Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I agree that there is a lot of that, "If you aren't with
    me you are against me."
    
    But I think the statement in .0 is too broad.  It depends on
    what the feminist is saying and what I am objecting to.  If the
    feminist is saying all men are rapists, then I don't mind 
    objecting at all and if my objection is met with invective,
    I just shrug my shoulders and walk away.  I have no incentive
    to argue it out.  Let the feminist think what s/he thinks.
    
    The important thing is to know what I think, and to know where
    to put my energy...  it's a waste of time to argue with someone
    who is calling me names (and for whom I feel no other connection).
    
    Bill
    

    (Didn't say enough in .1)
    
    On the other hand, suppose the feminist says, "it seems to me that
    there is a kind of rape in a lot of male-female interaction,
    that the woman is often victimized in subtle and not so
    subtle ways."   This is an invitation to explore an issue
    and I'm drawn into a discussion.  Furthermore, I am not being
    personally accused of being a rapist.  And I don't hear all
    men being accused in that way.  And it sounds like the feminist
    is not saying that the "rape" quality in male-female interactions
    is a conscious act on the part of the male.
    
    So, there is a lot of room for exploration and for me to learn
    and maybe modify my attitude and behavior, if it needs it.
    
    Bill
    

    I've encountered that attitude with many individuals.  And feminists
    (at least those I have known) do not stand out as having a monopoly on
    ideocentric bigotry. 

    If you lump any group of people together under a label as abitrary and
    as vague as "feminist" I don't think there is any way you can place a
    particular mind-set or characteristic upon them.  I think doing so
    displays the fundamental element of prejudice; depersonalization. 

    Whenever I've been able to get over the threat to my ego that I feel
    when dealing with feminist ideas, I've realized that the underlying
    message to feminism is not "Down with testosterone" or "Men are good
    for nothing" or even "If you don't agree then you're a pig" but rather
    something like "Respect women as individual human beings."  Which is
    something the basenote fails to do. 

    Kris 
    

    It's true that if you criticize someone's bigoted remarks, the person
    may get the uncomfortable feeling that they're being called a bigot. 
    
    Ray

    If you don't agree, you don't agree.  But what is it that you don't
    agree to???  If you don't agree with a feminist who says, "Men and
    women are equal and should be treated as such," then you *are* a
    chauvinist.  If, however, you don't agree with a feminist who says,
    "All men are slimes and should be castrated," then you're not a
    chauvinist!  As was said prior, you can't lump everyone together.
    Just as all Democrats and all Republicans don't think the same things,
    neither do all feminists.  Feminism is one of those theories that
    suffers from *a lot* of misconceptions- I'm sure that .0 (I hope
    that) would agree with some feminists, and not agree with some others.
    
    BUT, I feel, personally, that it is everyone's obligation to speak
    up if they believe that men and women are equal.  If a man or a
    woman just stands by and lets a sexist event happen, they carry
    part of the guilt.  It's sort of like Hitler's Germany.  How many
    German's, that did not believe Jews were the source of all evil,
    actually did something while they could??  How many suffered guilt
    as they just stood by and said, "Well, it's not happening to me
    or my family, why get involved?"  I admit that the circumstances
    are much different, but the analogy is only meant to illustrate a point.
                                         
 KarenKay                                 

    Kris,
    
    Your last statement needs much justification, and it does just what the
    base note was concerned about.  Jumping to conclusions and putting
    words into someone's note.  
    
    
    Bill,
    
    I agree you have to take in and process all information.  What if you
    process it and come to a conclusion which gets you labelled as a
    chauvenist and thus your point discounted.  This seems to show
    narrowmindedness on the other side.  Also it seems that the other
    person is trying to discount your thoughts by putting a label on you.
    
    RE: .5  Yes, women are equal but different.  And I for one, am glad of
    it.
    
    My philosophy:  Most of my philosophy is geared to what is best for the
    family.  The reason for this is because I see it as the key to what is
    wrong with society today.  The breakdown of the family unit.  Everyone
    cannot have what they want.  EVERYONE has got to make sacrifices to
    get the world on track so as we can all live harmoniously together.  So
    if my views step on someone elses to promote my agenda, then so be it. 
    This does not mean that I am against women, or against men, but
    everyone has to work together and make sacrifices.  IMHO it is what is
    going to make or break us.
    
    
    Mike

    
    	OK, let's try this.
    	
    	I believe in equality, dignity, and basic human rights for
    	both sexes.  Way back when, I read _The Second Sex_, _The
    	Female Eunuch_, _The Feminine Mystique_.  What was back then
    	the basic readings of the feminist movement.
    
    	I worked with women who were ardent feminists and was considered
    	"enlightened" or whatever.  Someone who sympathized with the
    	cause.
    
    	And then I wouldn't support the ERA and became a pig.  Now,
    	I was in favor of the concept.  The women knew that my
    	thoughts were in line with theirs.  However, I had a serious
    	philosophical and social problem with the concept of *a law*
    	which I would not trust in the hands of lawyers, judges, and
    	legislators.
    
    	If support means 100% blind devotion with no room to express
    	individual beliefs, then I have a problem.  I don't mind a
    	"pig" label.  I've had worse.  However, I don't mouth phrases
    	and nod like a toy German Shepard in a car's back window
    	because it's expected or because it is "politically correct."
    	(Lord, I hate that foolish term.)  I'm not a feminist and I'm
    	not a masculist.  I'm me.
    
    	I have my own beliefs, values, causes, and visions.  Some
    	may be the same as others, but there are certain to be
    	differences.  If we can talk about those differences maybe
    	we can grow in understanding of each other even if we continue
    	to disagree.  But if the response is "pig" then it's not
    	possible to try to discuss any further.  A closed mind closes
    	conversation.
    
    ralph 

    Define "closed mind".  What type of person has an "open mind"?
    How much does ego come into it?  How about intelligence?
    
    What I am getting at is "How may one evolve from closed to open mind?".

    
    Re:.6
    
    Mike, I agree with you. The family unity is in danger. In the past
    few years many people have advocated the "me" syndrome. To make
    something work out,i.e., your marriage, your career, your family
    union...one must be willing to make sacrifices and compromise.
    
    Too much of anything is bad. Too much hate, too much love, too much
    work, too much freedom, too much chile in your "chili", too much
    selfishness, too much control.
    
    Art.

    RE: .6
    
    > Bill,
    
    > I agree you have to take in and process all information.  What if you
    > process it and come to a conclusion which gets you labelled as a
    > chauvinist and thus your point discounted.  This seems to show
    > narrowmindedness on the other side.  Also it seems that the other
    > person is trying to discount your thoughts by putting a label on you.
    
    Mike, if the other person labels me and discounts my thoughts,
    I'll say, "I feel insulted.  I hear you putting this label on me
    and not listening to me.   I think I am listening carefully to 
    you.  If you can't knock off the insulting stuff, then I'm not
    inclined to continue this."
    
    Then wait to see what happens.
    
    And if insults continue, and I'm inclined to walk away, I would say
    before leaving (assuming I think there is any chance of being heard),
    "You're missing a chance to influence me.  I'm leaving because I
    refuse to be insulted."
    
    That's not said to "help" the other person, that's said entirely
    for my own benefit.  It's not my desire to be a martyr.
    
    Bill

    Well, Mike, if you're bothered by the opinions feminists have of you
    for the opinions you express, change 'em.  When I see a truth, I'll
    share it.  When the truth I see is that your traditional ways of
    looking at the world have resulted in the past, and will continue to
    result in the future, with women being treated as second-class
    citizens, then I'll point out the flaws of your position.  If you
    can't convince me of 'your' truth, then you'll have to accept that I'll
    hold unflattering opinions of your refusal to change your mind.  So if
    you're a chauvinist, truth will bear that out.  It always has.
    
    DougO
    
    ps- I can't recall any notes calling anyone a chauvinist.  Can you back
    uyp your claim?

    Doug,
    
    I am not saying that I feel that women should be barefoot & pregnant in
    the kitchen, as (believe it or not) I disagree with that type of
    mentality.  This is not the issue.  Yes there are some thing that were
    much better years ago.  If you say that if I hold a few older ideals as
    best then I am a chauvenist, then I know that you are full of gargage
    and are not worth discussing something with (not you personally, but
    you generically).  I have ideas which fit into the traditional way of
    thinking and ideas which fit into the modern way of thinking.  I have
    thought about things and this is the conclusion I have drawn.  This is
    not to say I will not listen to new data and consider it, because I
    will.  My thoughts are (if everyone will tolerate an poor analogy) that
    life is like a vast body of water and the family is the life boat. 
    Does my wife need me and depend on me?  You're darn right she does.  Do
    I need her and depend on?  No question about it.  If some of the older
    values fit in my thinking, that does not make me labelable.
    
    Mike

    
    re -1
    
    What if you are not married?  What if you do not have a family?
    
    I agree that much of the problems of today's society are directly
    related to the ME syndrome.  However, one does not necessarily
    have to be a part of a family to be doing ok in life.  How do 
    you define family?
    
    I define family as a group of individuals that care, love, respect
    and basically watch out for each other.  I have one nuclear family
    which consists of my mom, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers
    and sisters.  I have a daily family that consists of myself and
    my boyfriend.  I have a work family that consists of the folks
    that I get to spend 8 hours a day with.  I have a step-family
    that consists of myself, my boyfriend and his daugther (he is 
    a non-custodial dad -- NOT by choice).
    
    
    Just curious,
    Michele

    re .12, Mike, as Michele says in .13, what if you don't *have* a
    family?  Everyone, especially every woman, cannot have a family of
    their own because there are not enough men to go around for every woman
    to be married.  In the past, single women really got the short end of
    the stick because of the way society was set up.  They were called old
    maids and consigned to living in attic rooms with their relatives
    because there were so few choices for women.  I think this situation
    helped to inspire the women's movement.  Women should not be deprived
    of a fulfilling life just because they don't have a husband and/or
    family.  Besides some people are not happiest living in a traditional
    family unit.  Some people would prefer to remain single and date
    whoever they want.  Others prefer to live with lovers of their own sex.  
    
    I can't help but notice that it is often white men who speak wistfully
    of how much better things were in the old days.  Sure, some things
    *were* better in the old days.  There were less people and the pace of
    life was slower.  But, was life in the "old days" in the U.S. really
    better for everyone?  Was it better for blacks, better for gays, better
    for women?  I don't think so.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE -.1
    
    Not to change the subject of the note but:
    
    Better for blacks?
    	Mixed. Yes there was (depending upon the exact date) discrimination
    	No there we no crack babies, no drug gangs, no residential
    	shootouts, 
    
    Better for women?
    	Mixed. Yes there options were somewhat limited, though not in all
    	situations. Barefoot and pregnant maybe.
    	No there was a lesser incidence of heart attacks and lung cancer.
    	No there was no 'wilding' to worry about in Central Park.
    	No there was no AIDs
    
    Better for Gay's?
    	Mixed. Yes they were mostly closeted
    	No there was no AIDs
    	No there was no outing
    
    
    See my point?
    
    There are two kinds of fools. One says everything old is good. The
    other says everything new is good.....
    
    Steve

    re .15, I still think, overall, things are better now for women, blacks
    and gays, than they used to be in this country.  
    
    As far as drugs and shootouts in the black community goes, I doubt it
    seemed much better in the past to the black men who were dragged out of
    their homes in the middle of the night and lynched because they
    happened to have accidently looked crosseyed at a white woman during
    the day.
    
    Lorna
    

re: .12
    
>    If you say that if I hold a few older ideals as
>    best then I am a chauvenist, then I know that you are full of gargage
>    and are not worth discussing something with (not you personally, but
>    you generically).  
    
    It depends on what the older ideals are.  A chauvenist is defined in
    the dictionary (the third definnition is I think the one you'd be
    interested in) as "someone having an attitude of superiority towrd
    members of the opposite sex; also:  behavior expressive of such an
    attitude".
    
    I think chauvenism about women in a family role begins when men feel
    that is where a woman SHOULD be, no matter whether she wants to be
    there or not.  Feminism, IMO, is all about women having CHOICES -
    choices to be a mother, or a housewife, or an astronomer, or an
    engineer, or a nurse, or a teacher, or a nuclear physicist, or a
    secretary, or a professional jockey - WHATEVER SHE WANTS she should be
    able to achieve if she strives with all her ability to achieve it - and
    no one should stop her, not men, not women, not anybody, just BECAUSE
    she is a woman.  
    
    If you feel that whatever women want to do is fine, and that you are
    glad some want to be wives and mothers, I don't consider that
    chauvenism.  If you want to limit the female role to that, I consider
    that chauvenism.  If you mentioned out of thin air that you thought
    your wife was a wonderful mother, and were glad she was, and she was
    highly qualified for it and very wonderful at it, and a women stuck her
    nose in the air and called you a chauvenist - I'd disagree.
    
    Also, if you feel women are weak and helpless and need men to protect
    them and be the breadwinner all the time and the man must do all the
    lawnmowing and the woman must stay home and do the cooking and cleaning
    - THAT feels like chauvenism (because it seems to put women in the
    degraded spot, where she is weaker, cannot control the home or her
    surroundings, and cannot earn her own money).  
    
    I am sorry you feel all feminists put broad judgement labels on all men
    who like families (or have I misinterpreted you?).  I am a feminist,
    and unless you fit my definition of a chauvenist, I would not dream of
    calling you one.  Family man .ne. chauvenist, in my book.
    
    Of course, everyone has their own definition, not only of chauvenist,
    but of feminist as well....
    
    -Jody

    	RE: .17  Jody

    	Agree completely!

    	It's never been the case that all women spent their lives being
    	married and having/raising children.  There have always been
    	women (and men) who remained single for one reason or another.

    	In my Father's family, only 4 out of the 8 children who survived
    	to adulthood ended up married.  (They were all born in the 1910's
    	and 1920's.)  Only 3 of them had children.

    	One of my Aunts became a Nun, one Uncle became a brother in a
    	monastery, and two Aunts remained single roommates (until another
    	Uncle's wife died, at which point they occupied one level of my
    	Uncle's house in Gloucester to help raise his 3 children.  They
    	kept their careers.) My oldest Uncle married late in life to a 
    	very nice lady who passed away some years later (and they did not 
    	have children.)  Neither of my widower Uncles ever remarried.

    	The family life isn't for everyone.  If someone chooses another
    	life, it's not necessarily out of disrespect for the family.

    	Women deserve to have the opportunity for careers and financial
    	independence if they choose not to be part of a marriage/family.
    	Men have always been respected for this choice, so it's only
    	fair that women be respected for it, too.

>================================================================================
>Note 483.16             
>WRKSYS::STHILAIRE "Later, I realized it was weird"   11 lines   9-AUG-1990 16:44
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    re .15, I still think, overall, things are better now for women, blacks
>    and gays, than they used to be in this country.  
    
    As you said, your opinion.
    
    
>    As far as drugs and shootouts in the black community goes, I doubt it
>    seemed much better in the past to the black men who were dragged out of
>    their homes in the middle of the night and lynched because they
>    happened to have accidently looked crosseyed at a white woman during
>    the day.
    
    I seriously doubt that the number of brutal lynchings that happened
    even comes close to the number of black homicides today. I reciently
    read that homicide is the leading cause of death in black males in the
    late teens to 30ish years. By contrast, for white males, I believe it
    is accidents auto and otherwise.
    
    Steve

    Lorna,
    
    The issues (gender vs. race) are TOTALLY different.  Trying to lump
    them all in one basket is an unfair tactic, and I will not discuss them
    as if they are the same issue.  
    
    RE: Whoever:  Please forgive me for being a white male.  I'll go and
    ask forgiveness for this sin.  By the way.  One of my close friends
    here at work happens to be a black male, who is much the same boat as
    I.  His wife stays at home with his children and he works 2 jobs to
    make ends meet.  We have spoken alot about how much water "valuing
    differences" holds.  We'd both like to start valuing some similarities.  
    We've discussed starting an organization called NAAP (national assn for
    the advance of people) or NAAF (nat'l assn for the advancement of
    family).  You see, we (he and I) are in the minority now.  It's almost
    as if we have no choice.  Also he wishes the traditional family
    structure and values would go back in time.  (No he doesn't want to be
    taken out and lynched) (If anyone tried to, I stand by his side and
    fight with him) (By the way, our wives feel the same way).  I guess I
    kind of resent the fact that you imply that by me me wanting some of
    the traditional things to come back, that I want the whole 40's, 50's
    treating of everyone to come back.  Especially when I specifically
    stated that this was not the case.  Enough on this.
    
    

    Hey Mike, can I join?  I to sometimes feel the "great experiment" has
    failed...

    re .21, Mike, it is *your* opinion that the issues of race and gender
    are totally different.  Please do not state your opinion as though it
    were fact.  You are not God.
    
    Lorna
    

    GIMME A BREAK!!!!
    
    Feminism does not mean that women have to got out and work.
    A woman can be a feminist and take care of her children all day.
    A woman who works is not "by definition" a feminist.
    
    The underlying factor of feminism, is, in my opinion, that women
    have the choice to do *WHATEVER THEY WANT*.  
    
    If their choice is to stay home and raise kids, great!!!  If their
    husband wants them to stay home, and they agree, the husband is
    not *necessarily* a chauvinist.  A man is a chauvinist if he insists
    that his wife stays home, or if he treats her like *crap* because
    she does stay home (there are other examples, but you get the picture)
    
    To reiterate, the point of feminism is not to force all women into
    the work-force, but to allow women to have a *choice*!!!!
    
    
    sheesh.
    
    kkay

    RE: Lorna- Race & gender are not the same issue.  This is a fact.  They
    may have a FEW similarities,  but the differences far outweigh the
    similarities.  And give me a break about me thinking I'm God.  That makes 
    me not want to listen to anything you say.  So let's cut the name calling 
    crap.  It serves no purpose.  Thanks.  
    
    
    Mike

>            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
>                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
>================================================================================
>Note 483.26             If you don't agree, you're a pig                26 of 27
>HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "felled, in a big way"              11 lines  10-AUG-1990 12:24
>         -< .20's stats are unrelated to the racism and gender (IMO) >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>.20>    I seriously doubt that the number of brutal lynchings that happened
>.20>    even comes close to the number of black homicides today. I reciently
>
>	Now analyze the motivation.
>
>	a) racial, b) gender, or c) something else.
>
>	80% of all black male homicides are at the hands of other black
>    males.
>
>-mike 
    
    Soo blacks killing blacks is OK or at least less worse? (grammar alert)
    
    
    Dead is dead. Whether by rope, gun or chem weapon. Is death as a result
    of racism worse than death by illegal drug gun battles? Ask the
    victims. They are not too pleased about it.
    
    Why do people constantly do this? A person who dies as a result of
    racism is to be treated differently than someone who dies at the hands
    of a drunk driver? Both had their lives shortened for no good reason as
    a result of the arrorgance (for lack of a better note printable word)
    of some SOB. 
    
    		'I am better than you'  I kill you by a lynching
    		'I can drink and drive' I kill you with my car
    
    Steve
    
    PS Lorna: Gender and race only converge at the point of discrimination
    		either perceived or real. So technically, you are less
    		right than whats his name. 

    
    	RE: .21  MWannemacher
    
    	> We've discussed starting an organization called NAAP (national assn 
    	>for the advance of people) or NAAF (nat'l assn for the advancement of
    	> family).  
    
    	What do think it would take to "advance the family"?
    
    	>You see, we (he and I) are in the minority now.  It's almost
    	>as if we have no choice.  
    
    	Which minority are you talking about (and what don't you have choices
    	about?)
    

    re .25, Mike, the point (in my opinion) is that you were saying that
    you think that life (in general) was better in the "old days" when
    family meant more than it does today.  My answer to that is that I do
    not think life was better in the "old days" for most people.  I think
    it may, indeed, have been better for many white, men, but I do not
    think that it was better for most people, especially blacks, gays and
    women.  I never said that gender and race were the same thing.  I said
    that I think life is better now for most people than it was in the
    mythical "old days."  I also added that it seems to me that it is
    always white men that I hear wishing for the supposed "good old days" -
    never women, blacks or gays.  I did not say that race and gender are
    the same thing.  Okay?
    
    BTW, if I wanted to call you names I could do a little better than
    calling you "God."  My vocabulary is a bit more colorful than that, I
    assure you.
    
    Lorna
      
    
    BTW

>    Yes there are some thing that were much better years ago.  

Much better for whom?  African americans?  Lesbians?  Women?  
Bisexuals?  Native Americans?  Hispanics?

If you answer that question from the perspective of all people, then I
think you will understand why we are attempting to restructuring a
system that seemed to be working very, very well for
heterosexual-appearing white men. 

I find it to be very telling that most men do not advocate for men to 
change the way that they are living (more time at home, taking leave 
to take care of the baby, house husband, splitting both the "women's 
work" and the "men's work," and chipping in to help make the "working 
wife" a reality instead of a Superwoman fantasy).  Instead, they 
advocate for feminists to shut up or to go away, and they advocate for 
us to go back to the good old days of the Fifties.  

Well, the Fifties weren't the good old days for all of us.  And don't 
think for a minute that I don't understand how gay people fit into 
your picture of "the family" when you start talking about "sacrifice" 
and "selfishness."  Minorities and women, they are the ones who need 
to be less selfish and need to sacrifice more.  Heterosexual-appearing 
white men, they are doing find and don't need to change.

There's something wrong with this picture.


						--Gerry

>    Better for Gay's?
>    	Mixed. Yes they were mostly closeted
>    	No there was no AIDs
>    	No there was no outing
>    
>    
>    See my point?
    
I don't think that you are qualified to speak for gays.  I also see 
that your point is greatly slanted.

In 1955-1965, there were two national gay organizations, both having a
handful of members.  There were two national gay papers, both
distributed underground, hand to hand, through the US mail system
only.  Almost all states had sodomy laws.  There were almost no people
who were openly gay.  Bars were few and far between (most were in the
cities), were raided as a matter of policy, and most were owned by the
mafia.  Being "found out" meant instant dismissal from your job (with
a notice in the paper about "morals charges," or getting kicked out of
your apartment.  At that time, it was common for gay people to be 
institutionalized by their families and given shock treatment.  
Homosexuality was diagnosed as an illness, and the blame was often 
placed on the parents (the mother usually got the bulk of the blame 
for "smothering" her son; lesbianism wasn't addressed).

Today, there are numerous gay publications, most available at news 
stands; there are a huge number of local publications (I hear rumor 
that Bay Windows is available in a convenience store in Maynard, MA!).
We have 2 openly-gay congressmen, and dozens of openly gay officials 
throughout the country.  Gayness is not listed as a disease anymore, 
and shock treatment is unheard of.  There are thousands and thousands 
of gay organizations (the New England resource guide is 190 pages). We 
are a political lobbying force to be reckoned with.  We have gay 
rights laws in two states and dozens of cities.  We have a gay notes 
file and gay groups forming in US corporations, including Digital.

I'll take AIDS (I'll wear condoms), gay bashing (I'll take extra 
caution), and outing (I'll come out for myself).  I just thank god 
that I didn't come of age as a gay man in the Fifties and early 
Sixties.  I think it says a lot that, even with the horrors for gay 
people in 1990, a lot of us would choose not to go back to 1955.

For more information, check out the film "Before Stonewall."  It talks 
about gay life in that era.  It wasn't pretty.


							--Gerry

    
>    RE: Whoever:  Please forgive me for being a white male.  I'll go and
>    ask forgiveness for this sin.  

When are you guys gonna get this basic point: us feminists aren't 
saying that being heterosexually-appearing white men is a sin.  We are 
saying that it gives you privilege and it gives you a certain "slant" 
on things.  When you look at women and minorities with your "slant" 
and refuse to acknowledge our actual experiences, and when you report 
your findings as "fact" instead of "your opinion filtered through your 
own experiences," then we get pissed.  It would be as if I defined all 
of your actions according to gay-male values and experiences; it don't 
work.  However, you don't think twice about trying to do the reverse.

You didn't sin.  There is nothing wrong with you.  I have a "white, 
gay-male slant."   

Our plea: when you start talking about truth, justice, and the 
American way, please get feedback from all Americans?  Please?  We all 
have our slants on things.  Let's toss it all into the pot.

							--Ger

    You know.. I am (and I am sure others are also) getting tired of
    hearing about this "priv" that us white hets have.
    
    Do me a favour Ger?  Please show me an example or two of a spacific
    white male het having AND USING this so called "Privilege".
    
    Something along the lines of "Well, Joe smoe had this thing see"....
    
    I am NOT being sarcastic, I REALLY want to see examples....

    
    A white man comes into a job, and has only been there a year, and a
    woman has had a similar job for three years.  But he gets promoted
    before she does (although her skills are greater).  
    *assumption - white men are better than women, even though they've been
    at the job for less time.  They are *inherently* more promotable.  
    
    A white man walks into an expensive clothing store and begins browsing. 
    A black man dressed  in jeans and a sweatshirt walks in and begins
    browsing and as faced with a salesman stating quite superciliously,
    "Can I help you?", looking at him as if he were something slightly more
    slovenly than yesterday's garbage.  The white man continues browsing
    unhindered.
    * assumption - white men need not be watched for theft, and black men
    are poorer. - the black man could be an engineer on his day off...
    
    Two middle-aged white men go into a restaurant for lunch - they are
    served very quickly, and very thoroughly by the waitress.  The
    waitress, on the other hand, visits the table with two younger women
    much less often.
    * assumption - the women probably don't work and have all the time in
    the world.  Besides, they aren't as valuable financially as the male
    customers as far as what food they order or any repeat business they
    may bring.
    
    
    Look, these things DO happen, whether you admit it or not.  The white
    man doesn't even have to CHOOSE to USE THE PRIVILEGE.  He GETS IT
    ANYWAY.  NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
    
    It all works on ASSUMPTIONS.  Sexist, Racist, Unfair assumptions.  The
    whole world is full of them.  Whether you can see them or not.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    I've got it...
    
    Make it a law that WM get served dead last...   
    
    

Kudos to Lorna, Gerry, Suzanne and Jody! (and anyone else I missed)

Al, you want specifics?  Okay, how 'bout:

1) Woman gets passed over for promotion in favor of a man with less
   experience.  Woman just happens to have just announced she's pregnant.
   When woman appeals, she's told that "he has a wife and family to sup-
   port, so he *needs* this promotion, and the extra money."

   How many men get discriminated against because they're prospective
   fathers?

2) Woman goes to job interview.  Manager (white male, married) notices 
   wedding ring, and asks if she's planning on having children.  Woman 
   glances at newspaper ad in her portfolio and quizzically asks: "Was that 
   one of the job requirements?"  Manager responds that since she was young 
   and pretty that he assumed she'd be having children soon.  

3) Woman goes to job interview.  Manager (white male, married) notices she's 
   not wearing a wedding ring, and says, "I see you're not married."  Woman: 
   "Oh?  Is that required?"  Manager: "No, in fact it's better.  We work a 
   lot of late hours here, and I'd hate to have a jealous husband worrying 
   about what we're doing here <snicker>."

   How many men have been asked personal, irrelevant-to-the-position (and 
   now, fortunately, *illegal*) questions on job interviews?

4) Woman takes a job in a corporate office, and is told that "proper busi-
   ness attire is required."  When she comes to work wearing a silk blouse,
   pumps and a designer pant-suit, she's told not to wear it again because
   it isn't "proper."  When she inquires what's improper about it, her
   manager says that only skirts and dresses are, because "half the fun of 
   coming to the office is looking at all those nice legs, and yours are 
   especially nice."

5) Several people are in a training program for prospective managers.  In
   a meeting with all senior managers and training coordinators, one
   manager remarks that one of the trainees shouldn't be in the program,
   because he's "certainly not management material anyway."  When asked
   why, the answer is a snide "Well, *you* know..."  [the trainee is gay]

These are all true accounts.  I was the woman in #1-4, and I was a train-
ing coordinator in #5.

Ciao,
deb (who does *NOT* want a return of "the good ol' days" tyvm...)

    Mike Z
    
    I have had several black male friends who have gotten exactly
    this type of treatment and they are far more conservative
    dressers than you.
    
    and would someone please explain to me why discrimination
    by gender and discrimination by sex are not the same sort of
    thing?
    
    in both cases people are being denied opportunities based
    solely on biological differences that have nothing what so
    ever to do with their ability to do a job...unless you are talking
    about the small number of jobs that soley require physical
    strength greater than that of most women.
    
    I simply do no see, and I've  been around this with Mike W before
    why it is okay to discriminate or other wise say that women are
    different and there for okay to do x or y to, when it isn't okay
    to say or do the same to blacks.
    
    Bonnie

And now for the $64,000 question (to anyone who still doesn't think men
have an automatic, default advantage over women in the workplace:

	How many men do you know who graduated from an ivy-league type 
	college and started off in business as an executive secretary?

I rest my case.

Cheers,
deb  8-}

    You people are not showing me privileges.. you are showing me bigots.
    
    I rest MY case.

    re .43 >You people are not showing me privileges...you are showing
           >me bigots

    You live in a society where such bigots *grant* privileges
    based on race and gender. (It is a *privilege* to be awarded
    a job over someone better qualified, on that basis.)
    
    Who was it that said, "It is not rights that men value, but
    privileges." ? Too true.

    re .42
    
    Of course, if a female graduate majored in Secretarial Science ...
    
    I know lots of men who were at least temporarily underemployed after
    graduation from college (very prestigious colleges in some cases).
    There are many factors involved, with the job market at the time of
    graduation being one of the key ones.  My father had a degree in 
    Aeronautical Engineering and had the misfortune to walk from the
    campus straight into the 30s depression.  I also have an aunt who
    graduated from high school in the early 40s and went from entry level
    secretary to purchasing manager in six years at a vacuum tube
    manufacturing plant.  She's a very bright and able lady, one of the
    first feminists I ever knew, but even she admits that WW II may have
    put a bit of a wind on her back.
    
    I'm sorry, but I think the biological realities of being a female are
    relevant, and I don't blame employers for being wary of it.  I know
    several women who chose to suspend or abandon important careers after
    becoming mothers.  I just lost my dentist for that reason.  Some jobs
    require a close mingling of personal and professional life, and it can
    take a long time to get an employee truly installed.  There's a risk
    that any employee can leave unexpectedly, of course, but there seem to
    be a lot more reasons for women to do it.  If that makes me an MCP or
    whatever, so be it.
    
    Craig

    My advantage?
    
    In a labor dispute with an employer, another white adult (straight, if
    it matters or mattered) went to the US Dept of Labor. We were told that
    we had a good case against our employer except for one problem. We were
    not a; woman, black, native american (my 1/8 wasn't good enough), some
    odd religion......
    	The recomendation by the US dept of Labor? Go back and take what
    the employer dishes out to you. Were we not entitled because we had an
    inheirent 'advantage?' I was poor and just surviving, so was the other
    person. So much for equality.
    
    
    Advantage? SHOW ME OR SHUT UP!
    
    Is this fair? NO!
    
    Is this right? NO!
    
    Now tell me because I am white... that this is OK. Tell it to yourself
    that it is OK to discriminate against me. Say it over and over again.
    Say it until you and all your friends believe it. Acuse me of being a
    bigot, racist or whatever because I object to this discrimatory
    treatment. Say it, believe it, close your eyes.....
    
    When will this legislated (or by fiat) discrimination end?
    
    Steve

    
>    Do me a favour Ger?  Please show me an example or two of a spacific
>    white male het having AND USING this so called "Privilege".
>    
>    I am NOT being sarcastic, I REALLY want to see examples....

1)  Go to any Fortune 500 company, examine the race, the perceived 
sexual orientation, and the gender of the highest executives.  
Calculate the percentage of African Americans, women, and openly-gay 
men, and compare those percentages to the percentage of these groups 
in the United States.  If the percentages are far below their 
percentage in the population, then that brings up some interesting 
points.  Unless you believe that women and minorities are naturally 
inferior, then there must be a significant number of 
heterosexually-appearing, white men who are advancing who are not as 
talented as their women/minority counterparts.  My conclusion is that 
this is het, white male privilege at work.

2)  Check out the current scandal in the PGA, with all the golf 
courses with 0 black members.  It isn't "law" or "ability" that is 
keeping African Americans out of the clubs; it's a lack of privilege 
in my opinion.

3)  As an experiment--either actual or imagined--tell people that you 
are lesbian/gay, and watch how differently you are treated.  Being gay
can be a wonderful lesson in het, white male privilege.  If I shut my
mouth and pay attention, I can experientially feel what it is like to
be treated like a het, white male.  If I come out, I can see the
instant reaction of the people around me, and I can actually
experience my privilege being stripped away.  In coming out, I go from
being one of "us" to one of "them," and the contrast in one particular
event is startling.  If you don't believe me, try pretending to be gay
sometime.  It has parallels to "Black, Like Me," without changing your
race. 

4) Make friends or date a person who is African American or Hispanic. 
Pay very close attention to how you are treated when you are alone: 
what it is like to use your credit card, what it is like to eat out at 
a restaurant, and what it is like to wander through a suburban 
shopping mall.  Then, do those same activities with your friend.  
Notice how many times you or your friend are followed by the security 
guard in the mall.  Notice how many times the signature on your credit 
card is not checked and how well scrutinized your friend's signature 
is.  Notice how you were never carded in that bar, but how your friend 
has to produce three picture IDs.  

These are examples that I can think of off the top of my head.  Are 
they scientific?  No.  Have I "proven" anything?  No. 

But, if you are observant, I think that you will find that there are a 
zillion little, little details that force women and minorities to have 
to go one, two, or three steps further than a heterosexually-appearing 
white man has to go to accomplish the same task.  And the effect is 
like drops of water on concrete; nothing at first, but, over time, the 
concrete errodes away.  

The ability to go through life without these little obstacles (having
to be "exceptional" instead of "good" to get promoted, getting carded
at clubs, being followed by security guards, and so forth), is what is
most often referred to as "White Male Privilege."  (I add
"heterosexually appearing," because I notice my privilege being
stripped away from me as soon as I come out as a gay man.)  It is not
something that any one heterosexual, white man "causes."  The 
individual men are not to blame for the current conditions.  However, 
they are certainly to blaim for maintaining the current conditions, 
UNLESS they are working to break down this Chinese Water Torture that 
currently exists for women and minorities.  (I don't want to be TOO 
dramatic; things are getting better, but progress can feel so slow 
sometimes.)


							--Gerry

    But Gerry, those examples LIKE ALL OF THE OTHERS are not PRIVILEGES!
    
    A privilege is something that I can take or leave, something I can
    enjoy!  I cannot get nor deny these so called "privileges".....
    
    Those examples are examples or IGNORANT PEOPLE!  
    
    as I said before, show me TANGIBLE EXAMPLES of MY PRIVILEGE AS A WHITE
    MALE HET!
    
    and don't give me that "It's automatic Al, it's all given to you
    without you even knowing" crap....

    Aww come off it Herb.  I am really trying to see what he is talking
    about.
    
    I agree with his #3 (about gay persons), because I think people are
    indeed ignorant about the homosexual community.
    
    But I dont agree with the automatic goodies cause I am a white male....

RE

>    A privilege is something that I can take or leave, something I can
>    enjoy!  I cannot get nor deny these so called "privileges".....

You can always win an argument by rewriting the dictionary to your own benefit.
This is *not* the way the dictionary definition of "privilege" is worded:

privilege (n) 1. A special or peculiar benefit, favor, or advantage.
	      2. An exemption or immunity by virtue of one's office or station.

Neither of these implies any volition on the part of the recipient. There is
no requirement that a privilege must be acknowledged or accepted. It can just
exist in context. 

    re: .52
    
    
>    Aww come off it Herb.  I am really trying to see what he is talking
>    about.
 
    If you REALLY want to see what he is talking about, try his experiment. 
    Tell someone you are gay.  Or just take off the blinders and LOOK for
    the examples he has given.  Try them.  Open-mindedly.  Without
    disbelief.  Suspend your reality for the time-being and be open to the
    new possibility that things are NOT as they have seemed to you, that
    they may be different than your perception leads you to believe.  WHY
    would we all lie?  Why would we all be coming up with similar examples
    and possibilities and exercises that fit OUR reality, but you loudly
    proclaim we must prove in order to have them accepted into yours.  Are
    we part of some giant conspiracy?  Only if that conspiracy is called
    "the collective truth of our experience"....   
    
>    But I dont agree with the automatic goodies cause I am a white male....
    
    If you were to try some of the experiments Ger suggests, maybe you
    could SEE some of the automatic goodies disappear - remove themselves
    from your realm of possibility.  Maybe if you speak OPEN_MINDEDLY to
    enough women and minorities and people of difference (whatever that
    difference is) you will see that other people see things differently
    from you - and maybe if you perceive enough data from enough people
    that goes against your belief you may change your belief.  But it may
    not make you feel good to know you have privileges that others don't -
    so changing our belief may not be an option you entertain readily.
    
    
    I had a chance to see "different treatment" this weekend.  And the
    difference was not racial, or sexual, it was the difference between
    calling a half hour earlier and shelling out about $5-$10 more.  I was
    at a concert at Great Woods - which has assigned seating in the 
    pavilion (under a roof), and general seating on the lawn which has no
    seats and no roof - it's just a grassy area.  People in the pavilion
    were standing in the aisles where we "behind the fence" (which
    separated the two areas) were trying to see, they would walk and gawk
    in front of us blocking our view, and then ignore us when we asked them
    politely (and then not so politely) to move.  One security guard was
    helpful, the others told us since we were "on the lawn" we had really
    nothing to complain about (i.e. we were second-class citizens despite
    our $20 per ticket).  It was like the people with pavilion seats could
    ignore those behind the fence, our pleas, our desire to see the
    concert, just because we were segregated from them, because they had
    called earlier and paid a bit more money, they could block our view. 
    It was interesting how the dichotomy between US and THEM grew, as some
    of them ACTIVELY when out of their way once asked to move to REMAIN in
    the way.  Flaunting their privilege.  Many didn't even realize they
    were IN our way (where the aisles and rows were in front of us, they
    didn't even realize that they were usurping OUR privilege to see by
    just standing there) until we pointed it out to them.
    
    An interesting exercise indeed.
    
    Try looking at life from behind the fence, and realise that the white,
    heterosexual-looking male is  granted (whether requested or
    unrequested) privileges that not only give them a fairer deal in many
    situations, but also usurp the privileges of others in some cases (i.e.
    women and promotion, or being kept out of a club under "suspicion"
    where others are easily allowed in until the club is full)....
    
    -Jody
    

    
>    When will this legislated (or by fiat) discrimination end?
    
When the privilege ends.  That's the general idea, anyway.

The saddest thing about this whole situation (privilege and
legislation that attempts to address it) is that it creates a class
war.  Did anyone else notice that it isn't the white, male fat cats
who are fighting for scraps, having to contend with hiring quotas, 
it's the lower echilons of business that are hit hard.  

Then, you've got the white graduate from the police academy viciously
attacking the African American and Hispanic men and women who were
hired to fulfill quotas.  You get people at lower levels in Digital
who are fighting each other: "She was only hired because she was a
woman"; "He's a sexist pig!"  Eventually, the lower-class folks get
tired of fighting (or, they've locked each other out), and everyone 
loses momentum as they reach the glass ceiling. 

Meanwhile, the rich, white, heterosexually-appearing men, who stepped
into relatively high corporate positions right out of college, are
laughing all the way to the bank. 

It saddens me.  It isn't the American Dream the way that I learned it. 
It has more to do with where you start off than it has to do with hard 
work and skill.


							--Gerry

    
    Re .56:
    
          Good points, Gerry. 
    
          Those who aren't white/hetero males see all the top positions
    taken by white/hetero males, and assume that these top positions
    are there for the taking IF you are a white/hetero male, and can't
    see that it's only the very lucky, very priviledged (and probably
    also very hard-working, ambitious, and sharp) white/hetero males
    that generally attain these positions.   There are plenty of white/
    hetero males who aren't so lucky, though, and it's these people
    who resent it when others assume that being white/hetero automatically
    grants one the key to power and success, when it really doesn't.

    Just because one can't see a privilege, does that mean a privilege
    does not exist??
    
    IE:  What happens to spoiled rich kids if their parents loose alltheir
    money??  The kids suddenly realize they were "privileged", but until
    this time had no idea...
    
    You don't have to *consciously* take advantage of something for it
    to be a privilege.  Personally, I can't believe that anyone who
    exists in today's society is incapable of seeing the *unasked* for,
    in some cases *subconscious*, privileges granted to white, het,
    males.  Wake up!!!!
    
    kkay                                              

>    But Gerry, those examples LIKE ALL OF THE OTHERS are not PRIVILEGES!
>    
>    A privilege is something that I can take or leave, something I can
>    enjoy!  I cannot get nor deny these so called "privileges".....

Do you "enjoy" getting promoted without having your race regarded?  Do 
you "enjoy" the ability to wander a shopping mall without being 
hounded by security guards or zealous sales people?  Do you enjoy not 
getting triple carded at clubs?

I do.

Also, you _can_ take or leave it.  How?  By treating that behavior as 
an American norm instead of as a privilege.  You can work to undermine 
the stricter requirements placed on other groups.  How do you do this? 
First, by recognizing that you receive treatment from large groups of 
people in this country that is better treatment than that given to 
women and minorities.  Second, you can point out differential 
treatment whenever it happens.  For instance, if you are on a date and 
the waiter returns her credit card to you, you can point out that it 
is not a good idea to assume that the man is paying (and you can do 
this in _whatever_ style is natural to you: humor, seriousness, 
throwing a fit, a casual remark, boycott, whatever you think would 
work best).

I think that a lot of guys are fearful that we need to take away 
things from deserving heterosexual-appearing white men in order to get 
"equality."  I don't want to take away the ability of white people to 
stroll malls without harrassment.  I don't want to take away the 
ability of qualified het-appearing white men to rise to the top of a 
corporation.  I just want to extend those abilities to equally-
qualified women and minorities.

The talented and qualified heterosexual-appearing white men have 
nothing to worry about here.

Like I said in an earlier note, it's a shame that the high-ups 
implement Affirmative Action in such an ineffective and harmful manner 
on the lower levels of business.  Don't think that AA is failing 
because it doesn't work.  It's failing because it isn't being 
implemented well.  And the fat cats at the top of the corporation 
ladders have a financial stake in making sure that AA is implemented 
so poorly that all energy will be spent on the war between poor white 
people and women/minorities.  Fighting for the scraps.

And when the dust settles, the lower classes will have suffered the 
casualties and the fat cats will use that as "proof" that AA can't 
work.

Cute.

Deadly.

>    Those examples are examples or IGNORANT PEOPLE!  

I disagree.  I'll bet that a lot of them are quite intelligent.  This
behavior stems from a much more fundamental and powerful level than
"intelligence."  If you asked the security guard why he followed the
African American shopper, I don't think that s/he would always be able
to articulate why s/he felt that the person was a security risk.  It's
all playing out on a deeper level, on the level of attitude and 
assumption.  And very intelligent people succumb to attitude and 
assumption as easily as ignorant people.  

It's not a matter of "learning" something.  It's a matter of 
"reworking an attitude."  That's a lot harder than learning something.

>    as I said before, show me TANGIBLE EXAMPLES of MY PRIVILEGE AS A WHITE
>    MALE HET!

We did.  The examples we gave have monetary and power advantages.
    
>    and don't give me that "It's automatic Al, it's all given to you
>    without you even knowing" crap....

Let me put the ball in your court, Al.  Please prove that it _isn't_ 
given to you without you even knowing.   You have failed to prove 
that, whereas we have offered many solid examples of our opinions.


							--Gerry

    TADA!  we have a winnah!
    
    Mike, EXACTLY!  thats it!  It isnt unique to white male hets.
    
    RE: Wake up!  
        Grow the hell up yerself!
    
    RE: herb
    
       get a life
    
    RE: Gerry, 
    
      thank you for a clear, without comments like "ignore them" or "wake
    up" and other such childish reparte.....
    
    I see clearly what you are saying, I do indeed agree that because I am
    a white male, that I have "misconceptions" placed upon me.  IE., the
    ignorant people that I spoke of.  I do NOT agree that it is inherently
    a white male het thing though.
    
    As for you so called "enlightened" people, I try to see where gerry and
    others are coming, I dont automatically assume that he is a whinning
    liberal puke commie just because he appears to "threaten my white het
    maleness"......  Maybe you aught to give it a try.  
    
    

    In .46 I gave all of you a clear example of an event that I lived
    through in which 'the white male advantage' was not only not there, but
    turned around legally to prevent equality.
    
    Why don't any of you answer this. No answer? Too chicken to 'test' some
    of your own thoughts?
    
    I try to base my judgements of people upon their abilities, not their
    race, sex or sexual preference. But, I will NOT ever forget what was
    done to me under the name of 'the law.' It was legislated reverse 
    discrimination, pure and simple.
    
    Don't ask someone else to test their thoughts/beliefs unless you are
    willing to test your own.
    
    	WAS MY TREATMENT BY THE US LABOR DEPARTMENT FAIR???	
    
    	WHERE WAS MY WHITE MALE ADVANTAGE IN THAT CASE????
    
    Steve

    
    Steve, .65
    
    Your situation won't be addressed, or if it is, it will be dismissed
    as an aberration and a necessary one at that. What happened to you
    will be called an unfortunate incident that we must endure to 
    right the wrongs of the past. 
    
    Of course I don't agree but then I've stopped buying into the
    guilt. 
    
    							Hank
    
    ps. Hi Al. 

    	RE: .57  

    	> Those who aren't white/hetero males see all the top positions
    	> taken by white/hetero males, and assume that these top positions
    	> are there for the taking IF you are a white/hetero male, and can't
    	> see that it's only the very lucky, very priviledged (and probably
    	> also very hard-working, ambitious, and sharp) white/hetero males
    	> that generally attain these positions.   

    	Sorry, but women and minorities aren't actually as stupid as you
    	seem to suggest.

    	Obviously, not every male born on the planet can choose to become
    	a President on his mere whim.  Why would you ever think that anyone
    	believed this?

    	The point is - in the U.S., for example - ONLY, ONLY, ONLY white
    	males can become privileged enough to become President.  

    	Where do you think George Bush would be today if he'd been born
    	Georgina Bush?  Not in the Oval Office, that's for sure.  He'd
    	be damn lucky (at his age) to have been educated and to have
    	worked outside the home AT ALL in his life.  Being a female and
    	being non-white would have eliminated his chances to be where
    	he is today (purely on the basis of sex and race.)

    	What would have happened to Ronald Reagan?  Sure, he could have
    	been a movie star, and maybe even the President of the Screen
    	Actors' Guild (although it's doubtful back when he was involved
    	in it) - but Gov. of California then President for two terms?
    	NO possible way.  Why?  Purely on the basis of sex and race.

    	> There are plenty of white/hetero males who aren't so lucky, though, 
    	> and it's these people who resent it when others assume that being 
    	> white/hetero automatically grants one the key to power and success, 
    	> when it really doesn't.

    	That's where they are wrong.

    	NO ONE assumes that every white male on the planet is granted the
    	keys to power and success. 

    	The problem is that ONLY white males in our culture have been ALLOWED
    	to be privileged enough to be granted power and success to any real
    	degree AT ALL (until fairly recently.)

    	That's one way to explain the privilege (whether most people are
    	able to recognize this or not.)

    	If we could go back through history and take famous men (with their
    	brains, talent and, in appropriate cases, money privileges in tact)
    	and change it so that they were born female instead of male...

    	Georgina Washington wouldn't have crossed the Potomac - she'd have
    	been home knitting warm socks and caring for her kids/grandkids.

    	Thomasina Washington would have been hosting garden parties.

    	If Benjamina Franklin had gone out in a rainstorm with a kite and
    	a key, her husband probably would have told her to shut up and come 
    	in out of the rain.  Even if she'd proven her experiment ANYWAY, no 
    	one would have listened to her.  They'd have waited for a man.

    	Meanwhile, if many of the women who knitted, cooked and bore babies
    	throughout history had been born male, then some of THEM would have
    	been the leaders, inventors, statesmen, etc. that we know about now.
    	
    	Being male or female has amounted to this much of a difference in 
    	our culture.

    	RE: .71  Herb

    	> But, a lot of the time, when folks are talking about chauvinism OR
    	> racism, it REALLY, REALLY comes across as if the talker is pointing 
    	> a finger at each and every one of us white males. And I think some 
    	> of the finger pointers ARE doing -or feeling- EXACTLY that. 

    	Whoa, Herb.  Don't tell us what we are feeling, ok?  ;^)

    	You were saying that white males have an advantage yourself earlier
    	in the discussion.  Did you mean that every white male on the planet
    	is handed the keys to power and success automatically?  If not, then
    	why assume a woman or minority *does* mean this?  (I know I don't.)

    	<<The problem is that ONLY white males in our culture have been ALLOWED
    	<<to be privileged enough to be granted power and success to any real
        <<degree AT ALL (until fairly recently.)
    
    	> That's true. But tell that to a Irish dockworker in New York.
   	
    	We've had an Irish President in our country already.  (We haven't
    	had either a woman or a minority VICE-President yet.)

    	> Tell that to a Polish iron worker in Pittsburg. 

    	There's a Polish Pope already.  (Women aren't even allowed to be
    	the lowliest Parish Priest in the Catholic Church, and no male
    	minorities have been Pope yet.)

    	> Tell that to a Greek mill worker in Lowell. 

    	The son of Greek immigrants has been a Presidential candidate
    	backed by one of our two major parties.  No woman or minority
    	has been able to do this yet.

    	Surely you aren't suggesting that women and minorities shouldn't
    	even begin to complain about being completely shut out of these
    	positions until the day that ALL WHITE MEN are guaranteed the
    	instant keys to this sort of power and success?

    
    Are most lowly men peckers .. ?

I replied earlier - and deleted my reply.  Let us consider:

How many straight white males are full time parents?  What proportion is 
this of the general population?  Rather small, eh?

From this I conclude that straight white males are rather disadvantaged 
beings, way out of proportion deprived of the emotional benefits of 
raising their children - forced into a life of stress and disease as 
wage slaves and success objects.

Why is it that white males die an average of seven years before their 
mates?  Geesh, a tremendous advantage here...



Am I angry?  Darn tootin'!  I refuse to accept the guilt and shame laid 
on me by those who clain that straight white males have priviledge and 
advantage in late 20th century USA.  (What happended before doesn't 
count - the past is past - Georgina Washington is irrelevant).

Sure, as a straight white male I have my adavantages.  I also have my 
disadvantages and obstacles.

Just because a woman or a black or a gay doesn't face the same obstacles
as I doesn't mean I have it easy or priviledged - or vice versa. 

So what if no black or woman has made it to the Oval Office?  They will.
The men in office today didn't get there overnight.  They started their
journeys long before the rules changed in the 1960's. 

I would expect that the face of world business and politics will have a 
much different in the 2020's when those who were born in the 1960's and
1970's are competing for the highest positions.  We didn't get where we
are instantly, we won't get to a balanced represenatation in business
and government (and family caretakers!) until at least a generation
after we mostly agree that this is fair and just. 

Bob_neither_feminist_nor_masculinist_but_humanist

re:  .48  Fisher

I have 7 bananas, 12 oranges, 10 apples, and 1 pear in my fridge.

This doesn't mean that I don't like pears.

-dwight

    .51  Nichols
    
    So take your ball and go home.
    

>>>Where do you think George Bush would be today if he'd been born	
Georgina Bush?  Not in the Oval Office, that's for sure.

	Hell, who'd vote for a woman for president???  :^)

    .64
    Save what face?  I tried to point out what I felt, you discounted it as 
    if I were a scumbucket... I try again, you discount......
    
    someone else comes in, speaks pretty much the same I was trying to say,
    along with someone, although disagreeing with me, else that at least
    shows me a little respect when debating me.  
    
    Practice pal..... you are the bigot, not I..... its just that you hide
    it in your PS language....

    
>    It isn't necessary to feel guilt to acknowledge the advantage.
>    It isn't necessary to feel guilty to have empathy.

This is _sooo_ key.  Thanks for entering it, Herb.  I think it is 
counterproductive for heterosexual, white males either to wallow in 
guilt or to spend lots of energy denying guilt.  Let's all just pitch 
in to make things as fair as we can, for everyone.

I also think that if we do our restructuring correctly, it shouldn't 
hinder qualified, hard-working, heterosexual white males.  But that's 
an awfully big IF.

							--Ger

>Am I angry?  Darn tootin'!  I refuse to accept the guilt and shame laid 
>on me by those who clain that straight white males have priviledge and 
>advantage in late 20th century USA.  (What happended before doesn't 
>count - the past is past - Georgina Washington is irrelevant).

As a feminist, I am not interested in getting you to feel guilty, or to 
have you waste your time and energy on defending your innocence.  I'm
more interested in seeing if you will pitch in today to help equal
things out for all Americans.  Will you work for fairness and justice
today? So that the brightest African-American (et al) children of
tomorrow will find themselves--in equal proportions according to White
kids--on the boards of major corporations?  'Cause that ain't 
happening now.

I can understand why you might not like Affirmative Action because of
its possible short-term unfairness.  But will you work with us to come
up with an alternative solution? 

The male privilege is just a sociological state that either does or
does not exist.  It's a somewhat moot point when it comes to the work
that needs to be done today.  And feminists are being very aggressive
about asking the question: are you for the unfair status quo, or are
you for working towards a fairer day for all Americans? 

If you say that you are for the status quo, well, then maybe you 
_should_ feel a little guilt.  But your guilt will have to do with 
your inaction today, not with what your ancestors did to establish 
privilege for white, heterosexually-appearing men.


						--Gerry

RE .77  Berry

>I have 7 bananas, 12 oranges, 10 apples, and 1 pear in my fridge.
>
>This doesn't mean that I don't like pears.

If your doctor says that a minimum of 3 pairs weekly is what you need 
to maintain your health, then what you "like" is moot.  Your 
refridgerator is lacking some pears.



							--Gerry

    This note seems to have gotten off track a bit.  Let's try being nice
    to one another.  A novel idea, I admit.  My problem, as stated in my
    original note has to do with alot of the broad brush painting which is
    going on in this note.  Just because I see an advantage to the way one
    aspect of life was, 20-30 years ago, does not mean that I hold all the
    ideals near and dear to my heart.  This seems fairly simple to me, and
    there is really no underlying motive to it.  Really.
    
    
    Mike

    
    	RE: .90  Mike W.
    
    	> My problem, as stated in my original note has to do with alot of 
    	> the broad brush painting which is going on in this note. 
    
    	I don't suppose it's possible for you to realize that your basenote
    	did some broad brush painting of its own (carried forth in this
    	topic.)
    

    Suzanne,
    
          .............................Forget it.

    	RE: .86  Mike Z.

    	> Suzanne, do you want to talk about past or present inequities?

    	Sure, let's talk about present inequities.

	> I understand that the past has influenced the present, but since
    	> we have the present available for examination, and since it seems we
    	> are really concerned with present-day inequities, the past is
    	> extraneous.

    	Ok, how about Dan Quayle.  He isn't some old guy whose spent decades
    	making his place in the world before the "enlightenment" of the 60s.
    	He's a babyboomer.

    	His GPA in college was so low that if he'd gone to MY college, he
    	wouldn't even have graduated (much less gone on to Law School.)
    	
    	If he'd been born Danielle Quayle, it wouldn't have mattered if he'd
    	been a genius with Law, Medical, and Doctorate degrees from Harvard
    	with 4.0 all the way (with BILLIONAIRES as parents.)  He'd never have
    	been picked for the second highest office in the land without the
    	white skin and the male sex organs.  Period.

    	As it is, I fully expect the Republican party to run with him for
    	President when George's time is finished.  What does it matter that
    	he's a monument to mediocrity.  He's got the right skin color and
    	sex organs.  That's what counts most (even in the 1990's.)
    
    	Sad, but true.

    	RE: .94  Mike Z.

    	> Oh, Geraldine Ferraro was better?

    	> Had she not been born with breasts, Mondale never would have picked
    	> her as a running mate.   Can I now say that white women have special
    	> privileges?

    	Born with breasts?  (I thought male and female babies' chests looked
    	pretty much alike at birth.)  ;^)

    	Mike, if we held up all examples of people whose nomination for
    	the Vice Presidency depended on their sexual organs, the comparison
    	would be well over 99% of men to a tiny fraction of a percentage of
    	women.  If that strikes you as fair, then the hope of communication
    	on this issue is slight indeed.

    	> Single examples of instances where white people have been picked
    	> because they're white can be met with similar examples where blacks
    	> were picked because they were black.
	
    	When it comes to listing examples of white males being picked for
    	the most important (and best paying) positions versus examples of
    	anyone else being picked, the white male examples are overwhelmingly
    	more abundant (especially if we go back through history at all!)

    	But then, you told me not to go back through history.  You want to
    	hear about now.  Ok.  Ready for the millions of names I could give
    	you (of white males in positions where women and people of color
    	are all but completely excluded) that I could give you if I have the
    	next dozen or so years to compile it for you?

    	Look around you, Mike.

    	> Do you agree that white males do not have a universal advantage?

    	Where did I ever say that every white male in the entire universe
    	has an advantage at all times, in every conceivable situation on a
    	universe-wide basis?  I didn't.

    	It's the numbers, Mike.  White males have a grossly disproportionate
    	number of the best paying jobs and professions because our society
    	has the cultural bias that white males are better than everyone else
        when it comes to positions involving economic/political power and
    	success (which gives them some measure of advantage in our culture.)
                                  
    	You can accept it or not, frankly I don't care.  
    
    	Let's agree to disagree on it.  It really doesn't matter.

re.86 Good point why is it when ever someone wants to make a point they base
it on history? Why can't people focus on the present and give change a chance?
I hate to say it but the past is the past and it dosen't nor will it equal
the present. Most of the feminists carry on like it is still 1920 and they
are fighting for the right to vote or smoke(now that was a smart desire,eh?).
If knew what the current issues were I could far and away more supportive.

I feel the rules of fair fighting should apply just as much here and rule #1
is don't bring up the past its over and can't be changed only the present
time and problem.

What is the current problem?

-j

    	RE: .97  Jerry G.
    
    	Wow, I've never heard of a feminist fighting for the right to vote
    	or smoke in present times.  You'll have to introduce me when you
    	find one.  
    
    	As for discussing history, I don't see why it should seem so
    	threatening to some people.
    
    	Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as they say...
    
    
    	RE: .98  Mike Z.
    
    	> Suzanne, tell me what the odds are for a white Catholic male
    	> to become president?

	> He has the right color and right genitalia, so it must be good.
    
    	Well, a white male Catholic President was elected in 1960, so the
    	odds for it are a hell of a lot better than a woman or a person
    	of color being elected President, wouldn't you say?

    	RE: .99  Mike Z.

    	.96>Mike, if we held up all examples of people whose nomination for
	.96>the Vice Presidency depended on their sexual organs, the comparison
	.96>would be well over 99% of men to a tiny fraction of a percentage of

	> See .98; genitalia is not the only qualifier.

    	It's not the only qualifier, but it's been a very critical one
    	for well over 99% of the candidates who have run for this office.

    	.96>Where did I ever say that every white male in the entire universe
	.96>has an advantage at all times, in every conceivable situation on a
	.96>universe-wide basis?  I didn't.

	> Nowhere.   But, not saying it is not the same as denying it.

    	> Will you answer the question I posed in .94?

    	Ok.  Here's the question: "Do you agree that white males do not have 
    	a universal advantage?"

    	Yes, I agree that the advantage white males have in our culture
    	does not extend across the far reaches of the Universe.

    	.96>It's the numbers, Mike.  White males have a grossly disproportionate
	.96>number of the best paying jobs and professions because our society

	> How many whites in basketball?   Football?   Baseball?   Boxing?

    	What percentage of the best paid employees in our country earn their
    	living in professional athletics, though?

	> What jobs pay better than 1 million per year?
    	
    	You must not have seen the movie "Wall Street," I guess.  ;^)
    	
    	> Aren't professional athletes in some of the best paying jobs
    	> and professions in our country?

    	A very small percentage of people are well paid professional
    	athletes, though, and of those who are, a very small percentage
    	are women.

    	What about business and political arenas?  Do you deny that white
    	males hold most of the money and power there?

re:  .85  Fisher

	>>I have 7 bananas, 12 oranges, 10 apples, and 1 pear in my fridge.
	>>
	>>This doesn't mean that I don't like pears.

>If your doctor says that a minimum of 3 pairs weekly is what you need 
>to maintain your health, then what you "like" is moot.  Your 
>refridgerator is lacking some pears.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're taking another twist to what I was saying.

According to your thought, if a place of business had 7 Jews, 12 Blacks, 10
Women, and 1 White male... then the doctor, (government), would say that is
unhealthy and you must increase the white males.  That's moot.  Unhealthy based
on race...

-dwight

.93  Conlon

>>>Ok, how about Dan Quayle.  He isn't some old guy whose spent decades

>>>>What does it matter that	he's a monument to mediocrity.  He's got the
right skin color and	sex organs.  That's what counts most (even in the
1990's.)

Remember... Dan Quayle is where he is because he was elected by the people.

-dwight

    
    >>>	Oh, Geraldine Ferraro was better?
    
    Heck, she couldn't even sell Pepsi!!!
    
    -dwight

    This note is *just* what this file needs, another major rathole.
    
    Paul C.

    Suzanne, unfair pulling recent history like the election of 1960
    on Mike Z.  I mean, that's before he was born. ;-)
    
    DougO

Folks, we seem to have a problem here.  There's an awful lot of "If X had
been Y, then Z would have happened" being used in this note.  While the
supposition might indeed be true, there's no way to prove it and you're
left with an appeal to emotion instead of logic.  This is usually
unconvincing.

I'm also alarmed at some of the name-calling and baiting that some of the
participants are engaging in.  I haven't returned any notes yet, but 
consider this a warning that I will start to do so if people don't clean up
their acts.

There have been many thoughtful contributions to this topic, some of which may
have made an impact on others, so perhaps it is a good thing that this topic
was begun.  But I wonder where it can go from here without turning into
a "Is not!  Is so!" shouting match.  Maybe the best thing would be to
give the whole thing a rest and move on.

					Steve

    
    	RE: .108  Mike Z.
    
    	.101> It's [being male] not the only qualifier, but it's been a 
    	.101> very critical one

	> Thank you; I'd hoped you'd see this.
    
    	You're welcome, but I knew it all along.
    
    	The point is not that they got the jobs for being male, but rather
    	that they would have been systematically excluded if they hadn't
    	been male.
    
    	Therefore, there is a definite advantage to being male in our
    	society.
    

    
    	RE: .110  Mike Z.
    
    	Perhaps we define "advantage" differently.  (Novel concept, eh?) :^)
    
    	White males (AS A GROUP) have an advantage over everyone else by
    	not having been systematically excluded (past and present!) from
    	economic/political power and success.
    
    	True, the white male living under a bridge today probably has a
    	very low chance of running for the Presidency on his mere whim.
    	However, a black woman with a Law Degree and 4 terms as a State
    	Governor has even less chance than he has (simply because she's
    	part of two groups who have been systematically excluded - past
    	and present - from this sort of economic or political power.)
    
    	White males have an advantage by virtue of not being systematically
    	excluded (as a group) from the positions that control the economic
    	and political destiny of our society.
    
    	Understand now?

    
      re .0  I used to study feminist books and counterarguments to 
             their many varied ideas.  I rarely do today.
    
             You see, I started noting in the fall of '87 and for the
             first time came across the opinions of many feminists. I
             was challenged by the positions they advocated, and, for
             a time went along.
    
             Then I studied it all.  Hundreds of magazine articles in 
             Boston area libraries and many books.  
    
             I started expressing increasingly conservative opinions
             and got increasingly criticized for them.  It got boring
             and I found better things to do.  
    
             Feminism is one of the movements that naturally bloomed
             with much help from 60's idealism and peaked with upper
             middleclass white professional women in NYC (read a Rich
             area) in the early 70's.
    
             ERA failed when feminists underestimated Schlafly and a
             growing conservative mood in America.  Also, many people 
             realized that a national law would threaten many laws and
             protections that serve women well; egalitarian divorce which
             feminists pressed has left divorced women worse off.
    
             When Ferraro didn't help Mondales's ticket at all (thus
             confirming America's conservative mood - and the #'s of
             Conservative women out there [ read between the coasts ie
             Middle America) feminism survived only in academic
             institutions, small grass-roots meeting, and in Corporations.
    
             Corporate survival of feminist ideas are found in the Valueing
             Differences program, AA, EEOC, and things like Sexual harass-
             ment.  
    
             Since Big Business deals with an ever more diversified 
             workforce, programs like Valuing Diff's were inevitable.
    
             What I get a kick out of is those who continue to fight
             resolved issues. Or insist on nationalizing an issue like
             abortion.  Their persistence is admirable but I think they
             forget that the US has 30 million fundamentalists who can
             flex muscle too on issues - particularly when their concerns 
             aren't heard.
    
             Alas, many feminists in the 80's changed their minds on
             some movement issues with Friedan advocating women returning
             to their men and children, Greer praising fertility, Dworkin
             finding more abuses of women with the sexual revolution, 
             Elshtain seeing the results of Black family disintegration,
             with Brownmiller no longer finding the movement relevant,
             and Carol Gilligan saying "the war's been won."
    
             I still find articles like the New York Times Magazine 
             (c. 4/15/90) with cover stories 'Who said we haven't made
             a Revolution?' on them.  Millet and Chesler were among a
             half dozen feminists looking ready for more on that cover.
    
             I'll confess the ole liberal in me would have loved to
             crash in on a NYC party in '71 with Greer and gang, but
             such longings do not last long.
    
    
                                                       Russ

    The feminist revolution isn't even properly started. It will be
    genuinely underway when women begin to advocate more freedom for men.
    The main thrust has been to win for women entry to male roles. The
    reverse has to avail, as well, before we're actually free. When people
    can select roles regardless of gender, then the war will be won.
    
    Two minor examples.
    
    I spent an afternoon a few years back with four women who were third
    year associates at a big D.C. law firm. They were full of plans to form
    their own firm someday, with women in charge. "Great," I opined, "then
    you can run the first humane law firm, with a day care center, and
    without the brutal seventy-hour work-weeks!" They turned on me like I
    was the Great Satan. "We can work just as hard as men, dammit." Big
    achievement: you can make as big fools of yourselves as men do. Wow.
    
    Men as home-makers: do you know any? I don't, and I'm 37 and hang
    around with all those quiche-eating liberals. I'm acquainted with a
    thousand couples, maybe, none of which have him at home.
    
    I say that women have to advocate more freedom for men, for a couple
    reasons. Men don't have the courage to do it themselves. Men haven't
    the imagination to think of it. These are mere empirical observations,
    and I'd love to be proven wrong. Women have to do it, because if they
    don't, it will never happen.
    
    - Hoyt
    

    
    	RE: .112  Russ
    
    	It's easy to say a movement is all but dead if you don't happen
    	to like it, but Feminism is alive and still kicking after 150
    	years in the U.S. (200 years in Europe.)
    
    	Enrollment in NOW has been on the upswing since the Webster
    	decision, and the new version of Ms. magazine (with all feminist
    	articles and NO advertising) seems to be sold out wherever I've
    	tried to buy one.  
    
    	Deciding that a movement *should* be dead isn't enough to kill
    	it, Russ.

     Re .112
    
    Russ,
    
    You're obviously well-read on the topic of feminism.
    As a relative newcomer to the literature dealing with the subject I'd
    really appreciate it if you could kick off a topic just listing
    seminal works.......a kind of "Top 10", if you like....
    
    In fact, anyone with a knowledge of the field - please start the topic
    or chip in!
    
    Then those of us who'd like to understand the history of some of
    the evergreen topics in here could go read.
    
    'gail      
    

    RE: Suzanne,
    
    The feminist movement is not nearly what it used to be, to me this says
    most women are seeing it as something that wasn't advantageous to him.  
    
    
    In a recent Virginia Slims poll: 1) Women are putting off their careers
    to stay at home with their children until the kids are of school age.
    
    2) Most women feel guilty working and not staying at home with their
    kids.
    
    Mike

>    The feminist revolution isn't even properly started. It will be
>    genuinely underway when women begin to advocate more freedom for men.

Actually, I think that it is inappropriate for women to do this work.  
In my opinion, you are right that the "next step" is for an thorough 
reexamination of men's roles, men's feelings, and men's needs.  
However, it is men who have to do that work with other men.  Once we 
get started, coalition work with feminist groups will be possible.  
But not until we start questioning, tailoring, and working the male 
gender role for ourselves.

							--Gerry

    
    RE: .116  Mike W.
    
    > The feminist movement is not nearly what it used to be, to me this says
    > most women are seeing it as something that wasn't advantageous to him.  
    
    Well, I don't know what you think it "used to be," but enrollment in
    feminist organizations keeps increasing, so that tells me that many,
    many women and men are still interested in the movement.
    
    > In a recent Virginia Slims poll: 1) Women are putting off their careers
    > to stay at home with their children until the kids are of school age.
    
    What on Earth makes you think this is contrary to the women's movement?
    The movement is about CHOICE, not making all women work outside the home.
    If women want to stay home out of choice, more power to them!
    
    > 2) Most women feel guilty working and not staying at home with their
    > kids.
    
    As long as women have CHOICE, we'll deal with our own feelings about
    the choices we make.  (I'd rather have choice than no choice, any day.)

RE: .118
    
> Actually, I think that it is inappropriate for women to do this work.  
> In my opinion, you are right that the "next step" is for an thorough 
> reexamination of men's roles, men's feelings, and men's needs.  
> However, it is men who have to do that work with other men.  Once we 
> get started, coalition work with feminist groups will be possible.  
> But not until we start questioning, tailoring, and working the male 
> gender role for ourselves.

    Right on, Gerry!
    
    - Bill

>                     <<< Note 483.113 by DOOLIN::HNELSON >>>

>    The feminist revolution isn't even properly started. It will be
>    genuinely underway when women begin to advocate more freedom for men.
>    The main thrust has been to win for women entry to male roles. The
>    reverse has to avail, as well, before we're actually free. When people
>    can select roles regardless of gender, then the war will be won.


    Praise you, my dear!  My thoughts exactly!


    The movement should be about PEOPLE, not about women....it should
    strive for equality for all....


    kathy    

>        <<< Note 483.116 by MAMTS3::MWANNEMACHER "let us pray to Him" >>>

>    In a recent Virginia Slims poll: 1) Women are putting off their careers
>    to stay at home with their children until the kids are of school age.

    So?  the movement is about doing what you WANT to do.  Choosing to
    stay home is a choice a woman should be able to make (however
    non-feasible it is economically).
  
>    2) Most women feel guilty working and not staying at home with their
>    kids.

    Truely sad if they feel they HAVE to work for reasons other than
    economic ones.  Exactly what is the source of this guilt.....I highly
    doubt that it is that they feel they SHOULD be home,....(ie, that's
    they're proper place).



	kath

    Re .118
    
    Yes, right on, Gerry. Where shall we begin?
    
    My wife was pregnant about two years ago. It would have been her fourth
    child and my first. Before the miscarriage, she and I had a chance to
    finally confront our values. We agreed that I would be the one to stay
    home. She'd done that already, and was concentrating on her career. I
    was REALLY enthusiastic about doing so. So it was agreed, EVEN THOUGH I
    MAKE A LITTLE MORE MONEY THAN SHE DOES.
    
    If a baby happens (we keep going through the motions, I always say 8^),
    then I expect to encounter all kinds of reactions from men and women
    alike. I expect to learn all kinds of things about myself. Baby will be
    a unique person, with its initial primary attachment to Dad! It should
    be enlightening, as well as fun, and exhausting, and so on.
    
    Naturally, I'll take careful notes and someday write a screenplay, and
    it will be brought to you by your local PBS station, to the benefit of
    the human race. I'll be featured in Band-Aid (tm) commercials where
    little Joey scrapes his knee and tearfully calls out for Daddy! Then,
    just as my NEW career is about underway, my wife will dump me for a
    younger man. I'll get custody, and have to live on welfare, and Joey
    and I will have a really hard time finding a place to live. This will 
    lead to my SECOND screenplay, and...
    
    - Hoyt

    Hoyt,
    
    I have you beaten by a couple of years.  When Frank left the company he
    was working for, on a package, we set things up so that we could
    survive on one income (mine).  I work, he stays home with Carrie, and
    deals with most of the household issues.  Except for while I was
    nursing her (she is now almost five, and was weaned at 2 1/2) he has
    been her primary parent.  He has more patience then I have for small
    children.  
    
    This has been ideal for us.  I tried stay at home mothering when my
    oldest was born, and it lasted about a year.  By that time I was stir
    crazy, and needed to go back to work.  It's not that I don't love my
    kids, it's that I am a far happier person, and therefore better parent,
    if I'm out of the house for 9-11 hours a day.
    
    Meg

    Hoyt, how you gonna find time to write these screen plays while you are
    taking the baby to the welfare clinic on the bus, and then traipsing
    you and the kid to the soup kitchen for a hot meal?
    
    Jus' waxin' along with ye...
    
    'Course maybe you meet some other guys at the soup kitchen, and
    you form a men's group and you take turns taking care of the kids,
    so that each of you can write your screen plays...
    
    Bill
    
    (I was struck by the fact that in the middle of your musings
    about a disaster, you have an optimistic, self-reliant solution,
    which is probably pretty difficult to imagine when you are the
    person who is really in that disaster!)

    RE: CHOICE-You can't always have what YOU want.  This ME way of
    thinking is going to be a very large obstacle in creating the
    atmosphere we all are (I belive) striving for.
    
    BTW-I would like to stay at home with my family as well, but if I coose
    to do it we will not have a house, etc, etc, etc.
    
    
    Mike

    
    	RE: .126  Mike W.
    
    	> RE: CHOICE-You can't always have what YOU want.  This ME way of
    	> thinking is going to be a very large obstacle in creating the
    	> atmosphere we all are (I belive) striving for.
    
    	Whom would you rather have making your choices for you?
    
    	> BTW-I would like to stay at home with my family as well, but if I 
    	> coose to do it we will not have a house, etc, etc, etc.
    
    	We're all faced with limitations based on financial feasibility.
    	However, if you could afford it (don't feel bad, I can't either)
    	- more power to you if you were to choose to stay at home.
    
    	That's what choice is all about.

    Re .124
    
    Way to go, Meg, and extend my heartfelt congratulations to Frank. I'd
    love to talk to him about it.
    
    Re .126
    
    Exactly correct, the choice is seldom available to men. Exactly ONE out
    of 1001 couples in my acquaintance have HIM at home, and that's because
    that couple was smart enough to set things up so they could live on one
    income (hers). It helps if you can keep your standard of living low. My
    wife and I buy NOTHING on the installment plan, because we don't want
    to take on the overhead. It inhibits a great deal of spending, e.g. I
    drive an eleven-year-old car. The house is an exception, but it's a
    multi-family which costs us as much to own as our tenants pay to rent.
    
    The more important implication, (.126), is that we men all benefit from
    the success of women in the working place. In 1981 my wife was newly
    divorced, hadn't been in the work force in eight years, and hadn't any
    particularly marketable skills. Since then she's acquired a masters
    degree, while working full-time (!), and has changed jobs four times,
    moving sharply up with each transition. Now she runs her department,
    and her only problem is that there isn't another job in the state she
    wants to go after, so her ambition is frustrated. Obviously, my wife is
    a remarkable woman, and it's a privilege to know her. It's also true
    that she wouldn't have had a prayer to succeed as she has, if she'd
    found herself a single mother in 1955. Thank heavens that Betty and
    Gloria and friends happened along! My wife's success has already been a
    great boon to me, because it dramatically reduces my pressure to
    provide for the household, and allows me to take chances with my career
    which accentuate my own success. And if a baby comes, her success will
    allow me to stay home and nuzzle the little dear and watch soaps
    (never!!?!).
    
    - Hoyt                                                               
    
    P.S. 
         Reviewing your comment, Mike, I see that I haven't responded to
         the "ME" attitude to raise. I guess it IS selfish, wanting ME to
         have the time and the relationship with the baby. My only vague
         defense is that wanting to "consume" baby is a little less crass
         than wanting to consume BMWs or power boats or gold jewelry. (I
         won't put down CDs, my favorite vice. ^) I can always *allege*
         that I'm doing it for baby, right?!
    
    P.P.S.
         Also, it helps if you pick the right wife. How do you feel about
         treating women as income-objects, as we men are traditionally
         treated?
     

    Hoyt,
    
    
    FWIW-My wife stays at home with our kids, and I'll bet my car is worse
    than your car :').
    
    
    My point about choice is that it's a novel idea, but many times it is
    not realistic, that's all.
    
    
    Mike

    
    	RE: .129  Mike W.
    
    	> My point about choice is that it's a novel idea, but many times it is
    	> not realistic, that's all.
    
    	Quite true.
    
    	However, the one thing that *must* remain feasible in our society is
    	the idea of offering everyone educational and employment opportunities.
    
    	Being able to work is such a big part of our culture's idea of human
    	dignity and self-realization, that no group should be denied nor even
    	discouraged from pursuing work on the basis of an obligation to some
    	higher good (as if an individual person's dignity is less important
    	than the needs of society or other people.)
    
    	In our culture, anyone of age who wants to pursue employment should be
    	allowed to do so (without being made to feel guilty about it.)
    
    	It isn't always feasible to work (or to stay home, for some people)
    	_ but no group should be made to feel selfish for wanting to pursue
    	work as part of their own development as individuals.
    
    	Everyone, including women, should be allowed this particular choice.

re.100

    	>As for discussing history, I don't see why it should seem so
    	>threatening to some people.

Its not at all threatening just counter productive it is in the past 
those wrongs have gone and con not be changed dwelling upon them now only
clouds the issues and prevents discussion of NEW ideas.
An example of this is when a couple has an arguement and one brings up something
the other did in the past soon they are fighting about that subject forgetting
what the arguement was all about in the first place and nothing is achieved.
    	

>Wow, I've never heard of a feminist fighting for the right to vote
    	>or smoke in present times.  You'll have to introduce me when you
    	>find one.  

I diden't say they were currently fighting for it only acting as if nothing
had ever changed.


>Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as they say...
    Well I have never been impressed by cliches but I agree that forgetting
history can be a bad thing to do. I do feel that carrying an attitude from
some period of history and applying to modern times can counter positive 
thinking if I were to have the mind set men from say 1920 had I woulden't
give you the credit to answer your reply. Why not give me the current issues?
Maybe we will have something to discuss then but I won't waste my time
listening to how it used to be.

-j

    	RE: .131  Jerry G.

    	>Its not at all threatening just counter productive it is in the past 
	>those wrongs have gone and con not be changed dwelling upon them now 
    	>only clouds the issues and prevents discussion of NEW ideas.

    	Actually, Jerry, I do see what you're saying, but I still disagree
    	somewhat.

    	First off, I don't think that all the "wrongs" are strictly in the
    	past (which sort of sounds like "everything is ok now, so why keep
    	talking about these issues.")  Although I'm sure that isn't what
    	you meant, this could be inferred when people keep characterizing
    	"wrongs" as being in the past and not the present.

    	Second, the historical perspective usually comes up (and rightly
    	so) when people bring up misconceptions about the movement.  For
    	example, some people seem to think the women's movement was some
    	flash in the pan that happened in the "Happenin' 60s" with no
    	relevance whatsoever to any other age.   In reality, the movement
    	is 150 years old (the same movement!!) - so characterizations
    	about it being strictly the product of the 60s simply aren't
    	accurate.  I think it's important to correct this misinformation
    	when it comes up.

    	Another thing is that some people tell us to just WAIT for a
    	generation or so (and that everything will be ok since we all
    	know sexism is wrong now, etc.)  Well, history shows us that
    	it took 70 years of campaigning to get the vote.  It may not
    	seem significant to most people, but I think it's important
    	to keep an historical perspective on it (since we're talking
    	about the same movement involving members of the same species.)

    	Anyway, this is why history is important.  Of course, many of
    	the problems are still with us, so there's plenty to talk about
    	in the present.  

    	The past isn't going to evaporate, though, so we might as well
    	get used to dealing with it, I suppose.

    Suzanne,
    
    Define sexism please.
    
    
    Mike

	I try to influence my children , two daughters and a son,
	along these lines...

	Choose humanism over the other 'isms and thereby avoid the
	bigotry. When humanism addresses a social problem it doesn't
	need to focus on some stereotypical class of humans as the cause
	of all the problems. Don't you get sick of various social movements
	saying...all rich people...all republicans...all democrats...all whites
	...all blacks...all one religion or another....all men.

	These movements from these distorted perspectives build some very
	impressive paradigms. The verbal/rational structures underpinning
	them is breathtaking in most cases. But not well grounded in reality.

	Have you ever had dialogue with a true believer....especially an
	intelligent verbal one. I have on many occasions over the years...
	it always begins to feel like I stepped through the looking glass
	right into the mad hatters tea party.I've had great times, heard
	impressive things said...but dealt very little with reality.

	This is not to say that feminism has no value...it has and
	continues to address some very real social needs. It's been
	a mostly positive influence in our culture (opinion) but
	it's inherently bigoted. I believe a lot of the defeats it's
	suffered are the result of having turned off potential allies
	with its prejudicial stridency.

	As a movement it demonstrates a lot of 'us vs them mentality
	and promotes much distortion respecting history. It suffers
	from an inability to see alternative explanations, in social 
	cause and effect chains, which differ from the party line.

	My ever so humble, unbiased opinion.

MAC

    
    	RE: .134  MAC
    
    	Well, I hope your kids are smart enough to recognize that parents
    	can have bigoted opinions, too.
    
    	I'm sure they take your arrogance about being entitled to define
    	"reality" for others with a grain of salt.
    

I've disabled further replies to this note, as it doesn't seem to be going
anywhere reasonable.  I'll be happy to entertain requests for reopening by
mail.

					Steve

From:	WMOIS::MACMILLAN    17-AUG-1990 11:33:20.77
To:	QUARK::LIONEL
CC:	MACMILLAN

	I've requested an opportunity to clarify some of my remarks
	in .134. I've gotten some mail which caused me to review
	what I previously noted. I'm gonna try to get my foot out of my
	mouth here somewhat.

>	Choose humanism over the other 'isms and thereby avoid the
>	bigotry. When humanism addresses a social problem it doesn't
>	need to focus on some stereotypical class of humans as the cause
>	of all the problems. Don't you get sick of various social movements
>	saying...all rich people...all republicans...all democrats...all whites
>	...all blacks...all one religion or another....all men.

	This sounds like I can't see the positive side of some movements.
	I should have been clearer on that point. I was only speaking to 
	that portion of those movements which tends toward extremesm fueled
	by bigotry.I do indeed recognize the positive contributions
	of the various peace, civil-rights and feminist movements. I,
	along with many other Americans, enjoy great benefits as a result
	of the more positive aspects of these movements.

	My apoligies for my lack of clarity and balance in that note.


MAC