really do
    need each other for support. We have a good thing in mennotes, let's
    use it to good advantage. 
    
    
    		I'm in elf.
    		DTN 592-5548
    
    		HAND
    		Wayne

    Sorry to rathole off of Wayne's points; I figured I'd let other folks
    get to them first. (Maybe we can start a "Stylistic Commentary" topic
    for this Simpson/Vick/Herb thing?)
    
>          <<< Note 668.214 by TRODON::SIMPSON "PCI with altitude!" >>>

> think, instead, that my positions and arguments are sufficiently realistic 
> and well-grounded that a number of people will support them.  At the same 
> time I expect a degree of at least tacit support from those who may not agree 
> with me, but disagree more with the way the PC crowd attack me, which is to 
> say on style and not on substance.

    If it makes you feel better, _I_ don't have a problem with your
    rudeness.  I mean, talk about the pot calling the tobacco carcinogenic...

    I just have a problem with lack of attentiveness, emotionally
    overwrought fuzzy thinking in the guise of a MENSA bulletin, and most
    of your theses.  I think you make up enemies which aren't there
    (someone who didn't agree with Brownmiller extrapolated from her book
    an imagined call for "a holy war against men"? THIS is the biggest
    threat we men have to deal with? C'mon, guy, get real, I face bigger
    threats than that every night...) and then sloganize against 'em. 

    As for your style, I just wish it had more verve and content, that's
    all.

    Ray

    David, I don't have any problem with your style, or even
    with your facts and logic (for the most part).

    I do have a problem with your perception of feminists.  The claim
    they are all man-haters is really quite old.  You don't say it
    directly, but implying the notion "all men are rapists" is shared
    by large numbers in the feminist community comes close enough.
    Just seemed like a verbose twist to a tired theme.  My perception 
    is, of course, just as open to criticism as yours...

    FWIW, just because an author (like Brownmiller) is widely known
    and her research is quoted, doesn't mean her more radical conclusions
    are shared by her audience.

    /Greg

    <(Maybe we can start a "Stylistic Commentary" topic for this
    <Simpson/Vick/Herb thing?)
    
    
    Get bent!

    Too late!
    
    Ray

    Someone fetch Marshal Dillion! There's a shoot out about to happen in
    Kittys Saloon! :)
    

    What is it anyway?  The annual high testosterone cycle?
    
    ed

    No it is not the high testosterone cycle
    It is one person who is getting sick and tired of people like you
    and rdavis making wise cracks.
    If you don't like what I am doing why don't you at least have the
    testosterone (called balls in common society) or the emotional honesty
    to speak up like a man, instead of hiding behind snide remarks.

    Hey, I wasn't attacking the Simpson/Vick/Herb stylistic debate.  (I was
    joining in, in case you didn't read the rest of the reply.)  I was just
    feeling bad 'cause it was a rathole.  And so is this.  And so will the
    next reply be, I guess.
    
    Oy oy oy,
    Ray

    
        >(Maybe we can start a "Stylistic Commentary" topic for this
        >Simpson/Vick/Herb thing?)
          
    As Bill the Cat says:  Gack!
    					- Vick

>            <<< Note 668.228 by ESGWST::RDAVIS "William Dhalgren" >>>
>                                -< No way out >-
>
>    Hey, I wasn't attacking the Simpson/Vick/Herb stylistic debate.  (I was
>    joining in, in case you didn't read the rest of the reply.)  I was just
>    feeling bad 'cause it was a rathole.  And so is this.  And so will the
>    next reply be, I guess.
    
    How 'bout those Red Sox?
    
    	Andrew.

    I do not consider this a stylistic debate. I consider this a very
    substantive matter. 
    
    	One mans rude communication. 
    
    I will not let him get away with it, without responding. I believe
    almost everybody agrees with me on this matter, but is kind of 'giving
    up' just to get some relief. 
    
    I do not believe we should allow his obduracy to win out. He is
    insulting us, and he is insulting the conference, and he is insulting
    Digital. And he knows he is insulting us, and he is challenging us to
    stop him. And if we let him get away with it, he will laugh at us, and
    do it to us again when he feels up to it.
    
    We cannot afford to let such arrogance go unchallenged.
    

I hardly know where to begin.

Perhaps the first place would be in the process vs content dichotomy.  I must
confess to a high level of amusement that Herb is so adamantly insisting upon
the stylistic approaches up with which we should not put, as my recollection
of many people's differences with Herb's style of not too long ago shows quite
a number of similarities to the conduct which he now finds unacceptable.  None
so zealous as the converted, I guess.  But more importantly, I read the quote
David pulled from the =wn= conference as an appeal for tolerance.  Quite, quite
ironic that David would appeal to a woman-centered, feminist-informed approach
to processing his anti-feminist diatribes, but theoretically, I suppose its
legitimate.  But to the point; my reading of that particular feminist tolerance
towards processing issues is that the overall message presented by any one of
us is NOT limited strictly to the 'ideas' or 'content' we imagine we present;
the message is conveyed along a number of dimensions, some of which have been
raised here (style of debate, forms of invective) and some of which have not
(the background, education, cultural matrix, social awareness, etc, of the
message presenter).  David reports that he is having a hard time understanding
the objections to his ideas, his content here.  I submit that if he wants to
appeal to a feminist tolerance from us in processing his messages, he will 
accept that it is not solely his content, but also these other dimensions, which
have affected the reception of his messages.  In particular, when he levels a 
blast like the following, he destroys his own appeal for tolerance with his 
imputation of such malice in his critics.  

> The end result they desire is a state wherein anyone can say any outrageous 
> thing and not be called on it.  Directness and plain speaking are increasingly
> derided in favour of indirectness and double speak.

I disagree that this particular tempest over 'style vs substance' can be 
resolved by people returning to substance and ignoring style; not a one of 
us can remove our personalities, nor our origins from what we write; we can 
only acknowledge, each of us, our particular attributes, appeal for group 
accomodation to those styles, and treat others with similar consideration.
In this give and take, I expect David to acknowledge that his inflammatory
comments will be read as PART of his message, and to reflect that perhaps
his messages will gain a better hearing after some modification.

DougO

PS- I wish I had a nickel for every time I've pointed out to the mennotes
moderators that these issues belong in a processing topic which they refuse
to permit ...

    I will NOT stand by and let anyone disparage the contribution that
    RDAVIS (bless 'em!) makes in this notes conference. Ray's notes are a
    glimmer of light in a foggy tunnel. They are the sounds of children
    playing, in a room of glowering grey-suited adults. His prose is like
    two roes, one on either side... belay that. Anyway, I really don't
    think Ray is being disrespectful, Herb. It's just that Mr. Simpson
    isn't Ray's hot button. David isn't my hot button either.

    Goo.
    
    And Hoyt is right. I don't have a grudge against anyone. My only real
    hot button is a good straight line.
    
    Ray

    I found your personal reference offensive, and I responded -too
    quickly- as I felt. Although I do not apologize for my feelings, I do
    apologize for an inappropriate expression of my feelings.

    What I actually feel like doing is slapping your face in.
    But I have no intention of acting on my feelings.  For several reasons

    a) its imprudent
    b) its immature (but it sure is a lovely fantasy)
    c) it's against company policy
    d) most of all because I recognize -most of the time- the difference
       between hostile feelings and inappropriate expression of those feelings.
    
    				herb

Well, Herb, if my recollection of your past record disturbs you so much,
(or was it my amusement at your current adamance?) I suggest you grin and
bear it.  Your previous outburst was well deleted, and providently.  I do
accept your apology (.236) for giving it utterance.  As for your rueful 
desire to "slap my face in" (.237), I recommend discretion as the better
part of valor.  Would that my memory gave me relief from the irony of your
current posturing towards Simpson; sadly it doesn't.  And I'll feel free to
say so, all such threats from you notwithstanding. 

DougO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[for the record]:
.236:
    I found your personal reference offensive, and I responded -too
    quickly- as I felt. Although I do not apologize for my feelings, I do
    apologize for an inappropriate expression of my feelings.
.237:
    What I actually feel like doing is slapping your face in.
    But I have no intention of acting on my feelings.  For several reasons

    a) its imprudent
    b) its immature (but it sure is a lovely fantasy)
    c) it's against company policy
    d) most of all because I recognize -most of the time- the difference
       between hostile feelings and inappropriate expression of those feelings.
    
    				herb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I felt -and feel- that .232 was hitting below the belt. I felt and feel
    that using irony and sarcasm is a nasty and inappropriate- response to
    some serious points I was trying to make. I feel that the intent was to
    insult me; it succeeded in making me angry . I see it as having been
    an effective way of diverting the discussion and I regret that I 'fell
    for it'.
    That my anger has hardly abated is a good measure of how effective it
    was at inciting me. (Even if some of the ridicule I feel, is based on
    my eruption, rather than on what was said)

re Schuler

I find it curious that I'm seen as antifeminist.  Such criticism fails to 
differentiate between critiquing feminism's goals and methods.  I am a stern 
critic of certain feminist ideologies but in and of itself that cannot 
condemn me.  At the same time, it is not the place of a men's conference to 
over concern itself with feminist issues, and so I tend not to address them 
here except where they impinge on men's issues.  This may give a lopsided 
impression, but that is to be expected, at least to some extent.

re DougO

I pulled the quote I did, as I said, for kicks.  It was an ironic comment on 
the gulf between what certain people say and do.  

re The Topic

The quotes I entered are but part of an identification of a significant 
ideological attitude.  I may enter one more, for three is a good number, but 
no more because I don't see why I should be the only one doing any homework.

I also think I have identified the mistake Wayne makes.  He focuses too much 
on actions, real or perceived, and not enough on the underlying philosophy 
which drives them.  When you identify the source(s), such as Brownmiller, put 
them in their context and understand how they permeate and taint the common 
culture then you can begin to fight effectively.  Attacking the actions 
alone will be seen as merely reactionary.

 Give it a rest, Herb. DougO was "spot on." He gotcha but good, but you have
to remember that you supplied the ammunition. Were it not for your own
noting style, his comments would have been in a vacuum and hence without merit.
And the truth is, you revert to the sort of style which you now decry at
the slightest provocation. Take your lumps like a man- this _is_ mennotes
after all...

    Which style?
    
    Simpson's or Olson's

    Wow? Talk about the story, "The Man in The Gray Flanel Suit". Lets all
    think like each other and talk like each other that way there is no
    cause to disturb a like discussion about the same thing..... What this
    is starting to sound like is liberal-nazi's. Dont like Herbs conduct.
    Don't like Simpsons, don't like this and that. Gee, whats wrong with a
    shoot out in the street?

    re .241
    
    Mark:
    
    Please give me the courtesy of answering the question I asked in .242.
    

    Take your lumps like a man?? I am confused?? Herb, how do we take lumps
    like men? :)

    
    is this some implication that men are like lumps?  Nay, for I say men
    are rational, thinking, cogitative, logic-intensive beings, as this
    entire note tends to indicate in blazing black and white.  Fie on
    ponies and ropes, for here we have a grassroots discussion of the
    psychological aspects of a single facet of feminism.  Now for the other
    999!  Go to it!
    
    -Jody
    

    re .-1
    I don't understand what you mean. (but it feels sarcastic)
    

    Oh, Herb.
    
    it was mildly sarcastic, but only because there is so much theoretical
    stuff going on about the do's and don'ts and whys and wherefores that
    is of such a single-point-of-view manner that....well...it's like
    talking about the entire history of Italian Art by focusing on the Mona
    Lisa.  This ONE view is such a SMALL part.  This ONE discussion is
    focusing so much energy on such a small part of the whole.  It's like
    putting an ant under a magnifying glass.  You're frying it.  Utterly. 
    And there is SO much more to feminism.  There is so much that is
    personal, there is so much that has been experienced.  There is so much
    that is in the heart, and not the head.
    
    I am gently tut-tutting Herb, I bear you no ill will, honestly.  It
    just saddens me to see so much negative energy focused on such a small
    thing.  Get angry where it can make a difference!  use your power! 
    seek and sustain change!  
    
    -Jody

    Sorry Herb. I will delete the last couple of notes. 

>    Mark:
    
>    Please give me the courtesy of answering the question I asked in .242.

 Now that the spec review is completed, I'd be happy to.

 The answer is, you have frequently noted in a manner that has caused a number
of people to take exception to your _style_. They (we) have criticised you
as a result. Now we see you doing that to someone else. And what bothers me
about it is that you seem to hold the moral high ground, withger regard to
personal attacks for example, only for periods of time when you are not
emotionally charged. When you get angry I see the same sorts of behaviors
that you were criticised for in the past.

 does this answer the question to your satisfaction?

probably not, Mark: he asked which of the two styles you found him similar
to, mine or Simpson's. ;-).

DougO

    You will have to be more specific for me to understand.
    If in fact you are saying something like ...
    "sometimes herb's way of saying things has been insulting to people"
    
    then my response would be that...
    
    Sometimes I have intended to be insulting to people.
    Othertimes, I have said unpleasant things that people may not want to
    hear, and to say them in such a way as to get people angry. I don't
    regret that.
    
    
    

    I wonder if the "equal pay for equivalent work" movement among feminists
    qualifies as a legitimate threat against men as a class. One case which
    appears straightforward is two individuals doing the same job, e.g. he
    and she are both software engineers performing at the same level. It
    would be hard to argue that they should not be paid equally. This is
    known as "equal work."
    
    "Equivalent work" is quite different: it makes arbitrary equivalences
    between greatly disparite occupations, with the selection of "a male
    job" conveniently one which pays better than "a female job." Here's an
    example pursued (as I somewhat dimly recall) at a telephone company:
    women decried the fact that telephone operators earned considerable
    less than telephone line repairfolk. The former were predominantly
    female and the latter mostly male. The suit argued that operators were
    paid less out of sex discrimination, because operators tended to be
    women. It argued that operators and repairfolk had similar skill-levels
    and similar working conditions, and should merit equal pay.
    
    I have two objections to this. First, to me they are patently NOT
    equivalent jobs. I envision operators sitting on their behinds (male
    and female) chatting on the phone, while repairfolk are out there for
    days and nights, atop poles amid whipping tree branches as the hurricane
    subsides. IMO.
    
    My second objection is less a matter of opinion: there is nothing
    stopping women from becoming repairfolk. (If there IS something
    preventing, then THAT should be the subject of a suit, and I would
    support it.) The fact is that women CHOOSE to be operators and men
    CHOOSE to be repairfolk. The men probably choose the less comfortable,
    more hazardous job because it pays better. Women are less constrained
    by the provider role and choose to be comfy. Given equal access to the
    two occupations for BOTH genders, it's my view that the wage disparity
    is perfectly appropriate.
    
    It is a threat to men as a class, because (the women would argue) it is
    sufficient that the occupation is (1) predominantly male and (2) pays
    better than more-or-less ANY occupation which is predominantly female.
    
    I have no problem with efforts to open occupations for women. The idea
    of "equivalent work" offends me, however.

 Well said, Hoyt.

    I wish the recall wasn't dim, but I agree that people who repair
    telephone lines have worse working conditions than operators and should
    get paid more.
    
    They also have worse working conditions than managers or software
    engineers (I mean, talk about sitting on our (male and female) behinds
    and chatting!) and should get paid more.  I picture being an operator
    as being pretty mind-numbing voice-draining work, so they should get
    paid more than managers or software engineers too.  The absolute worst
    job I can imagine is dishwashing, so it should pay the most.
    
    Ray

    RE .260

    	Mr. Davis,

    		Why OH Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge a
    legitimate point. Are you so entrenched in protecting women you cannot
    admit an inequity toward men. Your pettycoat is showing.
    
    
    		Wayne
    

    re <why oh why>
    
    'praps he prefers sarcasm?
    
    I interpreted it as a way of sort of implying/acceeding the example was
    accurate while at the same time advancing the thought that the point is
    insignificant/irrelevant.
    

>The absolute worst job I can imagine is dishwashing, so it should pay the most.

 _One_ reason to pay a premium for a service is because it is the type of work
that few people would engage in without increased monetary compensation. This
is not the only reason. Another reason is if only a few people are _capable_
of doing the required work. Another reason is if the person's work directly
adds mucho $s to the bottom line (salespeople & their commissions.)

 The Doctah

>The absolute worst job I can imagine is dishwashing, so it should pay the most.
    
    
    NO WAY! THE ABSOLUTE WORST JOB is changing truck tires! It is:
    
    Dirty
    Heavy back breaking work
    Often done in the cold and dampness/wetness
    	and
    
    You can very easily PAY WITH YOUR LIFE! Truck wheels, 2 and 3 piecers
    can/will come apart extreemly violently if everything is not perfect
    when they are inflated! Age, dirt, rust/corrosion, damage, and
    inexperience can be deadly. Most places use cages. Cages are not
    perfect. Parts can get out
    
    I have never personally seen one explode. I have heard/read of many
    that have. I have many and have assembled many even to this day. If you
    did it once, or saw the results of one exploding, you would think they
    should be paid the most.
    
    Steve

    I beg to differ with all. If there was a job that I would not do for
    all the cash in the world, it would be a cop. Town, city, county.
    Reason? They use real bullets. And you step out of your car to give
    some Joe Public a speeding ticket, and you get a chance to get a hole
    in you belly. Or your punch him a ticket, and he/she puches yours.
    Watch Cops lately? They are using video recorders in some of the
    cruzers. Gotta say it. I was flabber ghast when I saw it. And the
    driver drove off into the night. 
    
    The worst job in the world, because you don't know if your coming home
    in an upright or a horizontal position.

>    		Why OH Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge a
>    legitimate point. Are you so entrenched in protecting women you cannot
>    admit an inequity toward men. Your pettycoat is showing.
    
    I can picture worse places to be entrenched than in a bunch of
    protecting women.  Frankly, I walk in some pretty unnerving
    neighborhoods and could use the assistance.
    
    Pulling my petticoats off (don't look!) and putting my Serious Face on: 
    I agree with Hoyt that the concept of "equivalent work" is quirky (to
    say the least) and that it quirked right off the Sanitymeter in this
    case.
    
    I'd prefer the issue of "women's jobs" being "low-paying jobs" be
    addressed in other ways, like the one he mentioned -- having them NOT
    be "women's jobs" any more. I just thought it was funny for a NOTEr in
    a computer company to be ragging on people who sat and talked for a
    living.  (And I DO think dishwashers should make more than me; lord
    knows there are too few competent dishwashers around.)
    
    Does this count as an assault on men (one assumes that neither male
    operators nor male telephone line repairers will get a cut in salary),
    or as an assault on customers of the phone company?
    
    Ray

    <(And I DO think dishwashers should make more than me; lord
    <knows there are too few competent dishwashers around.)
    
    As a former dishwasher...
    
    bullshit

    re .266

    		Thanks Ray, that's all I wanted was an acknowledgment that
    things can and do get out of hand when rushing toward political
    correctiveness.



    			HAND
    			Wayne

    
    This is the kind of statistic which the women's movement brings up
    continually. Why, for example, is it that only 3 (I'm making this up)
    of the Fortune 500 CEOs are female? IMO, this is sound reasoning and a
    good question. We should also be asking why it's nearly all MEN who are
    awaiting their fatal injections.
    
    There are probably two reasons why nearly all of those sentenced to
    death in the U.S. are male: 
    
        1) Men do most of the heinous criminal acts that warrant death
           sentences;
    
        2) Men are much more likely than women to be convicted of these 
           crimes and to receive the death penalty after conviction.
    
    Women are less likely to receive these sanctions. A couple instances 
    come to mind.
    
    A woman has been subject for years to physical abuse by her husband.
    She commits premediated murder, dousing him with gasoline and setting
    him afire. I don't know if charges were brought. She certainly wasn't
    convicted, much less sent to death row. Instead, her story was made
    into a television special starring Farrah Fawcett.
    
    A woman drives her car into her boyfriend, pinning him between the
    bumper and a lamppost. He dies. She is acquitted on the grounds that
    she was suffering from premenstrual syndrome.
    
    IMO, both of these are pretty heinous crimes. Imagine lighting that
    match, or stomping that accelerator! Women are acquitted of these
    crimes, however, where men would likely be convicted and sentenced to
    death. It's part of our cultural conditioning. Women are mothers! Men
    are murderers! It isn't comforting, to me, that the prosecutors and
    judges are mostly male.

>    things can and do get out of hand when rushing toward political
>    correctiveness.
    
    But things also get out of hand when reacting AGAINST anything
    perceived as "political correctness"...
    
    I don't believe there's such a thing as "political correctness", except
    as a joke.  Real life isn't that binary.  What we have are a bunch of
    issues with a bunch of different opinions about them. 
    
    (Speaking of non-binary issues, the idea of Brigham Young University
    being a hotbed of feminism is pretty funny...)
    
    Ray

    back and forth
    
    back and forth
    
    back and forth
    
    back and forth
    
    back and forth
    
    back and forth
    
    back and forth
    
    

    re .269
    The woman who burned her husband to death had reached out for help
    many, many times without results.  She tried to get away from him, but
    he kept following her, harassing her.  This went on for years, until
    she finally hit the breaking point and took the law into her own hands. 
    All this happened before the new laws about domestic violence.  I don't
    condone what she did, but I can understand it.
    
    FWIW in Washington if the police come out on a domestic violence call,
    if the woman hit the man back more than once (or visa versa) then BOTH
    people are arrested and taken to jail.  Both are charged with assault.
    We also have harassment laws here where the harasser is arrested 
    and prosecuted.
      
    Karen

    In Colorado all a woman has to do is say her SO hit her and he is gone.
    Now, to be fair they will give him the opportunity to prove his
    innocents after a few days in jail. But we all know he did it don't we,
    he's a man after all. 
    
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Well, Wayne maybe Colorado oughta take a look at Washington State law. 
    There was a woman that I was mentoring that called me one night in
    tears.  She was in jail.  What for?  For hitting her husband.  He
    simply picked up the phone and called the police.  They arrested her
    and she spent the night in jail.  She went to court and she was put on
    probation.  Oh, and did I mention that she was 7 months pregnant when
    she did this?  
    
    I am just beginning to realized that our domestic violence laws are
    really quite balanced here.  If there is a fight between SO's and they
    are both physically abusive, then they are both arrested under the
    combative partner law.
    
    Sorry to rathole this topic, but Wayne hit a hot button with me.  I
    personally don't believe that men are at fault all the time, just as I
    don't believe that women are at fault all the time.  But I do believe
    the statistics that men batter women more often and that they do so
    unprovoked.
    
    End of tirade.
    
    Karen

    Statistics can prove many things, like 98% of all criminals attended
    school.  75% of the murderers in prison attended church.  89% of the
    men who were arrested for rape in America are U.S. citizens that had
    looked at a playboy magazine at some point in their life.  75% of the
    divorced women in the U.S. read Cosmo.  85% of the single women over 
    30 years of age believe men are sexist pigs.  The majority of them will
    never hold a relationship for an extended period of time.  90% of
    today's feminists have to hang a pork chop around their neck to get the
    dog to play with them.
    

    re.273
    Not to mention that he is considered guilty before proven so.
    The ex wife of a good friend of mine accused my friend of abuse with no
    proof required and he was arrested for it. HE had slapped her once
    after she kicked him in the groin and came to my house in tears
    because he was so upset for looseing control. His wife was the type
    that could drive the most controlled individual to the breaking point.
    
    In the end he was labled "wife beater" she "abused woman". Eight years
    later he was asked by the SO of another friend "I heard you were a wife
    beater is that true? I can't imagine you ever being violent"
    My friend went on to explain what happened but he wonders if he will
    ever will live down the false accusation.
    
    -j 

    re.274 I wish all states had such laws and actually enforced them
    this would be a better place for all. 
    
    -j

    re -.1   Yes, I agree.  There has to be a balance somewhere.  I was
    talking with a friend the other night and we agreed on the following:
    
    For years (centuries, but who is counting? :-) )  women were battered,
    kept as property, treated as property etc.  We all know the story. 
    Now that there is attention focused on the battered women, now that our
    "justice" system has woken up to the fact that this has/is
    happened(ning), the
    pendulum has swung the other way.  Now men are automatically guilty of
    abuse (as a previous note stated), even when there is no proof. 
    Somehow, somewhere our society needs to come to a balance with this. 
    The pendulum needs to center and not swing so far to either side.  When
    we can find the balance, when more laws are enacted and enforced, such
    as here in Washington, THEN and only then will both men and women stop
    feeling persecuted by each other.  Our (meaning WA state) domestic 
    violence law really does create equality between the genders.  Maybe it
    should be used as a model for other states.
    
    Karen

    p.s. The friend I was talking to was a man.
    
    Karen

    Karen,
    
    		That is ALL I seek, fairness to all. it just appears to me
    we have become a society that loves to find unfairness or manufacture
    it if it can't be found.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    This is insignificant compared to divorce laws, combat roles, etc. but
    
          Is anyone else annoyed by the institution of Lady's Night?
    
    This weekend I was in the vicinity of NYC and listened to some talk
    radio on which a semi-celebrity discussed his success shutting down
    lady's nights in NYC. The Yankees capitulated, if I recall correctly.
    This guy has enlisted the NYC goverment Human Rights agency, which is
    helping him eliminate the institution in NYC bars, a couple dozen to
    date.
    
    I personally don't care about the specific instance, but the principle
    is appealing. This guy DID talk about "the men's movement."

    Why not! Women have done it to us. Whats good for the goose is good for
    the gander.
    
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

The various "ladies nights" were never asked for by women - they were marketing
ploys by business owners (overwhelmingly male) to attempt to draw women into
their establishments (bars and nightclubs, largely) so as to in turn attract
more men as paying customers.  In other words, women were being used as
a sexual lure by these businesses to bring in more male customers.  I'd think
that men and women would both be indignant about such tactics.

				Steve

    Thanks Steve.  You said it *SO* well!
    
    Karen

    
    well i am outrayyyged that evyl myn would stoop to that tactic..

    I'm interested in your reasoning, Steve. "Ladies nights" were never
    asked for by women; they were invented by men. Therefore... what? You
    state your conclusion almost immediately: both genders should be
    indignant. Well put. I want to pursue that "therefore..." however.
    
    There's a common thread that instances where men are mistreated can be
    discounted because the perpetrators are male. MEN invented "ladies
    nights" so THEREFORE... men shouldn't be complaining? I would like to
    utterly reject that reasoning (which you may or may not subscribe to).
    I think the source of my oppression is immaterial. My complaint of
    sexual discrimination is no less valid because some GUYS did it, IMO.
    
    I guess the battle lines might be drawn between those who are FOR and
    those who are AGAINST gender-bias. The latter include feminists, hence
    feminists are my friends and allies. FOR-bias men (and women) are my enemy!
    
    So rather than say "Men created 'Ladies nights' as sex lures" I'd
    prefer some statement like "Sexists created 'Ladies nights'..." Sexist
    men are NOT my friends and allies, and the incidental similarity of our
    gametes is only that.
    
    I wish I could send to it's well-deserved death the reasoning "Men
    make the rules, so when the rules oppress men, the men have to put up 
    with it!" We don't.

    re.281
    Danged straight it bothers me! Women get into the bar free men have to
    pay a $3.00 cover women get $0.50 drinks all night men pay full price.
    I will argue with the doorman until I get in free or demand to see the
    manager of the club everytime I am faced with this discrimination.
    
    
    -j

    Gee, I'm glad I don't drink and I don't have to worry about it! :-)
    
    Sorry, couldn't resist.
    
    Karen

    re-.1
    It's not a matter of the price of a drink or admission I oppose but the
    unequal treatment I recieve for being a man.
    
    -j

    
    Hey Jerry, I never thought about it like that.  And you're sure right!
    

    The comments about a man being arrested for hitting his wife
    caught my attention.  While I agree it's unfair for *anyone*
    to be arrested on pure accusation, the problem of evidence
    becomes a bit tricky.  Where do we draw the line for a battered
    victim/rape victim (male or female)?  1 bruise, 2bruises, cracked
    ribs, concussion?  My husband and I were discussing ths the other
    night (in terms of rape) and how a man's reputation can go right
    down the toilet based on a false claim.  While I would like to 
    believe that most people (m or f) are above making such harsh
    accusations for reasons of revenge, anger, disallusionment, or
    some other perversity, the danger does exist.  How do we surmount
    this problem to not subject any person to a false claim of abuse
    (no evidence being presented) and a victim being beaten within an
    inch of his/her life just to provide corroborating evidence?  There
    are no easy answers, but I'd like to hear comments on this dilemma.
    
    CK

Re: .286

Hoyt, the only reason I brought it up was that an earlier note (Wayne's,
I think), suggested that "Ladies Nights" were an example of women "screwing"
men.  I wanted to point out that in this case it was men screwing themselves.
(Women create similar problems for themselves in many areas - there are many
times I feel that the "battle of the sexes" is actually two separate battles,
men vs. men and women vs. women.  No wonder we don't seem to get anywhere!)

In no way was I suggesting that rules which oppress men should be tolerated.
I just wanted to make sure people didn't choose the wrong target for their
stones.  I agree with your phrasing of "sexists created Ladies Nights", but
with some folks here apparently so determined to blame women for everything
they consider wrong with the world, I thought a bit of illumination was
in order.

				Steve

             <<< Note 668.287 by CSC32::GORTMAKER "Whatsa Gort?" >>>

>    Danged straight it bothers me! Women get into the bar free men have to
>    pay a $3.00 cover women get $0.50 drinks all night men pay full price.
>    I will argue with the doorman until I get in free or demand to see the
>    manager of the club everytime I am faced with this discrimination.
    
    -j,

    First, I don't drink except for a bit of wine at dinner or if there is 
a group function, so I am *no* expert in these ladies nites.... 8^)

    One idea though, if you don't like the discrimination, and I agree with 
your stand on it, BTW....then argue with the doorman if you like, but 
better yet, leave, preferably with as many people as you can take with you, 
and write a letter to the owners/operators and tell them how much business 
they lost because of their policy. NOTHING hurts a business faster than 
lost $$$....and nothing should get their attention faster....

    If you think one persons letter won't count for much, then try to bring 
a like minded crowd with you and have 20 people sign the letter.....

    It may not change much, but it might just get the promo dropped like 
the proverbial hot spud....

    	Vic