Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    RE: 716.477  Bonnie Reinke
    
    > I don't mind men standing up and saying 'wait a minute'... and
    > I strongly support making things equal for both sides. I think 
    > things are so intertwined that unless we work on everyone's
    > problems we will not get any better...
    
    Agree 100%.

    
    RE bonnie and Susan
    
    I also agree.
    
    Which brings us after 480 some odd notes back to 716.0
    
    fred();

    	RE: .2  Fred
    
    	> Which brings us after 480 some odd notes back to 716.0
    
    	I beg to differ.  Have you read that basenote lately?  
    
    	It went light years beyond, "Wait a minute..."

    Thanks Suzanne for starting this one.  I really enjoyed the positive
    communication that was going on in 716.  
    
    The following 2 replies were posted in womannotes today.  I am posting
    them here with the authors permission.  'ren has made some great points
    about exactly what we have been talking about.
    
    Karen

            <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V4.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 58.684                        The Rathole                        684 of 686
ASDG::FOSTER "radical moderate"                      28 lines  20-JAN-1992 14:15
                       -< You are who you sleep with... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re 47.25, about men's issues vs. black men's issues.
    
    
    There are women in this file who love white men who are fighting very
    bitter and highly biased/unfair custody battles. Men who love their
    children, but must deal with a bitter mother. Those women also seem
    more aware of men's issues. 

    I have met men who have been in Vietnam, and had emotional battle
    scars. I have heard of men who cry at night, unaware, men who haven't
    gotten rid of the images, the terror, the fact that they were forced to
    become killing machines in order to survive. Not all men are able to
    live with that. In America, its not something women ever face. (Not
    just being in the Army, but being forced into a combat position on the
    front lines, having to repeatedly kill people whom you see die - as
    opposed to pilots and artillery positions who are too remote to view
    their own damage.)

    Finding support, treatment, sanity, after seeing combat, is primarily a
    men's issue. But most women only really know about it because they
    loved a man who went through it. 

    Men DO have issues. Sometimes they're so indoctrinated to grin and bear
    it that they don't even know how to fight for certain sides of
    themselves. It is often the women in their lives who see the pain, and
    want to find solutions.

    However, this does NOT belong in this note.

            <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V4.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 58.686                        The Rathole                        686 of 686
ASDG::FOSTER "radical moderate"                      34 lines  20-JAN-1992 14:50
           -< No disagreement! I'm probably preaching to the choir. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Goodness no, I'm not offended! I was very touched by your note. But I
    guess I have noticed as a woman who is very sensitive and works hard at
    getting men to open up and expose their sensitive sides that men have
    some VERY painful issues that need working. Some of them are directly
    related to being black men. In some ways, Vietnam affected more black
    men than white men, so perhaps that's why I'm aware of it. But I've
    listened to some of the other women in this file talk about the pain
    their men have experienced because they can't see their children, even
    though they are making payments. That they're ex's took the kids clear
    across the country or threatened them with unfounded restraining orders
    just because the woman doesn't want to see the father of her children.
    
    SOME men write it off. It gets portioned off in a closed door within
    their souls, locked, key thrown away. And some men can't ignore the
    pain. And when its YOUR lover, you feel that pain too.
    
    I was here in V1 of womannotes, and the file was very woman-centered,
    and it has taken some time for me to begin to realize that as a
    heterosexual woman, I can't ignore my lover's pain, I can't say that
    his issues aren't my issues. And likewise, I'm meeting men who know
    that my issues must be their issues as well.
    
    Personally, I LIKE the team approach. But at the same time, I'm sure
    that many women who sleep with women don't see it the same way. When
    they go to bed at night, they don't hear a man's pain. The voices of
    women in pain are louder, and that's what they respond to. Until it
    visits a son, or a close brother, or a very dear male friend and then
    even they can be drawn in. 
    
    And then there are women who sleep with men who cause them pain... and
    that's a different subject.
    
    

    RE: .4  Karen
    
    > Thanks Suzanne for starting this one.  I really enjoyed the positive
    > communication that was going on in 716.  
    
    Thanks, Karen.  I really enjoyed it, too.
    
    I have no idea why some people are so doggone threatened by some of
    the communication that has gone on thus far.
    
    Imagine what might have happened if so many of us had NOT expressed
    concern for men's issues.  Our cubicles would probably be sitting in
    the middle of a nuclear holocaust by now.

    
    
    What I see happening is men who ARE AFRAID of women.  They are afraid
    to have a discussion.  They are afraid that, just maybe, they might be
    wrong.  Perhaps the discussion in "Men are happening" had gone
    tangential -- who cares.  This is notes, after all.
    
    I also find it amusing that, still, people see women as men-haters just
    because they (those women) have the gall to stand up and speak their
    minds.  (horrors!!!!).  Guys, what the hell are you afraid of?
    
    	GJD

Indeed, I was about to start a "continuation" topic when I saw that Suzanne
had already done so.

But I would like to ask everyone to take a few deep breaths and pause for
a moment to reflect on the "charter" of this conference and what directions
are reasonable for a discussion.  Equal rights is certainly a topic
pertaining to men, and is worth discussing here.  The perception that
equal rights necessarily implies a loss of rights for men also is worthy
of discussion.  But let's do try to keep a "pertaining to men" thread going
here - it hasn't disappeared yet, though sometimes I thought it might.

There do seem to be a number of participants with "chips on their shoulders".
This in itself isn't bad, as it means that these people have very definite
positions, but in a reasonable discussion, shouting down the opposition is
not an appropriate tactic.  

Please try to address the issues, rather than attacking individual
contributors.  Strive for light, not heat.

				Steve

    
    	The million dollar questions are:  
    
    		Why are so many college-educated women stuck in low-paying
    		jobs when they are qualified for (and want) so much more?
    
    		Why do some companies still give women college-graduates
    		typing tests when they arrive to apply for jobs?
    
    	
    	At one point in my old group, the most educated person in the
    	entire district was one of our secretaries (who had a Masters
    	degree.)  The (by the way, male) managers hadn't finished college.

    re.12
    
    One more million $ question: Why is it that so many college educated
    men are stuck in low-paying jobs when they are qualified for (and want)
    so much more?
    
        Just Curious

    RE: .15  
    
    > One more million $ question: Why is it that so many college educated
    > men are stuck in low-paying jobs when they are qualified for (and want)
    > so much more?
    
    Per the U.S. Bureau of Labor, women college graduates make the same
    or less than men with High School educations.  Also, 80% of the women
    in the workforce make less than $20,000.
    
    Where are all the men colllege-graduates who are stuck in low-paying
    jobs (and what sorts of jobs are they?)  Do you have a resource to
    back up your claims?

.9> What I see happening is men who ARE AFRAID of women.

You, sir, pay perceive anything you wish.  *I*, for one, think that this
statement is without merit.  I go to the some places (like redneck bars), 
associate with the people that I want to associate with (men) because there
are certain issues/situations/etc.. associated with M-E-N that I want to
discuss.  I *thought* this conference was such a forum.  I was wrong.
    
I was looking for what is classically called "men's space" any other
touchie-feelie PC words that you or anyone else wants to surround the
phraseology with.

Is this so difficult to comprehend?

.9> They are afraid to have a discussion.

Lovely "blanket" statement.   Here's a hot one for ya'.  I fear no one.
I fear no discussion.  HOWEVER keep in mind that I am free to choose with
whom, where, and what items I want to discuss.

.9> They are afraid that, just maybe, they might be wrong.

My daughters used this tactic ... when they were 6 years old.

.9> Guys, what the hell are you afraid of?

Absolutely noting.  I *do* subscribe to General Patton's admonition: "Never
fight a battle that is not worth winning".

Bubba

re .9

>    I also find it amusing that, still, people see women as men-haters just
>    because they (those women) have the gall to stand up and speak their
>    minds.  (horrors!!!!).

I think a lot of people learned somewhere along the way to believe that
if a man bellows loudly enough and often enough, then a woman will back
down, from whatever confrontation the two were having.  That still works
in a lot of places.  It still works a lot in notes.  But there are some
women who don't seem to have learned this.  So a man writes something
and a woman calmly and logically disagrees; the man replies angrily but
she still disagrees; the man rages at her but she still disagrees; the
man goes ballistic and yet she still, just as calmly and logically as in
her first reply, disagrees.  It's sometimes funny to watch, like when
someone write locks his topic and goes home, and it's sometimes sad to
watch, like when someone starts name-calling ("pit bulls") or suggesting
that authors aren't responsible for what they write ("provoke some men
into an infuriated response").  Whatever happened to "let's agree to
disagree"?

Dan

I feel awkward writing here since:

	1.) Wayne asked specifically for MEN to reply
	2.) Wayne requested that type 2 and type 5 men reply
	3.) String 716 DID pretty much get taken over by women
	4.) Wayne write-locked it out of disgust
	5.) A woman re-opened the can instead of waiting for a man
            to do so in MENnotes.

Guys, if you're a little disgusted by all this, I can't blame you. In some
ways, it seems too bad that there aren't FMO notes, ESPECIALLY on this
topic. But that's a moderator decision, what can you do... 

At any rate, I guess I'm a backwards type 3. I try to examine issues which
are potentially men's rights. SOME are being addressed. A lot of men's
health care issues, such as heart and lung disease and cancer, get a lot of
research. Not so sure about prostate cancer though. Guys, are you still shy
about this one?

I hear, in this file, men honestly talking about their custody battles. And
I have to hope with all my heart that non-fathers are also rallying to
offer support; otherwise, some of these dads will be standing alone on the
front line of this one. The women have too much momentum on custody issues.


But, specifically addressing the basenote in 716.0. I didn't see the humor
the first time. Now I recognize it as satire. Perhaps I didn't see it
because:
	a.) a lot of it is true
	b.) a lot of women will see men's self-examination as a threat
            even though it shouldn't be

Its VERY true that if all the men ganged up and said, "the Feminist
Movement has no basis in reality, and we're going to put a stop to it!" it
would grind to a halt. But I think the 3's and 5's have more in common than
Wayne gives them credit for. I sense that Dunn's description of a 5-type is
the guy who wants to know when women will be drafted, vs. the 3's who may
be pacifists, effectively skirting the issue. Equality is a double-edged
sword, there is NO doubt. And there's every reason to question the feminist
who wants nothing but benefits without some of the shackles of respon-
sibility that decent men have worn for centuries.

But truly, lets get back to men. Are men the enemy for questioning the
Feminist movement? It depends. If they block it on principle, yes. If they
see is as off-course and are also fighting for "real equality", then no.
Because "real feminists" should want "real equality". Even when it comes to
children. Where things CANNOT be equal, they need to be fair.

Fair. What a word. A childish dream that parents taught us so that we
wouldn't hoard toys or kick wimps off the playing field. Fair. An ideal
espoused by hypocrites in every branch of government; made mockery of in US
courts across the nation. 

Fair means sometimes you lose; sometimes, you compromise. Unfortunately,
some people in the US are unwilling to lose. These are usually people with
money and power at stake. And everyone pays so that they can win. Are THEY
the enemy? I don't know. They keep us employed when they win... sometimes.
They lay us off when they're "cutting losses". Somebody else can make the
call.

What are today's MEN's issues? (And who the f*ck am I to try to define
them?!?) Should men be working to counter the Women's movement? Or to match
it with one of their own? As women examine how to make life more "fair",
should the men also? Or should they rip away the illusion? Is life becoming
LESS fair for men? Or is it becoming MORE fair, but less ADVANTAGEOUS? Was
there ever an advantage to being a man? Is it right that such advantages
might disappear?

And also: is there anything, anything at all that men could learn from
women and still be men? Do men want the freedom to be emotional? Do men
want the freedom to be demonstrative toward children? To kiss their sons
instead of shaking hands? Do men want balance in their lives, 40 hour work
weeks with time home with the family instead of 80 hour work weeks and
wives they never see? Do men want paternity leave? Do men want more safety
regulations at work, even though it costs the company, cuts into profits,
and jeopardizes jobs? Do men want a fair custody system? If they got it,
would they exert peer pressure on other men who have unwanted children?
Would men exert the NECESSARY peer pressure on other men to make birth
control a reality, and condoms the norm? (It sure doesn't work when WE say
it!) Do men want women to take responsibility for children when they refuse
to have abortions? Do men want women breadwinners on equal footing in the
workforce? (I don't think you can have one without the other!) Do men WANT
battering shelters? Do men WANT support groups? Do men recognize the ones
they already have, awakening to their value? Do men want to be able to
celebrate being men, having p*nises instead of wombs, having strength and
deep voices, seeing value in their sex?

Yes, men are happening. In several camps, in many directions. I think many
men see that as the need for brute strength in EVERY aspect of life
diminishes, the roles of men and women can blur. And as such, equivalence
or equality makes some sense. In the workplace, where the task requires
brains not brawn, In financial parity, where the number of women
breadwinners is increasing dramatically. In the home, where the joys of
fatherhood are starting to be emphasized. So, men have valid reasons for
working toward equality, even though, from their vantage point, it takes a
different tack and the issues will differ even as men and women meet in the
middle.
                                       
But there must be other issues as well. Men: WHAT ARE THEY???

    I agree with Dan.
    
    I also think, however, that men have legitimate grievances of their 
    own, and that discussion of these gets completely sidetracked when
    it goes down either of these two paths:
    
    1) Women have it easy, compared to us! (from the guys)
    2) You think you suffer? It's nothing compared to what women go
    through. (from the women).
    
    In neither of these scenarios is room for the discussion of the
    grievance, either real or perceived. It can only relate to some
    aspect that includes bashing the opposite sex, through invalidating
    the feelings on the other side.
    
    -roger
    
    
    

    'ren that was a GREAT note.  I don't believe that 716 was taken over by
    women, there was some of us that came out as strong supporters of men
    and their issues (I was and still am one of them).  Yes, I would like
    men to be encouraged to feel their feelings, be able to express them
    without being ridiculed as being a sissy.
    
    I also like what you said about advantages and how that could be one of
    the things men in todays society are threatened by, the loss of
    advantages.
    
    I don't know where else to go with this at the moment, so I'll stop,
    but your note 'ren was great.
    
    Karen

    re. 19
    
    
    		That was a beautiful note. You must be an very insightful
    person. I don't know what else to say, thank you.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    RE: .19  'ren
    
    You raised some very interesting questions (about men's concerns)
    that I would love to have seen answered in the 716.* topic (or here.)
    
    When 716.0 started out trying to rally "the type 2 and 5's [to] finally 
    stop the type 3's from controlling this conference" - such queries and
    discoveries became a tad less likely to occur.  It's unfortunate, and
    endly badly (as such efforts are bound to do when a man challenges a
    group of men to (more or less) "fight" another group of men in a 
    public forum.)
    
    If a discussion like the one you described were to take place now, 
    it would be great!

    re .16
    
    Were those statistics normalized for hours worked?
    
    A lot of the "fact" that women make .68 (or whatever the current figure
    is) for every dollar that men make can be explained by a longer work
    week for the man, but both pays being divided by the same 40
    hours/week.
    
    Rich

    Rich, latest figures from Department of Labor for college
    graduated new hires has women making $1.02 to the men's
    $1.00, for similar positions.

    
>    Per the U.S. Bureau of Labor, women college graduates make the same
>    or less than men with High School educations.
    
    	False. Read .25. You need to read the current stats.
    
    
>      Also, 80% of the women in the workforce make less than $20,000.
    
    		How many are working part time? How many did not graduate
    from high school? How about some factual data to support this very
    broad statement.
    
                    

    	If someone wants to propose that women make $1.02/$1.00 to
    	men's pay, let the person state his exact resource for this
    	claim.  Otherwise, it's meaningless.
    
    	IN fact, the wage gap is still as bad as it was twenty years
    	ago.
    
    	Here are my exact resources for the wage gap:
    
    		"Briefing Paper on the Wage Gap," National Committee
    		on Pay Equity, p. 3; "AVERAGE EARNINGS OF YEAR-ROUND,
    		FULL-TIME WORKERS BY SEX AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT,"
    		1987, U.S. Bureau of the Census, February 1989, cited
    		in The American Woman 1990-1991, p. 392.
    
    	[Please note special emphasis, mine, placed on the article about
    	comparisons of YEAR-ROUND, FULL-TIME workers, per the request
    	earlier in this string.]
    
    	If someone disagrees - cite your resources.

I've just heard about a new report from the US which says that in the past 
two decades the difference in average wage between men and women has narrowed 
slightly.  In OECD countries it narrowed most in Australia. 

    RE: .28  Simpson
    
    Did they happen to mention their exact resources for this?  (At least
    they didn't claim that women are now making $1.02/$1.00 compared to
    men.)  :-)
    

    Say, folks, I have a suggestion.  Obviously, the folks here don't want
    to pick apart the women's movement anymore.  This is MENNOTES, after
    all.
    
    'ren Foster wrote a wonderful note (reply .19) outlining some subjects
    of possible concern to men (ie, men's issues!!)
    
    I'd really, really, really love to hear what men (of all types) think
    about these issues (or any other true "issues" for men that anyone is
    willing to bring up.)
    
    After all, I'm sure there's more to "men's issues" than arguments against
    the women's rights movement.
    
    Men's issues DO need airing.  What *are* these issues?

    
    Resources!  Resources!  Newsweek, Playboy, New York Times, Simpsons
    Illustrated, Cosmo, Readers Digest, Mother Goose... pick one.
    
    Who cares?  If Bugs Bunny publishes a stat, and someone references it,
    does that make ya happy?  Do ya believe everything that "somebody" else
    put in print?  Is an entry invalid if no one quotes "someone elses"
    information?  You throw around a lot of comparisons which seem to be
    yanked out of a hat too.
    
    BTW - Where is your list ya promised?  The list of rights that women
    didn't have...

    	Hey, Dwight, if I can provide exact resources for my stats
    	(from the U.S. Bureau of the Census,) then anyone who claims
    	women now make MORE money than men (when comparing dollar to
    	dollar) ought to be expected to prove it.
    
    	Meanwhile, why are you asking me for more stuff about the 
    	women's rights movement?
    
    	I'd still like to hear about men's concerns (true "issues"
    	that involve men.)  
    
    	Isn't there something more to men's concerns than what we've
    	seen presented so far?

    re .17:
    
    .9> Guys, what the hell are you afraid of?
    
    >Absolutely noting.
    
    General Bubba, suh!  Say it ain't so!
    
    ;)
    aq
    

    re.16 Suzanne
    
     With college degrees under 20k (not counting OT), myself and several
     of the people that I work with.
     
     We work in the Westfield Enclosures business (sheet metal mechanics)
    
    Do I have stats to back up how many college men are making less than 
    20k a year to start. Nope. I have a problem with statistics, regardless
    of which side of the discussion they support, because they can be used
    to prove or disprove most anything you want. 
    
    Knowing what degrees were received might be a better way of judging
    what's fair or unfair. If some one spent their entire college career
    learning to read Greek mythology in Chinese or majored in secretarial
    sciences, the chances are good that they will start in a low paying job. 
    
    The high school I attended was also a trade/vocational school. Most
    of the trade school graduates (99% male, in 1970) went right into the
    job market, with useable skills. The same holds true for the class of
    91', job's wise. (I don't know what the male/female % was for 91').
    
    Entering the job market already trained, with hands on experience is
    a definite plus and may very well account for some of the salary
    differences you mentioned between college grad. women and high school
    men.
    
    Finaly,
    
    "All things being equal, hire a man"         is sexist?  True or False
    
    "All things being equal, vote for a woman"   is sexist?  True or False
                                                                          

    RE: .34
    
    Why did you make the examples different for men and women:
    
    > "All things being equal, hire a man"         is sexist?  True or False
    > "All things being equal, vote for a woman"   is sexist?  True or False
                                                                          
    Hiring for jobs and voting are two separate cases.
    
    Each person who votes in our society can cast his/her vote for 
    any reason the voter decides is valid.  It's also private (no 
    one has any right to demand to know how another person voted.)
    
    Asking people (during a news interview, NOT a paid political
    announcement) to vote for women ("all things being equal") to
    help bridge the gap between the sexes in the nearly all-male 
    Congress is not illegal, immoral (or sexist.)
    
    In fact, when I've seen women discuss how few women are in
    Congress, the standard response to this (from a lot of men
    I've seen) has been either "Run for office to change this"
    or "Support and vote for more women running for office!"
    
    So a woman at NOW suggested that people vote for *qualified*
    candidates who happen to be women.
    
    What is the problem?

    P.S.  With regard to your own situation (along with several people
    you know) - anecdotal evidence doesn't tell us much.
    
    It's only when one looks at the whole picture (the work force as
    a whole) that patterns of discrimination become more evident.

    Re. .35
    
    Asking people to vote for women ("all things being equal") to help
    bridge the gap... is sexist.
    It favors the female sex based on a false premise: "all things being
    equal". All things are never equal. Perhaps two flies or ants might be
    equal but I never saw two human beings who were equal. Have you?
    
    I am not talking about external appearance, of course. The baggage of
    experience, education, system of beliefs, attitude, morality, ability,
    etc. that form a human being into a leader is not easy to replicate.
    The best candidate will be a woman or a man based on those qualities,
    not on the sexist desire of just narrowing the gap. That position is
    just as false as Affirmative Action: the forced hiring of minorities to
    "narrow the gap" regardless of qualification. It is ruining this
    country.

    RE: .37  Bustamante
    
    > That position is just as false as Affirmative Action: the forced 
    > hiring of minorities to "narrow the gap" regardless of qualification. 
    
    First off, this is an absolute falsehood.  Affirmative action was
    NEVER, EVER set up to hire people "regardless of qualifications."
    It's only bigotry that ASSUMES people of other races/genders must
    necessarily be less qualified.
    
    Second, the individual who suggested that people vote for women ("All
    things being equal, and BOTH CANDIDATES BEING QUALIFIED") is most
    *clearly and definitely* not asking anyone to vote for an unqualified
    candidate.
    
    Asking people to help elect more qualified women candidates who also
    have the same political beliefs as individual voters is totally and
    completely acceptable.  If Congress were nearly all-female, I would
    hardly blame some men for asking people to vote for qualified male
    candidates to help even things out *a bit*.
    
    C'mon, folks, it's hardly a radical concept to ASK FOR VOTES!

    RE. .38 Conlon
    
    I agree that it is bigotry to ASSUME that people of other races/genders
    must necessarily be less qualified. But Affirmative Action's main
    intent is to go very far in the other direction in pro of "bridging the
    gap" and it's hurting all of us. Even the Japanese are aware of it.

    re .36 and others
    	My anecdote which probably doesn't prove anything.  May shed some
    light on pay differences.  
    	I dropped out of college after one semester.  My wife has a PHD in
    psychology.  She has never been able to find a job that will pay as
    much as mine does.  Is this because she is a woman, or because she
    chose or was guided into a field which is overcrowded, and where
    credentials are more important than performance?  Am I doing OK because
    I never had the luxury of a career path and a fulfilling profession?  I
    don't think that the dichotomy is specifically gender related.  She has
    friends in the same profession who don't really make enough to support
    themselves and supplement their income with part time businesses.  
    	In my opinion a considerable part of the disparities in pay can be
    explained by situations like my wife's, where women are guided into
    overcrowded underpaid fields.  Many of them accept the line they are
    fed by "professional educators" who think that getting a tenured job in
    acedemia is the highest goal that anyone can aspire to.  What they
    don't see are the masters and PHDs who fall by the wayside and become
    secretaries and the like, working for dropouts who somehow or other
    aquired skills that are marketable in the real world.  
    	Whether women get guided into fields that don't pay because the
    counsellors perceive that they can always fall back on their Mrs. or
    whether they do it on their own is an interesting question.  The net
    result along with a lot of other factors is what the statistics are
    made from.  There is also an awful lot of money being spent on
    education that would have been more productively spent on "drugs and
    sex and rock and roll".
    					John
    

    RE: .39  Bustamante
    
    > But Affirmative Action's main intent is to go very far in the other 
    > direction in pro of "bridging the gap" and it's hurting all of us.
    
    This is patently false, also.  Affirmative Action was NEVER, EVER set
    up to go "very far."  The percentages involved were always minute,
    even back when we had an EEOC that actually enforced it.  (It's been
    over 12 years since this has been the case.)
    
    >  Even the Japanese are aware of it.
    
    The Japanese look down on American workers AS A GROUP - they think
    we all want to work less for more money (and this means white males,
    too.)

 After 716 and this string, I can see quite clearly why the noters in =wn=
become so upset when men begin to dominate a discussion. The exact same
phenomenon which led to the institution of FWO notes in =wn= has occurred
in this conference.

 I am certain that we are losing a significant amount of different male
voices simply because they don't want to deal with machine gun noters. This
file is definitely not a forum for male discussion, that's for sure. (As a
side note, I don't know how to make it one either.) Nonetheless, I'd like to 
appeal to those of you men who aren't willing to participate due to the
rapid fire responses to overcome your reluctance and share your feelings with
us. A great many of us want to hear what you have to say. One thing that
cannot be stressed enough is that you don't have to pay attention to anyone
you don't want to, that separating the wheat from the chaff is not always easy 
but reaps benefits.

 Here's to more well thought out notes like 'ren's and less of the back and 
forth he said, she said, no I didn't, yes you did, cite your sources, oh
shut up notes. Good God. Give it a rest. I p[ersonally get to the point where I
no longer read notes by certain authors because it's too repetitious and
time consuming and I already KNOW their perspective. Too much chaff.

 I'd like to hear some DIFFERENT perspectives. It's like the lead singer of
Motley Crue and the lead singer from some rap band trying to outdo each
other over a PA that is drowning out the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It isn't
music at this point, it's just noise. And nuggets like 'ren's note are getting
drowned out in the cacophony; a tragedy, in my estimation.

    I find it very interesting that Suzanne has asked several times for the
    men in this conference to respond to 'ren's .19.  C'mon guys, these are
    your issues, why don't you want to discuss them?  
    
    Karen

    Re: .42
    
    Mark,
    
    Well said, that is exactly the reason why I've stayed out of this, and
    other notes in this conference in the past, it just hasn't been worth
    the aggravation.  I'd like to see that change, but haven't figured out
    how to do it without aggravating the problem.
    
    Karl

    
    Re: .44
    
    Got to agree completely with your note and of course the gem
    Mark entered. I was on a business trip last week and when I checked
    into mennotes this morning, , I thought I had the wrong 
    conference....AGAIN!!  
    
    						Hank
    
    ps. Ren, always nice to read your notes. Best wishes.

    RE: .42  The Doctah
    
    > I am certain that we are losing a significant amount of different male
    > voices simply because they don't want to deal with machine gun noters. 
    > This file is definitely not a forum for male discussion, that's for sure.
    
    It doesn't help much when a basenoter starts out a discussion by urging
    one group of male noters to "stop" other groups of male noters from
    "controlling the conference."  In such a case, it's obvious that the
    author is not looking for "different male voices" AT ALL (but is, rather,
    attempting to silence a number of men here.)
    
    > Nonetheless, I'd like to appeal to those of you men who aren't willing 
    > to participate due to the rapid fire responses to overcome your 
    > reluctance and share your feelings with us. A great many of us want to 
    > hear what you have to say.
    
    It would, indeed, be wonderful to hear men's feelings (instead of all
    the misinformed, harsh condemnations of the women's movement.)  The
    recent name-calling against people defending the women's movement
    has been pretty pathetic, too, in response to a mere discussion.
    
    If men have "issues" (beyond the backlash against the women's movement,
    that is) - it would be great to hear about them.  We've all been waiting
    and waiting for it - but it still hasn't happened (at least not in this
    topic.)

    I got one minor question here. What do you do for work inbetween
    writing in the notes file? :)

    
    	By the way, there are other active topics in this conference
    	that have all sorts of different male voices expressing things
    	about their lives, how they were raised, etc., without the
    	topic being overrun with arguments (pro and con) about the
    	women's movement.
    
    	These topics are not being disrupted in any way, and it is
    	interesting to hear these male voices.
    
    	"Men are happening" is just one bound-volume (sorta) topic.

    re .43 Karen
    
    I think that there are a lot of men here who are just sick and tired
    of having to defend every statemet to the thought police.  If you've
    been following this string at all, I think you can judge for yourself
    why it is so difficult to discuss these issues.  Both in Notes and
    out.
    
    Mods:
    It would be nice to be able to discuss some of these issues without
    the whole discussion getting rat-holed into (yet another) soapbox
    from which to spew forth feminist dogma.
    
    fred();

    "thought police"

    "spew forth feminist dogma"

    Is it any wonder that topics get ratholed?

    If someone strenuously disagrees they are automatically
    the "thought police" and their opinions are "feminist dogma?"

    First of all, "thought police" implies someone is systematically
    "arresting" you and *preventing* you from thinking certain thoughts.
    That is absurd.   

    Secondly, "feminist dogma" assumes the opinions expressed come
    directly from some narrow and carefully controlled point of view.
    To prove such a ridiculous accusation you'll have to show us the
    source text - perhaps a "feminist manifesto?"
    
    The real kicker, of course, is the fact that if you look at
    just who the "thought police" and dispensers of "feminist dogma"
    are supposed to be, you'll see no attempts at censorship (you
    know, bold actions like write-locking a topic....)

    If you've been following such twisted logic and mean-spirited
    characterizations of the participants, I think you can judge
    for yourself why it is so difficult to discuss these issues.

    /Greg

    Fred,  It would be nice to be able to discuss some of these issues
    without the whole discussion getting rat-holed into (yet another) soapbox
    from which to spew forth ANTI-feminist dogma.  That is what some people
    here intended.  
    
    					- mod
    
    re:  machine guns
    
    	If all you can fly is something that ought to be shot down, expect
    flak.  
            
    					- Vick

    Re. .41 Conlon
    
    How far is Affirmative Action going can be seen everywhere. The Post
    Office, the auto industry, our industry, etc. I think it all started
    with Spyro Agnew's defense of mediocrity and it hasn't improved since.
    It's all a matter of education and until that problem is solved we're
    stuck, so, there's no need to elaborate more on this rathole.
    
    The Japanese Prime Minister (not this one) was pretty specific in his
    criticisms.
    
    But going back to the feelings we men have regarding issues where we
    see ourselves being victimized by the system, every one has his own
    version. Whenever we talk about them we usually find someone, male or
    female, who is quite willing to criticize what we're saying rather than
    providing support. It's a "one-upmanship" game that Notes writers in
    particular are very good at. I am guilty too. They are variations of
    the "We were so poor when I was a child in Brooklyn"... "How poor?..."
    game.
    
    One of my major gripes has to do with quality. American men will tolerate
    the shoddiest of service in a restaurant and still leave a tip. We see
    that the government does nothing to improve education and we do not
    kick them out of office in the next election. We always end up having
    to select the least damaging out of a bunch of nincompoops. We gloat at
    the failure of communism and yet we cannot solve the problem of our
    homeless, health services, unemployment, education, foreign
    competition, etc. We focus corporate success on sucking up to the
    stockholders at the expense of employees layoffs, service to clients,
    market penetration.
    
    I know, these are not just men's problems but they bother me anyway.
    
    I think you know what the typical problems are for men. Disparities in
    the laws for divorce and support, always having to be the ones who
    stretch our necks out to be rejected by some woman who thinks she has
    the world by the tail because she's pretty (she may not have passed
    Calculus I but she doesn't give a damn about Calculus anyway!). Being
    seen as a meal ticket even by the best raised women. Having to see how
    unimportant we become in the eyes of our "beloved" after she has our
    children. Having to deal with hierarchies where those who rise are not
    necessarily the best but the better connected, the most devious, etc.
    Being drafted. Overcoming the pain of a distant and aloof father.
    
    So, how deep do you really want to go, Suzanne?

    Fred,
    
    I'm not participating in MENNOTES to spew the feminist agenda.  I'm not
    here to debate it.  What I am here for, my motives if you will, is to
    learn about your issues, what's important to men, how men feel and
    think.  In short, I'm here to learn, nothing more, nothing less.  I'm
    not here to educate anyone on the feminist agenda, because I don't KNOW
    the feminist agenda, I haven't done any studying of it at all.  If I
    put forth a belief or an opinion on something, it's MY belief and
    opinion, no one else's.  I try to be fair-minded and if I'm not sure
    what my belief or opinion is, I don't say anything at all.  I was
    really hoping that the MEN in this conference would talk about .19 and
    that a real gut-level honest discussion could come out of it.  I do
    hear what you are saying though and I don't totally disagree with it. 
    I'm not sure what I feel about it at this.
    
    Maybe I'm crazy, but having more understanding of men and their issues
    helps me understand people in general more.  I'm not here to judge
    anyone.  I feel that men's issues are just as valid as women's issues.
    
    'Nuff said?
    
    Karen

    Karen,

    		.50, .51, and Suzanne are the reason men don't put their
    feelings out here, in the open, to be trashed, invalidated, and
    generally torn apart. I'm sure not going to let them nit-pick apart my
    inner most feelings, would you?


    				HAND
    				Wayne

    Well Wayne, to be honest that would depend on whether I could defend
    myself or not.  I hear what you are saying though and I understand the
    caution.  
    
    Karen

    RE: .54  Wayne
    
    > .50, .51, and Suzanne are the reason men don't put their
    > feelings out here, in the open, to be trashed, invalidated, and
    > generally torn apart.
    
    It isn't "FEELINGS" that are being torn apart - it's faulty arguments
    based on people's opinions that are being challenged by other noters.
    
    Opinions are *always* fair game for discussion in notes.
    
    > I'm sure not going to let them nit-pick apart my inner most feelings, 
    > would you?
    
    Your stated objective in 716.* was not to air "inner most feelings,"
    but to urge MEN to stop letting other MEN "control" this conference.
    
    Your plan didn't work out, so now it comes down to "Boo hoo, they
    won't let me express my inner most feelings..."
    
    And this is after you writelocked your topic (when it didn't go the
    way you wanted it to go) amidst your usual flurry of telling people
    to go away and/or shutup.
    
    All this from a mere discussion about social issues......  Wow.

    
    >Inner feelings
    
    Poor babies, shivering in the corner!
    
    Get real!  This is the MEN-NOTES conference, not the SISSIES
    conference.  What are these poor over-sensitive men afraid of?
    Characters on a screen?  Ideas?  Women?  Their own shadows?
    
    What would General Patton say about this?  Tell me that!
    
    Sorry guys, but this whimpering just gets on my nerves sometimes.
    
    Let me put it this way.  Any of you read-only guys out there who
    are waiting around for the day you can put a note in this or
    any other notesfile without drawing disagreement, are going to
    have a long wait.  When you draw disagreement, it doesn't mean you aren't
    right.  It doesn't mean anyone hates you.  It doesn't mean anyone
    wants you to go away.  It doesn't mean anyone thinks you aren't
    a valid person.  It doesn't mean you are being trashed.  What it
    means - are you ready for this? - What it means is YOU'RE ALIVE.
    It means you are communicating, and only the living communicate.  
    
    					- Vick

    .56 and .57
    
    
    		Thank you. You proved my point. This is one fish that won't
    take your bait.
    
    
    
    
    			Have a nice day you two
    			Wayne 

    RE: .58  Wayne
    
    ...in other words, you disagree.
    
    Ok.
    

    Now.  You see, Wayne.  You and Mike just disagreed with me.  Do I feel
    trashed?  No.  Do I feel that you guys are stepping on my feelings?
    No.  Do I feel invalidated?  No.  I just feel disagreed with.  It's
    really not very painful at all.  
    					- Vick

re .-1, yeah ok Vick, the criticism doesn't bother you.  But
you must remember that not all men are such manly men, that
some myn are so...sensitive. :-)

Dan

    
    	Which Newsweek issue?
    
    	I am very skeptical of this info because the $1.02/$1.00 is a
    	wage comparison that has been tossed at Womannotes for going 
    	on 5 years (it's funny how this particular number seems to have
    	grown into an urban legend over the years.)
    
    	I've never ONCE seen the figure substantiated, and I seriously
    	doubt it can be now (without a great deal of narrowing down
    	the people being compared.)  Meanwhile, all the other U.S.
    	Bureau of Labor, and U.S. Bureau of the Census stuff I've
    	seen decisively contradicts it.
    
    	The one using such a nebulous resource as "some Newsweek article
    	about a year ago" bears the responsibility to go find it.

    I'll re-iterate: I think the decision not to have FMO notes is a
    mistake. I think women complaining about men who complain about
    feminists in MENnotes is a crock. I thought Bustamante's note in .54 (I
    think) was really deep. But the title said it all... he scratched the
    surface and listed the issues, but really, truly, is MENNOTES the place
    for this, and is exposing your true feelings REALLY a male thing? Or is
    it one of those things that you save for special moments, like late at
    night in bed with your lover, or over one too many brewski's with your
    best friend in the pub... but NOT in Mennotes.
    
    I think we ALL know that men are taught not to make themselves
    vulnerable by exposing weaknesses. So, asking them to do so is kinda
    bogus. And jumping on men because they choose not to, after everyone
    TAUGHT them not to, is pretty mean-spirited. Victor, I honestly think
    you've got it wrong. This IS Mennotes. And there are men reading it,
    not sissies. But there's a damned if you do, damned if you don't issue
    here. If you don't expose your issues, according to Victor and Greg
    Schuler, you're a sissy. If you DO expose your issues, and one of your
    MAJOR hot buttons is the women's movement and the fact that you're
    having a hard time dealing with rapid change, the fluctuating demands,
    the inconsistencies, the throwing out of tradition, etc. you get MAJOR
    arguments from Conlon and crew. It irks the hell out of me that it
    doesn't seem okay in a Men's conference to discuss the fact that the
    Feminist movement can be a big pain in the butt.
    
    And I certainly wouldn't stick *my* neck out in here and actually air
    non-PC views to let people see my personal weaknesses and throw
    statistics and arguments in my face about them. I don't even have to be
    a guy to figure out that I ain't drunk, and this ain't the local bar.
    
    When I wrote 724.19, I had a feeling that men might not expand the list
    much. I'm not sure men tend to make lists! And sure enough, it hasn't
    happened much. But that's OKAY! Men will arrive at whereever they're
    going to go in their OWN way, not as *I*, a woman, direct them. At
    least I hope so. I sure don't want them directing ME over in
    Womannotes. 
    
    So guys, I thank you for the kudos. And to those who mentioned a few
    more to me off-line, I've now picked up on male baldness issues. And
    the middle-age crisis. But a good friend also reminded me that
    different men have different issues. That's pretty blatant in mennotes.
    You shouldn't have to be a feminist to note here. You shouldn't have to
    be PC. This isn't FEMINISTMENNOTES or PCMENNOTES. Its MENNOTES. And
    just as Womannotes needs to learn to make more room for the pro-life
    viewpoint, which isn't PC, there's some tolerance lacking in Mennotes
    as well. 
    
    Work it guys. And women (you know who you are!), how 'bout stepping
    back and letting them???
    
    Oh, and somebody PLEASE tell me where the note is that explains why FMO
    notes aren't allowed. I'm sure its a Man thing that I just don't
    understand.

Good notes, 'ren.

I've been pretty much out of this string since around .180 of the original,
though I have followed it with interest and dropped a comment or two.  If
anyone was annoyed that I didn't keep on after .180 when they responded to
it, sorry, but the string really went in significantly different directions
and I didn't want to drag it back.  Strange as it may seem to some of you,
I really am a 'live and let live' kind of guy, except when people attack me
directly; and, strangely enough, since I consider myself a feminist, that's
been happening a lot lately.  I don't know if there's any way for Wayne's
original basenote to be read other than as an inducement for some men to
shout down others.  Well, that won't happen; some of us can shout back just
as loudly as we're shouted at, though truth to tell, I'd rather be doing
something else.  Which, for most of this string, I have been doing; letting
it ride, doing something else.  'Ren, I don't think men have to be pc and/or
feminist to note in here.  What's certain to happen when feminists are being
attacked indiscriminately, thugh, is that we'll respond.  If fred and wayne
don't want to hear from feminists, all they have to do is refrain from the
attacks, and refrain from asking questions that we're interested in.  But
when they open those kinds of questions, hey, we're men: I can say unabashedly
and without shame that I'm a feminist and this is how I look at issue "x",
when its opened for discussion in mennotes.  And if we can discuss "x" without
launching personal attacks on feminists and "feminist agendas" and "radical
feminists" then we'll all enjoy the conversations more, I'm sure.  But in all
seriousness, you can't expect us to suffer the attacks in silence.  Not all
the time.

As far as FMO notes go, the king moderator in here quit writing in =wn= years
ago, as I understand it, in a dispute over precisely that policy ("FWO") in
there.  It's highly unlikely that he'd countenance such here on his turf, for
what are probably best described as philosophical reasons.  I've been on him
for years to allow a processing note, but haven't yet gotten it.  Tell you
what, you support me every time I see a need for processing note and say so,
and I'll support you every time you recommend a "FMO" note.  Deal?

DougO

    
    Sorry Doug, I hadn't noticed you getting jumped on in WN processing
    notes. I'll try to work on it.
    
    There are times when I have this spurt of noting. It surprises me that
    this one happened in Mennotes. But then it goes away. It tends to
    correspond to high stress at work. Should be over by next week, and I
    can go back to read-only in MN.
    
    I could go on ad infinitum. But then, I wouldn't be taking my own
    advice...

>    Sorry Doug, I hadn't noticed you getting jumped on in WN processing
>    notes. I'll try to work on it.

no, sorry, that isn't what I meant to say.  I mean in *here*; in mennotes,
just like there are no FMO notes, there is no 'processing' note.  I'm
suggesting we support each other to convince the mods here of the need 
for both...

DougO

    Maybe there should be a note: Should there be FMO topics?
    
    Maybe the note wouldn't change things at all, but then again, maybe it
    would.
    
    I do not believe its my place to start such a note, so I won't.

    Notes 1.10 and 1.18 discuss the anti-discrimination policies of 
    this conference.
    
    Aside from the fact that FMO (and FWO) notes are against corporate policy,
    my belief is restricting who can participate in a topic is
    counterproductive - it won't eliminate dissent and will generate
    resentment.  I also believe that anyone willing to speak their mind
    here should be open to differing views.  We do not tolerate
    offensive behavior here, which includes personal attacks.  But
    neither do we erect artificial walls behind which to hide.
    
    As I said in the above referenced notes, we're all in this world
    together, so we may as well make the best of it.  If there are
    men out there who don't want to be exposed to women and their
    opinions, I'd suggest looking into joining a monastery.
    
    And if you're looking for a place to practice "hit and run" noting,
    where you can say anything and avoid responsibility for your
    words, you've come to the wrong place.
    
    					Steve

    
    Well, that's certainly ONE opinion. Is it okay to hear others?

.70>              -< We don't need no steenking FMO notes! >-         

    I second that.

    This is a DEC-owned resource and not an Elks Club or American
    Legion hall, as such, discrimination based on gender does not
    belong here.

    By the way, Steve, I know I used that line here before, and if
    I stumble across the reply, you'll be hearing from my lawyer.  ;^)

I see myself as a minority in this particular string...  I am pretty happy with
Life at this juncture.  Excluding my Mother-in-law, I really don't have many
problems.  I can laugh at the "Bundys" as those situations don't even come
close to me (if my youngest calls me "not the Mama", I may begin to worry).
I like/enjoy working with both men AND women.  I believe in Synergy where 
Ultimate Synergy is LOVE.  I use the Rule of Accuracy in problem solving which
states "that when working towards the solution of a problem it helps if you know
the answer".  In most cases the "answer" is a vision for the future but in this 
file seems to be just a hodge-podge of thoughts...

The only question I would have pertaining to this string is:

How is it that the patriarchy could be so harsh to men with regard to the
breakup of families?

    By the way, 'ren, there is a healthy side to all this that no one
    here has even mentioned yet.
    
    The fact that you (a woman) are offering your support to the men
    denouncing the women's movement while other women are defending
    the movement alongside men who also support it...  It's a sign
    that these issues have gone WAY beyond any sort of men-against-
    women standoff.
    
    These are issues that affect us all, and it is the best possible
    news that men and women are standing together on the various sides
    of these issues to discuss them.
    
    Isn't this what equality is all about, after all?

    RE: .65  'ren

    > I think women complaining about men who complain about feminists 
    > in MENnotes is a crock. 

    Please note that it is MEN and WOMEN who are pushing back against
    the attacks on the women's movement.  I presume it's ok if MEN here
    express opinions that differ from these attacks.  Men (as a group)
    consist of individuals with as many diverse opinions as women do
    (as a group.)

    > I thought Bustamante's note in .54 (I think) was really deep. But 
    > the title said it all... he scratched the surface and listed the issues..

    Please note that no one argued with him about the issues he listed.
    If these are his concerns (or any number of men's feelings about the
    concerns they face as men in our culture) - no problem.  NO one has
    pushed back against men discussing how they FEEL about being "income
    objects" (or "success objects") either.

    > I think we ALL know that men are taught not to make themselves
    > vulnerable by exposing weaknesses. So, asking them to do so is kinda
    > bogus. 

    Is asking someone to list social issues that affect men REALLY a 
    request that they make themselves vulnerable?  Social issues can
    be discussed without a single "This is what happened to me," after
    all.

    > And jumping on men because they choose not to, after everyone
    > TAUGHT them not to, is pretty mean-spirited. 

    It's even more mean-spirited for people to moan that the topic has
    turned towards women while repeatedly directing replies to women to
    challenge us on points involved with the women's movement.  In such
    a situation, it's entirely appropriate to point out to them that they
    are STILL demanding "lists of unequal rights" and making other sorts
    of challenges while decrying that these very women are still involved
    in the topic.

    > If you DO expose your issues, and one of your MAJOR hot buttons is 
    > the women's movement and the fact that you're having a hard time dealing 
    > with rapid change, the fluctuating demands, the inconsistencies, the 
    > throwing out of tradition, etc. you get MAJOR arguments from Conlon 
    > and crew. 

    You are flat out wrong about this.  If people had simply said, "I'm
    having trouble dealing with the rapid changes, etc." - it would have
    been no problem at all.  These are feelings.

    When people make false statements (based on their negative OPINIONS)
    about the women's movement, these OPINIONS are fair game for debate
    in notes.  NO one is free from having opinions challenged in this
    medium.  Feelings is another matter entirely.  Feelings are not the
    problem here.

    > It irks the hell out of me that it doesn't seem okay in a Men's 
    > conference to discuss the fact that the Feminist movement can be a 
    > big pain in the butt.
    
    Again, if people had expressed their feelings about this - no problem.
    Lots of things in life are a pain.

    When OPINIONS enter into it - there are a good number of MEN here who
    disagree with the false statements made from negative opinions of the
    women's movement, and they have every right in the world to say what
    they think.  So do women, for that matter.

    > But a good friend also reminded me that different men have different
    > issues. That's pretty blatant in mennotes.
    
    Exactly.  

    > You shouldn't have to be a feminist to note here. You shouldn't have 
    > to be PC. This isn't FEMINISTMENNOTES or PCMENNOTES. Its MENNOTES.

    More to the point - you shouldn't have to be ANTI-feminist, nor ANTI-PC.
    Many men have great respect for the women's movement and give it great
    support.  These men have the right to air this opinion here.  Women at
    Digital also have this right.

    > And just as Womannotes needs to learn to make more room for the pro-life
    > viewpoint, which isn't PC, there's some tolerance lacking in Mennotes
    > as well. 

    In this case, Mennotes may need to show more tolerance for the so-called
    "PC [SIC]" viewpoint, since it's these men who are being continuously 
    urged to shut up by the men who disagree with them.

    > Work it guys. And women (you know who you are!), how 'bout stepping
    > back and letting them???
    
    As long as opinions are being discussed, they are fair game (as is true
    in every conference on the net.)  No one is safe from having their
    ideas or politics challenged.

    I look at womannotes and I see women making very NEGATIVE statements
    about the flip side of men. They call it as they see it. Rape,
    battering, etc. Real issues, legitimate gripes. The men complained, and
    most were silenced. Because Womannotes needed to be a place where
    women could be honest.
    
    When men can't be honest in mennotes, then mennotes doesn't work. If
    other men want to call them on what they're saying, that's fine, but in
    a conference for men to discuss what's on their minds, I don't think
    vehement dissent from women is appropriate. There are plenty of men who
    can address the task, aren't there? Or are men so incapable of speaking
    up that women think they have to do it for them?
    
    When we flip the coin, Suzanne, you are one of the first champions...
    
    If you were a man in Womannotes saying what you do in here, I'd sign up
    for the List.

    I seem to have better luck addressing questions to specific people...
    
    This question is for Suzanne Conlon or Doug Olsen:  If we could jump
    into the future where all the goals of feminism have been achieved,
    describe your vision of the world.  I mean this as a serious request
    and would probably bet that your replies are no different from any one
    elses in this conference.

    RE: .65

    > If you don't expose your issues, according to Victor and Greg
    > Schuler, you're a sissy. 

    I don't know where I said anything that gave you this impression.
    Could you point out the note(s) which led you to make this statement?

    It is an issue that men are supposed to be tough and strong and courageous
    but at the same time are unable to overcome (fear?) whatever it is
    that prevents us from revealing our feelings (or "issues" as you put
    it)...

    But actually, I think your more than a bit off-target here because what
    Victor was referring to was opinions and points of view rather than
    personal feelings.  I don't think *anyone* would necessarily want to
    discuss personal feelings with a bunch of strangers.  Opinions are
    fare game however and *I* think that the reason people are complaining
    is because they just don't want to loose an argument.  It doesn't
    seem to have anything to do with "exposing issues" - unless the issue
    itself is your inability to admit that you might be wrong about
    something.

    I would be perfectly comfortable with someone saying something like:

     "Look, I don't want to get into a major argument here....I think 
      xyz about abc and I want to explore this (or simply get it off my
      chest.  If you have a big problem with what I think, take it to 
      mail or start another topic...."

    There's nothing wrong with that, and it would allow anyone who is
    frustrated with any kind of movement to say so without it turning
    into an argument (hopefully).   What I *DO* have a problem with is
    having such statements accompanied by insults and demands for
    dissenters to go away (and leave MENNOTES to the "real men" - whatever
    the hell *that* is supposed to mean).

    /Greg

Some men issues:
	- Men's illness.  An example: A relative ignornace of testicular cancer
	  both among society and the media.  It is about as prevalent as breast
	  cancer in women, but gets nowhere near the press or research funding.

	- Why men-only social clubs, health clubs, etc, are "BAD" but women only
	  equivalent are "GOOD"; a big double standard that does nothing for
	  promoting equality.

	- being single and non-tall.  Hollywood and advertising always promote
	  the stereotype that women are only interested in tall men so much that
	  women that are noticably shorter than me generally say that they want
	  someone taller.  This seems to be an area where no matter how
	  "liberated" a woman is, she still requires that her man be taller than
	  her.

Rich

P.S.  I agree with the decision of no FMO notes.  They would be sexist, just as
the FWO notes are sexist.

    >I look at womannotes and I see women making very NEGATIVE statements
    >about the flip side of men. They call it as they see it. Rape,
    >battering, etc. Real issues, legitimate gripes. The men complained, and
    >most were silenced. Because Womannotes needed to be a place where
    >women could be honest.
    
    I don't think the men in -wn- have been silenced, either the PC men or
    the misogynists.  Women express their feelings more in -wn- then men
    to in -mn- and women give each other more emotional support in -wn-
    then men do in -mn-.  But I'm with Suzanne here that when men express
    their feelings in this notesfile, they are not put down by other men,
    me or anyone else, and if they were to be, the perpetrators would be
    jumped on.  Some men here confuse feelings with opinions.  I don't
    understand that.  To say "women get equal pay for equal work" is not
    expressing a feeling.  When "feminists" argue against that statement,
    some men have complained, "I'm getting trashed."  I suppose that's a
    feeling, but having such "feelings" interjected in the middle of a debate 
    gets tiresome.  It goes like this:
    
    	a) I think (A)
    	b) (A) isn't true because of (B)
    	c) There you feminists go, trashing us again!
    
    Can't these people express their feelings in other notes instead of
    disrupting the debate?  After a time, one is lead to think that these
    people don't have any substance to add to the debate and are just
    trying to be disruptive when things aren't going their way.
    
    >When men can't be honest in mennotes, then mennotes doesn't work. If
    >other men want to call them on what they're saying, that's fine, but in
    >a conference for men to discuss what's on their minds, I don't think
    >vehement dissent from women is appropriate. There are plenty of men who
    >can address the task, aren't there? Or are men so incapable of speaking
    >up that women think they have to do it for them?
    
    I haven't noticed any men telling lies in -mn-.  As far as I can tell
    we are all painfully honest here.  It's sometimes hard to get men to
    express their feelings.  But as far as I can tell, Suzanne, has never
    jumped on anyone for anything except saying things about the women's
    movement that she thought were not true.  I don't see why there needs
    to be any sanctuary for falsehoods.  I have noticed in -wn- that the
    women are much better at speaking to the issues of the women's
    movement.  I'm glad to have a spokesperson here.  I don't see mennotes
    as a bitch and moan parlor where guys can escape from women any more
    then women escape from men in -wn-.  Even the men who get "listed" in
    -wn- seem to keep on trucking.  
    
    >When we flip the coin, Suzanne, you are one of the first champions...
    
    I don't know what this means.  Is it a slur?  Is that what the "..."
    means?  
    
    >If you were a man in Womannotes saying what you do in here, I'd sign up
    >for the List.
    
    Talk about mean-spirited!  And not exactly logical.  You mean if I went
    down to -wn- and defended the women's movement like Suzanne does you'd
    refuse to talk to me?  Well, look, thanks just the same, but we don't
    run things like that up here.  
    
    					- Vick
    

        Well expressed, 'ren!
        
        In regard  to  "The  List", several of us learned years ago, of
        the futility of  attempting discussion with certain people, and
        simply ignore the person(s)  totally  as if their notes did not
        exist.  This began way before the Womannotes "List" was brought
        into being.  Works for me!  Works for a few others I know too -
        try it sometime...
        
        Andy
        

>How is it that the patriarchy could be so harsh to men with regard to the
>breakup of families?
    
    Mr. Soule (I don't recall your first name, and it didn't appear in the
    note I'm replying to),
    
    	The unquestionable fact that our society is a patriarchy, does not
    imply that the society therefore makes everything groovy for men and
    victimizes the women.  The fact that we are a patriarchy means that
    men are largely in control of the infrastructure, the power-base.  But
    with privilege comes responsibility, and it is traditional to see men
    as the providers and women as the nurturers.  Thus when the family
    splits up, the man is still seen as the provider (alimony) and the
    woman the nurturer (child custody).  That needs to change, and has been
    very slowly changing.  There are still many terrible miscarriages of
    justice in this arena.
    
    						- Vick

    For Men Only notes would not satisfy the anti-feminists, because there
    are too many feminist men lurking in the woodwork.  I'm sure a
    Anti-Feminists Only note would be much more to their liking.
    
    And one other thing.  About stepping on feelings.  That recent note
    from the guy asking for advice because he got a woman pregnant.  The
    same note appeared in -wn-.  In -wn- I put in a suggestion that he find
    out if he were the father and make sure she was actually pregnant.  
    Just about every other reply from men and women alike tore into the
    poor guy like he was Atilla the Hun or something.  The notes in -mn-
    have been much more supportive and caring.
    
    					- Vick

 I am more than ever convinced that Vick and Steve "just don't get it." Or
perhaps in their enlightenment, they just don't see the unwillingness of
"unenlightened" men to take part in discussions in this file as a problem.
Why if everything on the surface is placid and quiet, then by definition there
is no problem, right?

 I can understand what 'ren is saying because I've seen the phenomena she 
described in living color. Unpopular comments in =wn= particularly by men
were met with a deluge of vocal and often acrimonious responses. If the
man did not back down, a notes$war ensued. The sheer volume of the notes
was intense. More often than not, the unpopular man would eventually tire
of defending himself on so many fronts. In effect, he was shouted down. This
was justified under the premise that women need a "space" where they can
speak their minds freely, and that shouting down men provided such a space.
In reality, it didn't work, but that's another issue entirely.

 The issue here, as I see it, is that we also have a loose group of noters who
believe that differing opinions must always be challenged, that unpopular
noters may not just speak their minds, that the only men who ought to consider
writing in here must be the ones capable of ignoring the inevitable backlash
unpopular notes bring or must be capable of withstanding a notes$storm.

 I think it comes down to people feeling that they are right and that others
with differing opinions are wrong and that if people only argue long enough
and loud enough that the resulting lack of opposition will indicate victory.
I know that I have not infrequently entered into similar notes$storms, refusing
to give way to other strongly held opinions; so this is not completely a case
of pointing the finger at others because I realize that I am also culpable to
some extent.

 I don't think that consensus is or should be a goal of every discussion in
here. Consensus often occurs only when dissenters tire of the verbal
bludgeoning they are receiving and clam up; this doesn't mean dissent no
longer exists, only that it is no longer expressed. Thus the "victors" aren't
nearly as successful as they may think.

 I believe that it is a loss when men view this conference as a place where
non-pc men can go to get verbally attacked. I believe it is a loss when men
believe this is a place where neanderthals attack feminists. There are an
awful lot of points of view out there, and we hear only a few of the more
vocal ones. Many men simply cannot justify the effort involved to express
the less popular points of view. And we are all losing by this. Frequently
the person holding an unpopular or merely unexpressed view has an interesting
insight to contribute, a new perspective in which to view the issue. But we'll
never know- as soon as one deviates from one of the two most vocal camps, it's
free for all time.

 This is all very frustrating and difficult for me. My feelings on many issues
are not fully formed. But in this place, it is downright dangerous to try to
explore the various facets of an issue before your own view is fully formed and
strongly defensible. You might get it from the PC crew. You might get it from 
the traditional men. You might get it from both, or yet another group.

 And the answer to the problem, according to our moderators, is "if you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Pretty manly of you. Be tough. Be
strong. Don't complain. Don't despair. Don't under any circumstances try
to improve the status quo. Well, tough. I think we are squandering a tremendous
opportunity to exchange all sorts of information, because we fail to encourage
reluctant noters. While this may not be a problem for me personally, I know
that there are plenty of people out there who'd like to be heard but cannot
justify subjecting themselves to the gauntlet of attackers lurking behind
so many scattered terminals.

 I strongly urge men who have opinions but are reluctant to express them out
of a disinclination to subject themselves to a backlash to take the plunge
anyway. If you think that you'd be more comfortable expressing yourselves
under the cloak of anonymity- please do so. Both moderators are willing
to enter notes for people anonymously and are pretty efficient and responsive.
please take advantage of that. And if you don't feel comfortable going through
them, I'll enter things anonymously for you instead (unless the mods have an
objection to this arrangement.)

 I really think it's important to hear other voices for a change.

 The Doctah

    re .53 Karen
    
    I did not intend for .49 to be an attack against *you*.  You and
    Michelle among others and even Jody to some extent have been 
    very supportive of trying to hold open and honest discussions 
    in this conference about "men's issues".  I was hoping that by
    now you had figured out for yourself what was going on.  Aftre
    re-reading .53 and throwing in some of the discussion between
    then and this note I think you probably can.
    
    My point: Holding a discussion about "men's issues" in this confrence
    is like discussing the finer points of Satinism with a Born-Again
    Southern Baptist".  (Not to be taken that I am either a Satinist or
    Baptist :^) ).  Feminist dogma is not to be challenged.  Having to
    defend your every statement in the glaring light of "feminist truth"
    rapidly becomes not worth the aggervation.
    
    fred();
    

    re .74
    
   > As long as opinions are being discussed, they are fair game (as is true
   > in every conference on the net.)  No one is safe from having their
   > ideas or politics challenged.
    
    Except feminism of course...
    
    fred();

    RE: .86  Fred
    
    >> No one is safe from having their ideas or politics challenged.
    
    > Except feminism of course...
    
    If feminism were safe from challenge, the present notes$conflict
    would never have occurred, Fred (and no one would be here defending
    feminism from all the challenges that *have* occurred in Topics 716
    and 724.)

    Victor,
    
    	Many of us are not able to keep up with Susanne and companies
    replys and responces. For we have jobs and must produce something to
    keep our jobs. So please, keep your personal attitude of not replying
    or being afriad or sissies in your shorts. This sort of writing is not
    professional of such a moderator.
    
    

Re: .84

Mark,

I do "get it".  And I can see that a forum where men can feel free to talk
about whatever they want, in an environment they feel comfortable in, with
protections against those who might disturb them, could be helpful to those
reluctant to express their feelings.  Unfortunately, a notes conference on
a network owned by Digital Equipment Corporation cannot ever be such a place.

Furthermore, there needs to be a forum where all are welcome to discuss issues,
where ideas can be challenged and supported, where people can be exposed to
differing views, where people can learn something new to them, where there
is protection against harassment and gentle, yet firm, guidance towards
productive discussions.  This is that place.

Men are indeed opening up here and expressing feelings that they may not have
wanted to show before.  And they are getting support.  It's only those who
make statements about others, sometimes under the guise of "feelings", who
get challenged by those who don't believe the statements are true.  And it
seems to me that the overwhelming majority of such cases are notes which
are insulting to women.

Here we have no "List" (I don't know what that is, but it sounds ominous),
no "back of the bus" for people of the wrong sex, no inequitable treatment
by the moderators.  We do have openness, honesty and egalitarianism.  If the
light seems a bit bright for some, that is a problem, but we'd only be doing
ourselves an injustice by building walls to shut ourselves in.

				Steve

    Why are people who challenge the feminist movement or don't support
    100% of the feminist issues labeled mysogynists?  To me it seems
    harsh and judgemental and might account for some of the defensivness
    displayed here.

>   If we could jump into the future where all the goals of feminism have been 
>   achieved, describe your vision of the world.

Don, I'll get to this as soon as I can.  I'd do it in another topic, probably,
to allow the 'processing' to continue in here.

DougO

    >Many of us are not able to keep up with Susanne and companies
    >replys and responces. 
    
    So?  Isn't it only important that the people she is responding to keep
    up with her?  They seem to be doing just fine.  Or do you mean that
    Wayne can write all he wants by Suzanne can only answer once a week?
    
    >For we have jobs and must produce something
    >to keep our jobs. 
    
    So we need to put a limit on how much a person can submit to the 
    notesfile.  We can't just let the individual be responsible for how
    he/she spends his/her time.  Is that what you mean?  Otherwise I don't
    get it.  If you don't have time to note, don't note.
    
    >So please, keep your personal attitude of not replying or being afriad 
    >or sissies in your shorts. 
    
    I was referring to the reply by someone claiming that men were afraid
    to note because of Suzanne and me and whoever.  Are they or aren't they?
    Are they afraid or are they too busy?  If they are too busy then that 
    doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't note.  If they are afraid then
    I was addressing that in my reply, saying that I didn't understand why
    they should be afraid.  
    
    >This sort of writing is not professional of such a moderator.
         
    I'm not a professional moderator.  Besides, when I'm acting as Vick
    Bennison the civilian, I am not bound to any different standards then
    you are.  You may complain if I do things as a moderator that you think
    are unappropriate.  I always indicate when I am wearing a moderator
    hat, which isn't often.  
    
    						- Vick

    
    2 quick comments ...
    
    1)  I think FMO only notes would be a great idea ... I do not think
    they are sexist because the equal opportunity exists within =wn= ...
    within =wn= the FWO notes often follow very different paths then the GD
    notes ... smilarily I think =mn= would be enhanced by discussions with
    only men.
    
    I was heard a Japanese saying that went something like this ... "People
    listen much better when they are not talking" ... I think FWO and FMO
    notes allow the other sex to listen very well.
    
    
    2) I don't enter much in here for 2 main reasons ... a) I barely have
    enough time and energy to read =mn= ... and b) I do not often have the
    inclination to go through the effort required to defend my ideas in
    notes.
    
    Take care,
    Greg
     

    re:.76, 'Ren

    I really liked your reply.


.80>  I don't think the men in -wn- have been silenced, either the PC men or
.80>  the misogynists.

    Well, Vick, this implies to me that you see two kinds of men
    here, and only two kinds, the PC men and the misogynists.

    Please explain your choice of words.

    >Please explain your choice of words.
    
    Well, since you asked so nicely.  I was trying to indicate a spectrum.
    If neither one end or the other has been silenced, presumably neither
    have those in the middle.  Perhaps my endpoints are incorrect, but I
    just don't care.  I'm sorry if the "either...or" confused anyone.
    
    					- Vick
    

    Notes conferences aren't much different from apple barrels

    RE: .76  'ren

    > The men complained, and most were silenced. Because Womannotes needed 
    > to be a place where women could be honest.

    As others have mentioned, men never were silenced.  Womannotes is no
    more safe than any other conference on the net when it comes to having
    the chance to express opinions without risk of disagreement.

    > There are plenty of men who can address the task, aren't there? Or are 
    > men so incapable of speaking up that women think they have to do it for 
    > them?
    
    Well, I suppose I could ask you the same question.  You seem to be doing 
    some men's arguing for them here.  I could ask you if you believe that 
    some of the men here are incapable of defending themselves from the other 
    women in this conference.

    I won't, though.  Digital employees don't need to justify their
    participation in political debates in notesfiles.  I'm surprised
    and disappointed to see you try to silence someone with this tactic.

    > If you were a man in Womannotes saying what you do in here, I'd sign up
    > for the List.

    As others have also mentioned here, The List doesn't silence anyone
    (except those who have put themselves on The List.)

    RE: .77
    
    > If we could jump into the future where all the goals of feminism have 
    > been achieved, describe your vision of the world. 
    
    I, too, have some ideas about this (which I will put in tonight, time
    permitting.)
    
    Thanks for asking,
    Suzanne

  No. 680. Number of Workers With Earnings and Median Earnings, by Occupation
                         of Longest Job Held and Sex: 1989

           (Covers civilians 15 years old and over as of March 1990.)

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
                                |             YEAR ROUND FULL TIME            |
                                +---------------+---------------+-------------+


                                |               |               | Ratio: Women|
      MAJOR OCCUPATION OF       |     Women     |      Men      |    to men   |
       LONGEST JOB HELD         +-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+
                                |       | Median|       | Median|      |Median|
                                | Number|  earn-| Number|  earn-|Number| earn-|
                                |(1,000)|  ings |(1,000)|  ings |      | ings |
--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+
       Total 1*.................| 31,290|$18,778| 48,825|$27,430|  0.64|  0.68|
Executive, administrators, and  |       |       |       |       |      |      |
managerial......................|  4,765| 24,589|  7,940| 40,103|  0.60|  0.61|
Professional specialty..........|  4,701| 27,933|  6,316| 39,449|  0.74|  0.71|
Technical and related support...|  1,337| 21,768|  1,583| 31,371|  0.84|  0.69|
Sales...........................|  3,384| 16,057|  5,735| 29,676|  0.59|  0.54|
Admin. support, incl. clerical..|  9,619| 17,517|  2,912| 25,138|  3.30|  0.70|


                                |               |               | Ratio: Women|
      MAJOR OCCUPATION OF       |     Women     |      Men      |    to men   |
       LONGEST JOB HELD         +-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+
                                |       | Median|       | Median|      |Median|
                                | Number|  earn-| Number|  earn-|Number| earn-|
                                +-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+
Precision production, craft     |       |       |       |       |      |      |
  and repair....................|    835| 17,457|  9,622| 26,499|  0.09|  0.66|
Machine operators, assemblers,  |       |       |       |       |      |      |
  and inspectors................|  2,142| 14,436|  3,608| 22,343|  0.59|  0.65|
Transportation and material     |       |       |       |       |      |      |
  moving........................|    184| 16,288|  3,172| 23,612|  0.06|  0.69|
Handlers, equipment cleaners,   |       |       |       |       |      |      |
  helpers, and laborers.........|    342| 14,095|  2,129| 18,046|  0.16|  0.78|

                                |               |               | Ratio: Women|
      MAJOR OCCUPATION OF       |     Women     |      Men      |    to men   |
       LONGEST JOB HELD         +-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+
                                |       | Median|       | Median|      |Median|
                                | Number|  earn-| Number|  earn-|Number| earn-|
                                +-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+
Service workers.................|  3,763| 11,669|  3,939| 18,903|  0.96|  0.62|
  Private household.............|    201|  6,882|     17|    (B)| 11.82|   (X)|
  Service, except private       |       |       |       |       |      |      |
    household...................|  3,563| 11,868|  3,921| 18,970|  0.91|  0.63|
Farming, forestry, and fishing..|    205| 11,305|  1,769| 13,885|  0.12|  0.81|
--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+






--------------------------------+-------------------------------+
                                |          ALL WORKERS          |
                                +---------------+---------------+


                                |               |               |
      MAJOR OCCUPATION OF       |     Women     |      Men      |
       LONGEST JOB HELD         +-------+-------+-------+-------+
                                |       | Median|       | Median|
                                | Number|  earn-| Number|  earn-|
                                |(1,000)|  ings |(1,000)|  ings |
--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
       Total 1*.................| 61,338|$11,736| 72,045|$21,376|
Executive, administrators, and  |       |       |       |       |
managerial......................|  6,370| 21,551|  9,221| 36,696|
Professional specialty..........|  8,703| 22,089|  8,053| 35,548|
Technical and related support...|  2,056| 18,484|  2,105| 27,453|
Sales...........................|  8,653|  6,990|  7,929| 22,777|
Admin. support, incl. clerical..| 16,539| 13,542|  4,152| 19,991|


                                |               |               |
      MAJOR OCCUPATION OF       |     Women     |      Men      |
       LONGEST JOB HELD         +-------+-------+-------+-------+
                                |       | Median|       | Median|
                                | Number|  earn-| Number|  earn-|
                                |(1,000)|  ings |(1,000)|  ings |
--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Precision production, craft     |       |       |       |       |
  and repair....................|  1,311| 14,121| 13,661| 22,146|
Machine operators, assemblers,  |       |       |       |       |
  and inspectors................|  3,788| 10,845|  5,080| 19,200|
Transportation and material     |       |       |       |       |
  moving........................|    511|  9,114|  4,858| 19,474|
Handlers, equipment cleaners,   |       |       |       |       |
  helpers, and laborers.........|  1,061|  6,654|  5,045|  9,264|

                                |               |               |
      MAJOR OCCUPATION OF       |     Women     |      Men      |
       LONGEST JOB HELD         +-------+-------+-------+-------+
                                |       | Median|       | Median|
                                | Number|  earn-| Number|  earn-|
                                |(1,000)|  ings |(1,000)|  ings |
--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Service workers.................| 11,611|  5,487|  7,465| 10,558|
  Private household.............|  1,047|  2,042|     51|    (B)|
  Service, except private       |       |       |       |       |
    household...................| 10,564|  5,940|  7,413| 10,599|
Farming, forestry, and fishing..|    656|  3,977|  3,531|  7,668|
--------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
  B  Base less than 75,000.
  X  Not applicable.
  1* Includes persons whoose longest job was in the Armed Forces.

  Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports,
                series P-60, No. 168.

        No. 655. Occupation of Employed Civilians, by Sex and
                      Educational Attainment: 1989

               (Annual averages of monthly figures. For civilian
                   noninstitutional population 25 years and over.)

 -----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
                              |             |   MANAGE-   | TECHNICAL/  |
                              |             |    RIAL/    |   SALES/    |
                              |  TOTAL 1*   |   PROFES-   | ADMINISTRA- |
     YEARS OF SCHOOL          |             |    SIONAL   |     TIVE    |
        COMPLETED             |------+------+------+------+------+------+
                              | Male |  Fe- | Male |  Fe- | Male |  Fe- |
                              |      | male |      | male |      | male |
 -----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
       NUMBER (1,000)         |      |      |      |      |      |      |
      Total...................|54,039|43,582|15,777|12,587|10,482|18,427|
  Less than 4 years of high   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    school....................| 8,307| 5,137|   476|   260|   643| 1,084|
  4 years of high school only.|19,722|18,449| 2,393| 2,426| 3,469| 9,511|
  1 to 3 years of college.....|10,569| 9,422| 2,748| 2,690| 2,928| 5,075|
  4 years of college or more..|15,441|10,574|10,160| 7,210| 3,443| 2,756|
                              |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    PERCENT DISTRIBUTION      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
      Total...................| 100.0| 100.0| 100.0| 100.0| 100.0| 100.0|
  Less than 4 years of high   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    school....................|  15.4|  11.8|   3.0|   2.1|   6.1|   5.9|
  4 years of high school only.|  36.6|  42.3|  15.2|  19.3|  33.1|  51.6|
  1 to 3 years of college.....|  19.6|  21.6|  17.4|  21.4|  27.9|  27.5|
  4 years of college or more..|  28.6|  24.3|  64.4|  57.3|  32.8|  15.0|
 -----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

 -----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
                              |             |  PRECISION  | OPERATORS/  |
                              |             |   PRODUC-   |  FABRICA-   |
                              |  SERVICE 2* |    TION 3*  |   TORS  4*  |
     YEARS OF SCHOOL          |             |             |             |
        COMPLETED             |------+------+------+------+------+------+
                              | Male |  Fe- | Male |  Fe- | Male |  Fe- |
                              |      | male |      | male |      | male |
 -----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
       NUMBER (1,000)         |      |      |      |      |      |      |
      Total...................| 4,219| 7,069|10,991| 1,054|10,328| 3,982|
  Less than 4 years of high   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    school....................| 1,022| 2,016| 2,268|   258| 3,074| 1,398|
  4 years of high school only.| 1,793| 3,596| 5,788|   569| 5,348| 2,126|
  1 to 3 years of college.....|   946| 1,080| 2,200|   156| 1,443|   353|
  4 years of college or more..|   459|   377|   735|    71|   462|   105|
                              |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    PERCENT DISTRIBUTION      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
      Total...................| 100.0| 100.0| 100.0| 100.0| 100.0| 100.0|
  Less than 4 years of high   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
    school....................|  24.2|  28.5|  20.6|  24.5|  29.8|  35.1|
  4 years of high school only.|  42.5|  50.9|  52.7|  54.0|  51.8|  53.4|
  1 to 3 years of college.....|  22.4|  15.3|  20.0|  14.8|  14.0|   8.9|
  4 years of college or more..|  10.9|   5.3|   6.7|   6.7|   4.5|   2.6|
 -----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
       1* Includes other occupations not shown separately.
       2* Includes private household workers.
       3* Includes craft and repair.
       4* Includes laborers.

       Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished data.

    Some where in this discussion was a mention that female college hires
    were paid $1.02 for every $1.00 paid to a man. I read an article
    sometime in the recent past that showed that this disparity is very
    short lived and within 5 years maximum the men are getting paid more
    than the women.
    
    

    	RE: .103  Bonnie
    
    	NOW I remember the scam about the $1.02/$1.00 stat (as revealed
    	4 - 5 years ago in Womannotes, when it was first presented to us.)
    
    	The idea is that the stat only describes the wages during the
    	FIRST YEAR out of college (at "entry level" positions.)  
    
    	It's easy to assume that this means that women in general are
    	earning the same (or more) than men (except for the fact that
    	only ONE YEAR of some women's lives is being described by this
    	stat.) 
    
    	As you said, the wage comparison of these very men and women
    	turns to the standard wage disparity within several years.

    Mike
    
    Then you will also mention in future notes that this effect is
    not true for women in general, or even college educated women in
    general through out their careers, but only a difference in the
    first few years of college hires?
    
    I think the statistics printed here in a recent note show quite
    clearly that there is a pay discrepancy between men and women
    that is more than can be accounted for by age, experience, or
    educaton.
    
    and in re your second question, I did answer you, by mail, and you
    responded to my mail. I have made it a habbit, partially because
    the moderators of this file prefer it, not to discuss the policies
    of the notes file I moderate in this or any other file.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .77  Soule

    > If we could jump into the future where all the goals of feminism have 
    > been achieved, describe your vision of the world. 

    Ok, here goes:

    The President of the United States would be a man or a woman (not by
    design or convention, but because the individual person happened to
    win the election.  Neither men nor women would have an edge on getting
    this office due to their sex - or race.)

    Congress would be comprised of men and women (perhaps more men or
    perhaps more women at any given time - not by design or convention,
    but because the individuals happened to be elected.  Neither men nor
    women would have an edge on being elected due to their sex or race.)

    CEO's, corporate officers, doctors, law partners, researchers, teachers,
    college professors and almost any occupation you could name (except for
    sports figures who compete in same-sex sporting events) would be men
    or women, without either sex (or any race) enjoying an advantage in
    hiring based on sex or race.

    Couples who could afford to live on one income would sit down to
    decide which parent would work as a fulltime homemaker.  Neither men
    nor women would have the edge on this position (and society would
    applaud MEN every bit as loudly for choosing this work as they would
    applaud WOMEN for it - neither men nor women would be regarded as
    being lazy or incompetent, nor would homemakers be treated as though
    they were "living off" the breadwinner.  Couples would be partners in
    their families.)

    In case of divorce, judges would take couples aside and tell them,
    "Look, you're both responsible adults, so sit down and work out
    something for your children that would do them some good."  Couples
    would be given joint custody on a routine basis (without favoring
    parents of either sex) - and divorcing couples with children would
    be strongly encouraged by the court to divide property fairly (with
    no advantage given to either sex) so that they could avoid much of 
    the hostility that usually winds up hurting their children.

    In employment and education, men and women would be regarded as
    individuals (capable of academic excellence and commitment to their
    tasks without ANY prejudice to individuals of either sex based on
    any preconceived notions about men or women.)  Workers would be
    fully valued for their performance and their initiative without
    regarding ANYONE as being in any sort of "non-traditional" job.
    Aside from sports figures who compete in same-sex sports, jobs 
    would be open to anyone capable of doing the work (without
    prejudice or special handling for anyone.)

    We'd all be paid equitably (with no advantage given to men or
    women due to their sex or race.)
    
    Best of all, we could all enjoy life without anyone having to worry
    about being discriminated against (and without feeling that people
    look down on us for either being the badly-perceived sex or for
    the actions/slights of other people of our sex.)

    	P.S. Just so it's clear, I don't regard ramps and office set-ups
    	for people in wheelchairs as "special handling."

    re:.107

    Bonnie, I'm not asking you about WN policy.

    I'm following up on a claim about yourself that you introduced. In
    716.477, you stated you "strongly support making things equal for
    both" men and women.

    I find that stance contradictory to support of For Women Only notes.

    Can you explain this to me?

Mike, you may want to reread =wn= policy.  There aren't any FWO notes
any more.  The followon policy, designating notes as addressed to and
eliciting responses from Women:, is not an 'enforced' policy, more in
the nature of a custom, typically described as a courtesy.

DougO

re .29 (Conlon)

"WASHINGTON:  The gap in pay between men and women in seven industrialised 
countries narrowed slowly during the 1970s and 1980s, with Australia showing 
the most progress, according to a new United States study.

The study, by Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn, professors of economics and 
labor at the University of Illinois, appeared in the American Economic Review 
and covers figures up to 1989.

It said women were still earning less on average than men in all seven 
countries.  The gap was the widest in Switzerland and Britain.

In 1969, Australian women workers - not including farm workers - were getting 
less that $A2 for every $A3 that men were being paid - or about 65 per cent 
of a male wage.  By 1977, women's earnings had risen to 85 per cent of the 
men's wages.

There was a dip after that, but the rise began again in the 1980s.

At the upper end, women's earnings ratio ranged from 80 to 90 per cent of men 
in Australia and 85 to 90 per cent for Sweden and Norway.

In the Nordic countries, the rise of women's pay in relation to men's was 
slower and steadier.  In West Germany, it went only 69 per cent in 1967 to 72 
per cent in 1989.

The US, Britain and Switzerland were in a lower range.  The US record shows a 
series of dips and rises from 62 per cent in 1967 to 61 per cent in 1978, and 
then a steady rise to nearly 70 per cent in 1989.

But the US Labor Department reported that, by last (northern) spring, the US 
figure for women workers had topped 75 per cent, dropping a bit in the 
(northern) summer.  More recent figures for other countries were not available.

Accounting for some of the progress towards equal wages in the US is the fact 
that men's pay is either decreasing or disappearing altogether, said Kim 
Gandy, executive vice president of the National Organisation for Women.

Britain's record has been even more erratic.  Britain's women were getting 
about 67 per cent of men's pay in 1967.  Their earnings rose to a high of 73 
per cent of men's pay in 1977, then dropped slowly to about 69 per cent in 
1984.  The report said there has been a slow rise since then for British 
women in factories, but later overall figures were not available.

Switzerland started below the US level in 1967 and was still the lowest of 
the seven countries surveyed in 1988, though women by then were getting about 
67 per cent of men's pay." - AP

re .110

>    Bonnie, I'm not asking you about WN policy.
>
>    I'm following up on a claim about yourself that you introduced. In
>    716.477, you stated you "strongly support making things equal for
>    both" men and women.
>
>    I find that stance contradictory to support of For Women Only notes.

re .111,

>    Doug, why do you refer me to WN policy?

Presumably, when people see the phrase "For Women Only notes"
they think that you are talking about the pairs of topics in
various versions of the WomanNotes conference, where one topic
was requested to be "For Women Only" and the other topic was
"For General Discussion."  The reasons for doing this are also
discussed there.  That's probably why people refer you there.

If you are talking about something else, perhaps you would
like to describe just what that is.

Dan

    
    >>>    were paid $1.02 for every $1.00 paid to a man. I read an article
    sometime in the recent past that showed that this disparity is very
    short lived and within 5 years maximum the men are getting paid more
    than the women.
    

    .101/.102
    
    Where did you get these stats? From what source? 

I guess men's issues have fallen by the side, in favor of "processing".

    RE: .116  
    
    The sources were mentioned in both .101 and .102.
    
    From .101
    
    >Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports,
    >                series P-60, No. 168.
    
    From .102
    
    >Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished data.
    
    
    /Greg

    in re .110
    
    Mike
    
    I do not think that it is unequal to allow both men and women to
    have private space with just men or just women, and blacks to have
    space with just blacks, and gays with just gays. As long as this
    space does not prevent others from equal opportunities for education,
    housing, jobs, advancement, then it is right and reasonable that
    people be allowed to use 'like self space' upon occasion to refresh,
    to strengthen, to bond, to deal with unique problems, and to be
    free from harassment. The original intent of FWO notes was to provide
    freedom from harassment. 
    
    I hope this answers your question.
    
    and I hope you will answer mine that was in the same note.
    
    Further I concur with those who assumed you were referring to
    womannotes, since that is the only place where FWO notes have
    ever occured.
    
    Finally in re references. I did not give a reference because I do
    not remember where I read the information. I presume that most people
    cannot remember specifically where they encountered any particular
    news item 6 months to a year later. There are two places where I
    probably read the information, one would have been in the Boston Globe
    which I read daily, the second was an excellant article on the Glass
    Ceiling which I read lasat summer, but I don't recall if that was in
    Business News or US News and World Report. 
    
    Someone who is seriously interested in tracking this down can peruse
    the reader's guide to periodicals for the past 9 months and ought to
    be able to find the information.
    
    Bonnie

>I guess men's issues have fallen by the side, in favor of "processing".

 Dem's de berries when you have no designated area in which to have these kinds
of discussions which inevitably occur and which are healthy for the file.

    All this about women's pay scales are all well and good and may well
    be true.  AS such I support that, I even agree with Susan's "what the
    future should look like" a few back,but....what does it have to do with
    the injustices listed in 716.0 which started this string?  Unless it
    is being used to justify and continue those injustices?
    fred();

    Fred,
    
    Since we've gotten significantly off track here, would you be 
    willing to summarize the injustices either in a note in this
    string or in a new string so that a discussion of same can hopefully
    ensue.
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie

>I guess men's issues have fallen by the side, in favor of "processing".
    
    This is called myopia.  There are a zillion other topics in -mn-
    concerning men's issues.  Go read them.  Go contribute to them.
    Someone above listed 4 or 5 men's issues.  They each deserve their
    own note.  I don't see why a notesfile on men's issues needs a single
    topic on men's issues.  716 was meant, I believe, to be a topic on
    the men's movement.  Unfortunately, some of the contributors can't
    seem to talk about the men's movement without stirring up the 
    feminists (I think it's possible).  I don't know what the solution
    is, given the makeup of the crew here (yours truly included).
    
    					- Vick

    As this may take a little while and I have to be "on phones" this
    morning,  it will be this afternoon before I will be able to do this.
    If it can't wait that long, I will not be upset If someone wants to
    restate 716.0 (for a start), maybe we could start with start with
    a list of "grievances" without discussion, then try to take an
    *objective* look at those girevances and possible solutions.
    
    fred();

I heard a joke on the radio this morning which I thought would be relevant
to the major theme of recent discussion here (which has very little to do with
the original base note, but...)


	Q.  What would be the advantage of having a woman President?

	A.  We wouldn't have to pay her as much.



				Steve

    tee hee

    Fred,

    How about separate topics for the main 'grievances'...

    I'd start them but I don't think that a woman should do that.

    Bonnie

Re: .127

I see no reason why not.  Please do so.

		Steve

    Okay, I've started a few topics, breaking up 716 where I thought it
    seemed logical. I hope that anyone who sees a topic that I missed
    will add it.
    
    Bonnie

.119> The original intent of FWO notes was to provide freedom from harassment. 

    So while the intent was to provide freedom from harassment, the
    strategy chosen was simply to say "if you're a man, please stay
    out."

    Not to keep harassers out, or to solicit only supportive or serious
    replies, but to keep men out.

    This seems to say quite a bit about preconceived prejudices.


    What would you think of a store that, in an attempt to reduce
    shoplifting, posted a sign that said "if you're black, please stay
    out" - would that appear to you to be racist?

    Mike:
    just a nit if I may. I would have written it as...
    
    So while the strategy was to provide freedom from harassment, the
    		 ^^^^^^^^
    tactic chosen was simply to say "if you're a man, please stay
    ^^^^^^
    out."
    So, effectively the strategy becomes one of providing freedom from
    harassment by men.
    
    I do agree with your point but I have some reservations because it is
    unclear to me where you may be wanting to take the dialogue.
    

    				herb

    Mike
    
    I have already declined to argue/discuss Womanotes policy in this
    file. I will not answer further questions on that policy here.
    
    Bonnie

    A store with a sign saying 'if you are black stay out' is racist.
    
    A discussion group for only blacks is not. A discussion group for
    only men is not sexist. A discussion group for only gays is not
    discriminatory. There is a distinction between, as I have already said,
    requesting personal space for the reasons that I previously mentioned,
    and which were ignored, and excluding people from opportunities for
    fair access to jobs, housing, education, etc etc.. as I also said
    before but was ignored.
    
    Points made by selective listening/reading don't count for much
    in my book.
    
    If anyone wishes to discuss the policy of womannotes I suggest they
    go to womannotes to do so. (As I have also requested before.)
    
    Bonnie

	As a mostly RON, I asked this before, and as often happens the pit
    bulls ignored everyone except the other pit bulls.  Since the subject
    of pay disparities came up again, I thought that someone might like to
    respond at this time.  
    	By the way, I don't think that my anecdote is an isolated instance. 
    Many of the over-credentialed, underpaid women that I've know have had
    similar herstories.
    						John
================================================================================
Note 724.40                Men are happening, Part II                  40 of 135
LEDS::LEWICKE "Are the bolts american or adjustable" 29 lines  21-JAN-1992 12:46
                       -< I have an anecdote of my own >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .36 and others
    	My anecdote which probably doesn't prove anything.  May shed some
    light on pay differences.  
    	I dropped out of college after one semester.  My wife has a PHD in
    psychology.  She has never been able to find a job that will pay as
    much as mine does.  Is this because she is a woman, or because she
    chose or was guided into a field which is overcrowded, and where
    credentials are more important than performance?  Am I doing OK because
    I never had the luxury of a career path and a fulfilling profession?  I
    don't think that the dichotomy is specifically gender related.  She has
    male friends in the same profession who don't really make enough to 
    support themselves and supplement their income with part time businesses.  
    	In my opinion a considerable part of the disparities in pay can be
    explained by situations like my wife's, where women are guided into
    overcrowded underpaid fields.  Many of them accept the line they are
    fed by "professional educators" who think that getting a tenured job in
    acedemia is the highest goal that anyone can aspire to.  What they
    don't see are the masters and PHDs who fall by the wayside and become
    secretaries and the like, working for dropouts who somehow or other
    aquired skills that are marketable in the real world.  
    	Whether women get guided into fields that don't pay because the
    counsellors perceive that they can always fall back on their Mrs. or
    whether they do it on their own is an interesting question.  The net
    result along with a lot of other factors is what the statistics are
    made from.  There is also an awful lot of money being spent on
    education that would have been more productively spent on "drugs and
    sex and rock and roll".
    					John
    

    I think your anecdote is helpful and instructive. I think that
    additional factors are at work as well. One of those is my sense that
    women are more apt to go into helping professions than men are: helping
    professions don't pay as well.
    Whether women get paid the same, or less, or more for the SAME job is
    quite another matter. My sense is that this is getting better. (e.g.
    one way to interpret the 1.02/1.00 is that five years from now the
    people making up THOSE numbers may have more equality than those who 
    entered the work force 5 years ago.

    I think that "helping professions" are largely thought of that way
    because they're relatively low-paying and low-status -- that is,
    because they're traditionally professions for women.
    
    Anesthesiologists are "helpers"; so are consultants and stockbrokers. 
    When nurses and secretaries were mostly men, didn't they have
    relatively higher status and pay?
    
    Ray

    .129
    
    Thank you Bonnie.

    Couldn't figure out where this one belonged in the spawned topics;
    
    Statistics Canada released a report which states that in 1991 the
    income earned by women was 67.4% of that earned by men.
    
    This was broken down the following way:  
    
    Single women with a university education had an income 92% of that
    earned by single men with a university education.
    
    Married women with a university education had an income 71% of that
    earned by married men with a university education.
    
    Women without a university education had an income of 63% of that
    earned by men without a university education.
    
    Women without highschool education had an income of 53% of that earned
    by men without a highschool education.
    
    Kris

    .-1, all this without accounting for years of experience or profession?
    
    ed

    re .142, and without opportunities given and denied.
    
    Lorna
    

    	Let's not forget that we have some actual numbers (in replies
    	.101 and .102,) so we aren't forced to rely on anyone's gut
    	feelings about what the wage differences are between men and
    	women.

    Mike,  I may be confused here, but the 92% was for Canada, not the U.S.
    Suzanne was talking about the U.S. figures in .101 and .102.  Who was
    repeating anything you said?
    
    						- Vick

    RE: .147  Vick
    
    You're right, Vick.
    
    The 92% figure is for Canada. Meanwhile, we have exact U.S. stats
    broken down by job types in replies .101 and .102, so it doesn't
    make a lot of sense to claim that the 92% figure also holds for
    the U.S. (on the basis that the job types were all combined 
    to arrive at a different, lower figure.)  This clearly isn't the 
    case.
    
    We have the real stats in .101 and .102, so we might as well 
    keep them in mind.

    the figures in .101,.102 are interesting. They _may_ not be illuminating
    as a result of the following observation...

    I could not find any mention of time on the job.

    One would expect that the average salary would be affected by the
    average length of time on the job.
    (e.g. if the average length of time on the job of male software
    engineers is 10, and the average length of time on the job of female
    software engineers is 5, it would be resonable (albeit possibly false)
    to conclude that the average salary for such male software engineers
    would be rather higher than the average salary for such female software
    engineers.
    It would be interesting to compare the .101,.102 figures for several
    years to see if there has been a trend.
    
    				herb

    The following is somewhat interesting :
    
    Women who were 30 or older in 1990 will be receiving approx $120k
    more in social security benefits than men of the same age.  The
    women will pay in $81,400 more than they receive, while the men 
    will pay in $201,100 more than they receive. [Newsweek, Feb10, p8]
    
    Should social security deduct more from women, since they'll be
    be living longer and thus collecting $120,000 more in benefits
    than the men?  $120k over approx 30 more working years for the
    30 year-olds (even fewer years for the average woman) would mean
    taking another $4k per year.

>$120k over approx 30 more working years for the
>    30 year-olds (even fewer years for the average woman) would mean
>    taking another $4k per year.

 The time value of money is not taken into account, here, sport. Accrue the
interest properly and you'll find it needs to be alot less than $4K/year.

 Other than that, it's an interesting proposition. I wonder how the people
who support lower insurance rates for women would feel about higher social
security payments?

    Social Security is not life insurance, nor is it a personal retirement
    plan.  Besides, the disparity will come down dramatically as women's
    pay catches up with men's pay.  The figures are skewed by all the
    women who lived through all the years when women either didn't work
    at all or worked at low-paying jobs.  Plus, many women postpone 
    careers or take years off from careers to raise families, permiting
    the fathers to continue working.  During that time, they are not
    paying into the system.  
    					- Vick

.152>    Besides, the disparity will come down dramatically as women's
.152>    pay catches up with men's pay.

    Vick, how do you figure that?

    The numbers in .150 are not in absolute dollars, they are in dollars
    returned per dollar paid in.

Simple- as women's pay catches up to men's pay, they'll start getting ulcers
and heart trouble and dropping dead at the same rate as men do, and they'll
get fewer of those benefits out.  At least, the ones who do as their foolish
male counterparts do, and accept the stress without taking care of their
health.

DougO

    re .154, plus, even some of us women who are making low pay, are still
    getting ulcers and heart trouble, so may still drop dead around the
    same timeframe as our male counterparts.  (especially those of us who
    read mennotes!ha-ha -Just kidding!)
    
    See, the neat thing about being a secretary is, that even though we're
    very low paid, we still get to experience a great deal of stress on the
    job, much like our higher paid....brothers and sisters.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    re:.154

    Doug, women in high-stress jobs fare about as well as women in
    low-stress jobs, which is much better than all men, when it comes
    to longevity.

    Your argument is based on an incorrect assumption.

actually, no, Mike, I've read recently somewhere that studies of those few
women who actually make it into upper management show many more stress-related 
disorders and health problems than other women of the same age.  No assumptions,
I know I've seen it somewhere.

DougO

>.152>    Besides, the disparity will come down dramatically as women's
>.152>    pay catches up with men's pay.

>    Vick, how do you figure that?

    The way Social Security works, people who make less money during their
    working years receive porportionally more than those who earn more
    money during their working years.  If you understand that, I think the
    rest should follow.  
    
    					- Vick

    
    I think the whole point is moot.  Social Security will have long since
    evaporated by the time I retire.
    
    -Jody
    

 Except the bill...

    I have seen studies which indicate that people who have LESS CONTROL
    over their job routine suffer more stress than those who have MORE
    control.  That supports the argument that the low paid/low control
    worker typically suffers MORE stress of a health damaging nature than
    his/her boss, who has more control.  
    
    Jeff

>That supports the argument that the low paid/low control
>    worker typically suffers MORE stress of a health damaging nature than
>    his/her boss, who has more control.  
    
 I find this argument to be bunk. The more responsibility you have, the more
areas that stress can come from. The jobs with the highest responsibility have
loads and loads of stress. According to your model, being President of the US
is less stressful than being a secretary because the president has more control.
Wrong.

 The Doctah

    re:.157

    Ok, point me to the reference.  That contradicts what I've read and
    I get abuot 8 magazines a month, mostly health and fitness related.

    Always willing to learn something new ...

.158>  The way Social Security works, people who make less money during their
.158>  working years receive porportionally more than those who earn more
.158>  money during their working years.  If you understand that, I think the
.158>  rest should follow.  

    How do we figure the "dramatic" decrease you claim in .153?

    Any hard numbers, or just "less" and "more?"