Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    
    Question number 1.
    
      In the past and to a great extent today the woman has the job of
    raising the children in the home( I think ). With this much early 
    influence on the childs Psche and morals and blah blah, how come young
    boys grom up disrespecting wymyn? Or whatever the correct analysis is
    of innapropriate behavior to wymyn!
    
    
    David

    
    Because the media seems to teach them to be that way.
    And the media seems to be primarily controlled and designed by men.
    
    next?
    
    -Jody
    

    RE:  David's use of "wymyn"
    
    David,
    Sounds like with a little introspection you should be able to answer
    that question for yourself.
    						- Vick

    .0 & .1
    
    I'm not arguing the answer, according to your whishes, but deffinitely
    I'm arguing the QUESTION.
    
    1. What is a FEMINIST ?
    2. Are you a feminist ? How come you know there are feminists who will
       answer "..." questions ?
    3. Why do you call it 'a serious topic' ?
    4. Last but not least : "...  TAKE IT LIKE A MAN " ???????????
    
    About your question : why is your question so special ? (.3 is OK for
    me).
    
    I think a little bit of Freud would be the answer (ah, ah, ah !)
    
    Rgds.
    
    J.Quadros

re: .4
    
>    1. What is a FEMINIST ?
    
    A feminist is anyone who thinks they're a feminist.  Just like a wine
    connoisseur is anyone who thinks they're a wine connoisseur.
    
>    2. Are you a feminist ? How come you know there are feminists who will
>       answer "..." questions ?
    
    I am.  I did. 
    
>    3. Why do you call it 'a serious topic' ?
    
    Because he wanted to call it that.  Whether it winds up that way
    depends on how the responses turn out.
    
>    4. Last but not least : "...  TAKE IT LIKE A MAN " ???????????
    
    I'm baffled there.
    
>    About your question : why is your question so special ? (.3 is OK for
>    me).
    
    It is special because he asked it.
    It would be even *more* special if he really heard the answer and found
    it to be thought-provoking (not believed it hook, line, and sinker, but
    really thought about it as if it *were* true).
    
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    > be able to answer that question yourself
    
    
      Why Vick I had no idea you believed that every man has a little
    bit of woman inside of him, and to further recommend the method of
    getting in touch with that part, you are amazing! Now with that 
    stated please re-read the basenote and keep your entries into this
    topic within the boundaries of the basenote,otherwise I will have to
    order you to take a time-out in the penalty box:-)
    
    
    Bad boy :-)
    
    David

    
    
    > give me a break man
    
       Dear Quadros,
    
       Sorry I am not here to be asked questions, but to ask them, and listen
    to the answers.
    
    
    
    David
    
       

    
    
    > take it like a man
    > i'm baffled
    
    
        It was a joke! My feeble attempt at humor. Sorta goes along with
    the idea of " Take the pain" "No matter how much you want to flame
    back, of argue back" Take it like a man".
    
    > it's a serious topic
    
       It is to me. I want to here well thought out answers to some serious
    questions I have. I think the gap between people can diminish if you
    listen with an open mind tohow others think and feel. 
    
    
    David    

    What I'm saying, David, which I think you know, but I'll spell it out
    anyway, is that your own disrespect for women, which seems apparent in
    your your snide spelling of the word "women", makes you a good
    candidate for someone presumably raised by women who disrespects them
    and maybe you can shed some light on the question.  I myself do not
    disrespect women and don't have much clue as to the answer to your
    question, and don't really understand why it is a question that
    feminists should be expected to have an answer for.  But a little bird
    is telling me that the reason you asked the question is that you
    believe that, indeed, women deserve disrespect and that is why men, who
    are raised by them disrespect them anyway and that feminists are 
    therefore full of it.  Why don't you just say it instead of playing
    your silly games.
    					- Vick

    
    
    _Vick
    
      As I read your latest failed attempt at analyzing me I am reminded
    of what Chevy Chase used to say to Jane Curtain when beginning his
    editorial, with a little modification I think I could make it fit
    your remarks to a tee.:-) Please refrain from ASS-U-M-ING that you
    know me better than me. My spelling of the word woman (wymyn) did not
    seem to offend anyone else, and unless you have taken a position as
    advocate for wymyn afraid to do there own bidding, please drop it.I
    picked up the habit in another notesfile, I mean no disrespect to wymyn
    by it! As far as my disrespecting wymyn, I am sure I have room for
    growth, but I HAVE NO HIDDEN MOTIVE HERE. So please, if you are this
    paranoid about my topic,just treat it like a T.V. and turn it off. I
    really do not want to here " Vick on The hidden motives of David". I
    want to here answers to my questions, and I have not asked you a
    darn thing!
    
    
    Quiet Please,
    
    David

    David
    
    I found your spelling of women offensive, I just didn't think it was
    worth mentioning. As to why boy children end up as men who disrespect
    women, I think that peer pressure and the attitudes of their a
    fathers play a major role.
    
    IMNSHO
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    Bonnie,
    
       I will change the way I spell it. Thank you for coming forward.
    
    
    David

    merci
    

    
    
    
    Question number 2.
    
    
     I have noticed that many men respond defensively to criticisms from
    woman. Have you ever met men that receive your criticisms without
    being defensive? And what is it about there personality(in your
    opinion) that allows for them to here a criticism and not react 
    defensively?
    
    David

    But I'm a feminist, David, and you wanted feminists to respond.  But
    as a feminist, I read your question as pointed, loaded.  You could
    learn by my response to your question.  But I suppose that is not what
    you really had in mind, learning that is.  I frankly don't care if you
    want to hear me talk about your motives or not.  And I've been reading
    your replies in this notesfile long enough to have developed an
    impression of you.  If I'm wrong, so be it.  It is the impression you
    create in at least one feminist, and probably in others.
    
    						- Vick
    
    	

    I'm reminded of a joke...
    
    How do you keep a woman from nagging and going on and on and on about
    something...
    
    
    
    
    listen to her the first time...
    
    seems to me that answers question #2
    
    Bonnie

    is .14 directed toward feminists or toward women?  Many women aren't
    feminists and many men are.  
    					- Vick

    
    I've been reading the answers to this topic and I'm more and more
    curious.
    
    If I may ask, why do you say you are feminist, ie., what do you think
    is your profile that make you feel you belong to that group ?
    
    Quadros 

    Quadros, was that directed at Vick or me?
    
    Bonnie

    Because I care enough about women's rights to vote for those rights.
    Because I do my best to understand their problems and at least not
    contribute to them.
    					- Vick

     minor nit-
    
    Vick-
    
    you comment that David could learn from your answer.  What exactly
    is he supposed to learn other than the fact that you have already
    decided what his motives are and that as far as you are concerned,
    they are suspect?  He may learn how you perceieve him, but if it
    doesn't apply to him, he can leave it.  
    
    The spelling of the word wymin (or the various other ways)-in other
    files it does seem to be well accepted/expected to use a deviant
    form of the spelling (also, see the word "hir").  Who's allowed to
    use such forms without offending?  Frankly, I find it more annoying
    than offensive, but that's just me.  I just don't understand why it]s
    ok for some, but offensive for others.  
    
    The first question, I agree with Jody.  The second question, I think
    that society "trains" men to believe they are "right" and a
    disagreement amongst peers (other men) is ok, encouraged as long as
    it's competative.  Men aren[t raised to compete with women and in
    my experience thiis adds to the impression of discomfort/defenisiveness
    when a man is questioned/challenged by a woman.
    
    RE: above paragraph-general disclaimer, I mean some men, not all, only
    based on personal observances.
    
    Christine

    At everyone who feels belonging to the feminist group.
    Bonnie, go ahead!
    
    Quadros

    Quadros
    
    Because I feel that "the advocacy of the political and social and
    economic equality of men and women" is only fair and reasonable.
    
    Bonnie
    
    (definition from the American Heritage Dictionary)

    As far as I have been able to ascertain, the spelling "wymyn" or
    whatnot is used only as ridicule.  As far as I've been able to
    ascertain, the use of "hir" is not meant as ridicule.  That is the
    difference.  It is very similar to accents.  If a foreigner speaks with
    their own accent, it is not done as ridicule.  But if I were to speak
    with a foreign accent, it might be (or be construed to be) ridicule.  
    I don't use "hir" or any of the other variant spellings, though I do
    try to be gender sensitive in my writing.
    
    					- Vick
    
    

>    Question number 1.
>    
>      In the past and to a great extent today the woman has the job of
>    raising the children in the home( I think ). With this much early 
>    influence on the childs Psche and morals and blah blah, how come young
>    boys grom up disrespecting wymyn? Or whatever the correct analysis is
>    of innapropriate behavior to wymyn!
    
    One possible explanation: the women who raised the children knew,
    sometimes from painful experience and sometimes because "that's the way
    it has always been," that the men held the power. If they wanted their
    sons to be successful, they had to teach them to take and hold power;
    if they wanted their daughters to be successful, they had to teach them
    to please, or at least to avoid angering, men. Boys who grew up seeing
    their sisters taught to be meek and servile could hardly avoid learning
    that women were commodities - sometimes very valuable ones, to be sure,
    but still _things_ to be fought over, stolen, or bought rather than
    people to be dealt with as equals.

    Not the only reason, but _a_ reason, certainly. Few people are brave
    enough to teach their children to buck the tide when they know it might
    well cause those children to be ostracized - especially in times and
    places where ostracism meant death...

>    Question number 2.
>    
>     I have noticed that many men respond defensively to criticisms from
>    woman. Have you ever met men that receive your criticisms without
>    being defensive? And what is it about there personality(in your
>    opinion) that allows for them to here a criticism and not react 
>    defensively?

    Yes, I've met many men who've responded to criticisms without
    defensiveness - generally in regard to practical matters, as it
    happens. Suggesting a different algorithm for coding a subroutine, for
    example. And a few - a rare few - have been able to accept personal
    criticism without getting defensive. (I admire these people very much,
    since I have to fight a tendency to get very testy indeed when _I'm_
    being criticized.)

    -b

    
    
    Bonnie,
    
       So are you saying that the difference between Male#1(defenseive) and
    male#2, is that male # 2 listens whilst male number #1 does not listen?
    
    
    David

    
    
    
    _b Rust,
    
      Enjoyed your answer to number 1.Regarding your answer number 2 I
    would still like to know what it is about these men that allows them
    to be this way?
    
    David

    David
    
    Quite often, the difference is that men who don't get defensive really
    listen to what's being said, they listen with their hearts and are
    more sensitive to people.
    
    yes.
    
    Bonnie

    in re. 27
    
    David,
    
    neither Beth or I are men, perhaps you can answer the question better.
    
    Bonnie

    
    -1
    
      I don't think you have to be a man to have an opinion on character.
    
    
    
    David

    I realize you don't have to be a man to have an opinion on character,
    but as a woman I don't have a clue from my personal experience as to 
    'what it is about these men that allows them to be this way?' To me it 
    makes no sense, so the only answers I can come up with are from
    the various sources from the media that I read or second hand from
    conversations. I think that a man could answer the question with
    more insight.
    
    Bonnie

    .20 & .23
    
    Then I'm a feminist myself.
    
    But I think more in terms of human beings, no matter what sex, colour
    religion, etc. If you want to deffend the rights of the less
    favoured(sp?) people, than if you live in the states, you should be
    'blackist', 'hispanist', 'feminist', and many other ...ists, because
    equal rights problems are not ONLY related to sex diffferences.
    
    If we want to do anything to help it, then let's start now. Let's see
    each other as human beings. Mutual respect is incompatible with this 
    kind of 'differences'.
    
    Rgds,
    
    J.Quadros
    

    Seems to me that people who take criticism well are those who don't
    take it personally - they see it as a learning experience. Even if they
    don't agree with the critic's assessment of them, they can learn
    something about the critic, and if they _do_ agree, they can try to
    do better next time.

    While I've heard it suggested that typical-boy-type-activities like
    team sports tend to teach boys to accept public criticism with
    equanimity - after all, how personal can it be if *everybody* gets
    chewed out for failing to cover first base? - I suspect it starts
    earlier than that, in the ways parents foster their childrens'
    self-images. (Some of it might be built in to the kid's natural
    temperament, too, but it's always really tough to distinguish between
    the innate and the very-early-environmentally-induced...) And I've
    known plenty of sports-background guys who could take criticism from
    their coach or teammates, but not from the women in their lives; so
    clearly there are lots of other factors at work.
    
    BTW, in my experience, the percentage of women who can accept criticism
    without getting defensive seems about the same as that of men, and both
    percentages are a good deal smaller than I wish they were. I think life
    would be a lot more comfortable if more people could hear criticism,
    consider it, and then accept or reject it, as they chose, without
    getting depressed or losing their tempers or feeling they had to
    justify themselves...
    
    -b

    
    
    Q3
    
      It's my observation that since woman have entered the work force
    and not stayed home as traditional mother role types, that the quality
    in our children has gone down. Educationally since about the 60's
    we have begun to lag in education, drug use up, etc.etc. My question
    is this, is there a corrolation(sp) between woman leaving the homes
    and entering the work place and the decline in the aforementioned
    complaints about todays children? If so what or whom is to blame?
    
    
    
    David

Re: .34

It's really the fault of the rise in the number of Japanese imported cars.

					Steve

    
    No, it's MTV.
    
    No, it's Nintendo.
    
    No, it's loud tacky fashions.
    
    No, it's liberals/conervatives/insert your favorite political party.
    
    No, it's Young Miss magazine.
    
    Personally, I think it's because it's become nonfashionable to excel at
    academics.  Because it's much COOLER to do anything but learn and like
    your teachers.
    
    I was always uncool.  So were my friends.
    
    Lisa

    
    
    re .34
    
    
    I believe the deterioration of the school systems has absolutely
    nothing to do with women entering the work force.  This is clearly
    and soley a result of the govt's choices of where it puts its
    monies.  
    
    I do agree that with the decrease of fulltime stay at home parents
    (be they mother or father) has definitely caused a decline in the
    quality of life for children.  This I believe is due again in large
    part to the govt deciding where it is to put it's money.  If the
    cost of living did not dictate two full time working-outside-the-home
    parents, there would be the availability of at least one of these
    parents to stay at home with the kids.  
    This also comes into play when the families get back together at
    home.  Mom and Dad if they have worked an 8 hour day have to then
    get done what needs to get done as well as give quality time to
    the kids.  Not an easy job when everyone is tired and cranky.
    The media and television also plays a role.  It is so much easier
    for a kid to sit down and watch tv than it is to do ones homework.
    
    Michele

    basic answer is 'no'
    
    for more details the other answers in this string do a good job

    
    
    > rise in the number of Japanese imported cars
    
      Oh yeah? Whats your source for this info :-)
    
    
    
    David

re: .14
        
    > I have noticed that many men respond defensively to criticisms from
    >woman. Have you ever met men that receive your criticisms without
    >being defensive? And what is it about there personality(in your
    >opinion) that allows for them to here a criticism and not react 
    >defensively?
    
    Part of their reaction to criticism is in how I express it.  Do I
    express it constructively?  Or offensively?
    
    Part of their reaction is inherent in who they are.  Can they hear
    criticism as a contribution to them -something intended to help them?  
    
    
    re: .18
                      -< Why are you feminist ? >-
    
    I am a feminist because I believe women should have the freedom to do
    or be anything they wish to (mother at home, rocket scientist, horse
    trainer, secretary, teacher, programmer, etc.) without getting blocked
    either overtly or covertly in any way.  
    
re: .34
     
>      It's my observation that since woman have entered the work force
>    and not stayed home as traditional mother role types, that the quality
>    in our children has gone down. 
    
    Certainly the less parental time and attention a child gets, I feel the
    less well-adjusted the child will be, and the less able to cope with
    the world the child will be.  This is a function of PARENTAL time with
    the child, not necessarily MATERNAL time. I feel that parents should
    COPARENT, each spending time with the child.  If both work, both spend
    time with the child, as equally as possible.  Parents should share
    these responsibilities if they are both working.
    
    >Educationally since about the 60's
>    we have begun to lag in education, drug use up, etc.etc. 
    
    Part of that is because parents are spending less time with children. 
    Part of that is the removal of the family unit which included
    grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc, and the removal oftentimes of the
    feel of a neighborhood where people know each other, care, and help one
    another.  Apathy is a remarkably effective weapon against caring,
    learning, and growth.
    
    >My question
>    is this, is there a corrolation(sp) between woman leaving the homes
>    and entering the work place and the decline in the aforementioned
>    complaints about todays children? If so what or whom is to blame?
    
    There is a correlation between parents spending less time with their
    children and how the children turn out.  Declining grades are also a
    function of how well-funded local schools are.
    
    Please note, again, that PARENTS include MOTHERS and/or FATHERS (I
    include the and/or for any readers in same-sex relationships).
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  by the way, I feel comfortable expressing answers once.  I doubt
    I would defend them or explain them further.  I'm invested in
    expressing myself, and if you're listening you'll be invested in
    hearing me.
    

    
    
    > expressing answers once
    
       What brought that out?
    
    
    David

    dislike of nit pickers probably

    Men typically require a more precise and more narrowly defined context than
    women. In my opinion, any woman that doesn't understand that and act on
    it in her communications with men, is not making a sincere effort at
    communications but is -rather- harassing.

    RE: .43  Herb
    
    Wow - deja vu.
    
    (See 801.25...)
    

    
    
    -1
       Darn and I thought he was being original again :-)
    
    
    David

.9> anyway, is that your own disrespect for women, which seems apparent in
.9> your your snide spelling of the word "women", makes you a good
    
    Disrespect?

    re:.23
    
    Why do you suppose a word that is supposed to be so neutral in
    meaning starts with a purely female prefix?

.24>  As far as I have been able to ascertain, the spelling "wymyn" or
.24>  whatnot is used only as ridicule.
    
    So, Vick, why do you think some women call themselves womyn?

    re.11
    I find that spelling of women offensive in every context regardless
    who uses it.
    
    Good questions Dave!
    
    -j

    re.34
    I think so the quality of family has gone down with children
    coming home from school to empty homes due to both parents
    working.
    
    As far as respecting women goes I grant respect to all humens
    wether they keep my respect is up to them.
    
    -j

    
     Perhaps society should just drop the man off of woman, so as to make
    them all "wos" 
    

    I think I saw that guy!
    
    He did the routine "I am woman.  You are man.  I am better than you
    because I have the extra wuh."

       re:  Feminism
       
       In the early 70's I thought a Feminist was any woman who burned
       her bra.

       In the mid 70's I thought a Feminist was any woman who read Betty
       Friedan or Germaine Greer and did her best to enlighten people as to
       the inequities.

       In the early 80's I thought a Feminist was any woman who voted for
       the ERA and was willing to do what she had to level the playing
       field.

       In the mid 80's I thought a Feminist was anyone who supported NOW
       and was working politically to change the rules.

       Now it's the early 90's; I don't have a clue as to how you would
       define Feminist.

       re:  Males growing up disrespecting women.

       It's such a complex issue.

       I know a man that grew up in a male dominated household and reached
       age 30 very balanced while his brother has a poster in his house of
       all the women he has picked up and bedded.

       I've known young men who were raised by their mothers that ended up
       heroin addicts and various forms of maladjusted predators.  Others
       have done very well.  It seems to me that half the NFL and NBA
       interviews you see the athletes thank their mother (and often
       grandmother) with no mention of a father.  I should note that some
       of these young men get in a lot trouble with women.  Mike Tyson, the
       New England Patriots fiasco, and many others.

       Dan Quayle grew up in a 'Leave it to Beaver household' where his
       father went off to work and his mother worked at home.  I think this
       type of household represent 7 or 8% of American household today.  I
       think his attitude toward women is not all that great but it's hard
       to tell.

       In my opinion, when you have a society where women are expected to
       look good while men are expected to be successful you are incubating
       imbalance.  When people start off a marriage where the woman is
       paraded around in white and then her father 'gives her away' you are
       sending out strange messages.  When a female comes home and tells
       her parent/s that she's getting serious about some guy, the first
       question that comes up is "What does he do for a living?"  I doubt
       that this question is raised very often when a male comes home to
       his parent/s.

       re:  criticism

       Men and women typically process input differently.  This statement
       is neither profound or new but it amazes me how easy it is to forget
       when one is in the middle of a 'confrontation'.  Criticism is also
       something we typically don't solicit.  There is a story about
       Socrates that he had a wife that we would call a 'nag'.  She was on
       his case constantly.  Some of Socrates' contemporaries asked him why
       he tolerated it.  He was surprised.  He said that his wife was
       invaluable in that if any of his ideas had holes in them she would
       surely point them out.

       patrick

    Patrick, very small nit to an other wise thoughtful note..
    
    While some women may have done so later, no women burned bras in the
    now legendary protest of the Miss America contest, that was a media 
    non event..
    
    Thankyou for your thoughtful reply, btw.
    
    Bonnie

    I have a question that has bothered me since the Kennedy-Smith and Tyson
    trials.  If a man is accused of rape why should his name be printed by
    the media and not the woman's?
    
    Don't you think it would be fair, since he is "innocent until proven
    guilty", that both names should be protected until the verdict.  Or,
    both names should be printed.  I have heard the argument that if the
    alleged victim's name is printed, this may discourage other victims
    from coming forward.  I actually agree with that argument.  However, I
    wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the man who is falsely accused. 
    Or a man, like William Kennedy-Smith, who is not found guilty but has
    to live with a reputation of being a rapist.
    
    So tell me, what should the policy be?
    
    Puzzled Man

    Re: .55
    
    The suspect's name is public information by the law of the land.  The
    victim's name is not.
    
    The problem with printing the victim's name in a rape case is that if
    the victim is a woman, and most of them are, she is assumed guilty
    until proven innocent, and in many people's minds not even then.  If
    our society treated rape victims otherwise, then it might be marginally
    less harmful to the victim to print his or her name.  In my mind, the
    harm to the individual far outweighs any putative public right to know.
    
    -dick

Re: .55

Interesting you should bring this up.  Apparently, Patricia Bowman has been
making the talk-show rounds repeating her accusations against Smith.  She
was asked why the defendant's name should be be released but not the alleged
victim's, to which her response was that it was unnecessary to withhold the
defendant's name because he was innocent until proven guilty.  The writer
of the opinion piece I was reading (Ellen Goodman, I think) then went on to
wonder if that presumption of innocence shouldn't continue after the
verdict.

				Steve

    dick:
    
    By default, if the defendant is presumed innocent, then by default the
    alleged victim has to be presumed guilty of lying.  How else can you
    have it, two innocent people?
    
    Personally, I think more sexual assault education of boys and girls
    should be implemented in schools, colleges, and the workplace.  The
    girls and women should be encouraged to always report the assaults. 
    The boys and men should be given an in depth definition of NO!!!  Until
    that occurs, a victim who hides behind the press, lawyers, and dark
    rooms will always stigmatize rapes.  It is a crime of violence and that
    has to be made an issue.
    
    I found it distasteful for Desiree Washington, Tyson's victim, to run
    behind her lawyers and hide her face.  She didn't do anything wrong!!! 
    If we, men & women, focussed our attention on the assailants, I'm
    certain that the men would cover their faces in shame!
    
    

    re -1
    
    
    I think alot of the reason why she wanted to hide her face
    was mainly due to the fact that it was a very public case.
    However, I also feel that victims of rape are made to feel
    it was their fault and that by hiding themselves they are
    freeing themselves of that accusation or of a chance of 
    that accusation being made.  This has always puzzled me
    how the victims of rape have typically been made to look
    like they wanted it to happen themselves.  It's very sad.

re: .54

>    While some women may have done so later, no women burned bras in the
>    now legendary protest of the Miss America contest, that was a media 
>    non event..

       Bonnie,

       You mean the Media LIED to me!

       Seriously, though, you mean that this famous event never happened?
       This is another of those alligators in the sewers type of thing?

       BTW I'm glad you liked what I wrote.

       patrick

    Patrick
    
    The 'bra burning incident' has been shown over and over to be a media
    fabrication.
    
    so what's new? ;-)
    
    Bonnie

re: .61

       >    so what's new? ;-)

       Bonnie,

       My perception of Feminism has been greatly influenced by the Media.
       In my other note I stated how my views on Feminism changed.  I guess
       my question is has Feminism changed that much or is the Media just
       showing it differently.  By some media depictions the large percentage
       of NOW is Lesbian.  How would I, Joe Curious, know if that's even
       close.  I mean I assume that some NOW members are Lesbian (big deal)
       but where does the Media get this info and why can't I have it too?

       I'm 42 years old.  My recollections of seeing Eisenhower on our
       little black and white TV in the 50's showed him to be a very honest
       hard working 'Protector of the American Way' kind of Father type.
       Later I learned that he was an uncouth tyrant.  The media KNEW of
       the JFK and brethern antics with Marilin Monroe and a cast of who
       knows how many others but kept it from the American Public.  I
       really think that Politicians recreational sexual activities may or
       may not be relevant.  (For me it depends; eg. fooling around in the
       White House pool with your spouse/SO etc. is private stuff.  If
       Hilary Clinton is ok with Bill's escapades, I'm not going to judge
       him.)  I would much rather know what George Bush's part in the
       Iran-Contra 'Arms for Hostages' deal was.

       Sorry for the digression.

       patrick
    

    Re: .58
    
    It's not lying that the rape victim is assumed to be guilty of, it's
    incitement to rape.  By this I mean that the common presumption is that 
    she has done something to make the guy do what he did - dress
    provocatively, get him drunk, lead him on, you name it.  Defense
    shysters make hay in this field, badgering and picking on any possible
    fault.  The victim is treated as the criminal while the rapist is just
    the good boy who let himself get seduced by that bitch.
    
    "Tell me, Miss Victim, isn't it true that you have had sex with several
    men you weren't married to, one of them as recently as last week?  Do
    you not in fact now live with a man who isn't your husband?  Isn't it
    true that you have a history of promiscuity?  Isn't it true that you in
    fact enjoyed yourself with the defendant and then cried rape in the
    morning when you sobered up and couldn't think of what to tell your
    boyfriend?  We have it on the testimony of eyewitnesses that on the
    night of the alleged rape you were wearing a wraparound miniskirt and a
    sexy low-cut tank top - now isn't it true that you were reallyt in the
    bar actively seeking out a man to sleep with?"
    
    -dick

    
    
    -1
    
       What if it's true! Or are all alleged rape victims above reproach?
    
    
                                                         
    David

    re <what if>
    
    It is almost certainly the case that at least once in history a rape
    victim was not above reproach and incited the rape.
    It is almost certainly the case that at least once in the future a rape
    victim will have not been above reproach and will have incited the rape.

    So given that your what-if has been established  what would you like to
    say about it?

   >What if it's true! Or are all alleged rape victims above reproach?
   
    It doesn't matter -- would you ask an assault victim if he were ever
    in a fight?  Would you ask a hit-and-run victim if he had ever driven
    recklessly?  There's no connection between a victim's past behavior
    and the present.
    
    					andrew
 

    in re .62
    
    Patrick I'd encourage you to gets Faludi's book from the library
    it should be an eye opener.
    
    Bonnie

    .24 
    Sorry to do a long shot back. But Vick. The spelling of women/wymin/etc
    IMHO was to acknowledge that they <feminist> where separated from the
    run of the mill woman/girls. And I have had my tongue, hand, and other body
    parts slapped because I did Not spell, pronounce, etc these words
    correctly. And I am under the impression if these words are used in 
    such a manor of degrogation(sp), then those who print them are up for auto
    dismissal from this company. Again, incongruities and mixed messages
    from the feminist side.
    
    Could we create a file/note number to learn how to become politically
    correct as so not to offend anyone? I feel that I have some reasonable
    idea. But to someone new to this lovely note file might not have Clue
    #1 otherwise. And of course no one would want to continue this course
    of sending out mixed messages and incongruities to anyone who is not
    of the understanding. Right?:) 
    
    Geo

    .66
    This note is confusing me. I understand your point made. But as it has
    been clearly pointed out in other notes reguarding rape. I dissagree
    with this statement totally that there is no connection between a
    victim's past behaivior and present. There are many execptions to this
    and the woman of the 'Big Dans Rape Case' was clearly a noted
    execption. 
    
    And there is a man who was falsely accused, spend some 15-20
    years in prision because a 14 year old girl/woman/wymin fingered him
    as the bad guy, and because she has a concense. Went to the athorities
    and told them she was lying! GREAT! When do you come kicking my doors
    down? And falsely arrest me? Whats the difference bewteen a Witch Hunt
    and sending someone up the river falsely? 
    
    Oh by the way! Reciently in New Hampshire they started the Dead Beat
    Dads program. The first two men rounded up, Nazi style, were not
    hiding. They were at the last address known. And One of them was living
    in public assisted housing. IF there should be offence taken here, why
    the Dead Beat Dads? Why not the Dead Beat Parents? Gender biased?
    
    Rous! Rous! Rous! Everybody up for Rooooooll call! Hogan! What are you
    doing with that shovel in your hand? The garden club?..........
    But why are you making a flower bed under your bunks?? ;^)

    Re: .69
    
    The point you are trying to refute is still sound.  Admitted that in
    some extremely rare cases a victim's past behavior bears on the present
    crime against that victim, it is still categorically unfair to assume,
    as many people seem to do, that rape is *always* the fault of the
    victim.  It was pointed out that we do not habitually assume that an
    assault victim or an H&R victim is responsible for being struck, even
    though it does sometimes happen that the victim is guilty of
    contributory negligence sufficient to mitigate the severity of the
    crime.  That the courts allow rape victims to be so callously and
    unfairly treated is despicable.
    
    And the word is "raus" not "rous."  Unless you're referring to the
    Rodents Of Unusual Size in The Princess Bride.
    
    -dick

    Regardless of how it seems to you, I think that a very modest
    percentage of people actually in fact assume that rape is *always* the
    fault of the victim. I think you do your position a disservice by such
    an exaggeration.

    
    
    re .66
    
    George,
    
    It doesnt matter.  If a woman walked bare ass naked down the
    street NOONE has the right to rape her.  And the same with a
    a man or a child.  No means No!!!  Rape is an act of violence
    and nothing else.
    
    Michele  

    re <rape is an act of violence and nothing else>
    
    That is simplistic, and I believe not only false, but also harmful because 
    	it raises the decibel level (on our way to a shouting match)
    	it is so easy to rebut.
    
    
    This is what I said about that in March
    
                <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V4.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 302.41                        Castration                          41 of 110
VMSSPT::NICHOLS "conferences are like apple barrel" 115 lines  14-MAR-1992 16:41
        -< submitted in parallel with .40, which was replying to this >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .39
    <please clarify your statement that sometimes rape is a sexual act>
    <without violence>

    Sure, I'll try to...

    But before beginning, if you feel the need to challenge my reasons for
    answering your question, perhaps there needs to be a separate discussion
    that addresses my motivation. I feel comfortable about my motivation but
    appreciate that many of the readers may not be so inclined. If you feel
    it's important I am willing to address that, but hopefully in another
    discussion. 

    Having said that, I think we need some agreement about the definition of
    the word "violence" and the word "sexual". 

    The definition for "sexual" I find useful is something like the
    following ...

    "sexual activities": activities that use various organs for stimulation to
    			 the point of orgasm. 

    I would include manipulation of the clitoris or the penis, as well as
    various acts of penetration that result in orgasm. I think it might be
    reasonable to expand the above definition to include even those acts that
    do _not_ ultimately result in orgasm, but I don't see any point in doing
    that.
    
    I think it is _possible_, even plausible, to define "violence" in such
    a way that all "Rape" has violence associated with it. Particularly if
    a definition of violence includes such things as "emotional violence,
    intimidation caused by a power imbalance, or seduction using a power
    imbalance as leverage. If that or something like it is the definition
    of violence that you have in mind, then there is no point in reading
    any further; this reply will be unable to convince you that rape can be
    non-violent. Indeed, if I were to accept that definition of violence
    then I would probably agree that _all_ rape has violence associated
    with it.

    I personally find such a definition of violence to be somewhat parochial
    or idiosyncratic; and would prefer to use a definition of  "rape of
    violence" as something of the sort:

     "any and all sexual congress that is preceded by or includes physical harm
    or pain to the victim"

    (This definition leaves a _little_ bit to be desired because it would
    include some painful acts of voluntary adult intercourse where the woman is
    a virgin. I hope this complication can be ignored; it seems irrelevant).

    As a result of the above definition, I think we can accept as an example of
    violent rape a mother who slaps her 6 year old son in the face and says
    "yes, you will do <discretion prevents hypothetical graphic description>
    and you will do it now, or I will beat you with the ironing cord." It has
    elements of violence, pain, intimidation, etc.

    If the activity results in an orgasm for the mother, I believe it is
    reasonable to cite that activity as violent rape WITH a significant
    sexual component (for the mother).

    For non-violent but sexual rape, how about the following examples...

    Rape as it has been defined in this conference has included unwanted
    sex that happens as a result of such things as badgering, intimidation,
    blackmail etc. Although such sex is unwanted it does not have (my
    definition of) violence associated with it. If you understand _such_ acts
    to be rape, then they become additional examples of rape without violence.

    Also, there has been much discussion in this conference of "date rape". I
    think there is wide spread agreement that some "date rapes" are absent
    physical harm. Yet, many people in this conference believe that such
    activities deserves the label "Rape"

    Most states in the United States have laws on the books defining 
    "statutory rape" as (something like) "sexual congress between an adult and
    a minor". The definition of a minor varies from state to state, probably
    from (say) 14 to 17. However, though the age varies, there is uniformity
    that a crime has been committed and that crime is statutory rape. Many of
    these acts take place without violence and _with_ sexual gratification on
    the part of one or both participants.

    A mother climbs into bed with her 13 year old son, hugs and cuddles and
    strokes him gently then proceeds with seduction that culminates in
    intercourse to orgasm for both parties. This event is very unsual, even
    rare, perhaps, but such events do occur. (If you feel more comfortable
    reversing the gender of parent and child, that's o.k.).

    That too is rape (albeit statutory) I think you will agree. However,
    no violence was present. Though there is likely to be devastating emotional
    or psychic harm, there was no physical harm. I think most people would also
    consider the act to have had a significant sexual component.

    One more (only somewhat hypothetical) example, homosexual rape. A
    "fully heterosexual" (whatever that means) man is accosted, knocked
    down and tied up, by two gay -but violent- men (let's say following a
    session in a steroid involved weight lifting session in a local gym.
    The two attackers take the man's pants off and bring him to
    orgasm; then use his body to bring themselves to orgasm. Unquestionably
    violent. Equally unquestionably sexual, and perhaps speaks to the -at
    least relatively- involuntary nature of a male's sexuality. I think
    most men -straight or gay- cringe at the presentation of such an
    experience. At the same time, I think most men would share the very
    uneasy feeling that the scenario is not far fetched.

    I hope that you can agree then that many commonly used definitions of
    rape allow both for the absence of violence as well as the presence of
    sexual gratification. If not, your comments are welcome. 

    But, please, I have spent several hours, composing this answer. I hope you
    will give this reply -and me- the courtesy of some fairly careful
    reflection before responding. If you find yourself responding in anger,
    perhaps some other discussion is more appropriate.

    				respectfully
    				herb

.67>    It doesnt matter.  If a woman walked bare ass naked down the
.67>    street NOONE has the right to rape her.  And the same with a
    
    Do we have the right to laugh?
    
    Or is that sexual harassment?

    re: "womyn"
    
    This originated in the late 70s, early 80s.  It was first used by
    radical feminists who wanted an identity that was in no way linked
    to men (hence the dropping of "man" from "woman").  I have read that
    the majority of those women were separatists (they wanted to live in
    a place that was free of men - analogous to whites who want to rid
    all blacks and minorities from their neighborhoods), but this is not
    certain.
    
    What is certain is that the women wanted to distance themselves from
    men so badly, and in every way, that they altered everyday words so
    that there was no connection to "men" or "man."  Woman was the first.
    
    It's Ok to loathe men so much as to not want the letters m-a-n in a
    word that identifies you, but it's not Ok for people to mock such
    extremism by spelling man as "myn."
    
    Gotta be careful ... some people have no sense of humor.

    RE: .76  Mike Z.
    
    > It's Ok to loathe men so much as to not want the letters m-a-n in a
    > word that identifies you, but it's not Ok for people to mock such
    > extremism by spelling man as "myn."
    
    Loathe men?  Nonsense.
    
    They were trying to get your [generic] attention.  Obviously, they
    succeeded.
    

    re.72
    I visit a clothing optional resort several times weekly and
    about half of our membership is female none have been raped
    (at the resort) even though they are quite naked.
    
    Nudity has nothing to do with it.
    
    -j 

    re:.77
    
    So does a chicken with its head cut off, if it squawks loud enough.

    RE: .79  Mike Z.
    
    >> They were trying to get your [generic] attention.  Obviously, they
    >> succeeded.
    
    > So does a chicken with its head cut off, if it squawks loud enough.
    
    If the attention is gained for months or years, though (long past the
    point where the instances of "mocking" outnumber the original "attention-
    getting" exponentially,) you might wonder why the original event(s) have
    had such a profound impact.
    

    in re .69, George, I seriously doubt that the state of NH called
    their program 'dead beat dads'... It is more likely that the
    title was created by the media. In Massachusetts they highlighted
    the 10 individuals who were the most in arrears in their child care
    payments. I assume that is what New Hampshire did also. I fail to
    see that the fact that no women were included in this list is an
    example of prejudice against men.
    
    Bonnie

    Read and weep. The program is called Deadbeat Dads! 

    
    
    
    
    ...................Dogs that drink from the toilet bowl, next on Ophra! :)

>I fail to
>    see that the fact that no women were included in this list is an
>    example of prejudice against men.

    Perhaps not prejudice against men but it would be nice it the message
    that "it's not just men who owe child support" were given. We have all
    to much in our society that sends the message to children that "men are
    bad women are good" as it is.

    			Alfred

    George,
    
    Can you give me a reference that the *state* called it that?
    
    Bonnie

    Yes, call 603-883-7726 and talk to someone in DHS <dis human services>.

>>                    <<< Note 802.72 by EARRTH::MACKINNON >>>
>>                             -< doesnt matter >-

    
    
>>  re .66
    
>>  George,
    
>>  It doesnt matter.  If a woman walked bare ass naked down the
>>  street NOONE has the right to rape her.  And the same with a
>>  a man or a child.  No means No!!!  Rape is an act of violence
>>  and nothing else.
    
>>  Michele  


       Michele,

       Catherine McKinnon is a University of Michigan Professor who has
       been very politically active the last few years.  Her platform is
       that pornography causes rape and other abuses of women.  This
       platform has been the battle cry for Andrea Dworkin and others to
       legistate anti-porn laws in various states.  She sees rape as
       primarily a sexual act.

       Now personally I think that this is a cop-out.  Ted Bundy brutalized
       scores of women and then he tells James Dobson (prominent Christian
       TV and radio minister) that pornography made him do it.

       patrick
       

    Our local DHS was caught red faced when they rounded up these men and
    both were at the address listed on the poster. When the the local news
    media showed up with the authorities, they found, to their dis belief
    that one of the Deadbeat dads was living in a Public Housing
    building.... And was carted off to the camps where he will be
    interrogated for trying to escape, having an illegal radio, and sporting
    a picture of John Kennedy on the wall of his living room....
    
    
    Roooous! Rooous! Rous! Everybody up! Roooooll call! Hogan..... What
    are you doing with dhat shovel? Your digging an inground pool? Under
    your bunk??         
    
    

    I call em like I see em with the roous.:) And yes, I will agree with
    you on the name. But I yet to see any dead beat moms. And funny, as a
    percentage of them vs the men  in this category. They are higher in
    default then the men as a percentage. And that was from the local
    DHS!:)

    Actually, it's RAUS...

    George, as someone mentioned earlier it is *RAUS* not roos..
    
    and IMHO that was an extremely stupid name for the NH DHS to give
    the program.
    
    Bonnie

    Thankyou Andrew, I corrected my note.
    
    and George, percentage of what? being in default or total $$$ in
    default?
    
    Bonnie

    The that was on both counts. But because men, are in the lower
    percentile of custody, it makes them look bad as an over all. When you
    get into the percentage of who and who, you start to take on a new
    picture. 

    Because women have/do earn a lower wage against the men,
    its harder to get them to pay, or pay fairly because the sexually
    biased way the courts look and men and women and child support. Even
    though my ex pays, it is a lower percentage of her wage than if I were
    paying. I don't care, I am not here to impoverish her. And besides she
    does help out with buying cloths and etc. I would not push the issue.

    If this were a man paying, the courts would hit him max to the wall,
    as these rasputians are. Just talk to the gentlemen who are sleeping on
    a couch, or in the cars out there if you have some doubt about the
    velleity of my info. 

According to the article I read, there were some women considered for the
list, but none met the criteria they had established, primarily that being
that they owed at least a certain amount.

			Steve

    But Steve, that would not take in that percentage of mean income as
    I mentioned earlier. If everything is taken on a percentage basis. Then
    you might find these women on the hit list. But what can I say. I am
    not a member of NOW. 

    
    
    re .1
    
    David,
    I would to ask a question that I have been wanting to ask for quite
    some time.  Since I'm not up on all the latest greatest "correct things
    to call people", I'd like to know why you insist on calling WOMEN
    wymyn.  What is that suppose to mean?  Does it imply that some women
    think that 'women' is a dirty word?  I really don't get it, but I know
    that it annoys the HELL out of me!
    
    thanks!
    
    Cathy (who likes REAL words!)
    

    
    
    ok, so I read past note 1 and found (to my great relief) that I'm not
    the only one who is annoyed by the word WYMYN!  I was most concerned
    that I'd seen this misuse of the English language before in many notes
    and had never seen anyone questioning it.  I thought that the world
    really HAD gone to poop!
    
    I respectfuly withdraw the question.
    
    cathy :-)
    

Re: .94

Percentage of income is a bit difficult to use as a measure when the state
is claiming it can't find the NCP in the first place.  If I recall the
article said that there were very few delinquent NCP mothers compared to
the number of fathers.

Anyway, I suggest further discussion of state "deadbeat" lists continue in
note 781.

			Steve

    
    
    Cathy Pitt,
    
    
     New to the notesfile are we? :-) I accept your withdrawl! Just
    remember to always read thru the notes before you fire away at
    a person, this avoids premature conclusions and conversely(sp) the
    need for a withdrawl, not to mention premature withdrawls,which
    of course is dealt with in another topic altogether!
    
    Sincerely,
    Freud

    Well Cathy, I'm with you.  The spelling of wymyn, myn and humyn really
    annoys me too.
    
    Karen

    
    
    Karen,
    
      I think it's a dead horse now!
    
    
    David           

    
    re .86
    
    Patrick,
    
    I view rape as an act of violence.  I also feel that
    a person's actions prior to the rape should not be included
    in settling the court decision.  When someone says no then
    it should stop.  What is it about the word no that some
    folks just don't understand?  It really is such a simple
    concept.
    
    As for Catherine McKinnons views, to be honest I haven't
    read her book and until the entry was posted didnt even
    know of her or her ideas.  I think she is far from the
    norm as far as what women really think.  Sounds to me like
    she is just trying to pin blame on people which doesnt
    help at all. 
    
    I think it would be far more beneficial if everyone in
    this world would start thinking about each other as the
    brothers and sisters we really are.  When you get right
    down to it, the only differences are the ones we choose
    to point out.  Noone is better than anyone else as 
    human beings.  If we all started treating other with
    respect and caring then we would see alot of the problems
    we are seeing now begin to work themselves out. What
    I see Ms McKinnon's ideas doing is simply throwing more
    fuel on the fire instead of finding ways to dowse the
    fire.  
    
    Michele

    Wow, more than 70 replies since I was reading here last and the 
    spelling issue is *still* the #1 "question for feminists"!  Yes, 
    Cathy, the world has "gone to poop"...again...still...(Always has, 
    always will  8-)

    As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Dyben [and Mr. Rauh, and others of either 
    sex] are free to spell "women" any way he wants to.  It seems
    terribly unfair that only half the population gets all the fun of
    reinventing [or massacring] the English language.

    It seems some people need to a) get a sense of humor, b) apply rules
    fairly, and/or c) differentiate the real, meaningful issues from the 
    endlessly moot nits.  

    IMHO, any persyn can spell wymmyn (or myn!) any way s/he wants to.

    Now! Now! I wish not to get my sorry tush in trouble for anything. I
    just want to understand that if you want us to be politically correct
    lets have a definition note as so we can correctly spell names, such as
    women/wymen/wymin/etc. And to what degree of what you wish us to apply
    to what, where, and whom. I am not here to bully-rag, taunt, or down
    right make anyone ugly at me. 

    Insofar as a sense of humor..... Bhaaa! Haaa! Haa! It comes with the
    turf!:)

    re .72
    <Rape is an act of violence and nothing else.
    re .101
    <I view rape as an act of violence. 
    
    Well, its nice to see progress.
    Please give us the definition of that 'violence' that is ALWAYS part of the
    scene when an adult is seducing a minor.
    Alternatively, you might want to change the statement to read that rape
    is TYPICALLY an act of violence I would certainly concur.
    Until then I think common sense as well as logic compels one to view
    the statement 
    <I view rape as an act of violence> as an editorial statement rather
    than a statement about reality. Of course, one is entitled to take an
    editorial position about most anything, i spose even including
    whether the moon is made of green cheese.
    
    				herb

> *still* the #1 "question for feminists"!

well, Deb, some of us feminists choose not to get involved in certain issues.
that rather makes it not 'our' most pressing issue, no?  careful with your
generalities, if you please.

DougO

    
    
    > well,Deb, some of us feminists choose not to get involved in certain
    > issues.
    
      Whats it like being a man and a feminist? Are you picked on?
    
    
    
    David

not so much that I notice...

DougO

    
    
    -1
    
      What about the other part of the question?
    
    
    David

re:                    <<< Note 802.101 by EARRTH::MACKINNON >>>
                          -< she's far from the norm >-


       Michele,

       Catherine McKinnon's view may not be the norm for women but she is
       very active in various state legislatures.  She has gained national
       recognition as an "expert witness" with testimony for everything
       from the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings to the Nationally
       broadcast nightly news programs.

       She currently is working on legislation that would hold various
       publications and authors liable if the perpetrator says that he/she
       was 'inspired' by what they read or looked at (pornography).  Under
       her definitions the woman in Iowa (SomethingMeyer) that came forward
       in a Newspaper that described her ordeal of being raped, could be
       held liable if a rapist said that he read the article and went out
       and committed rape.

       I see these types of things as axe-grinding.  Rape was around long
       before Pornography.  I agree that viewing each other as spriitual
       brothers and sisters would go a long way to help the problem but I
       don't see that as something happening on a large scale right now.

       Rape is a complex thing.  It can be committed without ever speaking
       a word or raising a fist.  It happens when someone mis-uses power
       over another.  It's an act of control and degradation that uses sex
       only as a vehicle to manifest it's sickness.  In my opinion in order
       to stop rape you first have to stop the power of one over another.

       patrick

    
    re .103 George and .105  DougO,
    
    Silly myn...methinks y'all need a lesson in reading comprehension.  ;^)
    
    ...in particular .103's
    
    > just want to understand that if you want us to be politically correct
    
    	darch (who's about as Apolitical as you can get)

>      Whats it like being a man and a feminist? Are you picked on?
    
    1) Like being an intelligent man.
    
    2) Only by jerks.
    
    Ray

    Ok, I am tired of this crap between spelling it wymyn, women, etc., let cut
    it out.  You people are starting to sound like politicians worried
    about everything but the issues.  The dictionary says women so let's use
    it!!!!!!                                                           
    
    ... Until it changes.

    
    re Freud
    
    NO, I can't always wade through 100 notes while remembering things that
    I'd like to comment on, so no, I won't always withhold comment until
    I've done that. Anyways, it's been my experience that by the time this
    type of conversation gets to 100+ notes, personnel has become involved
    because someones 'rights' have been infringed upon and the topic is
    shut down. And, no, I'm certainly NOT new to notes. It just took awhile
    for that purposful mispelling pissed my off enough to bother getting
    into a tif over it.
    
    For what it's worth, we are ALL   MAN .  No amount of creative spelling
    will change that. 
    But I have commented before on "what's in a name". Apparently, some
    people feel that by rearranging a letter or two in a word, they will
    change something. I guess it all comes down to what's important to you.
    
    And I do reserve the right be annoyed by it. 
    
    Cathy 
    

    	Substituting "y" for "e" or "a" is a disadvantage when presenting a
    real argument about inequality or discrimination; it tends to focus the
    mind on the unorthodox spelling rather than on the argument being
    presented.
    
    	The substitution when the discussion is facetious is as bad since
    it implies that use of "y" means you are joking, which further detracts
    from its use in any serious discussions.
    
    	Could the people who think it has any value explain how they would
    deal with sexual discrimination in France, where the words are "homme"
    and "femme", and "personne" (either a anybody or nobody) is always
    feminine?

    You people need sensitivity training!
    
    Go stand over there ... by that personhole cover.

    
    
    > go stand over there... by the personhole cover.
    
     
       :-)
    
    
    David

    
    This may sound strange, but try to imagine this, please, men:
    
    
    What if people were discussing and talking about men, their qualities,
    what they believe, how they feel, asking questions, wondering what
    motivates them, and the SINGLE SALIENT EMPHASIS in the discussion was
    how to spell "MEN".
    
    How would you feel.  Belittled?  Like someone was missing the point? 
    Like you could be captured and described in 3 little letters as if the
    individual baggage and expectations each person brings to that
    description were *controllable* and *limited* by those three letters?
    
    The spelling is superfluous.  The spelling doesn't matter.  Spell it
    however you wish to feel comfortable.  Chacun a son gout.  To each
    their own.  But please realize that every woman in this world has a
    heart, has a mind, has a soul, has a spirt, has a sincere desire to
    grow and contribute to this world, and often what stops them are
    people's preconceptions about what women should/shouldn't or can/can't
    do.  THAT'S why feminism is important - to help break through those
    obstacles so women will be unstoppable, will be able to achieve what
    they can conceive.  Women are powerful and intricate and remarkable,
    women are angry and gentle and frightened. Women *are*.  Women *exist*.
    And each is different.  
    
    Men are remarkable too, but there are some things stopping women that
    aren't stopping men, and that's what I hope feminism will change.
    There are things stopping men, and they should be broken-through also,
    but that's not what feminism is about.  That's why I asked if there was
    *really* a national organization for men (N.O.M.) and if so did anyone
    have any information about them.
    
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    -1 Jody,
    
     You keep talking like that and I might convert! Well said.
    
    
    David

    .111
    I do not see what is wrong with my question. I wish not to offend
    women/wymin/feminist/etc. IF I has taken this many note reply to get a
    handle on what is Politically Correct is this the kind of mixed messages and
    incongruity you wish to portray? 
    
    IF this faction is a well org machine that we have been eluded to 
    then this question and answer should be simple. But it seems to be 
    otherwise. 
    
    Peace

    re .121  George,

    After what you've related in .68 I can see why we're having problems
    communicating here.  I apologize if my levity of the subject matter
    upset you, but that's the way I deal with a lot of stuff nowadays.
    Anyway, if it makes you feel better, you are not alone.  It doesn't 
    make me feel better, though...I still get disgusted every time I read 
    accounts like yours.  

    Like I said, I am not "politically correct" so don't worry about
    offending me.  If by chance you did, I would discuss it...with *you*.
    Also as I said, "actions speak louder than vowyls", which is my 
    succinct way of saying that I don't care how you spell what...that is 
    not the real issue (as Jody expounded on).

    I don't know about any "well org machine"...I do know about some
    hotheaded radicals who know who to run to and throw tantrums to.  
    I'm not one of 'em.

    I don't speak for any 'organization' or so-called 'community'; I 
    only speak for myself.  And I prefer to do it with humor.  8^)

    O.K. fine. So the answer is still  open to all, the voule game. I am, 
    again, trying to understand if someone says spell it this way vs that. Then
    lets start the ground work to make it understandable as so to build
    bridges vs setting fire to them because we are not communicating.
    
    I am not a radical counter part either, I haven't burt any jocky
    straps, and I have not gone into some defence company and thrown pigs
    blood around to so that I am against wars either. And so.... because
    this is just a discussion, you really don't need to apologize. 
    
    Peace_because_its_better_than_war :^)

    RE 119-JODY
    Yes there is a real N.O.M. It is a nationaly organized male advocasy
    group with around 12000 members and growing daily. I've contacted the
    group in New York and found there is a local chapter on Cape Cod. I'm
    awaiting mail describing the National charter and will pass on info as
    I get it. 
    AS we speak there is an erosion of Mens rights in America. Many far
    reaching policies and legislation are being formulated as we speak.
    Specifically relating to the supreme coarts ruling on abortion
    and congressional hearings on the Grady-Hyde bill wich is the proposed
    Child Support Assurance Act (comprehensive replacement for AFDC). I
    watched these hearings on C-SPAN and found the tone and content to be
    very negative towards men. 
    
    dan d 
    

	re  ::RAUGH

    
>    I am not a radical counter part either, I haven't burt any jocky
>    straps, and I have not gone into some defence company and thrown pigs
>    blood around 

	you're a good myn !   :-)


  	kits

    re .123  George,
    
    Ah ha!!  That's what we need...a jockey strap burning party to
    liberate all you myn from your patriarchal, sexist bonds of male
    chauvinism.  ;^)

    I don't know what pompous personages have been *telling* you what
    to say or how to say it, but if it were me I'd probably thank 'em
    kindly and do whatever I wanted to.  (But then again, I'm a feisty
    old bitch and you're probably not.)
    
    If you're looking for a definitive answer on the "RIGHT" vs. "WRONG"
    'PC' way of spelling, you're asking the wrong person.  That's not my
    schtick.  Language is a puzzle, a game...constantly evolving.  I
    fully expect in the not-too-distant future that we'll see dictionaries
    giving "wimmin" and other variations as acceptable alternatives to
    "women".  Will it become THE ONE-AND-ONLY RIGHT WAY of spelling it?  
    I wouldn't hold my breath...it's an etymological mess.  (But Orwell
    would love it, dontcha think??)

    re:.123
    
    I've burnt a few.  Taco Bell is a killer.

    
    
    Question # 5 ( maybes 6:-) )
    
    
      Does feminism advocate woman having the choice to serve in combat
    or no option at all ( drafted ).?
    
    
    David
      

    I don't know what 'feminism' advocates, I *personally* feel that
    if one sex must be drafted both should be, and that opportunities
    in the services be base on personal abilities not gender, i.e.
    if men are drafted women should be, and that women who are physically
    capable of combat status should be trained for it.
    
    Bonnie

    Re .129: I don't know what NOW's position is. In my view, feminism
    ought to be consistent, but that doesn't mean all feminists think women
    should go to war - many of 'em think _nobody_ should go to war.
    
    Given that the military exists,  I think women ought to have the same
    opportunities - and responsibilities - in the military as men do,
    including combat positions. There may well be positions for which fewer
    women have the physical strength, but those who can do the job ought to
    be given equal consideration for it. 
    
    If there _has_ to be a draft, I think women should be subject to it as
    well as men - but I'd rather there wasn't one.
    
    -b (with thwarted ambitions to be a fighter pilot)

Feminism isn't a particular organization or religion which issues
"positions".  What is "hominism's" position on the subject?

			Steve

    
    -1
    
       I may not have stated it perfectly, but I think the jist of it
    got thru. What I want is the individual opinions of persons claiming
    to be feminists. Sorry to excite you confusable types :-)
    
    > What is " hominism's" position
    
      I spoke with Hom just yesterday. He said women are not on average
    as aggressive as men, are as large,hence why waste the resources trying
    to find those few women that might beat the odds. And besides men would
    have to be re-trained to eliminate there protective instincts(fight
    to save the women) in combat. All this would costy money and lives,why?
    So a few women can say " I slung a 16 with the best of them in Nam"?
    
    
    
  David 

    This sounds a lot like the reasons why Blacks were excluded from
    combat in WWII and earlier. Why not just set up a combat unit
    of the small percentage of women who can meet the combat requirements
    and send them into battle? I'll bet that just like the Japanese
    and Black units in earlier wars such a group will come back covered
    with medals and honors.
    
    Seriously, if white men can get used to Black men in the services
    despite the incredible prejudices then rampant, I think that the
    vast majority of men can learn to accept a woman as another soldier.
    
    Bonnie

    Well Bonnie, In Viet Nam Many became front line fodder. So I guess you
    can throw that one out the window....
    
    Execpt there wasn't any front lines..... Confusing isn't it?:)

    
    Bonnie,
    
    
       
    Why should I spend the money to afford the FEW women that would even
    want to.Hell the enemy doesn't give a d*mn if there fighting the
    most Ethically/Sexually balanced army. Dead is Dead. We need our best
    fighters with the best equipment. We do not need to divert our funds
    to enable a couple of displaced wanna be G.I. JANES into there ultimate
    fantasy world.
    
    
    David
    

>    most Ethically/Sexually balanced army. Dead is Dead. We need our best
>    fighters with the best equipment. We do not need to divert our funds
>    to enable a couple of displaced wanna be G.I. JANES into there ultimate
>    fantasy world.

I think the point is that the best fighters should be chosen, regardless of
gender.  The best fighters are NOT always men!

-Joe

    <What I want is the individual opinions of persons claiming to be
    <feminists. 
    
    Are you sure that is what you want?
    I am beginning to think that what you want is to argue and bicker with
    feminists and that you are using the request for their opinions as a
    way of getting information that you can argue with.
    
    Not that that isn't a reasonable goal. After all it is the very premise
    of SOAPBOX that I heard articulated recently. (I promise, NO sarcasm)
    
    It might have saved a lot of the discussion in these 133 replies if
    people had known what your goal was.
    I have a hunch that several people might not have offered their view of
    feminism.
    
    				herb

    
    
    
    > the best fighters are NOT always men!
    
      Well since there have never been (U.S.A) any women fighters, you
    have about,lets see here, zero divided by, thats it, you have
    zero data to prove this point!!
    
    > I think the point is that the best fighters should be chosen
    
     They already have been. Men (on average) ar larger, meaner,and more
    aggressive than women. Hence we is the cannon fotter of choice.
    
    
    David

    
    
    
    George
    
    "Many" what were thrown out the window? women? men? Blacks? if you
    meant women, how many of them were actually trained combat soldiers?
    and how many died in a proportional ratio to similarly trained men?
    
    David
    
    you aren't spending any extra money to train women... if they are
    already in the service, and if they meet the qualifications for
    combat, then let them be trained just like the men... why do you
    think that the small number of women with the physical strength
    and physique to be combat soldiers would be a waste if they volunteer
    for training... remember the woman in 'alien'? I kind of doubt that
    many armies would refuse someone like her in real life.
    
    and inre .141 if the total number of woman combat soldiers is zero
    is that because none can do the job or none have been allowed to try..
    
    my guess is the later
    
    Herb,
    
    you are quite perceptive....
    
    Bonnie

    
    Herb,
    
    > are you sure thats what you want
    
     My dearest Herbert. My intentions are to ask question and listen to
    answers. I have heard some amazing answers( Jody comes to mind). I 
    really resent that every time I ask a tough question, or play the
    devils advocate someone almost always suspect my motivation( you got
    me buddy I am a closet woman hater) :-) So please, please,please,drop
    the Freudian " Peek a boo I see you " stuff.
    
    a tiny sarcastic
    
    d

    Bonnie, Blacks became the front line fodder of Viet Nam. It was a poor
    mans war. Only the poor/lower class men went to hunt Charlie. Or be
    hunted by Charlie. 
    
    It aint me
    It aint me
    I'm no senator son!

    
    
    > herb, you are quite perceptive
    
      Paranoids more like it :-)
    
    
    David

    Now guys and gals, lets not fight among our selves.

    I remember talking to some 17 year old kid at Pease Air Force Base
    in the very early 70's. It seems that he had been selected by the
    local judge to attend Viet Nam in lew of his past criminal record
    of being caught with some cannabis. Another I had met was sent because
    he had been caught with a minor girl, He being also 18 and fornication
    from some little hay seed town. Both were white, both were sent because
    they were bad boys? 

    Hey, guys, I'm not fighting.... but is there any real reason
    to bar women who are physically capable of combat duty and
    want to volunteer? I realize that they are probably about 2% max of 
    all inlisted personnel.
    
    But what's the big deal?
    
    and you won't get me even into the service, much less being
    fool enough to volunteer to be near battle.
    
    TYVM

    re <perceptive>
    
    thnx Bonnie.
    
    How old do you think he is?
    My guess is he is 22 or so, which I spose explains it.

    Herb, do you mean David Dyben in re 'he'?
    
    dunno, I'd have put him in his late 20s or early 30s... David
    do you want to answer our guesses?
    
    and David, it may come as a surprise to you, but like Herb, I
    perceive your questions as what used to be identified as '\' in
    Soapbox... or stirring up the 'muck' just for the heck of it.
    If I'm wrong my appologies.
    
    Bonnie

    re <do you mean...>
    yes

    
    
     Herb, Bonnie,
    
    
      / not! Age 32!  Herb, you bore me!
    
    
    David

    
    
      Question,
    
      What are feminists,feminism,(individual or group) doing to help
    other women in other countries with the problems they face? Sexism,
    stereotypes,etc,etc.
    
    
    David

    David, I consider myself to be a feminist and, yet, I am against women
    being involved in combat.  I am against it because, while I realize
    there are a *few* women who are suited for combat and would, perhaps,
    even enjoy combat, I honestly believe that most women would not want to
    have to fight and that most are not physically or emotionally suited
    for it.  Of course, I also believe that a lot of *men* are not
    emotionally suited for combat either, but I guess that's beside the
    point!  I'm also against women being allowed in combat because I really
    don't think it's going to make the world a better place if sometime in
    the future, *all* human beings go to war and kill each other, instead
    of just the men, as in the past.  Also, I don't want women to be
    allowed in combat because I'm afraid that it will mean that if there is
    ever a draft reinstated, then women will be drafted, too.  I have an 18
    yr. old daughter and I have desire to see 58,000 19 yr. old girls/women
    of my daughter's generation killed, the way 58,000 guys were in my
    generation - or any number for that matter.  Is it really progress to
    have both sexes killing each other, instead of just one?  It isn't to
    me.  Also, there is the argument that female officers cannot advance
    as high as they want to, unless they have combat experience.  But, I
    don't think the advancement of a handful of women should come at the
    expense of the 19 yr. old girls, mostly minorities and working class,
    who could potentially wind-up getting drafted, and killed, if women are
    allowed in combat.  Personally, I am against the draft for either men
    or women.  
    
    As far as the argument that only women "suitable" for combat would be
    sent to combat, that's baloney.  There have been hundreds and thousands
    of men who were unfit for combat, in their own minds, who have been
    forced to go.  I've seen Full Metal Jacket and The DI and other movies
    about basic training.  My ex-husband was in the marines and he told me
    about basic at Paris Island and how guys who weren't suited for the
    military were humiliated by the instructors.  The military always makes
    sure that a lot of people who aren't suited for combat, either wind-up
    there anyway, or commit suicide in basic, one or the other.
    
    In the final analysis, I honestly believe that the majority of women,
    in the U.S. have no interest in fighting in combat, and I don't think
    it's fair that a vocal minority of feminist attempt to speak for
    everyone, on an issue that could impact the lives of so many women
    in the future.   I really think that men, in general, really are more
    suited to combat than women.  Although, I would prefer that nobody got
    drafted.
    
    Well, David, that's more than you ever wanted to know about my opinion
    of women in combat, I bet.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    I find it kinda    cute... that whenever someone's opinion is a little
    off the rest of the track, that person must be young (read NAIIVE)
    and not mature and wise like everyone else!!!!!!!!
    
    but..back to the note....
    
    cat  (I'm old too, just different!)
     
    

    
    
     Lorna,
    
      Thank you. I may not agree with all that you said but I appreciate
    your well thought ought position!
    
    David

    
    
    > I find it kinda   cute...
    
     Ditto
    
    :-)
    David

It's Friday, so what the heck...

Feminism: The way I attempted to get answers with regard to feminism was to pose
the question (in topic 724) to people who I perceived to be "experts" on 
feminism.  The question was: If we could jump into the future where all the 
goals of feminism have been achieved, describe your vision of the world.  In 
724.108, Suzanne Conlon provided a very thoughtful/reasonable response the gist
of which (to me) was that "competence knows no sexual/racial boundaries".  Now,
I pretty much operate and have always tried to operate with this tenet in mind
but I don't think of it as feminism but more of pragmatism...  It is when 
boundaries are set (both natural and artificial) that we run into problems and
efforts to tear them down fit right in with my sense of practicality,
_sometimes_, and I believe it is part of human nature to test boundaries.

Parenting: The "quest for competence" is fraught with many obstacles 
(boundaries) and some interesting paradoxes.  My wife and I take parenting very
seriously and strive to be "competent parents".  This means we have to set 
boundaries for our children!  As to why children (both boys and girls) start to
disrespect their mothers, I can only offer anecdotal theories based upon my home
and neighborhood.  The first word a child learns is "NO" (first boundary a 
parent attempts to set).  We set this boundary because we Love the child and 
feel it's in their best interests.  Human nature kicks in and the child attempts
to step over this boundary.  In a two-parent home the child has an ally 
(confusion) in the different nurturing styles of Mommy and Daddy.  With a little
bit of lobbying (read this as persistent whining, tantrum, etc.) the child can
usually appeal to the emotional side of one of his/her parents (guess who?).
So, when time-out fails for Mommy, Daddy has to "clean-their-clock".  As the 
child evolves from "rug-rat", through "shark" (constant feeding and movement),
to "yard-ape", and finally to "teen-ager", the "no" coming from Mommy (or any 
other woman) may not mean the same thing as the "NO" that came from Daddy.  In 
the case of male children, the next stage of evolution during/after "teen-ager"
may even be "date-rapist".  Fortunately, my wife's husband is cognizant of this 
potential situation and is working with her to avert the above scenario...

Spelling: "Competent noters" don't have spelling mistakes in their notes or 
replies for they are familiar with DECspell.  A "competent noter" endeavors to
save the reader from having to translate his/her gibberish into something that
makes sense (yeah, I know, even with perfect spelling a note may still not make
much sense).  "Competent noters" care enough to put forth their best and if
there is a utility to help them do so, they will use it.  Would you use the
services/products of Digital Equipment Corporation if all its marketing 
literature had spelling errors?

Women in combat: What makes a "competent soldier"?  What is the theory behind
"basic training"?  Certainly, if I am a part of a fire-team the objective is of
paramount importance even to the extent of sacrificing my own life to the 
success of the mission.  My fellow team members understand this...  Can a women
be smart/stupid enough to understand this?  Can men trust women to cover their
left or right flank especially where some women are so self-serving as to abort
their own children to save themselves?  The flip side is that women who can 
abort exhibit a cold-bloodedness which is ideal for a soldier - these women
can walk point!  The best solution for women in combat as far as equality goes
is not to have any combat so that men and women never need be involved.  But
with regard to war the most "competent army" will usually win.

Folks, have a nice weekend!

    re:.119
    
    It's of little consequence how others spell men.
    
    I prefer the correct spelling.
    
    I actually don't mind having 3 letters in common with ...YUK!GAK! ...women.
    
     ...just kiddin' re: YUK!GAK! in case it wasn't as obvious as a CA quake.

re spell checkers...

not currently available from the notes client I use (xnotes under ULTRIX...)

so I make a few spelling mistakes now and then.  In some replies the
spelling errors are deliberate, intended to project a step-back-and-think-
again warning to people who mistakenly associate poor spelling with inferior
intellectual abilities (ie, the errors are obviously deliberate.)

DougO

    I hereby forgive all your past spelling errors.

    Re .157: Some interesting points. The part about the cold-bloodedness
    of a woman who gets an abortion particularly struck me, especially when
    you compared it to traits useful in combat. What a fascinating
    comparison; after all, a woman who chooses to abort so that she can
    continue to support her already-born children isn't doing anything much
    different than an officer who sacrifices one of his detachments to save
    the rest, is she?
    
    Not all such decisions are cold-blooded, of course. Oh, I'm sure some
    of them are - women are quite capable of cold-bloodedness - but a good
    many of them are not cold-blooded at all. Some such decisions are made
    in total panic, in desperation, in fear. [Could it be that some combat
    decisions are made in similar states of mind?] Others are made with
    great difficulty, after long and serious thought, and at no little
    emotional cost... 
    
    -b

    A question for feminists.

    Why might (some) feminists find it useful to participate in a Socratic
    dialogue with somebody who has identified himself as a Devil's
    Advocate?
    (c.f. 802.143, 801.34)
    
    				herb

    
    -1 Herbert
    
    > in a Socratic Dialogue
    > with somebody who has identified himself as a Devil's Advocate
    
      Well first off let me introduce myself. I am David Dyben. On occasion 
    I will play " Devils Advocate", but never ever do I claim to be the
    " Devils Advocate".
    
    > Why might ( some ) feminists find it useful to participate in
    
      Maybe they hope to lead me from Plato's " Myth of the cave " to 
    the light above?
      Maybe some of them find some good in it like Hobbes said?
    
            " Of the voluntary acts of every man(woman)
               the object is some good to himself(herself)".
    
      
    David

    
re: women in combat
    
    I think if anyone should go into combat, women should be included in
    that group.  However, if women are to go into combat, they should be
    half of the decision-making power that chooses whether or not, or when,
    to begin or continue combat.
    
>      I spoke with Hom just yesterday. He said women are not on average
>    as aggressive as men, are as large,hence why waste the resources trying
>    to find those few women that might beat the odds. And besides men would
>    have to be re-trained to eliminate there protective instincts(fight
>    to save the women) in combat. All this would costy money and lives,why?
>    So a few women can say " I slung a 16 with the best of them in Nam"?
    
    Why should men protect women any more than they protect men - would men
    need women to learn to protect them better?  Who cares about aggressive
    - women can probably be trained to be cold-hearted killers too if
    necessary.  Who needs to be large to push a button, or fly a jet? 
    
>    Why should I spend the money to afford the FEW women that would even
>    want to.Hell the enemy doesn't give a d*mn if there fighting the
>    most Ethically/Sexually balanced army. Dead is Dead. We need our best
>    fighters with the best equipment. We do not need to divert our funds
>    to enable a couple of displaced wanna be G.I. JANES into there ultimate
>    fantasy world.
    
    Look, if you don't want them fighting, that's your opinion.  You asked
    for feminist opinions, so I gave you mind.  If you complain that women
    *should* be in combat, and go on to list myriad reasons they shouldn't,
    that's your mental tangle, not mine.  If you then go on to state women
    aren't in combat because they don't want to be, try thinking about what
    would happen if a thousand men with decision-making capacity on this
    are doing the exact same thought processes you are - making the
    decision FOR women, then complaining that women don't want to go.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Jody,
    
    > power to choose whether or not
    
     Agreed!
    
     Why would men be more protective of women? It's a cultural thing. I
    know growing up my Dad and Mom used to say to me and my 5 brothers
    " It's your job to protect your sisters". I am not saying that it was
    right or wrong but it did create a since of " Woman are to be
    protected, sheltered, etc,etc. With this is mind I THINK men would
    have to be re-trained, that they must let a woman carry her own 
    weight. I don't know quite how to state it perfectly. It's not that
    a woman is to fault, it's the men and their attitudes. Last night on
    the news they interviewed fighter pilots and their trainers, some of
    todays best pilots were trained by a woman. When a pilot(male) was
    asked if he felt a woman should be allowed to take to the air in
    combat he said " No, it would ruin the Esperit Decor (sp??). Why this
    would ruin it  is an interesting topic in itself. Is combat the last
    bastion of manhood? Or the last bastion of sexist thinking?
    
    Thanks for your input Jody,
    
    David
    

    
    > who cares about aggressive
    
      I suspect anyone who has been in combat( I have not) would care
    about it. Perhaps there is someone out there who has been in combat
    and can asnwer that from personal experience
    
    > Women could be trained to be cold-blooded killers
    
     Hence my point about MONEY. Men(on average, with many acceptions) are
    more aggressive. Why? Testosterone? Culture?. As I think about this
    question I imagine my kid sister Joan. She kicked my butt in sports
    on a number of occasions! But when I think of her slinging a 16 and
    maybe getting killed I just would rather leave it the way it is.No
    women in combat. With my previous remarks about my parents request
    to " Protect your sisters" I fully acknowledge this is probably a
    sexist remark. But just the same I would rather she never went thru
    it. Maybe like Sam Keen said in " The fire in the belly" " Men are
    conditioned in ur society to think of themselves as the appropriate
    choice for cannon fodder"( approximately).
    
    
    David

    
    .164
    
    if wimmin wish to lead and make decisions in this system of ours
    they can qualify the same way myn do, by training hard and making 
    the cut.
    
    being female is not a qualification in itself, just as being male 
    doesn't automatically qualify one for command.
    
    automatically allocating roles on the basis of gender or race is
    bigotry in action.
    

    
    
    -1,
    
    > by training hard and making the cut
    
      
     Well I hesitate to speak for the femininsts here,but,it seems kind
    of obvious that if the rules are set to flunk you no matter how good
    you are, because your a woman,there is no way you can make that kind
    of a cut??
    
    
    David

       Since 'Women in Combat' is becoming an old argument I ressurected
       and old note:

            <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 669.8                NOW VP wants women in combat                  8 of 144
COOKIE::BADOVINAC                                    23 lines  24-JAN-1991 15:12
                                -< I disagree >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Molly Yard and other members of NOW have had many profound things to
    say.  For the most part I support them.  Women in combat is not an area
    I agree with them.  I spent a year in Viet Nam and would not wish the
    combat experiene on ANYONE.  Military personell are exploited in ways
    too numerous to mention.  To view combat as a 'career enhancing
    experience' is just so ludicrous.  In Viet Nam I had three friends die
    in my arms and I wasn't a Medic or Corpman.  I flipped out and tried to
    push one of my friends intestines back in his body.  It's a scene that
    took me years to balance out.  The sight of the blood and steam mixed
    with the mud, leaves and organs will be with me forever.  The point is
    that we have to find a better way to settle our differences.  We have
    to find a way to get men OUT of combat, not women IN.  
    
    The other assumption is that women in the drivers seat would make
    better decisions than men.  I see no evidence of this.  Margaret
    Thatcher's invasion of the Falklands seems just as fascist as George
    Bush's invasion of Panama and our current involvement in the Middle
    East.  Golda Meir had the same rascist attitudes toward Arabs as
    Yitzach Shamir.
    
    While I feel strongly that women need much more representation in all
    branches of government, I see no evidence that simply because they are
    women they will do a better job.  

***********************************************************************

       As an update:

       RE: Women don't need to be big and strong to be combat jet jockeys.

       While this is true, the majority of combat veterns were grunt
       soldiers not pilots.  For every combat pilot there are tens of
       thousands of grunt troops.

       RE: The other argument I have heard is that an M16 is a very light
       weapon and so size and strength is umimportant.

       This is also true but it shows a very uninformed position because
       people who make this statement have never carried the AMMO for an
       M16.

       patrick

    .168
    
    In combat, there is no Politically Correct. If you do not meet the
    needed roster, your dead. Very simple requirement. Making the cut in
    basic training will keep us all from attending another funeral.

    
    its more important to be PC even if it gets people killed.

    
    -1-2
    
     So if they make the cut you would accept them in combat?
    
    
    David

    Mr. Dyben gets the prize...I was hoping someone would see past all the
    tangental issues like size and personality, and get to the fundamental 
    reason why we will not (and in fact, *should* not) see women on the 
    front lines of combat today: Society itself!

    Maybe 500 years from now on the Starship Enterprise or Ripley's spaceship
    there'll be co-ed troops fighting the aliens, but in this society
    there's no way we'll see women in the trenches fighting, sleeping,
    living and dying alongside male soldiers (for a variety of reasons...
    including those graphically expressed by Patrick B).

    Do I think gender-based discrimination is right?  No.  But it's reality.  
    And I don't realistically see it changing in the foreseeable future.

    Of course, being of the basically pacifist persuasion, I concur with
    the ideal of getting all people OUT of war altogether.