Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Dan,
    
    Do you have the address for NOM?
    
    Karen
    
    P.S.  If you have it I would appreciate it because I don't want to make
    a long distance phone call.

    Heterosexual???
    
    Who else do they exclude?
    
    Yuck.  Think I'll take a pass.
    
    			- Vick

    
    well i didn't hear that gay men were excluded, rather, that the group 
    was about advocacy for hetero mens issues. big diff.
    
    i suppose that it doesn't matter to those with an agenda though. if
    one tries hard enough i suppose one could find some way to feel
    excluded from just about any group...
    

    What happened to the rules against soliciting?

    This is not a solicitation but an informative note about the existence
    and goals of an organization.
    The reason  NOM wants to be known as "heterosexual" is gay rights is
    an altogether seperate battle and would just muddy the waters. NOM
    doesn't want address the inequalities facing "most men" in society
    and doesn't take a stand on gay rights.
    The mailing address is:
    National Organization of Men
    11 Park Place
    N.Y., N.Y, 10016
    	
    	dan d
    P.S. - Matrimonial issues don't normally affect gay mens lives!

    re .0, it's about time someone started an organization like this! 
    Compared to women and homosexuals and blacks (of any sex or orientation
    - btw, is it open to straight black men, or only to straight white
    men?), heterosexual men have had such a hard time of it in the United
    States.  I'm so glad someone is finally doing something so that their
    needs can be taken care of.
    
    At long last heterosexual men get their due!!!!!  Glory hallelujah!
    
    Insincerely,
    
    Lorna
    

    re .5
    
>    P.S. - Matrimonial issues don't normally affect gay mens lives!
    
    You have no idea.

    re .7
    I don't know too many gay men marrying women, having children, and then
    dealing with the judicial system during divorce and child
    support/custody/visitation negotiations. 
    
    dan d
    

    You're kidding, right Ding??

    The next thing we'll see in Notes are ads recruiting white supremists
    or Texas secessionists.

    Just to take a few things from what you've, er, "learned"...

>    NOM is a Heterosexual male rights organization dedicated to gender
>    neutrality across the social and political spectrum. Simply said 

    Sure, and let's have "color neutrality" and "religious neutrality"
    too.  Hell, we all know there are NO DIFFERENCES between them anyway.
    And of course gay men NEVER get married, or have CHILDREN, or anything
    like that.

>    6) abolish imprisonement for alimony and child support arrears.
>    7) Congressional resolution repudiating affirmative action favoring
>       women over men.

    Aw gee, and after you've gone to all that trouble to make a nationally-
    neutral policy, too...
    
>    NOM recognizes the misinformation campaign being propogated in the
>    media generalizing men in the negative and wishes to initiate the "Mens
>    Library and Research Center" to generate accurate statistics and public
>    opinion to support efforts to remedy the unfairness in matrimonial law.

    Sounds like he borrowed that from one of Chancellor Hitler's speeches.
    
>    founders name is Henry Siller. He's a practicing attourney in New York
>    and writes a mens issues column in Penthouse. He's also had numerous
>    appearance on Larry King Live and other network programs. He truly
>    cares and is dedicated to achieving results. NOM's phone is

    This whole thing is some of the most sexist, bigoted, and downright 
    asinine tripe I've read in a long time (unless of course you didn't 
    capture the elements accurately).

    So sorry this isn't exactly an objective opinion, but I was told TFSO'd
    groups are allowed to disregard all their diplomacy lessons.  I suppose 
    we could send it to our Valuing Diversity folks and see what they think 
    of it, but alas, they SERPed.  

    RE: .0
    
   > The present goals of NOM are as follows.
   > 1) fair national divorce laws
   > 2) fair national custody and visitation laws
   > 3) fair national property distribution in divorce
   > 4) fair national alimony law
   > 5) fair national child support guidlines
   > 6) abolish imprisonement for alimony and child support arrears.
   > 7) Congressional resolution repudiating affirmative action favoring
   >    women over men.
   > 8) national "hot line" for assistance in above mentioned issues.
    
    Hmmm - I'm surprised at the reaction to this.  The only item
    on this list that looks wrong to me is #6 (the area needs major 
    reform, but...).  I'd probably question #7 too since I'm not
    *totally* opposed to AA (I can think of areas were limited use
    of affirmative action is justified).
    
    Frankly, that they want to exclude gay people doesn't bother me
    all that much.  We have formed our own groups to advance gay
    issues.  It *is* rather ignorant to assume gay men don't have
    any problems with divorce/child custody/etc... though.  And if
    family court issues are the main focus of NOM, it would be stupid
    of them to make some arbitrary rule excluding men who not only
    could benefit from modifications in the law, but who also, thru
    their experience in gay rights organizations, could bring valuable
    skills to a new, national men's movement.
    
    /Greg
    

I'm a bit puzzled as to why it was considered necessary to put "heterosexual"
in the group description, but unless I missed something else, I don't see it
as exclusionary.  After all, I'm not a woman but I was welcomed as a member of
NOW.

As long as people don't look to NOM as being THE definitive source for
"men's positions", I wish them all the best (though I too think that some of
their goals are just a bit absurd.)

				Steve

    re .10, what bothers me is that the group that has had the most rights
    in the U.S. since the country was founded - straight (white) men - now
    think they have to start a group to insure their rights.  Why?  Because
    women and minorities *and* gays have finally started to get some
    rights, after straight (white) men have been running things all along.  It
    really bothers these men that they aren't totally in control any more
    like they used to be.  It really bothers them that women and minorities
    and gays are finally being heard in this country and they want to make
    sure that straight (white) men stay in control.  This is the way it
    looks to me, anyway.  (of course, as the saying goes, not all men, but
    always men)
    
    I believe that Affirmative Action is needed in this country.  Without
    women and blacks still wouldn't be able to get decent jobs.  Women
    still only earn something like 60 cents to every dollar earned by a man
    in the US.
    
    I, also, see no reason why men who refuse to pay child support
    shouldn't be jailed.  Why not?  
    
    I realize that there are many injustices during divorce that are unfair
    to men.  However, I think this is the only area where men are getting
    the short end of the stick in the US.  I have nothing against child
    support payments and child custody being made more equitable for men,
    however the rest of the rhetoric makes me livid.
    
    Lorna
    

    NOM uses "heterosexual" to set itself apart from "GAY RIGHTS" per say.
    Please understand that gay parents who are interested in democracy and
    equal rights between "men and woman" will be welcomed. NOM just doesn't
    want to become a forum for "gay rights". 
    	dan d
    

    RE: .12 (Lorna)

    To be honest, I was attempting to be as fair as possible towards
    the group.  The cynic in me agrees with you that this *may* be
    nothing but a strident plea by militant "men's rights" people
    to revert back to the 19th century.   The rhetoric bugs me too.

    Truthfully though, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt...
    
    /Greg

    I asked for information about this group in the N.O.M. note and was
    referred here. After reading Lorna's reply I not only will join this
    organization, I will contribute as much money as can. Thanks Lorna for
    helping me make up my mind. Lorna, people like are the very reason why
    men need an organization to protect their rights. Darch, your note is
    not worth critiquing, it's to full of hate for men ( white men in
    specific ).



    			Wayne
     

    RE .12
    Afirmative action is a good thing until one individuals rights is
    superceded or eroded by anothers. The justice system is full of
    incompetent justices who try to impose their individual moralities on
    the public and use their power for "social engineering". I beleive the
    pendulum swings in American democracy and it's up to us to kick when
    it' swings too far in any one direction.
    		dan d
    

    re .15
    
    Wayne, as a white male friend of Deb Arch's let me say that you really
    must learn to recognise such things as sarcasm and irony in notes.  Deb
    is not a man-hater, regardless of what she thinks of her ex-husband.:-)

    re .15, thanks, Wayne.  I appreciate the vote of confidence.  And, I'm
    not kidding.  If you think little ole me could actually be seen as a
    threat to the straight white males who run things, I'm pleased.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Lorna,
    
    > Why? Because women and minorities *and* gays have finally started
    
     No! Because white males are being disrciminated against solely on
    the basis of their sex and color. I don't know about any of the other
    men in here but I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth.Yet, I
    am automatically categorized as belonging to a group that has oppressed
    (name your favorite minority). This smear(sp) campaign constantly
    chooses the negative side of SOME men's behavior as proof for why
    we still need to treat WASP males as BAD PEOPLE. I guess it's Tom Sawyer
    and the white picket fence with a twist " Bad bad boy, you are all
    guilty so you should come here and paint the fence".
    
    
    David

    re .18

    	I don't think of you as a threat, just a reminder of how unfair
    things could be if people who think like you had their way. The day of
    your kind of screeching rhetoric is coming to an end, thank god.



    			Wayne

    
    
     Wayne,
    
      I am joining NOM, but not cuz of Lorna :-)
    
    
    David

>    I, also, see no reason why men who refuse to pay child support
>    shouldn't be jailed.  Why not?  
    
    	Do the words "debtor's prisons" conjure up any ideas why not?
    
    larry

    
    
    -1
    
      Ditto. Possible solution for parent strapped and unable to
    temporarily pay Child support,let them access their social security
    bucks for one year. Having gone thru a divorce I know first hand 
    what a pain that first year is. 
    
    
    David

    Re: .13    NOM uses "heterosexual" to set itself apart from "GAY RIGHTS"
    per say.
    
    Then why don't they say "WHITE" to set themselves apart from "MINORITY
    RIGHTS" per say?  Why don't they say "ABLE BODIED" to set themselves
    apart from "DISABLED RIGHTS" per say.  Why single out gay men?  I think
    it's because the organizers know that NOW is (wrongly) thought by many
    of the kind of men they want to attract (and pay dues) to be a lesbian
    outfit, and they want to make sure that all these manly men whose
    money they want won't be frightened off by the analogous possibility
    that NOM is a gay outfit.  The word "heterosexual" is there solely for
    the benefit of the homophobes in their intended audience.  That one
    word is a bright red banner to me that says far more than the rest of
    the verbiage.  That red banner says to me "I would be embarrassed to
    see my name on their roster."
    						- Vick

I don't imagine from that agenda that NOM is a threat to anyone.

What intrigues me about this discussion is the huge dichotomy between
Wayne and Ding's and NOM's concerns that all white men are being smeared
in some sort of national campaign, and Lorna's perception that all white
men run things and are now banding together because their power base is
threatened by the empowerment of other groups.  This dichotomy isn't at
all new, of course; it has run through many of our discussions here in
mennotes.  Underneath all the bluster gleam spots of truth on both sides;
yes, some white men feel unfairly castigated for things they've never done,
power they've never had; and yes, some powerful men do feel threatened,
and will gleefully make pawns of organizations like NOM to fuel backlash
against women, gays, blacks, and other minorities.  

No, that doesn't mean I think NOM is doomed to be used; but that is certainly
a possibility.  NOM will need men who are extremely well informed about the 
politics of empowerment in this country to avoid placing themselves into that
situation where they are used to fight a rearguard action against others, to
maintain the status quo that the powerful prefer.  They'll be kept ignorant
and powerless if that happens.  It took NOW years to establish themselves 
and set their own agendas; they've always been an easy target and only with
great difficulty has the leadership renewed itself periodically with fresh
blood and fresh committment to the dreams of equal opportunity for all women.
NOM should expect an equally arduous path if they hope to reach anywhere near
the same goals for men who are currently disempowered in our society.

DougO

re .12:

>    I realize that there are many injustices during divorce that are unfair
>    to men.  However, I think this is the only area where men are getting
>    the short end of the stick in the US.

Have you read the article (posted somewhere in here) about spousal abuse?
If you think the authorities don't take wife beating seriously enough,
take a look at husband beating.

    RE: .26
    
    Wonderful note, Doug - wonder if both sides will step back from
    their own points of view long enough to see the truth in it...
    
    /Greg

    
    
    811.26
    
     Just a wee bit to much conspiracy theory in your note. Hows about
    the real reason this group is forming is the need to end a perceived
    injustice, period !
    
    
    David

    re .28, I like your note, Doug, and agree with it.  Just one thing,
    though, I don't think "all white men run things."  I think *all things
    are run by white men* (at least in the US) - big difference, right? 
    :-)
    
    re .27, of course, I think it is wrong for a woman to beat her husband,
    however if you were to check the statistics on how many women have been
    killed by their husbands, in the US, this year, versus how many men
    have been killed by their wives, I'm sure you'll see that male to
    female violence is still a much bigger societal problem than female to
    male violence.  
    
    re .20, I doubt it, Wayne.  We've only just begun to fight.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    David,
    I'm not a heterophobe.  I'm a bigotophobe.
    
    				- Vick
    

    re .41 
    Lorna,
    	You might try reading 432.3 as previously mentioned.  It confirms
    what I've read previously in saying that violence including spousal
    murder is pretty much a 50/50 proposition.  It does tend to go against
    the conventional group-think and the stuff you get from the media.
    	One thing I've noticed is that when a man kills his spouse it is in
    every paper in the state.  In New Hampshire I know of two cases where
    women have killed their sleeping husbands (and claimed the "battered
    woman defense") where the case didn't make it past the local paper.  
    In the latest one the children testified that the woman was the abusive
    partner, and that the murder was the culmination of a long string of
    abuse.
    						John
    

    
    The last time an organization of white men appeared to assert
    and separate themselves from the "others" -- women, gays, foreigners,
    Jews, they were called the Nazis.
    
    Very similar situation going on now.  Hitler's agenda was to go back
    to "family values," and oppose the "new woman" movement that had grown
    in Germany at that time.  Many scholars feel the Holocaust was the
    backlash of equal rights in Germany.
    
    sigh.
    M.
    

    
    What's wrong with non-WASP wanting a piece of the pie?
    
    Gawd, the WASP (or whatever dominant group) have had 100% of it for so
    long, why can't everyone else get say, 50% of it?
    
    Can you imagine a boardroom, or congress, or some other powerful
    organization being 50% non-WASP?
    
    Lisa

    
    
    811.37 was meant for Daly -2.
    

>     Just a wee bit to much conspiracy theory in your note. Hows about
>    the real reason this group is forming is the need to end a perceived
>    injustice, period !

The 'real reason' the group is forming?  I'm sure that's what you think;
I see a lot more in such social phenomena, though, and it requires no
conspiracy theories to see that while not all white men have power in
this society, some white men have most of the power.  No theory, just
fact.  And c'mon, is it at all hard to picture some of those pushing 
a group like NOM because they imagine it will help keep them secure in 
their power?  Making sure they get press coverage, and anonymous cash
to fund their activities, and similar sorts of help.  If you don't know
the way politics is played in America, I'm not going to try to explain
it to you.  But if NOM is naive enough to imagine that powerbrokers won't
try to manipulate them, they'll go nowhere, fast.

DougO

    
    
    > I prefer a broader picture
    
     I suspect you prefer your own drawings! Even if their are puppeteers
    behind the NOM pulpet,so what? We are fighting back for reasons that
    mey help us to keep the power, and hells bells thats what it's all
    about isn't it? Unless of course were going to play the altruistic
    game of shame!
    
    David

>    We are fighting back for reasons that
>    mey help us to keep the power, and hells bells thats what it's all
>    about isn't it? 
    

    
    
     -1 
    
      Why thank you. I suspect that anyone with the guts to really admit
    whats going on deserves to be quoted..Now if the other groups could
    just can the moral guilt trips and just say " We want power " I would
    respect that also..
    
    David  ( and you can quote me again there Davis) :-)

    RE: .42
    
    I take it you don't believe in a win-win situation?
    
    It's all just a con game?   If women "win" they will subjugate
    men?  If blacks "win" they will enslave whites?  If gays "win"
    they will persecute straights?
    
    Is that what you really think?
    
    /Greg

    re .41, .42, what the heck do you think people have been saying. 
    You're saying you (straight WASP men) want to keep the power, and some
    of us are saying it's time to share the power with women, blacks, gays
    and other minorities.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .43, if that's the way they've played the game all along, it's
    probably tough for them to imagine any other way.  It's sad.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    -1
     
     No. We can have a win/win if we go to a meritocracy system,coupled
    with certain other things..
    
    David

    
    
    Lorna,
    
      So we should just give up the power for the sake of those warm
    fuzzy feelings yah get when you do something right?? Some may well
    argue that they earned the power by working their butts off to get
    to the top, and then some little voice at the bottom of the heap
    cries " FOUL, FOUL, we have noticed that msot of you are such and
    such a type, foul"..
    
    David

    What would these certain other things be?
    
    Ray

    re .47, a lot of women and a lot of black men have worked their butts
    off in this country and they didn't get any power to show for it.  If
    you think the only reason straight white men have all the power is
    because they worked harder than women and black men then you and I have
    nothing more to say. 
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    Ray,
    
     First let me say this, the very definition of "Best" or " Merit" could
    be prejudicial. Their is prejudice in saying " All applicant must have
    a high school degree" if a group of people knowlingly attempts to send
    a certain minority the least amount of funding. On the subject of
    "Other things be", I would insist that whatever is considered a
    meritable(new word I think:-) ) thing,say, education, must be
    accesible and equitable to all( as an exapmple).. If we are going to
    grade you on x,y,z, then everyone must have a fair shot at training,
    learning, etc, to be the best at those things! Level the training
    fields, but come the olympics(interview process) it's the every
    person for themselves and may the best person win.. I didn't state
    this as clearily as I would like, let me sleep on it and I will
    see if I can do better in the morning :-)
    
    
    David

    
    
    Lorna
    
     I'm not saying that there is no injustice from the top,I am saying that
    the vocal minority is wearing it's tired cliches out, the fields are
    fairly leveled out, it's time to play golf without that super handicap
    now, and may the best person win!!
    
    
    David

    David,
    
    RE: .50  That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
    
    I think where things get sticky is where somone says (as you do
    in .51) - that the playing field is now even, and someone else
    (a 14 year old black kid in the south bronx for example) says that 
    it ain't.
    
    Naturally the midst of the worst recession in decades isn't
    exactly the best time to talk about this sort of thing.  Everyone
    is on edge about their jobs, lots of people are out of work...and
    when that's the case, no one wants to hear that someone *else*
    might be worse off than they are.   This is prime time for the
    fascists, that's for sure.  Any reading of history will tell you
    that much.  So there is valid concern when *anyone* targets a 
    specific group or movement as the cause of all misery.
    
    Secondly, we have made a lot of progress and it has been very painful.  
    People are tired.  No one wants to keep hearing about this stuff forever.  
    It's only human to jump at every sign of progress, to hope and pray and
    in some cases, *believe* that those sign-posts are goalposts, that
    we've made the touch-down, and that *finally* we don't have to fight 
    anymore.
    
    But racism and sexism and homophobia (for lack of a better term) still 
    exist in our society.  How do we continue to break down such barriers 
    without pushing people over the edge?  Without swinging the pendulum too 
    far in the opposite direction?  How do we do it without having some folks 
    think that for others to be raised up, they have to be pushed down?
    
    I really don't know...
    
    /Greg
    

    re: .35 (Daly)
    
    So, according to you this organization is the moral equivalent of the
    nazis, eh.  Us white men just want to lead all those professional
    victim types into some massive genocidal program, complete with
    concentration camps and Arbeit Macht Frei signs out front, just so men
    can get a fair shake in divorce proceedings.  Talk about brushing a
    group with a broad stroke of hysterical colored paint!  
    
    You one real piece of work there, mr./mrs./ms.  M.  
    
    Sigh, indeed.
    
    Mike
                                                                      

    
    Greg,
    
     You made alot of good points. Thanks for your input. I will think
    about what you said.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    TDF
                                 p.s.The alcohol didn't work, but the cold
                                 shower did :-)

    
    thats right lorna, you have nothing more to say, seeing as how
    you see this as a zero-sum game of taking rights away from some
    people on account of their gender and ethnicity. 
    
    you really need to get some help for your, er, hate problem.
    

.26>in some sort of national campaign, and Lorna's perception that all white
.26>men run things and are now banding together because their power base is
    
    That perception is pretty much the partyline in WN, maybe that's
    why Lorna believes it.

.32>    I'm not a heterophobe.  I'm a bigotophobe.
    
    Let's see, people in an organization of heterosexuals are bigots,
    and those in an organization of homosexuals aren't.
    
    Sounds a bit asymmetrcial, if you ask me.

    Oh, I don't know, Mike.  There are lots of asymmetries in life, like the
    imbalance in power between men and women.  I never said you couldn't
    have your organization.  There are lots of organizations that have the
    right to exist that I would be embarrassed to belong to.  The KKK for
    example.  The NRA.  Young Republicans.  I couldn't tell you if an
    organization for gay men is bigotted or not.  I don't even know the
    name of any gay men's organizations.  I just can't think of any good
    reason to limit the scope of a "National Organization for Men" to
    heterosexuals, except bigotry.  And there's another subtlety there.
    Maybe by claiming to be for heterosexual men, the organization is saying 
    that it's target is women.  That doesn't give me any friendlier
    feelings about the group.  
    						- Vick
    						

    I bet you know the name of at least one organization for gay men;
    NAMBLA.
    
    Mike

    Truthfully, I've never heard of it.  What does it stand for?
    
    					- Vick

    Vick
    
    It is a fringe group that is largely disowned by the main stream
    gay/lesbian community. The initials stand for the North American
    Man Boy Love Association. It's views do not represent that of
    the majority of the gay/lesbian/bisexual community, but they are
    often used as a way to 'tar' the main stream.
    
    Bonnie

    Thank you.
    
    This string is pathetic...poor white men working their butts off and
    are afraid of losing their power in this country.   Watch the news
    why don't you?  Do you see a lack of white male power in the
    government, in the media?  So what's your beef?  You can't stand the
    idea that some of the other *people* in this world (women, blacks,
    gays, etc.) may also want to have some say in this world, how their
    lives are governed?   
    
    The reference to Nazis is a direct comparison out of a text book, no
    less, of what happened then as compared to what is happening now in
    this country.
    
    You remind me of the little boys who cling to mommy everytime she tries
    to make conversation with someone else, or do something for herself.
    You want all of the attention all of the time.  Surprise surprise. 
    Things are changing and this NOM (NOT!) organization is not going to
    be able to stop it.  Too many of us "others" are angry to put up and
    shut up any longer.
    
    M.
    

    re .51, David, I don't think the playing field is even yet.  It's far
    from even.  How many blacks and women run major corporations in the US? 
    How many are in politics?  Women still make around 60 cents to every
    dollar earned by men in the US, over 50% of the women, how work in the
    US, earn under $20K a year (I find that appalling!!!), most black kids
    born in the inner city - especially boys - have NO prospects for any
    kind of a future, the average straight American is still uncomfortable
    at best with homosexuality, the average male high school graduate earns
    an equivalent of the average female with a bachelor's degree!!!  Where
    *is* this mythical even playing field?  In my opinion it doesn't exist
    yet.
    
    Lorna
    

    The best indication that a group like NOM is needed is the negative
    response it's getting here.  
    
    We have a non-violent, advocacy group drawing hostility from others. 
    We have the predictable but not very original comparison to the Nazis
    and we have the hysterical fringe predicting doom for motherhood and
    apple pie.
    
    I'm trying to imagine this much negative type being generated against a
    lesbian/gay/animal-rights/vegetarian/visible-minority/whatever advocacy
    group.  I'm also experiencing deja-vu because I seem to remember
    similar crap being flung in the direction the NAACP or feminist groups
    since the sixties (although I'm much too young to remember those days
    clearly).
    
    It's about time there was a group like NOM.

    re .55, I didn't say I had nothing more to say to you.  I said I didn't
    have anything more to say to Wayne, because it's obvious he and I
    disagree.  There's a lot more I could say to you, if I felt like
    wasting my time.  Hate?  I don't hate anybody.  I'm just making a few
    observations to the less observant members of the human race.  I think
    you're the one with the hate problem.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .67, for those of us who haven't been down on the farm recently it's
    tough to really relate to what you're talking about.  Ya know, David, I
    don't really *know* how calves act when they're cut off...
    
    Lorna
    

Probably somewhere between the two lies the truth ...

But I confess to leaning more towards Farmer David's view
of this than Farmperson Lorna's

..Lee

Come on, Lorna.

After having read some of your notes in Womannotes, I
expected a better retort than that!

...Lee

    
    >>Gay rights and goals are simply not the same(enough so) as straight
    >>males goals. 
    
    
         David:  I don't believe you have any clue as to what the goals of
                 "gay rights" are.  (I hate that phrase!)  If you'd be so
                 kind as to inform me (us) of those goals, perhaps we can
                 discuss why they are so different from the goals of this
                 group.
    
    

    
    Lee
    
    > than Farmerperson Lorna's
    
      :-)
    
    
    Farmer David   

    well let's remember baby boy cows (bulls) also bleat for their mother's
    teats.
    
    At any rate, you boys can have all the clubs you want (I mean that's 
    historical too isn't it?); let's just say the premise on which this
    one is based, is in a word, moo.
    
    Elsie
    

    
    
    > well let's remember baby boy cows(bulls) also bleat for their
    > mothers teats..
      
      Yes they do! That is until they grow up and stop milking it for 
    all it's worth :-)
    
    > let's just say the premise on which this one is based,is in a
    > word,moo
    
       I think " Moot" would have been a better choice for the ending
    word there partner.
    
    >Elsie
    
      Nice meeting you Miss Elsie.
    
    
    Farmer David

    Dave
    
    Do you object to laws which protect gays and lesbians from
    discrimination in jobs and housing?
    
    Bonnie

    
    Bonnie,
    
      Could you please elaborate what your talking about, what
    laws??  Off the top of my head I think that Gays unlike blacks,
    are not a readily identifiable minority,after all I've told by
    so many Gay friends that I wouldn't believe how untrue stereotypes
    of GAys are..
    
    DAvid

    RE: .63

    Out of a text book?  What the hell kind of textbook would spout such
    nonsense as equating an organization like NOM with Nazi Germany.  Or is
    that your radical interpretation?

    You know, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Daly, no reasonable person is looking to deny
    people their civil rights, or the provide as level a playing field as
    possible so that all may have an opportunity to the pursuit of
    happiness, regardless of what some of the other noters have said in
    this string.  However, my read of certain radical elements is that they
    are not interested in a level playing field.  Rather, they are
    interested in using their new-found political power to tilt the field
    in their direction as much as they can get away with.  An organization 
    like NOM, is interested in seeing to it that in the haste to make up
    for lost ground, the former so-called oppressors do not now become the
    oppressed.  

    Unless, of course, you are one of those folks who think that white
    males have oppression congenitally hard wired into the species, and
    that victim groups are not capable of oppressing anyone. 

    re: .NAMBLA
    
    Bonnie,
    
    Yes, I know it is an evil organization and that mainstream gay and
    lesbian people do not subsribe to its tenets at all.  Mostly, I thought
    perhaps Mr. B was being a bit disingenuous, when he said he didn't know
    of any Gay organizations, so I thought I would test him.  Since he
    professed ignorance of NAMBLA, I suppose he might still be acting
    disingenuously, but I'm inclinded to give himm the benefit of the doubt
    and say that he is on the level.
    
    Mike

    David
    
    As it is now, gays and lesbians do not have legal protection if
    they are fired for their sexual orientation, or if they are
    thrown out of their housing. Further committed gay/lesbian couples
    cannot marry nor can they get health insurance for their partner.
    As I understand the proposed law in Colorado, it would prohibit
    any law being passed to protect gays/lesbians/bisexuals from 
    discrimination such as I've mentioned above.Do you think that such a 
    law should be passed?
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, Lorna and the rest of the " you got it I want it" crowd.

    	If I have all this perceived power and you want some do it the old
    fashioned way EARN IT, cause I'm tired of giving away what took me and
    others so long to earn ie: my money, my rights, my safety on the
    streets, my retirement ( divorce can take this ), a job ( bottom of
    the list here simply because I'm white, hetro, and male ). In short I
    want to keep want I worked for, I don't look for a free lunch.

    	Lorna, your stats are skewed and inaccurate. If you didn't know
    that, then go read how those stats were originally arrived at. If you
    knew they were no longer applicable then you are merely using the BIG
    LIE technique.


    		Wayne 

    Wayne
    
    Many people have tried to earn what you have earned but had doors
    shut in their faces because of their gender or color or handicap.
    But I expect that you are in so much pain that you can not see
    beyond your own situation. 
    
    I'd like to see a win-win situation where everyone has an equal share
    of opportunities to achieve. But as long as people react to any
    attempts to deal with inequality of any kind as an attack on what
    they have then we will never get there.
    
    I'm sorry that your vision is so narrowly focused, but it is your
    vision and I respect your right to hold it.
    
    Bonnie

    and that is all you see, not the misery and pain that blight others
    lives..
    
    I pity you

    
    
    > and this is all you see
    
      No! I would support legislation making jobs and housing gender,sexual
    orientation,neutral. But no quotas.
    
    > not the misery and pain that blight others
    
      I was born 3rd of nine children, I remember the hungry nights, I 
    remember when I became addicted to drugs, and most importantly I
    remember when good friends(gay, straight and otherwise) began to
    teach me that " I was the only one that could save me" . So please
    Bonnie do spare me your altruistic droppings!
    
    > I pity you
    
       Please don't, it's the worst thing you can do for a person,just
    look at all the pity junkies in the world..
    
    
    David

    David
    
    I wasn't looking for quotas in the above, just asking if it
    was fair to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
    Nothing that I mentioned involved putting more 'load' on
    atlas's shoulders, nor should it cost you money... I see
    no reason why gays/lesbians should not have the same rights
    to jobs, housing, insurance coverage etc that hetersexuals. do.
    
    I do pity those who are so affraid to lose what they have that
    they shut out compassion for others.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    > that they shut out compassion for others
    
      Bull! I guess this is where I am supposed to talk about my several
    gay friends, and lay them down at your feet as an offering or proof
    that " I CARE".. If you would re-read my previous note you would
    see that I do abhore discrimination, it's just that unlike you
    I can feel for the white male with 4 mouths to feed who got turned
    down for a job BECAUSE HE IS WHITE!!!!
    
    Don't Bleed on me
    
    David

    sigh
    
    unplugg your ears and your heart and try and realize we are all
    in this world togther

    
    
    -1
    
       What???? Oh my God we are all in the same world together?? Holy
    shoot, I did not have a clue,thank you Bonnie, thank you for setting
    me straight.. Oh what can I do to thank you, hey I know what I can do,
    I'l take the blame for all the problems in the world?? Okay??
    
    
    David

    I'm not ever sure we are on the same planet, much less talking the
    same language.

    David,
    
    I'm bowing out of this conversation, I find you to be angry,
    abusive, insulting and lacking in compassion. I don't think we
    have any common areas of communication at all.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
     I was just kiddin about the sanity check. But if you were offended
    " I apologize". Please continue in this discussion..
    
    
    David

    David,

    		Don't you realize Bonnie has switched gears and is now
    laying a guilt trip on you. That is what happens when someone of her
    political persuasion doesn't want to acknowledge your reasonable
    points. Tacky tactic Bonnie. I have given more than my fair share to
    people in need. We all have the same rights, what you and others want
    is special rights for approved groups. I am all for our rights being
    applied even handed, I am adamantly opposed to special rights for
    certain approved groups, that is what you and others don't get.



    	As far as women in Congress, elect them, your gender is 52% of the
    voting population.


    	As far women in board rooms across America, work hard and earn it.
    No positions by default and quota.

    	You want to be payed more, work hard and earn it.

    Other minorities have come to this country ( Irish, Italians, Jews,
    Chinese, Koreans, Japanese to name a few ) have made it in America. It's
    possible if you work hard, but you have try not cry.

    	Please don't stereotype me, you don't know me or my experiences.


    			Wayne

    
    
    > Don't you realize Bonnie has switched gears
    
      :-) 
    
    
    David

    Wayne
    
    As to the guilt trip, you are wrong. Further, you don't understand me 
    or my motives either and I get rather tired of your sterotyping me through 
    your own narrow blinders onto the world. It is my opinion that this
    would be a much better world to live in if we all made an effort to
    look out for our brother and sister as much as we look out for our
    selves. 
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie is right.  Listen to her and learn, people.
    
    Mike

    Bonnie:
    
    It would seem he's enamoured of Ayn Rand. 

    I'm awful surprised you came back.
    Seems as though once burned twice cautious didn't work
    How about twice burned thrice cautious?
    
    

    Thankyou Mike and Herb
    
    Bonnie

    Herb
    
    I'm not sure who you are referring to in the 'you came back', me?
    
    and I'd find it rather amazing if an Ayn Rand character could be
    defined as a communist, she was a virulent anti communist.
    
    Bon

    
    
     Howard Roark was a " Libertarian"..
    
    
    David

    p.s. 
    Bonnie:
    
    I have a hellava lot more sympathy for W_linville than some others.
    Some of the others are just plain nasty in my opinion.
    I believe Wayne genuinely feels put upon. And is pissed.
    I also believe that he would like a small place where he can exercise
    his biases. Sort of like how women exercise their biases in =wn=
    Not to be ...

    'you came back' you
    
    re Ayn Rand 
    i know
    I also know that Howard Roark was not a communist.
    

    I think you are right about Wayne and I have compassion for him.
    and I think everyone has the right to have access to a group of
    similarly minded people with whom they can share thoughts, recieve
    support and socialize if they wish. I draw the line when that
    group causes harm to others who are not part of the group.
    
    Bonnie

    Then if you meant me, because I don't feel 'burnt', frustrated,
    unlistened to, annoyed, saddened, any of those, tho.

    Bonnie,
    
    	I have two brothers and two sisters, no more. I do things for other
    people out of compassion and a desire to help. I do them because I want
    to. If someone tries to force me I will resist, that is my nature. What
    the political left seems to me to be doing is forcing me to give the
    fruits of my labor to someone I may deem undeserving. I do have the
    right of choice as far as who will receive from me, in my way of
    thinking. That right has eroded with social engineering, I want it
    back. What we need in this country is opportunity not handouts. To allow
    someone to succeed you must also allow them to fail. There is no such 
    thing as a win/win situation, the best we can hope for if we are to 
    remain a democratic society as opposed to a socialistic society is ok/ok
    situation. To be a free and dynamic country there will always be a top 
    and a bottom, if there is nothing to aspire to then we will fail, just like
    the USSR.   
    
    
    		Wayne

    I was enamoured of Ayn Rand too (when I was 20)
    
    I suggest that admiration of Ayn Rand correllates pretty well with
    young men who are intellectually full of themselves. At least that was
    the case for me as I sailed across the Atlantic at 20 engrossed in her
    books.

    .81
    
    You EARNED your safety on the streets?!! 
    
    Really, just how did you do that?
    
    Can a woman EARN her safety on the streets too?!!
    
    And how would she do that?
    
    And why do you think, you're being asked to give up your "rights"?
    
    fooey.
    
    m.
    

re: <<< Note 811.110 by CSC32::W_LINVILLE

Very clear, very honest, very clean (unloaded) - I like the style.

And I agree with much of the content.

Awesome!

    So, Ms. M.  You gonna answer the questions I posed to you in .79?
    
    Mike

    I wonder if perhaps he "earned his safety" on the streets of Viet Nam. 
    
    There are two typical emotional attitudes adopted by people who "made
    it the hard way"
    
    One is 	Arrogance
    the other 	Compassion.
    
    Not sure which is more common

    Mike
    
    We already talked about that one by mail, are you dissatisfied
    with my answer or wondering if she thinks the same way.
    
    ;-)
    
    Bonnie

    .88
    
    That's what women do --- bleed.  
    
    
    M.

    Wayne
    
    I appreciate where you are coming from, I just draw the circle of
    my compassion and those I wish to help differently that you do.

    Bonnie,
    
    I understood and accept your answer, as far as it goes.  I was just
    wondering what Ms. M. has to say, if anything.  After all, she is the
    one who offered up the nazi simile.  I just want to see her defend it.
    
    Mike

    
    
    What I guess I find most troubling about this discussion (and other
    similar ones that have taken place before) is the MISUNDERSTANDING of
    what it means when, for example, some advocates "gay rights".  Other
    than a small mionority fringe element, folks who advocate gay rights
    are NOT requesting that gays be given special treatment or rights. 
    They simply want to ensure that gay people are given the SAME rights as
    other people -- it is simply the case that now gay people ARE routinely
    discriminated against.  It's no different, in my opinion, when "women's
    rights" is discussed -- equal rights is the cause, not special rights.
    
    Only my opinion.
    
        GJD

	I think that many men are tired of the victims of the
  victims. Every time we turn around some new fringe group is 
  screaming about being victimized. I used to listen because those
  groups of people lead by the Martin Luther Kings had a real 
  honest to goodness bitch. And I agreed with them and I wanted 
  to see them have their day. And I wanted them to have the 
  opportunities to earn those material things they we denied.
  They didn't want anything other than an equal opportunity. They
  never asked for perferences......white men who carried huge loads
  of guilt wanted things to be given away. Give things to people 
  they don't earn and soon they won't work to earn anything. Pretty
  soon they just "want".....much like welfare. 
	Then women came along and burned their bras. Hey fine by me.
  They wanted equality. No problem. They wanted equal access. Yep.
  Then they wanted into men only clubs....I got a bit cautious, but
  I understood what they meant. Now they use terror tactics to get
  what they "think" they deserve. Rape, harassment, abuse are the new
  words that are used to gain "empowerment". 
	I see an ugly backlash coming. I personally hate it, but it's
  already starting. It's just the beginning. As more and more men are
  pushed out of the job market by employers fearing reprisal for non
  minority hiring, minorities are going to become targets for these
  displaced men. What I see as starting now is an increase in domestic
  viloence, more violence against gays, women, jews, and other fragment
  groups that have been vocal.
	I also see hate and revenge in some the women who are running 
  for office. My sense is that some will not get elected simply because   
  too many men see them as a direct threat. 
	As I heard the other day....a woman said "Men are going to find 
  out...paybacks a bitch." A man standing nearby stated to me....
  "That bitch's gonna find out quick who writes the checks."

	Ken

    Ken, just a nit, the 'bra burning' is an urban myth... and 
    in regard to the whole backlash thing, I suggest you read
    Faludi's book, a lot of the 'backlash' is the creation of
    right wing men who want to put women back in the kitchen and
    out of the job world. There are people who wish to divide
    fair minded people by creating the 'big lie'.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
    There are also a lot of men who are tired of hearing themselves blamed
    for all the ills of the country, and who are sick of hearing about how
    much power they are supposed to have.   I am a white male, but I feel
    very little responsibility for the actions of those who deny other
    people their rights.  I feel compassion for those whose rights are
    denied, and I'm willing to help those people obtain redress.  But I am
    not going to take responsibility for something I haven't done, although
    the professional victim types think I should, simply because of the
    gender and race to which I happen to belong.  And I resent that, very
    greatly.
    
    Having let loose my tirade, I know that you, personally, are not one of
    these people against whom I am railing, Bonnie.
    
    Besides, that's what you get for leaving me the opening!  So there.  :)
    
    Mike                                   

    Thanks Mike and I pretty largely agree with your point of view. I'd
    like to encourage others to read Blacklash btw, so that they can
    see how men and women of the middle class are being pitted at
    each other as enemies rather than as allies against those who
    want to turn the clock back to a time when oppression was more the
    norm.
    
    Bon

    The truth is we are all fighting against the same enemy. The "system
    has been taken over by thosre with power in america - money is power.
    
    What's happening is we're all fighting about our little piece of the
    pie. Just as long as we don't have a say in what the flavor of the pie
    is we can continue to have some. 
    The bill of rights is all we have to protect our ability to change the
    system. "WE" have to band together to create meeningful change. 
     those in power continue to manipulate information to keep us
    squabbling amongst ourselves so we don't create enough focus to do
    achieve true enpowerment. 
    Violence is violence, regardless of the perpetrator. Rights are Rights
    and that piece of paper is all we've got at the moment. 
    Unfairness and injustice breed hopelesness and desperation. 
    American society is still an "experiment". Nothing like it has ever
    existed before and it's up tu "US" to make it work.
    
    Not preaching just voicing,
    			dan d
    

    re: .124
    
    That part about people being pitted against one another is a good
    point.  I will put the book on my reading list, just don't ask me
    about it for at least another month, hokay?
    
    Mike
    

    Those who can speak so elequently about people being pitted against one
    another have a _particular_ responsibility to avoid pitting.
    
    We don't need any more pitting contests

    In college we had a particular course offering which dealt with
    "power" groups and "disenfranchised" groups.  The class was divided
    in 1/2 to each catagory.  The "power" group had instructions that it
    could treat the disenfranchised group in whatever manner they deemed
    necessary and the disenfranchised grp could only say no if the request
    was deemed morally repugnent.  Halfway through the class, we switched
    groups...the results were interesting...the original disenfranchised
    group treated their power predecessors at least 10 times worse than
    they had been treated.  
    
    I feel there are many men who are tired of hearing about how all
    straight white males have all the power etc, because they feel just
    as powerless/disenfranchised as the rest, and to make matters worse,
    they feel personally targeted by such phrases and I can see where that
    leads to much resentment.  I honestly believe that the average Joe
    really doesn't wield more power than the next person,, be it woman,
    gay, lesbian, African American, or any other minority group.  I can
    see such a person feeling threatened because they are being railed 
    against for something they DON'T have and see much of what they worked
    for being taken out of their reach because of acts/ways of being which
    they are not responsible for.  And I think there is a genuine fear that
    if WASP's were to LOSE power (not the difference, not share, but 
    completely lose), the newly unoppressed would treat the newly oppressed
    more harshly, whether they fit the catagory or not.
    
    Christine

    
    
    GJD
    
      Would you please restate 811.120. I don't understand what you
    are saying..
    
    
    David

    Christine,
    
    		Now that is something we sould all think about, and guard
    against happening. Very good point.
    
    
    
    		Wayne

    
    
    I guess I'd ask you read "it" again.  Gay people (for the most part,
    myself included) don't want "special rights", we want "equal rights". 
    Technically, we have them (according to the constitution and all that
    stuff), but we are regularly denied them.  I have LOTS of friends who
    have been denied housing, jobs, etc., only because they are gay.
    
    Clear?
    
       GJD

    Please don't distract this conversation from that of NOM to that of a
    "gay rights/non-rights" discussion.  There's already enough distraction
    from what was otherwise becoming an interesting dialogue on the
    substance and/or strategy of NOM.  To let this issue of "gay rights"
    dominate is to give credence to an earlier note concerning gay people
    turning NOM into a forum for their particular cause.

    Back to NOM and it's goals/aims/strategy?

    Bubba

    
    I think NOM could be great if it did stuff like propose joint wokring
    groups with NOW to propose improved divorce, custody, vistation, and
    child support systems.  Be the leader for working together in gender
    free proposals.
                                                                     
    Then again this is a time I get to feel like I'm from Mars (I think
    that topic is in =WN=) for wanting such an effort ... such a
    cooperative effort won't happen in my lifetime in the US.
                                                     
    Greg
    

    A laudable goal, but considering the extreme Liberal political stance
    that seems to be dominant in NOW, I, likewise, see little hope for such
    a dialogue.  At least not unless, and until, NOM becomes a political
    force that NOW cannot ignore.  For now, they have no reason to confab,
    it seems.
    
    Mike

    not as long as each thinks the other is the bad guys

    
    
    811.133
    
      I think it would be nice if women and men could work together. For
    now tho I think men need to help men. It would be a good thing if we
    had work shops on helping men to be better husbands/boyfriends, to
    help men who are abusive to their mates STOP etc etc..
    
    David
    

    I also feel that it would be nice to have a truce in the game. But so
    long as special groups with their personal agenda wish to cram their
    agenda up the back sides of the men as a faction. The more your gonna
    see the sleeping dog wake up and take a bite out of them <special
    folks>. And thats a sad thought. 
    
    Safely behind the keyboard
    Geo

    and George, part of the problem is people who see 'craming an agenda
    up the back side' when ever someone sneezes.
    
    sigh

              
    NOW stands, not for the National Organization of Women, but for the
    National Organization *for* Women. Men can and do belong to NOW, and 
    work very hard along with women towards the goal of equal rights for women
    and men.
    
    Dorian

    Bonnie, Please help me understand. Explain.

    George, you almost always appear to see malign, negative, etc motives
    in people's esp women's actions. If a woman brings up something
    remotely negative to your point of view, it seems to me that
    you immediately accuse her of 'shoving the femist agenda up your
    backside'. Try and listen more often and don't jump to such
    conclusions immediately and perhaps there will ensue deeper
    understanding on both sides.
    
    Bonnie

    re .142 Bonnie
    
    Problem is Bonnie, that some of us are already getting a "deeper
    understanding".  At least we are starting to look beyond the
    retoric to what is really going on. 
    
    I'd listen more if I weren't so preoccupied by my sore backside ;^).
    
    fred();

>    
>    As it is now, gays and lesbians do not have legal protection if
>    they are fired for their sexual orientation, or if they are
>    thrown out of their housing. 

Do heterosexuals?

Just how much context do you want people to include as disclaimers in
every sentence, Joe?  If one accepts Kinsey studies numbers, then 10 percent
of the population is gay, more or less, for the purposes of the discussion; 
how much discrimination will the society as a whole perpetuate on the basis
of sexual orientation when 90% are one flavor and 10% the other?  In short,
when the statement is made that gays want equal rights to protection from
discrimination for orientation, and you ask "Do heterosexuals [have such
protection]?" you are equating the experience of discrimination of the 90% 
with the experience of discrimination of the 10%.  Your implied comparison
is faulty, the contexts are not equal, and your question is ignorant.  Care 
to ask it again, but this time, with some small demonstration of appreciation 
for the context?

DougO

    
> with the experience of discrimination of the 10%.  Your implied comparison
> is faulty, the contexts are not equal, and your question is ignorant.  Care 
    
    hmmm ... I'm not sure ... what if a gay publication refuses to hire
    someone because thy are straight ... can the hetersexual sue becaue of
    discrimination because of their orientation?  I don't think that is an
    ignorant question.
    
    Greg
    

>is faulty, the contexts are not equal, and your question is ignorant.  Care 
>to ask it again, but this time, with some small demonstration of appreciation 
>for the context?

Please keep your (not so) veiled insults to yourself.  Thanks.  


So, are you claiming that any of the 10% group cannot (and do not) 
discriminate against the rest?  If laws are made to prevent discrimination
based on sexual preference, then they must ALSO include discrimination
against heterosexuals, which last I heard was also a sexual orientation.

    re .147
    
>discriminate against the rest?  If laws are made to prevent discrimination
>based on sexual preference, then they must ALSO include discrimination
>against heterosexuals, which last I heard was also a sexual orientation.
    
    This is logically invalid.  There is no necessity for discrimination
    against heterosexuals in laws which prohibit discrimination on the
    basis of sexual orientation.

    I find it amazing how certain people will do anything to stop or
    curtail a discussion on white hetro males.


    		So far I've read people here called, fascists, bigots,
    ignorant, homophobe, and I'm sure there some that I missed.

    		The ones doing the name calling are the sensitive value my
    diversity people. That is the key "value them" cause they sure don't
    value me and my heritage ( they sure want my money for their programs
    though ).


    			Wayne 
    

Ignorance is curable, Joe, there was no insult implied if you're educable
on the topic.  However, the rathole you opened has gone too far to suit me, 
I won't chase you down it any further.

re NOM, I made my opinions known in .26.

DougO

    
    
    re .149
    
    
    Wayne,
    
    The view I get of you from the notes you have entered is that
    you feel that minorities are going to take directly from you
    that which you worked hard to get.  I can agree with you
    not wanting things taken away as I think that is a natural
    reaction.  If I worked hard for it, then its mine, and its
    my choice whether or not to share it with you.  It seems
    to me like  you feel a direct impact hitting you.  
    
    Now being a women and having worked hard to get where I am
    I can tell you I don't want anyone taking away what I worked
    hard to get either.  However, the work I did was just as valid
    as the work you've done.  I am tempted to say that I had to
    work maybe twice as hard as you to get where I am just because
    I am female.  I went to engineering school and got shit from
    my professors because of my sex.  Not once did I hear a joke
    with sexual content with the victim being a male. Hell I
    was even told by one prof. that I had no right being in his
    class and I should be home making babies.  When I got into
    DEC I found my opinions weren't as readily accepted though
    if I told them to a male and he voiced them there was no 
    problem with the acceptance.  Has this happened to you just
    because you are male?
    
    I feel you are looking at this issue as a direct assault
    on you, and are not looking at what the others have gone
    through to get the little bit of equality they have today.
    Why is it that I still do not make the same amount of money
    that a male makes?  The degrees may be the same, as is the
    quality of work, and the time of service, yet the pay is
    different because of my sex.  What is the justification?
    What is the problem with making that equal?  How would that
    directly affect you or your job?
    
    I am not saying give me your job because I am female and
    AA states I can take your job because you are male.  What
    I want is to see sex taken completely out of the picture.
    Women and minorities are working just as hard, and in many
    cases harder, to get to the same place you are and to go
    further.  Yet the barriers set up by the original holders
    of the positions (which were typically male due to the
    fact they were the ones who were allowed to work) are still
    in existance.  It is these barriers that AA needs to knock
    down.  That is a hell of a task because noone wants to
    have something they value taken away from them.  
    
    I can understand your defensive position.  I hope you can
    understand mine as well.
    
    Michele

        re .151

    		The two highest paid in my group are women so I don't see
    it the same way you do. The women I have worked with at DEC were paid 
    the same if not better than their fellow employees.

    		My take on pay is: "Equal work" equal pay. "Unequal work"
    unequal pay. I would like to see real fairness across the board which
    would exclude special interest groups.


    			Wayne

    
    
    Michelle,
    
     Michelle,
    
       Well said. I believe their is discrimination in the world, and
    that it would not go away by itself. But, where is the finish line?
    When are we even? Is it like someone else in here said " When there
    are no little kids in the Bronks growing up without hope"? Or is it
    when all Profs in college pulls their heads ought? You see so much 
    is now being tied onto the Affirmative Action band wagon that their
    is a feeling it will go forever, and forever (real or not) feels like
    a long time for the white male who is slowly but surely loosing his
    place in society

    
    
    -1
    
      Michelle x 2 (oops sorry)
    
    
    David

>Ignorance is curable, Joe, there was no insult implied if you're educable
>on the topic.  

YOu seem to be assuming that >>I<< am the one needing education.

>However, the rathole you opened has gone too far to suit me, 

What rathole?  Sure seems it was on target. 

    Refusing to hire a person because he's straight is just as bad as
    refusing to hire a person because he's gay.
    
    Sorry, folks, but equality isn't a part-time concept...

.155>YOu seem to be assuming that >>I<< am the one needing education.
    
    Joe, Douglass is right, you need re-education.
    
    Please report to the Center For Attitude Realignment Monday morning.
    
    Those neanderthal ideas of yours, like no special treatment for gays,
    well, they've got to go...

that's no assumption, Joe, thats my opinion, take it or leave it.
on-target of course depends on where you want to go, and where I
plan to go is not down your rathole.  Sayonara.

DougO

>that's no assumption, Joe, thats my opinion, take it or leave it.

Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  As for yours on this matter, I'll 
leave it.

    >Refusing to hire a person because he's straight is just as bad as
    >refusing to hire a person because he's gay.
    
    Good.  Then we agree that there should be a law protecting anyone from
    discrimination based on sexual orientation.  That will help a lot of
    lesbigays and a few hets.  I'm all for it.
    
    					- Vick

    
    
    Vick,
    
     Nope! The current laws prohibiting discrimination rapidly turned into
    discrimination against white males! Discrimination against gays is
    wrong, but the cure is worse than the disease. It bothers me that our
    best legal minds attempts to solve the problem of discrimination can
    come up with nothing better than "  An eye for an eye". Makes you 
    wonder why we call it the " Supreme court".
    
    David

.160> Good.  Then we agree that there should be a law protecting anyone from
.160> discrimination based on sexual orientation.  That will help a lot of
.160> lesbigays and a few hets.  I'm all for it.
    
    We actually agree on a lot of the basics.
    
    Where we usually diverge is on issues like when a group refuses to
    hire a white heterosexual male because he's white or not gay or a man.
    
    Do you agree that's wrong?  For example, if a gay publication staff
    was looking for an editor, would they be justified discriminating
    against a heterosexual who was a homophobe, but who could, and was
    willing to do the job?

    Should the NRA be required to hire a pro-gun-control person for an 
    editorial position on their magazine if he is in all other ways
    qualified?
    
    I don't think that a gay organization should be able legally to ask if
    an applicant is gay.  But perhaps it's okay for them (depending on the
    position) to ask if they are prejudiced against gays.
    
    					- Vick

    Gonna answer the question?

    No, I'm going to play your game the way you do.  - Vick

    
    
    The only difference I see between this organization and FAIR
    is the AA issue.  Are the laws with respect to family law
    specifically worded in such a way that it actually spells out
    who gets what with respect to gender?  Are they actually going
    to try to change the laws or are they going to try to change
    the attitudes of the judges who ultimately decide who gets
    what?  
    
    It is my understanding that the laws are worded using custodial
    and non-custodial parents and are not specifically worded as
    mother versus father or vice versa.  If this is actually how it
    is, how does NOM propose to change the laws themselves?  

    One of the major problems in this arena is judges have way too much
    latitude in interpretation. Each state has their own statutes regarding
    matrimonial law. Certain woman freinds of mine tell me that Mass is the
    most amiable toward woman and many woman file for divorce here for that
    very reason. The 50/50 division of property is all but ignored when
    there are children involved. Not to mention the ease of filing
    restraining orders to get the hubby out of the house without any of
    his "stuff"( Too many horror stories from freinds to ignore this one).
    The strategies to this point have been to attempt to get the two
    parties into mediation and hope they can reason a fair settlement but
    this leaves the statutes untouched. The only solution is to make this
    problem a political issue. To do this requires organization and funding.
    That's where NOM comes in. The membership can target hearings and flood
    those in power with correspondence to bring this issue forward. 
    The Lgal Defense Fund can help support appeals of targeted cases to
    force the systems hand but without political pressure there is no price
    to pay for ignoring the call for justice, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY! If
    anyone out there has any ideas about how PLEASE SPEAK UP! 
    My understanding is there is suppose to be public hearings on all
    legislation before it can be brought to the floor for a vote in this
    state.(Am I right or wrong?) Presently there are no "Politically
    recognized Non-Custodail Parents Representation of significance nor are
    there any "real statistics" that tell the true story about custody,
    child support and the like. "COMMENTS PLEASE"
    				dan d 
    

    
    
    Dan,
    
      I contacted the NOM organization in New York. They are sending me an
    informational package on starting my own local chapter here in Colorado
    Springs..
    
    David

    re:.165
    
    Hmmm ... really? Have I ever refused to answer a question?
    
    I was just curious, Victor, and even if you don't want to answer
    .162, I'll still answer your questions.  See what a nice guy I am?  :')
    
    But first I want to make sure you realize that our questions are
    different : I asked about being able to discriminate and you asked
    about being required to hire.
    
    Do you understand the difference?

    
    Well I called the NY number this morning and gave my name and address
    to a young wimmins who said she'd pass it along to "the ones who send
    out the information."
    
    BTW, our ex-Oz pal Mr. Simpson is correct. At a recent farewell TFSO
    get-together, after I was told I "gave good hug" we had a good laugh 
    about Darch-the-'man-hater'.  8^)
    

    No, I don't see the difference.  If you are not allowed to
    discriminate, then you are required to hire or face the penalties that
    will likely ensue.  That's all I meant by "required", you know, like 
    we are required to obey the speed limit.
    
    So I'll change me question, if you like, so that you might answer it.
    But answering questions with questions is in the fine tradition of
    Socratic dialogue.  So you don't have to answer mine, and I don't have
    to answer yours.
    
    Hang on, I've got to go back and find my question.  See you in a
    subsequent reply.
    					- Vick

    >Should the NRA be required to hire a pro-gun-control person for an 
    >editorial position on their magazine if he is in all other ways
    >qualified?
    
    Should the NRA be allowed to discriminate against a pro-gun-control
    person when it comes to hiring, if that person is in all other ways
    qualified for the position?
    
    					- Vick

    re:
    
  >  <<< Note 811.12 by DELNI::STHILAIRE "No Guru, No Method, No Teacher" >>>
  >  re .10, what bothers me is that the group that has had the most rights
  >  in the U.S. since the country was founded - straight (white) men - now
  >  think they have to start a group to insure their rights.  Why?  Because
  >  women and minorities *and* gays have finally started to get some
  >  rights, after straight (white) men have been running things all along.  It
  >  really bothers these men that they aren't totally in control any more
  >  like they used to be.  It really bothers them that women and minorities
  >  and gays are finally being heard in this country and they want to make
  >  sure that straight (white) men stay in control.  This is the way it
  >  looks to me, anyway.  (of course, as the saying goes, not all men, but
  >  always men)
  >  
  >  I believe that Affirmative Action is needed in this country.  Without
  >  women and blacks still wouldn't be able to get decent jobs.  Women
  >  still only earn something like 60 cents to every dollar earned by a man
  >  in the US.
  >  
  >  I, also, see no reason why men who refuse to pay child support
  >  shouldn't be jailed.  Why not?  
  >  
  >  I realize that there are many injustices during divorce that are unfair
  >  to men.  However, I think this is the only area where men are getting
  >  the short end of the stick in the US.  I have nothing against child
  >  support payments and child custody being made more equitable for men,
  >  however the rest of the rhetoric makes me livid.
  >  
  >  Lorna
  >
    
    I hardly ever respond to this file, but this one I can't let
    go by....
    
    You don't want equal right Lorna you want supremacy. How
    many lashes would you like to give me because I'm a white
    straight male? Would you like to stone me in public too???
    
    I will give you credit though for one thing though, at least
    we know where you are coming from. It would seem that alot
    of people with your view hide behind politically correct statements.
    
    I felt discrimination when I went though my child custody battle.
    I had to prove that I was a good parent, but it was assumed that my 
    ex was. The judge in our case could have cared less what I thought,
    but was very concerned that my ex's needs be taken care of. And
    all I wanted to do was be a good parent. Should I have been punished 
    for that because I was a white male? Fortunately my ex had 
    more sense and understanding than it appear you have. 
    
    
    We will never fix the discrimination problems in this country
    as lonmg as people have the attitude that you have. They will only get
    worse.
    
    Mark
    

    <You don't want equal right Lorna you want supremacy.
    
    I know that not to be true, so I belileve I can say with complete
    honesty -and accuracy- ...
    You do not know what you are talking about.
    
    You may FEEL that is what she wants.
    You may even FEEL that is what the women's movement is all about
    We are better off not translating how WE feel into what other people
    want or don't want.
    It not only is not more acceptable, it also looks kinda foolish (i
    think)
    
    				herb
    p.s.
    or did you expect that everybody would understand that .173 was
    hyperbole?

    RE .173
     Alright Mark. Your experiece and many others like yours is what NOM is
    all about.
    Gender Neutral decisions,Equal Protection under the Law, Fairness
    instead of persecution.
    This idea that "straight white men" are attempting to get their
    supremacy back is a bunch of crock. It's the elite conservatives that
    are the problem and they are the smallest minority of all. THEY WANT
    IT THAT WAY!!  As I mentioned earlier all of us are fighting for
    equality and fairness in an American society that is becoming dominated
    by well-funded special interest. Money is power in the present system.
    Liberty and Justice have to become the dominant theme. 
    			dan d
     

Everybody knows that Archie Bunker rules the world.

    
    
    > Everybody knows that Archie Bunker rules the world.
    
     Nah! Edith divorced him and got all his money. Long live Emperor
    Edith!!
    
    
    David

    
    
    Herb,
    
    > I know that not to be true
    
      We only know her thru the notes, and from this medium it seems 
    a fair opinion a justifiable conclusion.( re Supremacy)..
    
    > You may FEEl that is what she wants
      I believe he THINKS that is what she wants..
    
    
    David

.172>  Should the NRA be allowed to discriminate against a pro-gun-control
.172>  person when it comes to hiring, if that person is in all other ways
.172>  qualified for the position?
    
    Absolutely not.
    
    Your turn ...

    
    
    re .173
    
    >I felt discrimination when I went through my child custody battle.
    >I had to prove that I was a good parent, but it was assumed that
    >my ex was.  The judge in our case could have cared less what I 
    >thought
    
    Mark clearly this shows that the judge has the attitude that needs
    to be changed.  Is NOM going to change the judges ideas on how
    life should be for children?  And if so, how?  
    
    It sucks to be discriminated against because of your sex.  Women
    and minorities have been feeling this pain for quite some time now.
    Noone should have to feel it though.
    
    >All I wanted to do was be a good parent.  Should I  have been
    >punished for that because I was a white male?
    
    Noone should be punished because of thier sex.  Clearly you feel
    you got the short end of the stick in this case.  Did your children
    get the short end as well?  Afterall, they are who the judge is
    supposed to be looking out for.  Please understand, I feel that
    children should have equal access to both parents unless a parent
    is bringing harm to the children.  I grew up without a Dad for
    the majority of my life and it affects me in so many different
    ways.  
    
    Have you done anything with respect to this particular judge?
    Isn't that the first place to start?  To change or try to change
    his/her views on what really is best for the children.
    
    Agreed on the point that things will get worse until all this
    blaming stops and we try to find common ground.
    
    Michele

.172>  Should the NRA be allowed to discriminate against a pro-gun-control
.172>  person when it comes to hiring, if that person is in all other ways
.172>  qualified for the position?
    
.179>    Absolutely not.
    
    
    Then we just very simply disagree.  I don't believe the government
    should get involved at that level.  I think it should concern itself
    only with matters that cause or promote social injustice.  People
    in all walks of life can be either pro- or anti-gun-control and people
    in all walks of life can be either pro- or anti-gay-rights.  I don't
    see social injustice arising from a gay rights publication requiring
    a pro-gay-rights leaning in it's employees, anymore than I can see
    social injustice in a software organization requiring that someone
    applying for a programming position like computers, or fits in with
    the group, or is willing to abide by dress codes (not at DEC of course
    :^).  However, in my opinion, it would be wrong for a gay rights
    organization to require that it's employees be gay.
    
    					- Vick

    Would Digital be justified in choosing not to hire a person who had
    stated that he or she was opposed to Digital's being allowed to succeed
    in its corporate mision?  I think so, and this argument can be
    extrapolated to the gun-control issue.  Being pro-gun-control is
    probably adequate grounds per se for disqualification from an NRA
    position because it is a clear statement of a political stance that
    renders the individual likely to work at cross-purposes with his or her
    employer.
    
    -dick

    
    re .182
    
    THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
    
    If an organization has a mission, and a very well-qualified individual
    has beliefs which conflict with that mission, I think its grounds not
    to hire them.
    
    The US has policies about not hiring people into agencies requiring top
    secret clearance if those people have "questionable" allegiances.
    Political organizations can be expected to make similar decisions about
    whom to hire, and whom not to hire.
    
    As for the basenote, if NOM is all about correcting injustices, I can
    understand it. I don't think women should be allowed to take men to the
    cleaners in a divorce court, leaving them nothing. Moreover, I firmly
    believe that, children or no children, beyond a certain income, you
    just shouldn't go beyond a 50/50 split. On the other hand, I think its
    unreasonable not to expect divorce to be painful.
    
    If NOM finds a way to make the divorce process more objective, it will
    be a good thing. If they go after the "right" cases, not the Trump vs.
    Trump cases, they will be applaudable.
    
    I also believe Lorna's statement: its not that all white males run
    things, it that most things are run by SOME white males. To deny that
    women or minorities are capable of achieving what white males have
    achieved in America is a farce. But, the fact is, those same white
    males are still in power, and it works to their advantage to watch us
    little people (and if we're employed at DEC and have time to note, we
    ARE little people!) fight against each other, leaving the majority of
    the pie in their control. We will only triumph and equally distribute
    the pie when we are ALL so well united that we can effectively
    negotiate with the current American power structure. (which is made
    almost exclusively of white men and their wives or daughters)
    
    The sad thing about NOM is that its not about uniting to achieve
    equitability. But, I do believe that at its core, it is about fighting
    injustice where it is at its most painful.
    
    I would be the last to deny that men have the scales tipped in their
    favor about everything. But, I think I tend to look at it much
    differently. To put it very crassly, I have never believed that every
    man loved his children. Certainly not all of them. Men have wanted
    heirs. But our society clearly shows us a large faction of men who are
    distanced from the child-rearing process. And I think this is
    especially true among wealthy men, because so often they simply pay
    someone to rear their children, and don't pay attention to them until
    they are adults.
    
    And these are the men who made the laws. And those laws put a
    tremendous burden on men who truly love their children, and men who
    don't have the financial resources to stay in a loveless marriage and
    simply keep a few mistresses... or get a divorce and survive.
    
    Think about it. In England, King Henry was getting those divorces
    because he couldn't get along with his wives! He divorced them for not
    producing an heir to the throne!  With that kind of precedent, it is
    small wonder that our laws on divorce are not created with the
    interests of loving fathers in mind.  
    
    I've said enough, and nothing that's new to anyone. 
    
    I too hope that NOM does not become a tool for Nazi's, the KKK or other
    bigotted individuals who want to reclaim an illusion. Jesse Jackson
    understood this when he formed the Rainbow Coalition and spoke to the
    farmers in the Midwest. There are PLENTY of white males who are at the
    bottom of the barrel, and who, by circumstance, have little chance of
    becoming Bob Palmers or Hugh Hefners or Ross Perots. SOMEONE MUST
    SPEAK FOR THEM.
    
    I hope NOM will do a good job.

    
    Jesse will do or say anything thats expedient at the moment.
    
    He's hardly a champion of all flavors of disadvantaged people,
    only of those whose victimhood is currently in vogue.
    

    P.S. 

    re .0

    I'm not in favor of items 6 & 7. Just for the record. I would, in fact,
    go as far as to say that if you address 1 through 5, then only the men
    AND women who deserve to go in jail will end up there. 

    As for #7, I think that one reflects the control which a handful of
    wealthy white men have over all of us. We have not come very close to
    dismantling the good-ole-boy network. Not by a long-shot. And I don't
    think we ever will. The workshop on networking I attended from my alma
    mater, RPI, a bastion of white males if ever there was one, attests to
    the strength of that system. Until all sexes, all races, all PEOPLE
    have the opportunity to make equivalent connections to the bases of
    power, white males in general will have an advantage. And it won't get
    talked about, because they're all afraid to lose it.

    The fact is: the majority of companies which are in a position to hire
    at this time are small start-up firms having maybe less than 500
    employees. And many of those companies are ***NOT*** governed by any
    sort of EEO/AA policies. Simply by virtue of demanding an 80 hour
    workweek, they will probably exclude many women from their
    organizations. Is this fair... I think so. It forces individuals to
    assess their needs and values, and it matches the right individuals to
    the company. Not so Digital and other large corporations. When you have
    in excess of 10,000 people, it makes sense to cater to demographics.
    When the labor force is full of women and minorities, it makes
    ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to have a company run exclusively by white males,
    bar a few tokens. In fact, it smells.

    It is understandably painful for the individual who pays the price for
    upper management's bigotry, but the fact remains that if hiring
    practices THROUGHOUT a corporation are fair and equitable, then gender
    discrimination is less likely. And then quotas aren't even an issue.

    The white males who get caught in a quota issue rarely recognize what
    that company or organization must have done to get them enacted. Quotas
    are only mandated when the company hasn't done anything to attract
    non-white or non-male employees. Companies that impose them from within
    often do so because they honestly don't believe that qualified women
    and minorities exist. 

    Think about it. If the demographics say that 15% of the qualified
    talent for a particular job in a certain area are women, then you
    should see 15% women in those jobs where you work. If you only see 1%,
    somebody somewhere is screwing up. If you see 40%, somebody somewhere
    is screwing up. But if its 15%, and you think that 5% of them aren't
    qualified... but you have to admit that of the other 85% men, a good
    27% of them aren't shining stars either, then the "system" is working.

    Another thing to think about... how many of you can think of a white
    male who doesn't exactly pull his weight? How many of you can think of
    a white male MANAGER who doesn't exactly pull his weight? And then
    think about how you feel about it.

    We have a certain built-in tolerance for incompetence... until that
    person affects our job or has the job we want. I've seen some pretty
    incompetent white males at Digital. And some pretty incompetent
    females. And some pretty incompetent blacks. And some pretty
    incompetent Asians. The time I was most pissed was when I worked for
    someone incompetent... otherwise, I seem to keep quiet about it. Oddly
    enough, the incompetent white males don't seem to be getting TSFO'ed as
    much as I'd like. Especially the managers. In my book, that's proof
    that we still have a major system imbalance.

    
    re .184
    
    While I was not making a plug for Jesse himself, I don't think there's
    anything wrong with considering that particular message, or offering it
    as being valid.
    
    I mean, gee, was that the only commentary you had on what I said...
    
    Robert... be positive for once, hmm?

.185> We have not come very close to dismantling the good-ole-boy network.

Do me a favor.  Define the "good-ole-boy network".  There's one heck of
a lot of diversity in my personal "good-ole-boy network".  My network
includes women, men, black, white, yellow, and brown, straight, gay, atheist,
Catholic, Protest, Jew, butcher, baker and candlestick maker, war monger,
and peace maker.

Is the "good-ole-boy network" that bad? How do you distinguish between
what you call the GOBN and friends that you know, love, and, trust?
 
Bubba

.181> I don't
.181> see social injustice arising from a gay rights publication requiring
.181> a pro-gay-rights leaning in it's employees, anymore than I can see
    
    You would allow discrimination against groups as long as you don't
    see "social injustice."
    
    How convenient, this concept of selective equality.

    re:.182
    
    It seems that you're saying that it's Ok to discriminate based on a
    person's thoughts, feelings or beliefs, regardless of that person's
    willingness and ability to do the job.

.185> at this time are small start-up firms having maybe less than 500
.185> employees. And many of those companies are ***NOT*** governed by any
.185> sort of EEO/AA policies.
    
    That's most curious, 'ren.  Are you sure?
    
    Did you see the 20/20 report on the small lampshade factory in
    southern California that was forced to hire more Hispanics, hence
    firing many blacks, because they were in a predominantly Hispanic
    neighborhood?
    
    The company had less than 100 employees and it was the federal
    government that instructed them on the proper ranges they needed to
    observe to avoid EEO audits.

    OK ... if we're going to take a tangent ....

    I'm associated with this scenario ... so ... let's see what kind of
    answers we come up with in this forum:

    There is a chain of four stores.  These stores provide a retail service
    which does over-the-counter packing and shipping.  There is one
    manager per store, each manager has a number of subordinates in his/her
    store.  Each manager was promoted to the management position based
    purely on his/her ability.  At a company picnic this summer each
    employee was invited to bring a wife/husband/significant-other/boyfriend
    etc ...

    As it turned out - three of the four managers brought, as their
    "significant other" a member of the same sex.  Excuse me?  The stores
    have a 75% *gay* management!  The population of Bakersfield is most
    assuredly NOT 75% gay.  There is most assuredly NOT any gay "ghetto"
    in Bakersfield which would justify such a high population of gay
    management.

    Should this manager be required to hire more heterosexual managers so
    as to conform to the norm of the community?

    Help me to understand.

    Bubba

    
    
    re .183
    
    Please remember that it is the judge that decides who gets
    what in a divorce.   Neither spouse rakes the other over
    the coals as they are not the final decision maker in
    the process.  Until we all start to put the blame for the
    injustices that are caused in divorce cases where it 
    honestly lies, it will still be a them against us thing.

    Re .190
    
    My understanding is that its mainly any company that deals with the
    government, either by getting funds from them? or by having a contract
    with them. Most larger companies can't avoid it. But smaller ones can.
    I *know* that there is "some" cut-off under which you don't have to
    worry about EEO. Otherwise, mom-and-pop ventures would fold.
    
    And, when I think about it, there are some industries that NEVER worry
    about it. Like modeling. 
    
    But, I'll go look further into it.

    re .185
    
    I have a network too. And I think that as many of us develop networks,
    we're less likely to complain about the ones we don't have access to...
    But ask yourself: how many people in your network make an excess of
    $250,000 a year? How many people in your network have the contacts to
    get you executive placement (plant manager/VP/CEO) within a company?
    How many people in your network personally know a Fortune 500 (or 100)
    CEO? How many people in your network could introduce you to such a
    person socially in order to help you further your career?
    
    I strongly believe that as we learn to play the game, we are less in a
    position to challenge the masters at it. I have never kidded myself
    about the weaknesses of my network. For the most part, my contacts are
    people I like, or at least people I respect. And that rules out TONS of
    people! :-) Probably my professional downfall.
    

    >			-< have I misunderstood? >-
    >It seems that you're saying that it's Ok to discriminate based on a
    >person's thoughts, feelings or beliefs, regardless of that person's
    >willingness and ability to do the job.
    
    I doubt seriously that you've misunderstood.  If you misunderstood you
    probably couldn't have twisted what I said around so cleverly.  Now you
    think you have me where I need to answer "yes" or "no".  If I answer
    "yes" you can charge me with discrimination.  If I say "no" then I have
    to say it all over again.  But I think I already said it pretty well,
    and I doubt that there are many who misunderstood.  Maybe they don't
    agree with me, that's okay, but at least they don't keep badgering me
    to explain it again, knowing that you can never make words perfect 
    enough that someone can't twist them around.  I don't know about you
    Mike, but I've got work to do.
    
    					- Vick

>                          -< at least you're honest >-
>
>.181> I don't
>.181> see social injustice arising from a gay rights publication requiring
>.181> a pro-gay-rights leaning in it's employees, anymore than I can see
>    
>    You would allow discrimination against groups as long as you don't
>    see "social injustice."
>    
>    How convenient, this concept of selective equality.

    Yes, Mike, at least *I'M* honest.  But I suggest that anyone who really
    thinks Mike has a point here to go back and read my .181 in it's
    entirety instead of just the little snippet Mike found useful for his
    nasty attack.  If you still feel Mike has a point after re-reading .181,
    then fine.  We just see things differently, that's all.
    
    					- Vick

    Re: .189
    
    > It seems that you're saying that it's Ok to discriminate based on a
    > person's thoughts, feelings or beliefs, regardless of that person's
    > willingness and ability to do the job.
    
    Whether you want to believe it or not, Mike, a person's beliefs DO have
    an effect on that person's ability to do a given job effectively.  Not
    ALL of a given person's beliefs are at issue in ALL circumstances, and
    I will ask that you concentrate on the specificity of this question
    instead of trying to cloud the issue by cutting cotton and passing it
    off as wool.
    
    It is human nature that we can't do as effective a job selling
    something we don't believe in.  Suppose I'm a salesman in a Mumble
    computer store, and we sell Brand X SCSI hard disk controllers.  Ask me
    anything about Brand X controllers -- but don't expect me to tell you
    you should buy one when I know that Brand Y, which we don't sell, is
    better in every perceivable way.  Apply this real-life example to gun
    control, pro/anti-abortion, homo/hererosxual, or any other issue.
    
    -dick

>    It seems that you're saying that it's Ok to discriminate based on a
>    person's thoughts, feelings or beliefs, regardless of that person's
>    willingness and ability to do the job.

ok, Michael, your point is?  Do you have an opinion on this?

DougO

.197> Whether you want to believe it or not, Mike, a person's beliefs DO have
.197> an effect on that person's ability to do a given job effectively.
    
    No, they MIGHT have an effect.  But even then, I've stated that the
    person in question is willing and able to do the job.  Why do you 
    toss this red herring into the discussion?

.197> It is human nature that we can't do as effective a job selling
.197> something we don't believe in.
    
    And no doubt there are some people who feel that a gay person or a
    black person can't effectively sell computers to straight or white
    people.

    re:.198
    
    Of course, I have an opinion on everything, or haven't you noticed?  ;')
    
    My point is that the person best able to do the job should be the one
    chosen.  Personal beliefs should not be grounds for discrimination
    unless they affect the person's ability to perform, and if that's the
    case, then he or she isn't the best able to do the job.
    
    When we start doling out jobs based on personal beliefs, we become
    thought police.

    Re: .199
    
    One more try.  If this fails, I'll assume you're either being
    deliberately obtuse or playing devil's advocate, neither of which
    activities I find useful.
    
    "Willing" does not equal "able."  To resume my analogy, I might be
    willing to try to sell you Brand X disk controllers, but you can bet
    I'd do a less thorough sell job than I would for Brand Y.  My belief
    as to the relative goodness of the two has an adverse effect on my
    ability, regardless of whether I'm willing or not.
    
    Basically, even if I'm willing to work for the Mumble computer store,
    I'm not going to violate my ethics by lying to sell you a Brand X
    controller - much as a gun-control person is not emotionally/ethically
    able to speak out in opposition to his/her own beliefs.  Working for
    NRA could demand that he/she do so on occasion; hence, willingness to
    do the job is not enough, and he/she is not as good as a candidate who
    is equally qualified and also not pro-gun-control.  The sexes, ages,
    infirmities, religions beliefs, or sexual preferences of the two need
    not enter into the hiring discussion, no matter how much you attempt to
    derail this string by generalizing everything.  It is the specific case
    that is of interest here.
    
    Enough.
    
    -dick

>    My point is that the person best able to do the job should be the one
>    chosen.  Personal beliefs should not be grounds for discrimination
>    unless they affect the person's ability to perform,

well.  that sounds like agreement between all points of view.  Of course,
some of us are willing to state our opinions that a person's "ability to 
perform" some jobs would certainly be affected by their ideological stance.

What would you think of a job advert that listed an ideological position as
a job REQUIREMENT?  Say, for the position of editorialist for a special
interest group publishing concern; the publisher/employer wants it understood
up front that this position requires creativity in the service of the ideas
of the special interest; and it is their opinion (the publisher/employer's)
that the job can only be accomplished effectively by people who believe in
the ideas; that the editorials will not have the passionate conviction of
truth unless written by one who shares those convictions.  Is that a legit
component of the advertisement for the position?  Would you advise the
publisher to make that an upfront requirement, or an unwritten requirement,
and why?

DougO

    re:.201
    
    ... more red herrings.
    
    Why do you alter my original proposition?

.202>some of us are willing to state our opinions that a person's "ability to 
.202>perform" some jobs would certainly be affected by their ideological stance.
    
    And in those cases, I agree with you.
    
    But, some of us here are willing to claim that a person's ideolo-
    gical stance will always affect their ability to perform.
    
    Observe:
.197> Whether you want to believe it or not, Mike, a person's beliefs DO have
.197> an effect on that person's ability to do a given job effectively. 
    
    Not could, not might, but DO (emphasis not mine).
    
    
.202>truth unless written by one who shares those convictions.  Is that a legit
.202>component of the advertisement for the position?  Would you advise the
.202>publisher to make that an upfront requirement, or an unwritten requirement,
.202>and why?
    
    It might be, it might not be.  I can't say given what you've told me
    and the little I know about the job in question.
    
    It would have to be an upfront requirement.  That way it gets maximum
    exposure and it can be publicly examined, if necessary, to determine if
    it's proper or not.
    
    This is a different scenario than the one I proposed, by the way.

    Boy Mike you lit a fuse under their collective liberal butt's. They
    are falling all over themselves trying to explain how they are not
    discriminating against people. I tell ya, they are funny.



    			Wayne

    Give 'em enough rope ...

    I don't doubt for one minute that you could legitimately call this
    "discrimination" based on beliefs. I think what is being said is that
    in SOME cases, namely when the position is with a firm that has
    established values and mission, it is important to be "discriminating"
    about the candidate, and hence, the hiring group will probably
    distinguish between a person with similar ideals, and a person with
    opposing ideals.
    
    Now: if the hiring group was a political lobbying organization which
    supported the death penalty, I would expect that any position that
    included as a responsibility, interacting with the public or congress
    as a representative of the organization, as an editor, or even a
    receptionist, it makes ZERO sense to hire a person who is against the
    death penalty. If that person hid that info and took the job, if
    ANYTHING in their manner betrayed their personal beliefs to the public,
    I'd have them fired. On the other hand, if you didn't hire them because
    they had firm beliefs on defense spending that you didn't agree with,
    this would not belong in the job description.
    
    But 'cha know, the more I think about it, the more I can remember
    working for something that I didn't exactly believe in. I spent around
    3 months doing telephone soliciting for Jerry Falwell. As a Buddhist, I
    don't exactly share his values... but I was hired. And no one asked how
    I felt. They just told me the rules. The phones were monitored, and if
    I did or said anything that didn't correspond to "Falwellian" values,
    which were spelled out to me, I'd be fired.
    
    As I said, I lasted 3 months before my tongue slipped.
    
    So: here it is. Perhaps it would be wrong to reject the most competent
    candidate based on personal beliefs. BUT, there's nothing wrong with
    setting up the system so that people with the wrong beliefs, beliefs
    which contradict the values of the firm, can be fired for revealing
    their "discrepancies". 
    
    Moreover, as I said earlier, the government discriminates based on
    political beliefs. You cannot be hired for a top-secret position if you
    are a card-carrying Communist. For reasons of national security. EVEN
    IF you are better qualified than every other patriot around.
    
    Mike, Wayne, are you saying that the government is wrong to
    discriminate in these situations?
    
    We have laws which prohibit discrimination based on sex, race,
    ethnicity, physical disability, veteran status and age. It is primarily
    because almost all of these things are not a matter of personal choice.
    (Including veteran status!)  Things which you can make a choice about
    seem equally viable for people in hiring positions to make a choice
    about, when that choice comes in direct conflict with the charter and
    mission of the hiring organization.

    
    
    > Sometimes discrimination makes alot of sense..
    
     Only if your on the side that benefits from it.. The liberal mind
    is so much fun to play with.. The best liberal minds could come up
    with nothing better to solve the problem then " You did it so were
    gonna do it to you"..Add to this a healthy amount of media attention
    on the negative behaviors of SOME white males and you develop" The
    justification for reverse discrimination, bad bad white males"..
    
    David         p.s. The liberal positions are fanning the flames
                    for NOM to prosper..Keep blowing!

    	I just think that anyone who would 'work' where their personal
    beliefs are in jeprody with their job can't possibly be the best
    qualified candidate for a position, regardless of any status.
    
    	Let's say that a group is looking for a fund raising professional.
    As a 15 year veteran of fund raising for nonprofit groups, I apply.
    I'm well known and respected as one of the top money getters in the
    field. The position pays $250,000 a year plus bennies. The
    organization hiring is Men for Choice. I'm personally against choice.
    I want the salary and perks.....how well do you think the job would get
    done?? I suspect that I could play a key role in the organization's
    demise at that level. In the above case, I certainly would not be the
    best person for the job, yet I might be the best qualified. Personal
    beliefs affect everything we do and the way we do it. 
    
    	I know of businesses that discriminate against single females and
    males when second shift openings occur. They also discriminate against
    young single females for third shift positions. History has shown that
    young singles do not perform well on third shift, have hibitual
    attendance problems, and generally quit with a year......the most
    reliable third shift people are one who are overweight, married, and
    generally over 35. On second shift, the best are single/divorced
    mothers of school aged children. They pay sitters and can be home when
    children go to school and when they return. These people are reliable
    because they need the work, need the benefits, and are fiercely loyal
    to the company. They bond with each other and form huge support
    networks that go way beyond the workplace.Statistics bear this out in
    assembly and large scale manufacturing. I witnessed it and took part in
    it for years as a worke and manager. When your job depends on getting
    the best help, you discriminate without a thought, especially when you
    know what the result will be from experience. Fair? No! But it happens
    all the time......
    
    Ken 

    Interesting how as soon as they feel they may be losing the debate,
    they start just being insulting.  So liberals are funny?  So they're
    fun to play with?  Go play with yourselves!  It would be more
    productive for us all.
    					- Vick

    RE: .208

    > Only if your on the side that benefits from it.. The liberal mind
    > is so much fun to play with.. The best liberal minds could come up
    > with nothing better to solve the problem then " You did it so were
    > gonna do it to you"..Add to this a healthy amount of media attention
    > on the negative behaviors of SOME white males and you develop" The
    > justification for reverse discrimination, bad bad white males"..

    The 'best liberal minds' did no such thing.  You can't possibly
    extract "justification" for reverse discrimination from the text
    of anti-discrimination laws.   These laws are worded such that
    discrimination based on RACE or SEXUAL ORIENTATION is prohibited.
    
    Period.

    And this "you did it so were [sic] gonna do it to you" business
    is rubbish.  I spent years working to pass the gay rights law
    in Massachusetts and *NEVER*, not even at our lowest moments when
    homophobic senators were railing against the bill on Beacon Hill
    and talk show hosts were gleefully taking calls from the most
    rabid hate-mongers I've ever had the displeasure to listen to,
    did I ever hear anyone suggest the point of this effort was to
    "get back at" straight white men.  Never.  

    (the only "eye for an eye" argument I'm aware of comes from some
     the victims of gay bashings who suggest we band together and
     bash back)

    It sounds as though you are confusing anti-discrimination statues
    with EEO/AA rules/guidelines (which can result in organizations
    adopting quotas that are biased against white men).  If you have
    specific complaints about specific laws/policies, let's hear them.
    It would be far more constructive than an exchange of paranoid delusions.

    /Greg

    
    > paranoid delusions
    
     No way man I am still on my medication :-) 
    
     Now back to the subjest.. Supreme court case  Paul Johnson vs The
    Santa Clara Highway Dept shows CLEARLY that  Arffirmative Action
    is an attempt to redress past prejudices.. Getting back at white males
    is certainly a motive for some..Look at all the news that puts the
    white male up on the cross to pay for all the sins he has committed..
    
    > go play with yourself
      
     Why thanks for the pointer Vick..
    
    David          

    Well you won't see me making a major effort to defend affirmative
    action.   I'm uncomfortable with the *effects* of the idea.  I
    have to say however, that if I came from a race of people who
    had been enslaved for 300 years, and legally excluded from
    participating in society for another 100 years, with barely a 
    generation or so of legal equality under my belt, I'd be
    interested in trying to redress past prejudices too.   What I'm
    not clear on is how you do that without hurting other people.
    (if a company makes a special effort to recruit from minority
    colleges, while simultaneously leaving positions open to 
    applicants from *any* race - i.e. no quotas of any sort - is
    that reverse discrimination? - that is the kind of AA I don't
    have a real problem with).
    
    In any case, I maintain that anti-discrimination laws are a different
    animal, and it doesn't serve any useful purpose to lump them
    together with AA.
    
    
    /Greg

    >  But, some of us here are willing to claim that a person's ideolo-
    >  gical stance will always affect their ability to perform.
    >
    >  Observe:
    > .197> Whether you want to believe it or not, Mike, a person's beliefs DO have
    > .197> an effect on that person's ability to do a given job effectively. 
    >
    > Not could, not might, but DO (emphasis not mine).
    
    I didn't write .197, but I seem to have parsed "a given job"
    differently that you did.  I read it as "a particular job" and
    for purposes of this discussion, one with an ideological bent.
    Again, not different from our previous agreement.  Ask Dick.
    
    >.202>Is that a legit component of the advertisement for the position? 
    >
    >    It might be, it might not be.
    
    Then you admit the possibility, which is all I was trying to establish.
    Put any kinds of conditions on it you want; but now that you've agreed in
    principle that ideology can be a valid job requirement you reduce the
    discussion to what particular conditions you are likely to accept,
    which may or may not match those Vick, Dick, or myself will accept,
    and which of us is authoritative?  This is now a matter of opinion.
    
    >.202> Would you advise the publisher to make that an upfront requirement, 
    >.202> or an unwritten requirement, and why?
    >
    > It would have to be an upfront requirement.  That way it gets maximum
    > exposure and it can be publicly examined, if necessary, to determine if
    > it's proper or not.
    
    I agree, it should definately be upfront.
    
    DougO

.207> Mike, Wayne, are you saying that the government is wrong to
.207> discriminate in these situations?
    
    Not if those beliefs affect the person's ability to do the job.
    
    We've already been over that in, most recently, .200.
    
    
.207> We have laws which prohibit discrimination based on sex, race,
.207> ethnicity, physical disability, veteran status and age. It is primarily
.207> because almost all of these things are not a matter of personal choice.
    
    'Ren ... do you think personal beliefs are a matter of choice?
    
    Are you pro-choice?  Can you decide to be pro-life?
    
    Can a Catholic decide to be an atheist or an agnostic?

.210> Interesting how as soon as they feel they may be losing the debate,
.210> they start just being insulting.
    
    Victor, I find it most interesting that you call the dialog here
    "insults" yet you haven't uttered one single peep about the explicit
    personal attack in 812.102.

    
    > as soon as they feel they may me loosing the debate
    
     Loosing? Vick you must be kidding..If this is loosing may I forever
    have these kind of losses!
    
    > they just start being insulting
    
     Ah the moral high ground..
    
    
    David

    
    Yes, I believe people can change their most fundamental beliefs. Many
    don't. But its possible. Usually it seems to be under drastic
    circumstances. Such as women who have abortions and become pro-life,
    people who find themselves wishing for a gun become anti-gun control,
    people who lose relatives due to random gun violence become pro-gun
    control. People whose income bracket increases who go from democrat to
    republican. People who lose many family members to senseless death
    and stop believing in a god.
    
    Not sure what that has to do with anything, but that's what I think.
    

    Mike, Mike, Mike, why, oh why, should I peep when someone insults
    you???  I only peep when someone insults me or a friend or family.
    
    					- Vick

    Re: .215
    
    > Can a Catholic decide to be an atheist or an agnostic?
    
    Yes.  I state this with the absolute certainty of personal experience.
    Having reached a philosophical juncture at which certain central
    Catholic beliefs no longer made sense to me, I elected not to continue
    in my attempts to rationalize them in order that I might continue
    believing.
    
    Similar thought patterns are possible, I contend, for other beliefs;
    for example, if a hypothetical pro-choice person became aware of
    something that changed his/her understanding about the nature or
    sanctity of a fetus' life, he/she might change his/her stance; the same
    line of reasoning can be applied to a pro-life person's decision to
    become pro-choice.
    
    -dick

    >Go play with yourselves!
    
    I kinda find this very insulting there Vick. Sounds to me like you shot
    yourself in the foot on that one. Whats wrong? 

    I never said I wouldn't answer an insult with an insult.  I'm only
    human and a man with a full complement of testosterone.
    
    					- Vick

    
    
    > an insult with an insult
    
     Thus I rest my case..Propponents of affirmatve action show their
    motivation!! :-) :-) 
    
    > with a full complement of testosterone
    
     Ok Vick, you meet me at the OK Corral, Noonish, were a gonna settle
    these issue of Reverse Discrimination once and for all, pilgrim :-)
    
    
    Peace,
    David

    Sounds like...... Rope, a tall tree, and a skiddish poney time!:) Call
    the marshal! Where is that Marshal Dillion when yha need him. Call doc
    too, hate to see a grown man cry.;)

>a man with a full complement of testosterone.

 Well, dihydrotestosterone, anyway. :-)

    is there anybody else here who needs a testosterone compliment?
    (or would you rather have a testosterone supplement?)

    Why Vick you appear to be getting rather Macho, I am surprised. Why
    don't I see you being this Macho in WOMENNOTES, or are you different
    around women than men. I seemed to remember something about a forked
    tongue.


    			Wayne ;(

    Why, Wayne, thank you for noticing.
    					  - Vick

    
    
    > Well, dihydrotestosterone, anyway 
    
     Levesque, someday you must tell us all where the hell you get all these
    neat words :-)
    
    David

    
    > Why, Wayne, thank you for noticing.
    
      Excuse me!! I think I was the first to notice :-)
    
    
    David

.218>    Yes, I believe people can change their most fundamental beliefs. Many
    
    But 'ren, that's not what I asked.
    
    I asked if people could choose to change them.
    
    Can you choose to believe in the pro-life position?

    re:.220, ::BINDER
    
    In your case, the factors involved in choosing the personal belief
    had changed.

.222>  <<< Note 811.222 by DSSDEV::BENNISON "Vick Bennison 381-2156 ZKO2-2/O23" >>>
[...]
.222> I never said I wouldn't answer an insult with an insult.  I'm only
.222> human and a man with a full complement of testosterone.
    
    You answered a non-insult with an insult.
    
    I find that, along with your own self-admitted bias (you only care about
    insults when they're directed against people you like) to be undesireable
    traits for a modertor.

.225> Well, dihydrotestosterone, anyway. :-)
    
    You mean follicularly challenged?

    re .231
    
    Not sure if I understand the difference.
    
    Let me put it this way. If a person undergoes a trauma that directly
    confronts strongly-held values, that person often sees a cross-road:
    stick with the values or change them. I believe that it involves a
    choice.
    
    Hope that helps.

    Sure, and that I agree with.  100%!
    
    But that's the decision the person makes based on new evidence or a
    new perspective.
    
    People cannot choose to believe in something they don't.
    
    And those beliefs, if they do not affect the ability of that person to
    do the job, should not be grounds for discrimination.

    Re: .232 re: .220
    
    Nice try at throwing a red herring, Mike.
    
    But you asked 'ren if a person can/could *choose* to change his/her
    beliefs.  You did not qualify that question.  And the answer is yes. 
    Period.  The motivation for changing beliefs is not relevant to the
    question or its simple affirmative answer.
    
    -dick

Michael, I note you have no response to .214.  Does this signify agreement?

DougO

    
    Has anyone (besides .0 Ding) received their info from N.O.M. yet?  
    
    I haven't.  8-\
    

    
    I have taken the time to read each of the replies in this note and I am
    struck by a few things:
    
    	-White males still seem threatened by folks who feel oppressed asking
    	for equal treatment.  This is evidenced in various replies within
    	this note.
    
    	-Folks who feel oppressed have a tough time being heard because of the
    	defensive reactions of those who associate themselves with the
    	oppressive group in some manner.  This, too, is evidenced in many of
    	the replies within this note.
    
    	-When all else fails, the human animal seems to rely on attacking
    	behavior.  That type of behavior in this note saddens me.
    
    I happen to be a white male, heterosexual, priveledged human within
    this society...(I write that so as to avoid speculative association
    with one "group" or another).  
    
    I see evidence within our society that leads me to believe that there are 
    groups/individuals who suffer from oppression and I would like that to be 
    corrected in my lifetime.
    
    I also hear white males raising their voices against reverse
    discrimination.  They sound afraid of what the world MIGHT become if they 
    begin to be treated in a way that supports the oppressed to rise up 
    from whatever place history has forced them into.
    
    I also hear others who claim to NOT be a part of the oppressive group
    even though their skin is white and they are male.
    
    I believe that if I am not part of the solution, then I am part of the
    problem...so,
    
    Since I see evidence of a problem and want it corrected and know that
    other white men have various reactions to this issue I would ask for
    two things:
    
    	1. If the notion of reverse discrimination frightens you and is the
    	only thing you hear when someone suggests behaving in a manner which
    	supports the oppressed, then please learn to listen in a non-defensive 
    	way so that you can learn to be part of the solution.
    
    	2. If you are part of the white, male, priveledged, majority and
    	you believe that some of these issues have solutions which 
    	will benefit all, then speak up.  Become part of the solution.
    
    Just one white male's opinion and tact.
    
    Steve

    
    re .240
    
    As P.T. Barnum said..."There's one born every minute"
    
    If you really look at what's going on, what they are looking
    for is not equality.  It's privilege.  I have no inclination
    to be the oppressed just to make up for some else's past 
    oppression.
    
    fred();
    

    If you are calling me a fool I ask that you stop behaving that
    way, I don't appreciate personal attacks.  
    
    Regarding "priviledge": There is NO data that suggests that white males
    are or have given up any of their priviledge in society...I will wait
    to be afraid when the situation actually presents itself...if it ever
    does.
    
    

    <I believe that if I am not part of the solution, then I am part of the
    <problem...so,
    
    That structures things in such a way as to ensure an argument.
    (accidently I presume)

    
    >Regarding "priviledge": There is NO data that suggests that white males
    >are or have given up any of their priviledge in society...I will wait
    >to be afraid when the situation actually presents itself...if it ever
    >does.
    
    Then what do you call "Affimative Action"?  What do you call all this
    hysteria about "Deadbead Dads".
    
    fred();

    re .242
    
    Looks to me like you might be new to this conference. 
    I don't thing there is much of anything new to say on the subject of
    white male privilege. I think that if you will look through some of the
    old discussions, you will probably find somebody asserting and somebody
    else rebutting every single point that you might like to make for or
    against white male privilege. 
    And the discussion will be neither gentle nor civil.
    
    
    				regards
    				and welcome
    				herb

    re .240
    
    Hello! At the risk of being offensive, and patronizing to men, I'm
    going to disagree with your position, or at least your way of stating
    it.
    
    

    But Steven,
    
    	There's privileged, and then there's *privileged*. I don't put Sam
    Spade in a class with George "Silver Foot in His Mouth" Bush. They're
    both white, het males. (Admittedly, at least one of 'em is fictitious.)
    You're saying "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
    problem", but the truth is that the solution is actually REVEALING the
    EXTENT of the problem. Because the solution "seems" to cause problems.
    
    I'll give you an example. Say you have a formerly segregated fire
    department. You integrate it through an aggressive affirmative action
    program: 50% of the new hires are minorities, and now the force is
    about 1/10th minority... you've already pissed some people off because
    the competition got stiffer. But NOW its time for lay offs. The old
    rule says seniority stays. But if you lay off the new people, then you
    no longer have an integrated force. What is FAIR?
    
    I don't know. But I *do* know that no matter what you do, SOMEBODY is
    gonna get pissed. 
    
    Now: if you throw out the rules about seniority, then the SO-CALLED
    privileged white males will be upset. And they have EVERY REASON.
    You've changed the rules of the game, after they've placed their bets
    on horse #5. And when I say bets, I mean life savings, pension plans,
    etc.
    
    If you keep the rules of seniority, then the "oppressed" people get the
    shaft: last hired, first fired. Worse still, you've crushed a dream. On
    top of that, you've made it clear that the pie only gets shared during
    good times...
    
    There's no way to win when the pie is small. Or when the TRULY
    PRIVILEGED are busy hoarding it.
    
    We need solutions that EVERYONE can live with, not just minorities, not
    just white, het males, not just the rich.
    
    And in case you're wondering, I'm a black woman (not that big, Herb),
    and I speak in this file in an effort to hear male voices, because men
    don't often speak about their values, their needs, etc. Most
    frequently, I ask questions here. But what I try hardest to do is
    respect that human qualities we all have. No one has a corner on
    defensiveness. No one has a corner on wanting a piece of the pie.
    No one likes having the rug yanked out, or the rules changed half-way
    through the game of life.
    
    The bottom line is about backlash. Its about the KKK, and David Duke
    nearly getting elected in Louisiana. Its about the encroachment of Roe
    vs. Wade, and the fundamentalist right. Their power comes from the fact
    that liberals (I'll wear the label if I must) have made the nation to
    uncomfortable from a series of sweeping changes. And we haven't even
    put a serious dent in the problem!!! We still have sexism and racism in
    America. They're getting worse. And part of it is because the cries for
    change have been at the expense of a group of people who are deciding
    to fight back.
    
    We need collaborative solutions. We need to look at ALL of the
    different sides. We need to respect the needs of ALL of our citizens.
    
    I'm surprised that you think that pointing out the defensiveness of
    some of the writers here is going to make them see your points more
    clearly. Do you think that they have no right to gripe? Even if they
    can't win a pissing contest with black men in the "life ain't been no
    crystal stair" game, doesn't mean they aren't allowed to pee at all.
    
    What is MENNOTES if not a place to examine some of the ways in which
    men's lives, roles, expectations and values are changing or being
    forced to change, or are threatened by world events?
    
    There are some rights that men need to defend, as men. Frankly, when it
    comes to AA, I think the guys are gonna lose, unless someone proposes
    another system that forces change into an obsolete system. But when it
    comes to divorce laws: they're ARCHAIC. 
    
    And goodness knows, I'd rather see men organize as a national lobbying
    group then go out in white bedsheets as a means of "defending their
    rights".
    
    Heck, this is ADVANCEMENT! 

    
    
    Affirmative Action - is a law passed which is designed to ensure equal
    consideration based on representative sample of the local population. 
    The latest government study suggests that this law has had NO significant 
    impact on the hiring practices of companies.  97% of all judges are white 
    male, 99.6% of corporate executive positions are still filled by white 
    males, 90% of political offices are still filled by white males, etc, etc, 
    etc... The data suggests that this society is white male dominated and AA 
    has not changed that.
    
    Deadbead?  Deadbeat Dads - When a father is fiscally responsible for
    childcare as decided by the courts then he is responsible for either
    meeting his obligation or appealing to the court for change.  What's
    the question?  How is this debatable?
    
    Steve 

    RE: .246
    
    I agree that everyone has a right to "piss" and be upset.  I agree that
    the current solutions have not worked.  I agree that we need
    collaboration and new solutions.  I agree that some will gain and some
    will loose.  I agree that raising the issues has caused LOTS of pain
    and hurt.
    
    And, I believe that part of the solution is to start listening to each
    other as that is the first step in collaboration.  I believe that
    personal attacks and defensiveness don't move us forward but are
    devisive and destructive.  And I believe that white males are in power
    in this society, as a gender/race class and until they each learn new
    behaviors the situation will remain the same.  
    
    It will be/has been painful and feels like a loss...AND....we need a
    new paradigm which is constructive and inclusive.  I ask that people
    try to set their defensiveness down long enough to listen and I
    understand, though I don't like it, when they choose not to....as I
    don't like it when I feel defensive.
    
    
    Steve

    You sure have a funny way of listening, then, when you make statements
    of the "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"
    ilk.  Life just isn't quite that binary, you see.  There are all sorts
    of people who just want to raise their family, pay their bills, and
    generally get along in life.  That does not require that they be
    politically active or be involved in someone's cause.  Nor are such
    people causing anyone problems, except to those political activists who
    can't understand, and seem to despise, people who are not politically
    motivated. 

    Mike
               

    
    re .247
    
    I think .246 answered most of the things about "Affirmative Action".
    
    However, in re "Deadbeat Dads".  There is a big push to make 
    collection of "child support" by the employer *mandatory* for *all* 
    "child support" cases, and to make "interstate flight to avoid
    paying child support" a *federal* offense.  
    
    I heard a radio intervew by some judge from Oregon or Washington
    that was part of the "commission" apponted to "study" the "problem".
    One thing that was pointed out to the judge was that fathers who
    have access to their children are much more apt to pay the "child
    support".  Now you'd think that the commission's position might be
    "if that will help, then lets look at it".  Nope!  The commissions
    position is, "that is a separate issue that *they* need to work so
    let's just stick it to him and collect the money forceably".
    
    Don't talk to me about this being "equality".
    
    BTW: I'm a custodial parent who can't collect child support.
    
    fred();

    re .248
    
    I believe, however, that this has to be a two way street.  As I've
    said before in other notes: "If you try to correct the injustices
    against one group, and ignore or belittle the injustices against
    another group, that is not equality--it's hypocrisy".
    
    fred();

    Mike,
    
    I don't mind when someone chooses to go through life not "causing
    anyone problems" AND, that doesn't stop me from asking for what I want. 
    
    I have a perspective, based in "human systems" work I have done, which leads
    me to believe that we ALL own a piece of the outcome....whether we
    choose to acknowledge that or not.  I understand that other people have
    other opinions...that's fine with me. 
    
    I personally, am not very politically active and many would probably 
    even say not very politically correct....my focus is to try to listen 
    to others, say what's on my mind without attacking others, manage my 
    personal boundaries regarding attacks on me and to say what I want.  
    
    My larger desire is to try to find a way to create a new picture of 
    how we can all be together, because the current picture doesn't seem 
    to leave people "whole" and that's not ok with me....there is simply 
    too much blaming and finger pointing and anger and not enough progress 
    for my liking.
    
    
    Steve
    

    Fred,
    
    RE: .250 - I would never suggest (nor do I think I have) that a broken
    child support system which treats the issues in a worthless manner is
    anything which will ever lead to "equality."   But I do have a question
    for you...as a custodial parent who is unable to collect child support,
    what could change in the system which would help you?  What WOULD lead
    us toward equality in this system?
    
    RE: .251 - I agree, listening is a two way street and I can understand
    why people get to a place of not listening.  I agree with you that
    correcting one thing at the expense of another is sometimes
    hypocritical.  Though that might not rule out the necessity of just
    such a decision. 
    
    Again, I believe that our current picture of a "fix" is biased by our
    history and experience and we need to explore ways to find new
    solutions...create new paradigms....The win/loose solution mindset we
    have currently as a society surely isn't the only option....if it is,
    I'm going to have a long and frustrating life trying to change the
    norm.
    
    Steve
      

    Um... your data doesn't help the little man, and HE is the man who is
    complaining! The man on the street is not a federal or county judge.
    He's not a corporate executive. He's not in a political office.
    
    And also, lets not forget: some judge appointments are for life. Now
    THAT'S job security. Corporate executives have to screw up in a BIG way
    to become unhireable. I'll bet KO could get a job October 2nd with no
    problem if he wanted one. Former politicians (can you say Ronald
    Reagan, Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon) still get offers AND FEES to
    speak and run things. They may be "unemployed" politically but they
    aren't broke.
    
    It is absolutely NO SECRET that the people at the top are white. But a
    lot of people on the bottom are white too. A lot of women on welfare
    are white, and there are white men getting food stamps and Section 8
    housing. There are white men at shelters. There are white men in the
    unemployment lines whose skin color is NOT getting them anywhere. 
    
    Try to understand: its not that I disagree with you. Its just that the
    arguments you're choosing have little validity for this audience.
    
    In fact, your arguments could make people wonder why everyone's saying
    we're going to have a non-white-male workforce in the year 2000. CEO's,
    judges and politicians are a minority in and of themselves... :-)
    
    The bottom line is: if a white male has been or feels he has been
    negatively impacted by Affirmative Action, he has less reason to value
    it or applaud it, and more reason to feel threatened by it. Statistics
    don't help you feel better when you are the one person in 100 who got
    the shaft. 
    
    Affirmative Action is an emotional hot button among many white men. It
    hits very close to home. In a similar way as abortion affects women. AA
    brings about change in one of the fundamental male roles: his persona
    as a breadwinner.
    
    I guess that's why I tend to sidestep it. I'm pro-AA. But, like
    abortion, I also know that its just a band-aid to a more fundamental
    problem. And any conversation about AA is unlikely to win converts.

    
    As for this part of the solution stuff... being a good parent is part
    of the solution. Teaching your children that racism and sexism are
    wrong, and its all about respect, balance and understanding is part of
    the solution. Recognizing racism and sexism in yourself, and finding a
    balance that works for you *and* the diverse blend of people around you
    is part of the solution.
    
    None of those things are political. And we can never really know who's
    doing them and who isn't.
    

    AMEN....and it's not about anyone else knowing if you are a part of the
    solution or problem....it's each of our responsibility to choose what
    is right for us and then do it.   As long as the decision is well
    thought out and constructive rather than destructive.
    
    I appreciate hearing what your view of a solution is for your kids.
    
    Steve

    re:.238
    
    Nope, just an unwillingness to beat a dead horse arguing opinions.
    
    You read it as X, I read it as Y, it could go either way.
    
    So why argue?  Let's move on to more concrete issues, ones that can be
    addressed with legal terms and dictionaries ...

.247> The latest government study suggests that this law has had NO significant 
.247> impact on the hiring practices of companies.
    
    Source, please.

    re: .258 name my source....
    
    I'll do the best I can.....
    
    Evidently the EEOC grants research fellowships each year to Doctoral
    students in Political Sciences studies and these fellowship recipients
    are to study various aspects of the EEOC.
    
    Some time around July 13,14,15 on the McNeil/Lehrer news on PBS they
    interviewed this year's "Fellow" (great title for a woman) and the 
    Director of the EEOC who ran through the content of the research and
    spoke of potential changes to AA.  I didn't capture all the details as
    I was in the middle of dinner but I was struck by the admission of the
    Director that the system was broken and that they had collected some
    data from companies which proved that.
    
    I'm certain that if you contact the M/L News Hour folks they can
    forward a transcript of the show (I think they charge $10 per
    transcript).
                                    

    RE: .254
    
    "Your data doesn't help the little man"  
    
    I only listed some of the most visible positions, the thing I failed to
    mention is that the EEOC and AA conduct research and impact virtually
    all workers who work for companies larger than 25 employees....so I
    believe it does include people like me.
    
    
    I too have a tough time staying optimistic.  I've been laid off from 4
    different companies and have felt the impact of the system, so I have
    an understanding of the rage and frustration one can feel regarding
    this stuff.  I have been told that I didn't get a job because there was
    a minority goal set against the job.  What can I do with that?  I can
    work through my anger and then I can listen....
    
    I have heard people on both sides say the system is broken, yet I don't
    see the people in power moving to fix that.  That makes me think that
    the people in power need to "wake up" first before things will change. 
    And how do they wake up?  I'm not certain but I think the outrage at
    politicians demonstrated by the support of Ross P. for President had a
    message in it.  Why do I mention politicians?  Because they are the
    folks who are creating the rules we all live by.  I believe that people 
    need to stand up and state their discomfort with the system.  Now, again, 
    I'm not a radical or politically active person...but I could sure get 
    there pretty quick if the folks in power don't work at changing things, 
    and soon.
    
    Regarding the non-white workforce in the year 2000....we all know what
    the demographics are, White males will be in the minority within the
    workforce as the century turns...that doesn't mean they will give up
    any of their current power.  That's what concern me here...the minority
    (white males) will be the power brokers.  I believe that if that is the
    case then we will continue to see a divide between the "haves" and "have
    nots" and that divide will be destructive to our country.  That worries
    me for the future.
    
    I am certainly NOT attempting to win converts regarding Affirmative
    Action....I don't believe the current system works so why would I ask
    people to support it.  I propose making changes in the system so that
    ALL of us benefit in the long run.
    
    I would LOVE to see a men's group like NOM get together and propose
    changes to the system which would make it work for all of us.
    
    

    
    I personally think that the people in power are quite AWAKE. But they
    are awake to a different reality than ours.

.247> The latest government study suggests that this law has had NO significant 
.247> impact on the hiring practices of companies.  97% of all judges are white 
    
    How do you interpret this bit of information?
    
	1. nothing changed, so AA didn't work
	2. nothing changed, so AA wasn't needed
    	3.  ... ??

    
    
     Darch,,
    
     I received my NOM letter this weekend..It contains some general info
    on NOM's philosophies.. One of the goals of NOM is the return to 
    traditional Values, the family,marriage studies, etc.. It did have
    a distinct anti-NOW tone to it. It has the definite goal to eliminate
    female over male favoritism in hiring. I don't know that I agree with
    everything stated, but nothing struck me as to left or right of
    center.I have joined..
    
    David 
    
    
    
    

    re: .261
    
    When I feel most pessimistic and ask myself "Why?" I usually find that
    I am distrusting the intent of those in power.  When I am there I
    usually voice the same view as you share in reply .261.
    
    What I continue to explore are ways to have my reality be understood by
    those in power.  What can I do, how can I have them experience or see
    what I experience.  I want to believe that the power brokers are open
    to seeing "other" views of reality...and it's up to me to learn how to
    say it/show it so it can be heard and understood.  "Pie-in-the-sky?"
    well some folks think so, but I have personal experience which tells me
    that it's possible....that's what keeps me getting up in the morning.
    
    
    re: .262
    
    "How do you interpret this bit of information?"
    
    I am not able to come up with an interpretation but I am able to allow
    myself to question the fundamental nature of a system which has been in
    place for almost 30 years (1963) and has had no significant impact.  
    
    What I want to do with that questioning is take the learnings forward
    to make the next system better than today's.  I occasionally find
    myself trying to judge things and [good/bad] or [needed/not needed] when
    I should be asking myself "how could it be better if it changed?"
    
    I believe that we need to have a society which recognizes that a
    balance of power would benefit us all and we need processes in
    place which move us towards that end.  Now is A/A the answer?  I don't
    know, it doesn't seem to be....how could it be better if it changed?

    After reading all the replys.....and there were certainly many....I was
    still left with some questions/concerns. Some areas were not clearly
    defined for me. Let me say at the onset that...like many of you.....I
    have known both 'deadbeat dads' and 'supportive dads' so I feel I have
    some insight into both sides of the matter. My first ...and really...
    only concern is in the matter of children. Financial support is
    necessary. It's not the child's fault that a divorce is occurring and
    it is up to the adults to ensure adequate food,shelter,clothing,etc.
    for the child(children). This is one of the harsh problems of divorce.
    Unless you're both independently wealthy there will be financial 
    hardship on both sides. Too many times I have seen the divorced father
    interrupt the child support as money for HER rather than money for the
    children. I have also seen the other side where a mother could work...
    children are in school all day....and choses not to work. I do feel
    this is unfair. Again it comes back to providing for the children.
    I have seen the same two sides when it comes to visitation rights. Some
    fathers with full visitation rights show no interest whatsoever and
    some mothers block the visitation rights of those fathers that care.
    I feel....and this is only my opinion....that unless the absent parent
    is abusive....that open visitation rights should be the norm. After all
    you were both 'there' when the child was conceived and you should both
    be instumental in bringing up the child.
    One of the solutions that I have found over the years is for the couple
    to have the same lawyer for the divorce. The lawyer's responsibility is
    to protect the child while helping the couple to dissolve the marriage.
    I have seen this approach work time and again. Of course that means
    that the divorcing couple have to act like responsible adults and not
    engage in a lot of mudslinging....but is that so bad.
    I really think that NOM and NOW could work together on this issue if 
    they focused on the the rights of the children rather than the rights
    of the adults.
    Let me add, on a personal note, that I have gone through a
    divorce....12 years ago. We did use the same lawyer. We did work out an
    equitable financial solution (and it hasn't always been easy...after
    all you've gone from two incomes to one really) and we do have open
    visitation rights. (ccommon courtesy helps here). From all indications
    our son has thrived in this atmosphere. He says he always felt he was
    part of a family, he has a deep connection to both parents, and he
    didn't realize his parents were divorced ...he just thought we lived in
    different places. Since that time other friends of ours that have got a
    divorce have tried this solution and they too have felt it worked for
    them. Obviously it won't work for every  couple but it is an approach
    that leaves both parties with dignity and respect.
     
    
    
    

if the woman is unskilled, or skilled in the traditional "woman's work"
type of jobs, her take-home salary may not be adequate to offset the
cost of transportation to work and the cost of child care...and she might
very well be unable to find part time work that enables her to be available
when her children are not in school.  There are many reasons why women
with small children don't work - and most of them are because they cannot
afford to.

Of the divorces I have observed among my friends, two issues are most
prevalent...the men complain because they have to pay so much child support,
and they complain that they cannot see their children when they want to...
and yet, they are also the ones who don't show up to pick the kids up for 
weekends due to "last minute" changes in their schedule.  No woman I know 
wants to keep her children away from their father, but these women do want 
to be able to live their lives too - and that means scheduling visits and 
keeping to a schedule. It also means that the fathers need to be ready to 
take care of the children when they have them, not hand them off to strangers 
who the men happen to be dating to take care of the kids. 

Perhaps men do need a group - however, the group should be educating them,
as well, on the responsibilities of a divorced father as well as fighting
for their rights.  I believe that men should have equal consideration as
the custodial parent - however, if the man is chosen as the custodial
parent, he should be willing to understand that a woman who makes 1/2
or less of his salary cannot pay the same amount of child support he is
expected to pay as a non-custodial parent.

    I have to take issue with -.1
    
    I have seen many, too many cases where the woman uses the kids as a
    tool against the father
    
    Perhaps it is time to have 50-50 custody laws/penalties:
    
    No child support payment - you go to jail
    No kids visitation - you go to jail (exceptions MUST have a doctors
    note, no other excuse valid)
    
    I have also seen too many dads who are deadbeats. In my experience, the
    deadbeats are about between 50-60%, but that sure leaves a lot of evil
    women...
    
    
    Steve

    Why are people so free with jail sentences these days?

    Why do some people feel that people are so free with jail sentences these
    days?

    
    
    Why do some people ask why some people think that some people are
    to free with jail sentences.?. infinity,infinity.
    
    
    David

    Why ask Why ???
    
    
    Paul C.

    
    
     I don't drink Bud Dry, therfore it's a mute question, not to be
    confused with Mutehead beer:-)
    
    
    David

    re:.269
    
    Because America has more people in jails, per capita, than any other
    country in the world.

    Ok, then your motivation for asking the question
    
    "Why are people so free with jail sentences these days?"
    
    			was
    "Because 
    
    	o [you see that] "America has more people in jails, per capita,
    	  than any other country in the world."
    	o you are somehow equating that to people being so free with jail
    	  sentences and
    	o you are wondering what factor(s) in our society make that true?
    
    Is that correct?
    
    I (for one) do not know why America has more people in jails, per
    capita, than any other country in the world.
    Do you?

    I think one could really work up a lather in SOAPBOX discussing that
    question.

.274> Ok, then your motivation for asking the question ...

    My motivation is irrelevant.

    right, Michael, we understand; you're just making pleasant chat.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Michael made it with Pleasant Chat!!! Michael talk to us :-)
    
    
    David

    Wasn't me.
    
    I never get busy with anyone whose initials are PC.

    Since I made the suggestion, jail for women who withold children in
    visitation I will suggest why. We now have situations where deadbeat
    dads can be arrested. If they can be arrested for something as simple
    as not paying money per a court order, why shouldn't a woman have the
    same restrictions places upon her; namely violate the court order and
    we will severly (= to the man) punish you?
    
    Steve

    Jail for anyone is not a good thing. Perhaps reverse custody for those
    who denied visitation to the NCP should be the norm. Not jail. 
    

    
    
    re jail
    
    I agree with George that jail isnt the answer.  And I do agree that
    CPs who deny court ordered visitation should be held in contempt of
    court.  Ultimately it hurts the kids just as withholding or simply
    not paying child support does.  Yet the two remain legally unrelated.
    Maybe there should be child support based on the amount of visitation
    granted?  Each parent has to provide the same thing to the child(ren)
    when they are in thier custody: a room to sleep in, clothes to wear,
    food to eat, etc.  The rest such as dance lessons or scouts are 
    options each parent decides to elect to pay for.  Does this sound
    feasible?

     Equal protection and punishment under the law. My question is why
    jail at all? 
    IMO Probate is a mutation of the criminal justice system. Thus the
    mentality of "punish the offender". Divorce wasn't common enough in the
    past so the caseload was small (guessing).
    A prposal was made in Maryland to create a "Real Family Court" that
    could be properly staffed to manage cases more effectively offering
    counseling, mediation services etc. In the immediate future I personaly
    feel this approach has the most potential. If there's aproblem then get
    the parties together and work something out so everybody wins. Jail
    creates a no-win solution and perpetuates the adversarial nature of the
    present system.
    				dan d
     

    <My motivation is irrelevant.>
    Then for me so is your question.
    
    If you are unwilling to shed light on what you had in mind and why you
    posed the question (as an example it COULD have been just a light
    editorial throwaway comment) then you can expect that some people will
    ignore the question.
    

    
    The CP can be held in contempt of court for violating the visitation
    orders.  In the past, though, there have been some big pressures
    against the NCP seeking contempt charges.  Usually the first thing
    that the CP did was retaliate with an action for increased child
    support, the courts were unlikely to do anything concrete
    to uphold the court orders, and lawyers were very expensive for 
    something that was unlikely to produce much results even if the
    NCP won the case.
    
    Now however, with the tightening of the guidelines and collections
    of the "child support" I believe that you will see more and more
    NCP's deciding that they have nothing to loose.  They are already
    getting reamed for all the law will allow so the CP can't get
    any more blood out of the turnip.  Contempt charges are really
    quite easy to file "pro se" (as your own lawyer) if you know the
    procedure and do your home work and collect the evidence properly.
    If the NCP serves as his own lawyer, then it really doesn't cost
    much to file contempt charges, so of the court doesn't do anything
    the first time, then the NCP can file again later with additional
    evidence.  Sooner or later, the court will get fed up with the 
    CP's b.s. and uphold the orders.
    
    fred();

    re: mid 260's  Jail.   Sort of like debtors prison, right?  Can't pay so
    send em to jail so they can't work either.  At the rate were going with
    recommendations for jail sentences soon most of the population will be
    locked up for some offense or another, and, the rest of us can support
    them.
    
    I don't see jail as a solution for anything other than getting violent
    offenders off the street.  "Jail doesn't work" in most cases except
    to get the person(s) out of circulation, which perhaps is all that is
    necessary in those cases.
    
    In the case of non support why not do something appropriate such as
    take part of their pay before they get it in a check?
    
    There are other alternatives too, for non violent offenses, such as 
    electronic monitoring.  
    
    Seems to me as if society as a whole is still in the dark ages as far
    as attitudes toward dealing with certain types of non violent crime
    are concerned.
    
    The lock em up throw away the key method doesn't work.  The people 
    get out bitter, and well educated as to how to get back at Society
    even more effectively than before they attended crime university.
    
    Perhaps we should just lock up anyone for life who commits any sort
    of crime... then we wouldn't have to worry about their getting back
    at us after they got out because they wouldn't BE getting out.
    
    Sorry to 'shout' I just get so tired of the lock em up attitude with
    little or no thought going into solutions rather than throwing still
    another persons life away.
    
    Yes, I do care for the unsupported kids.... IMO they would be better
    cared for by having their Dad or Moms pay attached directly instead of
    thowing the person in jail.
    
    Jeff

    
    its more important to indulge the vengeful instincts of scorned
    wimmin and allowing then to use the state to vent their hate 
    by throwing such offenders in the dungeon regardless of the effects 
    on the child-father relationship.
    
    undoubtedly the next step will be some formal status of servitude 
    at hard labor in the Chinese fashion.
    

    Re .286  Ah Ha!  THAT explains it!  Except I would add the word Society
    in with 'Women'.
    
    Jeff