Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    re .0    The issues of pay equity, parental leave, health care,
           and day care are important issues.  Sounds like a good
           agenda that's in tune with Modern realities. Interesting.
    
    
                                                          Russ

    
    Just out of curosity, will you please define "FEMINIST MEN AND WOMEN"?

    I suppose I should object to the notion that equal pay, parental
    leave and child care are only issues relevant to women (implied by
    these being named as "feminist" items).  But what the heck....
    
    					Steve

    Steve, 
    
    If I thought equal pay, **PARENTAL** leave, and child care were only
    issues relevant to women, I wouldn't have bothered posting the note
    here.  A feminist is not by definition a woman!  The term applies
    to both women and men who believe in and are working toward an equal
    society.  Hence, posting the note on the Feminization of Power.
    

    Re: .4
    
    Sorry, I can't agree with your definition of the term.  I do agree
    that men can be feminists, but by the very nature of the root of the word
    (fem = female) it CAN'T mean people "who believe in and are working
    toward an equal society".  Maybe many feminists are, but that is
    a side effect. 
    
    But I don't want to get into an argument over the meanings of words.
    My point was that by using the term "feminist" one assumes a bias
    toward women and by listing certain causes as "feminist", you imply
    that these causes are by nature "associated" with women.  None of the
    issues mentioned are gender-specific.  And I further maintain that
    continuing to label these causes as "women's issues" will make it
    more difficult to get widespread support for the changes in our
    society that are so badly needed.
    
    					Steve

    RE: .5
    
    Steve, 
    
    Thanks for clarifying!  I misread your initial statement and perhaps
    jumped too quickly to respond.  However, your last statement re
    labeling issues such as parental leave and child care as "women's
    issues" being an impediment to the progress of change in society
    clearly illustrates why we need more feminists in office - to create
    an environment where the term "women's issues" is no longer needed - 
    where issues like child care and elderly care automatically rank right 
    up there with issues like defense spending and income tax. 
    
    This is digressing a bit, but, why do you suppose the term "women's
    issues" is seen (by many) as a negative term?  (This is an honest
    question that **I** don't have an answer for.)  Do men feel excluded?
    Turned off by the term? Or, what?
    - Mary   
          

    re .6
    I'd say that labelling something as a "women's issue", is an
    attempt to 'trivialize' the issue. Its a way of splitting the
    support for the issue. Similar to saying that's a gay rights
    issue or a black issue. I'm not black, gay or female, so I
    shouldn't have any interest in THOSE issues. The negative or
    turn-off value is; if its a woman's issue, then it is supported
    by radical feminists and I wouldn't be caught dead associating
    with THEM.
    
    Bob Mc

    also re .6
    
    We don't need more 'feminists' in office, we need more 'equality
    minded' people in office. Equal rights should not be something
    that is the province of one activist group. I seem to detect an
    attempt, lately, to redefine 'feminist' as a being the same as
    'equal rights'. However, its will take an awful lot of work to
    remove the 'women only' stigma of the label 'feminist'. I am a
    'humanist' (just short of egalitarian), so I can lend support
    to gay, female and racial special intrest groups. All of these
    are sub-sets of the humanist viewpoint.
    
    Bob Mc

    Re: .6
    
    I don't consider "women's issues" to be a negative term, but as
    a man, I would presume that such issues don't affect me directly.
    I may be interested in and support the idea, but more out of
    my sense of morality and desire for equality than self-interest.
    
    Since issues of child care, parental leave and equal pay DO
    affect me directly, I am in some ways insulted that people generally
    call these "women's issues", because it implies that I shouldn't
    be personally worried about these things.  ("That's a nice little
    man, don't you fret none about these children, us women will take
    care of them for you.  What does a man know about children anyway?")
    
    Elaborating on what I said earlier - it does everyone a disservice
    to artificially restrict the audience of your message by applying
    a naturally restrictive label such as "women's" or "feminist".
    If you want broad support, use words and phrases that draw in everyone.
    
    					Steve

    
    
    Why does this notes file always seem to address issues of 
    more interest to woman than men? (feminism?) Now granted that 
    we men should be concerned and involved in interests of 
    a general nature, but I thought this was a men's note file.
    
    The women have their own notes file. There is a humane relations
    notes file. I'm hard pressed to find anything in here that is
    men talk. Are their any men out there?
    
    I know I've opened myself up for abuse, but golly gee wizzz...
    
    			- Joel

    Re: .10
    
    Feel free to start a topic that you think is a "men's topic".
    Otherwise you have to put up with what others start.
    
    				Steve

    re: .10
    
    Gosh Joel,
    
    How men view feminism is a MENS topic, as well as a womens, gays,
    
    blacks, hebrew, and anyone else's topic WHO WANT TO BE INVOLVED!
    
    At least, that's the way *I* (moi') views it.
    
    
    Back to the topic:
    No, I don't think that the label "Womens Issue" minimizes its impact,
    because for those who are old enough to remember, civil rights started
    out as "Black Issue". It was when the rest of the world realized
    that we would all benefit ( or suffer) from completing the mandate
    that "all are created equal" that it became a national/political/human
    issue.
    
    I think that "Womans Issues" are progressing in the same path. Sure
    they began as "womans issues", but as the equality spreads, and
    more and more people realize the positive social impacts of making
    these issues a "positive reality", the they , too, become
    national/political/human issues.
    
    See ?
    
    Bob 
    
    

    RE .10
    
    Joel,
    
    	In reading your message, it occured to me that your attitude
    	toward this issue is the very reason we call issues of this
    	type "Women's issues". In order for women to work a specific
    	set of concerns that have the greatest impact on them as a
    	gender, they must first rally support from members of their
    	own group (as Blacks did with the civil rights movement). IF
    	WOMEN WAITED FOR MEN TO DO THE RIGHT THING, THEY WOULD STILL
    	NOT HAVE THE VOTE! (not a flame only caps for emphasis)
    
    	Woman's issues tend to be looked upon as only those that affect
    	women. How wrong that is! We are all impacted by changes in
    	society that shift the norms we are accustomed to, to a new place.
    	As such, we have (as men) a vested interest in participating
    	in formulating these changes or we will be carried away by them!
    	Men should and must be involved in this process!
    
    	I often refer to myself as a male Feminist. Surprised? I do
    	so because I believe in the equality of the sexes. We, as males,
    	have put women into a second class status and many of us would
    	like nothing better than to keep it that way. I do NOT share
    	that view of the world. Both sexes bring unique qualities into
    	the picture and to miss the opportunity to bring this into
    	balance for the common good, would be tragic. I believe in
    	equal BUT different!
    
    	MY only concern is with the extreme militant feminist who, in
    	my opinion, would like nothing better than to be dominant over
    	men and feel that men have little or no value. This view is
    	just as dangerous as that held by men that want to keep women
    	in second class status. I am against both extremes.
    
    	I also, although it is not the specific topic at hand, support
    	the idea that no other group should have second class status
    	either as noted by Bob in note .12. Feminists as a whole support
    	other groups and their struggles as well. Now, before you call
    	that some sort of socialism, remember that I earlier said 
    	"equal, but different". I believe in our system and I think
    	equality will enhance the way it works.
    
    							Art
    

    
    
    RE: 13 ==>
    
  >>    MY only concern is with the extreme militant feminist who, in
  >> 	my opinion, would like nothing better than to be dominant over
  >>  	men and feel that men have little or no value. 
    
    
        I disagree with this view of militant feminists.  My impression
    is that militant feminists are not necessarily interested in dominating
    men.  First of all, I want to avoid labeling, though just by using
    the term 'miliitant feminist' I'm guilty of it.  What bothers me
    about MANY of those who may be labeled as such is that they seem
    to be more interested in holding a grudge against men, and making
    a big deal about how women have been historically persecuted by men,
    than they are about working in partnership with men who recognize
    that women have as much of a right to pursue their social and
    professional goals as men do.
    
    It is healthy for people to be responsible for their emotions. 
    It seems perfectly natural and healthy for women to experience anger
    and resentment regarding the way they have been (and often continue
    to be) treated.  It would be unhealthy for a person who feels angry
    to bottle up their anger and pretend it's not there.
    
    However, to attribute grossly negative characteristics to all or
    most men, because of past events, or increasingly less frequent
    present events, is counter-productive.  It alienates men who in
    fact want to work more in social and professional partnership with
    women.  It says to men who may be on the fence, or holding on to
    beliefs that, for example, women should be 'in the kitchen, barefoot
    and pregnant,' that they (those men) have let women down and that
    women would be better off without them.  So, these men will tend
    to think, 'fine, be that way!', we're damned if we do and damned
    if we don't, so why don't we continue to enjoy our power to exclude
    women while it lasts?

    As I said, I don't want to generalize more than absolutely necessary.
    Perhaps one might label Gloria Steinem as a 'radical feminist',
    but I don't see her as a woman imprisoned by her anger toward men.
    On the contrary, she has dedicated her life to increasing women's
    awareness of their right and ability to pursue their goals, whatever
    those may be, and strengthening their willingness and motivation
    to go out and pursue those goals.  She doesn't encourage women to
    hate men, or to be like men, or anything.  She encourages them to
    be themselves.  One is most effective in life when they don't try
    to be something or someone that they are not.        

    RE: 14 ==>
    
    	I guess from your response that a definition for a "militant
    	feminist" as I would define it is in order.
    
    	I would not clasify Gloria Steinem as militant in my context.
    	I am referring to that group of women who do everything in their
    	power to isolate themselves from men. They live in all female
    	surroundings, work in businesses owned and staffed only by women,
    	hire only women carpenters, plumbers etc., shop in stores owned
    	and staffed by women, and socialize only with women. They do
    	not believe that men are necessary and can add no value to their
    	life. To them, men are referred to as boys in the negative sense
    	of the word. I din't mean to imply they want to dominate men,
    	but rather be dominant over them as in be in control of power
    	and wealth.
    
    	I hope this clarifies my earlier response.
    
    								Art
    

    re .14, .15
    
    There are a lot of us feminists who find the term "militant feminist"
    to be one of our hot buttons.  As someone who has been called militant,
    strident, extreme, radical, I find individual's definitions of the
    term to vary all over the place.  It is often used to dismiss a
    person and their opinions as irrelevant.
    
    It is important to remember that many of the women who are called
    militant are considered "sell-outs" by those who are _more_ militant.
    
    While the spectrum from conservative to radical is somewhat useful
    in figuring out where someone's coming from, it is a dangerous thing
    to rely on since one decade's militant is the next decade's
    conservative, one region's conservative (me in Cambridge or JP)
    is another region's militant radical (me in Midland Michigan).

    Lee

re .15:

How can you be "dominant" over someone you have nothing to do with?

Unless you assume that having nothing to do with men somehow confers
power over them?  But how could you exercise it?

/Dave

    re: 16
    
    	How can we discuss a subject using terms and not define them?
    	I believe that personal definitions are needed when it is obvious
    	that a term has different meanings to different people. It gives
    	us a basis for commonality.
    
    RE: 17
    
    	Ok, I'll give it a try. I am making the assumption that by the
    	phrase "you have nothing to do with" you mean dealing with that
    	person directly or knowing that person. If the power structure,
    	of say a state, is made up of white males who posess the power
    	and wealth, they can pass laws and manipulate the economy to
    	the benifit of a particular sub-group. In this case, other white
    	males if they choose to. They can then exercise control over
    	women and minorities to the point that they dominate how they
    	live their lives; may not be able to vote, less job/finacial
    	opportunities, allow wife beating, multiple wives, make racism
    	legal etc. etc. Pick your own potential poison! In other words,
    	force them into second, third or fourth class citizens. If this 
    	is NOT being "dominant", I don't know what is? 
    
    							Art
    

    re: .16 --
    
    To roughly quote Bob Dylan's "My Back Pages":
    
    "In a soldier's stance I aimed my words
       at the mongrel dogs who teach
     Fearing not I'd become my enemy
       in the instant that I preach..."
    
    I said in my reply (.14) that I didn't like using labels and
    generalizations.  I learned a lesson by not following my own
    inclinations.

    Your comment on "one decade's militant is the next decade's
    conservative, one region's conservative is another region's militant
    radical" is something we'd all do well to keep in mind.
    
    What do *you* mean by 'feminist' when you say "there are a lot of
    us feminists"?
    
    Steve
    
    

    Re: the base note and others...
    
    Yes, I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. And I don't
    consider the feminization of power to be the solution. Especially
    since the people behind it are called the fund for the feminist
    majority.
    
    In my opinion, the name itself implies a pro-female anti-male bias,
    and having heard Ellie Smeal speak, the implication is valid. 
    
    I am interested in candidates who do NOT make distinctions based
    on sex, color, race, etc. I want candidates who represent
    "people", not special interest groups. 

    re .19
    my definition
    
    1) I should have said "many of us who label ourselves as `feminists'"
    2) My def of feminist, ie. why _I_ use the label for myself:
       A person who is offended by the *wrong*ness of the inequality
       between men and women and their chances in life.
    
    would elaborate, but gotta run -
    
    lt

    Re: .5 (!)
    
    	"... it CAN'T mean people ... working toward an equal society."
    
    Steve, I'm afraid that you, and others who keep repeating this,
    are simply wrong.
    
    From Webster's 7th Collegiate:
    
        fem.i.nism \'fem-*-.niz-*m\ \-n*st\ \.fem-*-'nis-tik\ n 1: the
        theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
        2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests -
        fem.i.nist nor ;aj 
    
    From the Random House Unabridged:
    
        feminism
        (fem <schwa>  niz <schwa> m),
        n.
        1. the doctrine advocating social and political rights of women
           equal to those of men.
        2. (sometimes cap.) an organized movement for the attainment of
           such rights for women.
        3. feminine character.
        [ <  L femin(a) woman + -ISM]--feminist, n.--feministic, adj.
    
    I understand what you're trying to say, but consider the alternative,
    if Feminism DOESN'T mean what the dictionary says it does, and I think
    it does, then what DOES it mean? From your analysis, I would have to
    conclude that you think it means working to acheive a superior position
    for women, and a belief that women were superior. None of the feminists
    I know believe that, and I think very few people think that that is the
    aim of feminism or feminists. I think we all understand that feminism
    is working for EQUALITY for women, and that all we are quibbling about
    is the fact that FEMinism seems to have this connotation. 
    
    I sympathize with your discomfort at the term, but it means what
    it means.
    
    To address your other points, feminism ISN'T, strictly speaking,
    "associated with women", but in practice it certainly is. Women
    have a much larger vested interest in equality for men and women,
    being that they are the disadvantaged party.
    
    As for "the feminization of power", in this case, distributing power
    equally means giving more to women. QED.
    
    	A feminist,
    	-- Charles                          

    re .22   Charles,
                      From what I have observed, feminists have often
           focused agendas regarding "equality" on those political,
           economic, and social realms that define the term "feminist."
    
             Regarding Social equality I would think that relationships,
           marriage, and the family are included. 
    
             I am curious how the national feminist leaders have
           (apparently) decided to make business concerns the "ideal"
           for women to pursue (ie a career) instead of other important
           priorities like the making of a family. 
    
             Considering that families often reflect the strength of
          a nation, I would like your opinion regarding how the liberation
          movement has (or has not) made marriage and the family a stronger
          institution - thus making this nation a stronger nation. 
    
            I want to know how high on it's list of priorities the
          liberation movement has put the family.
    
            Also, do you believe that sexual equality is possible -
          considering the biological realities that differentiate the
          sexes?
    
            I am very curious if all these agendas that seek equality
          can come close to reaching it if the foundation called the
          family is placed aside or put on the lower end of the priority
          list.
    
                                                          Russ

    re: .23
    
>             I am curious how the national feminist leaders have
>           (apparently) decided to make business concerns the "ideal"
>           for women to pursue (ie a career) instead of other important
>           priorities like the making of a family.
    
    I've never known or heard of a "national feminist leader" that decided
    to make business concerns the "ideal" for woman to pursue.  Care to
    state where you gather your facts, Russ?
    
    I hear the feminists (I'm afraid I'm one of those myself) simply saying
    that woman *ARE* equal, and woman *ARE* able to interact in nearly all
    areas just as well as men are.  Sure, there are possibly a *FEW* areas
    that men are *generally* better at (at least where physical strength is
    concerned), but there are almost certainly as many (more likely *MORE*)
    areas that women are better at (and no, Russ, "raising a family" is not
    one of them - men can do that quite well themselves if they wish).
    
    In short, the feminists are saying that woman should have the CHOICE to
    participate in business, finance, scientific fields, or any other
    fields they wish.  Feminists do *NOT* tell woman what to do.  Feminists
    fight for women to have the choice.  Sounds just great to me.
    
    If women don't have the option to pursue what is important to them, how
    is this different than saying that black people can only work on
    plantations?  Or that Jewish people are cheap?  Or that Polish people
    are stupid?  Face the facts!  These are dangerous, bigoted, and
    prejudiced attitudes.  Not too long ago, women weren't even allowed to
    vote.  Just goes to show how ass backwards this country has been.
    
>             Considering that families often reflect the strength of
>          a nation ...
    
    Depends on how you define "strength".  Consider, as a case study,
    China.  A powerful nation, indeed - few would dispute that.  Yet they
    have methods of severely limiting population growth.  I believe that
    limiting population growth (particularly to the degree that China does)
    probably serves to weaken the family.  Yet, they remain strong and
    continue to get stronger.  How can you say that families reflect the
    strength of a nation?
    
    As another case study, consider Ireland.  Ireland, as a whole, has VERY
    traditional values (governed mainly by the catholic church, I think).
    As such, the concept of "family" is very important to many Irish
    people.  Yet, Ireland is having serious problems.  A *LARGE* number of
    people (over half of the educated, younger population) *MUST* leave
    Ireland to survive. Would you consider Ireland "powerful"?
    
>            Also, do you believe that sexual equality is possible -
>          considering the biological realities that differentiate the
>          sexes?
    
    It depends.  Can we educate the rather old fashioned, prejudiced, and
    bigoted fools to understand that sexual equality isn't a question, it's
    a fact of life.  Women *ARE* equal weather you like it or not.

    	-- Jeff

    re .24   Ellie Smeal, a recent Now president (for 5 yrs) once
           debated Erica Jong (from 'Fear of Flying' fame; also a
           feminist) on the subject of Motherhood. The TV debate
           between the 2 was revealing. 
    
             Jong talked about how she would speak before feminist
           audiences about the value and importance of Motherhood
           and be loudly booed.  She said that in her lecture talks
           she would receive boos from feminists in audiences when
           she said that Motherhood was an equally valid choice for
           women to pursue (alternative being a business career).
    
             Smeal countered that "I have spoken about Motherhood 
          before many audiences and have never been booed."  
    
             Jong said that she and other women felt alienated by
          the Women's movement because the movement was criticizing
          and intimidating women that wanted to have families and
          raise children at home.  
    
             Smeal again defended the movement saying that she was
          not aware of such anti-mother attitudes within the movement
          and that such anti-family sentiments were not among her
          experiences with audiences.
    
             The conversation veered off into careers and rights, day
          care, parental leave, etc.  I left the room feeling that 
          Smeal had dodged Jong's questions and was the kind of person
          that lacked the kind of empathy (towards the Motherhood choice)
          that makes for respected leaders. 
    
             So Jong was sounding off, implying that feminists were
          telling women to choose careers - and that feminists would
          not be supportive of women that chose to be mothers.
    
             So, I tend to think that feminists tell women what to do.
    
             And they tell 'white men' who they 'are.'  
    
             Also, women have long had the option to pursue that which
          is important to them.  I tend to view the c.1920 Voting Rights
          Act as a case where women decided that voting was important
          and that the inability to vote before 1920 was more a matter
          of "self oppression" than being "oppressed by men."
    
             I define 'strength' as marriage, heterosexuality, love,
          loyalty, committment, trust, honesty, along with 'friendliness.'
          I believe these strengths are the earmark of a healthy Society.
          Needless to say, 'Patriarchal' Society has been weakened by
          those forces that espouse anti-marriage sentiments, open
          marriage, homosexuality, male-hatred, white-hatred, separatism,
          being childless, free sex, disposable relationships, feel
          'good' books, rampant 'me-ism's, emasculating masculinity,
          and watering down 'equality' in places where it doesn't belong.
          Or-trying to force equality where it doesn't belong.
    
            If this 'Great Country' doesn't face up to the Deficit soon,
          I wouldn't doubt that the 'educated younger population' may
          also have to leave.  And yes, I do consider Ireland "powerful."
    
            Sexual equality involves recognizing and accepting the diff-
          ent physical and psychological drives that women and men have.
          And shaping Society comfortably around the realities of those
          drives.  
    
            And the family and male roles are what are at stake. Masculine
          identity, and role as provider and protector.
    
            The forces that work to undermine these natural male roles
          are forces that have to be dealt with. 
    
            Also those forces that undermine the natural roles of women
          and the family as the most important of institutions.
    
    
                                                       Russ

    Russ,
    
    You seem to believe that the official views of national women's
    organizations and well known feminists define what feminists believe.
    That makes about as much sense as saying that the official views
    of the Democratic Party and national party spokesMEN define what
    all democrats believe.
    
    Feminism and feminsts are hardly the monolith you attempt to portray.
    Yes, there are feminists who believe in separatism, and there are
    feminists who believe in domination, but the VAST majority of feminsts
    are merely (!) striving for equality. Simply that and nothing more.
    Equal opportunity for ALL. I really wish you would stop hiding behind
    this smokescreen of quotes, and tell us what YOU believe. Stop telling
    me that feminsts are awful because Ellie Smeal says this, or the
    SCUM manifesto says that. I'm not a disciple of Ellie Smeal and
    I don't subscribe to the SCUM manifesto. The technique you are using
    is called "the straw man" and is getting quite tiresome. Tell us
    what YOU believe, and why.
    
    Feminism is equality of the sexes.
    
    This doesn't put down men, this doesn't threaten the family. This
    has nothing to do with bathrooms or the draft. It is simple justice, 
    and should be obvious to everyone. The only ones threatened by equality
    are those who profit by continued inequality.
    
    	-- Charles

      Charles,
               I don't think the sexes are made equal. Nor do I think
            that the concept of 'equality' is one where the sexes are
            going to meet.
    
              I do not mean to demean either sex or the notion of 
            equality in any way by the above statements. Men and
            Women are different.  While I do view the sexes as dynamically
            equal I do not always go for the feminist ideas about equality.
    
             Regarding sex, Women are superior. Be it range of feelings,
           orgasmic capabilities, childbirth, nursing, a man cannot
           match a woman.  
    
             Regarding business careers, Men have a historical advantage.
           Women demonstrate equal capabilities in the workplace and
           the earnings gap is closing.
    
             Regarding family life, I think women have the advantage.
           Women have historically been the parents that have most dir-
           ectly been responsible for raising the children,  her sexual
           cycle has to be adapted to by the male - not vice versa,
           she invariably is better at cooking and does the majority
           of cleaning.  Household interiors often have a distinct 
           feminine flavor, and I've yet to find a male that is 'equal'
           regarding that  space of household called the Kitchen.
    
             Socially Women tend to have more friends than do men -
           particularly close friends in whom they can confide thoughts
           that most men feel unable to share with others.
    
             So...the idea that I have about the sexes is that  we are
           different in many ways. While both sexes have many similar
           capabilities - be it career development, cleaning the house
           to 'simply' asking someone out for a date, Men and Women
           are different, live in different worlds, and, it appears,
           have preferences for things that aren't soon to be equalized
           (ie males getting tons of friends).
    
             Certain biological realities can hardly be equalized, and
           unless I'm wrong, about the only equality that might be 
           realizable is the ability to treat and listen to one another
           as equally as we are capable.  This I try to do.
    
             So, what is 'equality' of the sexes?  In =wn= 666 only
           19 souls gave it a shot (yeah I threw in my 2 cents).
    
             It can be a difficult concept to merely define. 
    
             Charles let me know more about your thoughts about equality
           between the sexes.  I think it worthwhile to try to see what
           choices men and women have with regards to the ever practical
           worlds under which we all are forced to live.
    
    
                                                          Russ

    Thanks for the well expressed note Russ, I'll try to do the same.
    
    My views on equality of the sexes are tempered and colored by the
    historical inequalities that you mention. I agree, men and women are in
    fact different in at least one fundamental way. Women can bear children
    and men can't. We could speculate endlessly on the implications of this
    simple fact, and I find that sort of speculation great intellectual
    entertainment. 
    
    However, my feminism (belief in the political, economic, and social
    equality of the sexes) springs from a far more practical source. I have
    seen competent women denied opportunity simply because of their sex,
    and incompetent men promoted at their expense, again simply because of
    their sex. I find this situation infuriating, and intolerable.
    Fundamentally I am a "meritocrat" I believe in "the bottom line". If a
    black lesbian is the best qualified for the job, she should have the
    job. Period. If she performs better than others doing similar jobs she
    should be paid more. Period. 
    
    I too have problems with some of the "traditionally feminist" views and
    the way they are expressed. On the other hand, given the years of
    oppression and injustice that women have suffered and are suffering
    right now, I feel and support the anger expressed. I don't support the
    words of the "SCUM manifesto" but I appreciate the anger that could
    cause someone to write such a thing. Taken as an allegory, as a "slap
    in the face" I love it, but I do not take it as a blueprint for change! 
    
    My view of "equality" is that neither sex as such is "better" than the
    other. Different yes, better, emphatically no! I don't agree that women
    are unmatchable in their range of feelings, I think that that is an
    artifact of our society, stoicism in men is currently in vogue, but it
    was not always so. I believe both sexes have the same capacity for
    feeling. Orgasm, childbirth, nursing, yes I agree with you there that
    women do have a certain innate advantage. 
    
    Regarding family life, I mostly agree but would protest that this is an
    historical artifact rather than anything inherent in maleness or
    femaleness. I strongly disagree that women are "invariably" better at
    cooking. Perhaps you should visit me, I believe I am at least the equal
    of the women I know in that space called "the kitchen". (No, I don't
    know Julia Child, Diane Kennedy, or Paula Wolfert) I know an number of
    men who keep a house, and I can find few differences in their houses
    compared with single women I know. 
    
    As for close friends, here I have to admit that while I have many
    friends that I consider close, all but one of them are women. I agree
    with you that many if not most of the men I know seem to have a hard
    time being close to others and opening up to others. This is a damn
    shame and one of the OTHER inequalities that I would like to see
    changed. In addition to giving women the chance to excel in
    traditionally male venues, I'd like to see men have the freedom to
    express themselves emotionally without shame or fear. I would not be
    content in a world where women could act like "men", I want a world
    where women can act like "women" and still be successful. They should
    be *able* to act like men if the choose, and men should be *able* to
    act like "women" if they choose, WITHOUT STIGMA. 
    
        "Certain biological realities can hardly be equalized, and unless
        I'm wrong, about the only equality that might be realizable is the
        ability to treat and listen to one another as equally as we are
        capable.  This I try to do."
    
    I don't believe that the few biological differences are nearly as
    important as the vast number of biological similarities. Men and women
    are more alike than they are different. Of all the equalities between
    the sexes though, I agree that listening to each other is the most
    important, and not just listening to the words, but to the feelings,
    the motivations, and the meanings behind the words. 
    
    There is nothing inherently feminine about cooking, cleaning house,
    cleaning a dirty child, or taking dictation; neither is there anything
    inherently masculine about mowing the lawn, taking out the garbage,
    cleaning a fish, or designing hardware. Furthermore a woman's ability
    to have multiple orgasms, bear children, or suckle them has no bearing
    on her competence as a CEO. Neither does a man's statistical likelihood
    of being larger and stronger make him a better middle manager, or a
    worse short order cook. Mostly biological differences simply don't make
    any difference. Even when they do, it's always "usually" and "in
    general". Just because *usually* women stand high g forces better and
    have faster reflexes, does that mean men should never be fighter
    pilots? 
    
    It may sound trite, but there are some truths that I hold as self
    evident. Political, social, and economic equality of men and women is
    one of them. For me this is axiomatic, obvious, and unquestionable. 
    
    I do look forward to talking about what we think about equality. I
    eagerly anticipate a day when everyone, men and women have more choices
    about the world they have to live in. Till then, I'll keep working for
    it. 
    
    Good note, let's keep it up!
    
    	-- Charles

    Re: .22
    
    Charles, thanks for quoting the dictionary.  If that's what everyone
    uses the term "feminism" to mean then I withdraw my objection. But
    it seems to me a poor choice of a word for the notion, and I'm
    afraid that the terms "feminism" and "women's topics" will always
    instill a notion of lopsided bias in my mind.
    
    I much prefer to use the word "humanism" for this concept.  But
    though I don't care what word is used - I'm still for it - words
    are powerful tools and weapons, and I still think that using
    "feminism" in this fashion is counterproductive.
    
    					Steve

    re .28   Thank you Charles.  Longevity differences are another
             inequality though female career stresses and smoking
             are unfortunately closing that gap (7-8 yrs) some.
    
    re .32   The idea of Humanism is fair and appeals to me. Still,
             there is no such thing as a 'human being.' There are Men
             and there are Women. Also some feminists have problems
             with Humanism because it (apparently) embodies a number
             of male values - and that means Patriarchal values.
    
             Actually Christianity is an even stronger term since
             the self can be transcended.  However that term has a bad
             rap these days due to a few bad apples along with continued
             misunderstandings of the values involved.
    
             I think what needs a close examination is the effects upon
             the family that all of these (oft-times) individual drives
             for equality have.  
    
             Does a mixed workplace result in males becomming more compet-
             itive with women?  Or more cooperative?  If more competitive
             what happens?  
    
             Increased Oppression?, Discrimination?, Distrust? or
             suspicions?
    
             Or a workplace of increasing quality, efficiency, pro-
             ductivity, and profit potential?
    
             Social/Family equality.  Can a man that is no longer 
             the provider/protecter of the family retain his time-
             honored sense of masculinity and sexual identity?
    
             Political equality.  Can the World deal with a wide
             rangeing flux of Patriarchal and Matriarchal Societies?
             Which 'value systems' will tend to dominate and what 
             type systems will be the common denominator that links
             the separate Political systems together?  
    
             Are feminists for or against World Automation?  And how
             about the Patriarchies?
    
             And what ever DID become of the family through the strivings
             of all of these other *things* in all of these other *Realms*?
    
             
             I wonder.
    
    
                                                          Russ

    I hope that as more men opt out of high stress situations we should
    see a lengthening of expected male lifespan corresponding to the
    decrease in female. The obvious thing to do, of course, is to try
    to identify the factors resulting in the decreased lifespan, and
    see if they can't be eliminated. My own personal scapegoat is "stress"
    if we could reduce occupational stress, I believe we would all live
    longer. I believe most occupational stress is a direct result of
    the competitiveness you are talking about. If we can find a way
    to maintain high productivity while reducing competitiveness I believe
    we would all benefit. Unfortunately I'm not at all certain that
    that is possible. Sigh.
    
    I disagree with your assessment that there is no such thing as a "human
    being", I like to think I'm a human being first and a man second. I
    actually like a lot of the "new androgyny" because it actively
    emphasizes what we have in common, rather than stressing our
    differences. (I also like it because it's outrageous, but then that's
    just me...) I'm a feminist and I have no problems with Humanism (I
    especially like "Secular Humanism" but that's an entirely different
    topic...) I'm not sure what "male values" in humanism these feminists
    object to, but since neither you nor I have this problem the subject is
    moot.
    
    I believe traditional Christianity does embody many sexist elements. I
    believe that this bias is inherent in the religion, but I understand
    that not everyone feels this way. A separate topic on sexism in
    Christianity, or Christianity and Feminism, or Christianity and
    Patriarchy here would be very interesting. I learned a lot from that
    topic in Womannotes. I was a Christian once, if you would like to
    talk more about that I suggest we take it to Mail.
    
    I believe the family is very important, and I would be interested in
    dicussing the effects of various trends in modern society on the
    family. I believe that feminism (meaning the equality of the sexes) has
    great potential for enhancing the family by freeing men to participate
    more in the raising of their children. It also provides more positive
    role models for girls, giving them higher self esteem and more self
    confidence. The downside of this is the rise in "latchkey" kids and the
    potential for both parents to neglect their children in favor of their
    careers. I think we should encourage the one, increased nurturing,
    while recogizing and guarding against the potential for the other,
    increased neglect. The other positive effect on the family that I think
    feminism has is that the parity of opportunity means that it should be
    *possible* for a single mother to hold a job that enables her to raise
    a family. No longer must she always be dependent on some male for her
    support, either through marriage or alimony/child support. This is
    tremendously important. On the other hand, we must be sure that our
    society provides support for those who are for whatever reason, unable
    to support their families alone. This applies to single fathers as well
    as single mothers.
    
        Does a mixed workplace result in males becomming more competitive
        with women?  Or more cooperative?  If more competitive what
        happens?
    
    I can't give a concrete answer to this, since any single answer would
    be a gross overgeneralization. It seems to me that the potential exists
    for either. I find that more women in the workplace tempers my
    competitiveness and causes me to be more reflective. I attribute this
    to the existence of more positive cooperative role models, models for
    successful behavior that is NOT based on competition. Of course there
    are competitive women, and women who are at least as unscrupulous as
    any man in using others for personal gain. I choose to follow and
    encourage others. I don't think that increasing the number of women in
    the workplace must automatically mean increased competition, in fact I
    hope the opposite is true. If in fact adding more women to the
    workplace results in more competition what should we do? Eliminate the
    women? It would be more reasonable to eliminate the non-cooperative
    elements, whether they be men or women. (This is all based on the
    assumption that all competition is bad. I feel this is true, but am not
    completely convinced of it, competition is a powerful motivator,
    and has the advantage that it is known to produce results)
    
    It is a classic gambit of a group in power to blame the "out" group for
    it's own status, or the results of trying to change that status. It is
    not the black's fault they were discriminated against. It was not their
    fault that integration resulted in violence. Similarly, if as the
    number of women in the workforce increases, we see more anger,
    distrust, and suspicion, it is important to keep in mind that this is a
    part of the situation and not the fault of "women". If we see
    opression, stamp it out. If we see discrimination, eliminate it. But
    above all, do not blame the victim for the crime.
    
        Social/Family equality.  Can a man that is no longer the
        provider/protecter of the family retain his time-honored sense of
        masculinity and sexual identity?
    
    Is a sense of identity based on providing for and protecting someone
    weaker something we want to encourage? Wouldn't you rather base your
    masculine identity on being a peer? Isn't what you as an individual
    bring to a relationship more important that how well you fit some
    abstract ideal? Times change, I hope men don't have to base their
    sexual identity on other's helplessness. Traditionally the thing to be
    protected against was other men! If men would stop acting in such a way
    that others needed protecting from them, we could discard this
    dysfunctional attitude. Providing, per se, is not masculine ever since
    we moved from a hunter-gatherer society, and perhaps not even then. How
    long before we outgrow neolithic attitudes? What *does* define a "man"
    in a modern society? I don't know. Just how important is a "masculine
    identity" anyway? What is it good for?
    
    I don't think the world has to be rigidly divided into Patriarchal and
    Matriarchal societies, instead I look forward to a society that
    partakes of both, and other ideas as well. The notion that some value
    system must dominate is essentially competitive, I would prefer to have
    a system that is flexible enough to encompass the good features of
    both, and that has room to grow and change as people's needs change.
    The balances between personal liberty and societal responsibility,
    personal growth and nurturing of others, growth and stability,
    cooperation and competition, all will shift over time. There is no one
    right answer for all people and all time. (We could start another juicy
    string about Moral Absolutes and Situational Ethics right there...)
    
    	Are feminists for or against World Automation? Patriarchies?
    
    Damned if I know, what's a "world automation" anyway? I have no idea
    what other feminsts might think, but I doubt it's unanimous in any
    case, so generalizations like "are feminists..." are not particularly
    meaningful. As for patriarchies, both you and I know that that is a
    loaded word. Since, strictly speaking, a patriarchy is:
    
        "a social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the
        clan or family, the legal dependance of wives and children, and the
        reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line" 
    
    anyone who believes in the equality of the sexes has to be opposed to
    patriarchy. Practially "patriarchy" is harder to nail down. I
    personally find little to like about "patriarchal" societies and
    organizations, I prefer rule by consensus (actually I prefer rule by
    who can shout the loudest since I get my way more often) "patriarchy"
    is another "straw man" useful in rhetoric but not as useful elsewhere.
    
        And what ever DID become of the family through the strivings of all
        of these other *things* in all of these other *Realms*?
    
    You lost me. What other *things* in what other *Realms*? I must
    have missed a reference, what are you talking about?
    
    By the way Russ, I feel really good about this recent series of notes.
    I think I'm understanding the points you're making and I think you
    understand what I'm trying to say. I don't for a minute believe we
    agree about everything, but I think the dialog has been quite
    constructive, and I'm enjoying it. Let's keep it up! 
    
    	-- Charles

    Re.34 I think saying that women have little interest in politics,
    etc... and are *only* interested in the well-being of their children
    is a major over-simplification. Better to say that womens'
    interest in politics, self-actualization, etc. are *tempered*
    by the long-term view inherent in a committment to raising
    children. And at the same time, ironically, *limited* by the
    responsibilities.
    It's hard to study political issues thoroughly when
    burdened by the major portion of child-raising duties. Hopefully,
    as men participate more fully in child-raising, women will have
    more free time to devote to outside issues. On the other hand,
    by refusing to help out around the house, the husband leaves
    the woman with scant time to devote to "important stuff". 
    (Defining it as "important" because women don't get involved -
    a classic viscious circle.)
    
    Do you remember Heinlein's proposal that *only* women with
    children be allowed to vote ? His rationale was that they were
    the only ones with a proven interest in the long term.
    In view of the short-term mentalities of our re-election happy
    congresscritters, I think it might be a lot better.

    Dana

    
    _Sociobiology_ by E.O. Wilson. (That the guy, Eagle?)

re .40:

What is a statistical truth?  Is that like claiming you are statistically
honest because you lie less than 50% of the time?  Maybe you are, but
don't bother trying to offer me a deal!

A problem I have with statistical "truths" is that:

1)  Many of them aren't.  They arise from examinations of special 
    populations, pre-bias the data, mis-connect cause and effect, or 
    are otherwise invalid - yet the simple "80% of X are Y" is taken
    at face value.

2)  Because they are statistical, they are automatically invalid in
    one direction or other for almost everybody.  So, "80% of X can't
    do Y" means that 20% of X can do Y.  Should all X's be prevented
    from doing Y because statistically most can't?

As for unpopular truths, I followed the discussion, and it basically seemed
to me to boil down to Russ claiming that because one woman had claimed that
women had it good, all arguments to the contrary were invalid somehow.
The book (if I remember aright) was by a woman of the upper class in a 
non-U.S. culture, and Russ made no effective argument (in my opinion) that 
the statements he excerpted were in any way descriptive of the current
situation in the U.S.  Now if Russ had managed to present any current
evidence that the claims of the book had some validity...

/Dave

re .41:

Hmmm.  After being taken by work for a while, I find that both the note
I replied to and the reply to my note have vanished.

Anyway, the reply to my reply stated that statistics were useful and
that I was wrong in casting doubt on their use in this file.  For the
record, I wish to state that I *love* statistics!  As a performance
analyst, they are my life!  I also know how treacherous a stastistic
can be.

I will happily accept a statistic derived from a well documented study
where the sample population, premise, control population, test methodology,
etc., are known.  Just cite your references.  I haven't seen many stats
that *I* would be willing to repeat in a note!  Most "studies" reported
in the popular press are not supplied with sufficient references or
data to determine if the study is valid.

If you are doubtful, check out the cover stories of about 2 years ago on the
child abduction "crisis" that appeared in Time and Newsweek.  Turns out it
didn't exist, despite getting nationwide coverage based on "statistics" that
were a result of a lot of people quoting other peoples "studies" that had never
been done.  A newspaper (in Colorado, I believe - Denver Post?) got a Pulitzer
for doing the rather simple research required to reveal the complete non-event
behind that "statistic". 

Anyway, if you give a statistic, you had better understand where it came
from, how it was derived, and all the other relevant information needed
to convert a statistic into useful information, which it *doesn't* represent
on it's own, before you will see me kowtowing to a simplistic percent!

/Dave

    I have read the first couple of replies to this note, and could
    not wait to get through all of the 42 replies.  I don't agree with
    the base note that we need more FEMINIST persons in office.  Rather,
    I agree with a couple fo the various replies that state that we
    need more EQUALITY persons in office.  I totally resent any person
    - man or woman - who tries to tell me that we must favor the women's
    group over the men.  I believe that we have gotten much better at
    treating men and women equally.  However, I think there are places
    where we can definitely improve.  In this I include most strongly
    the issue of child care.  In the case of divorce, it is almost
    impossible for the man to gain custody of the children.  This is
    totally sexist and I resent it.
    
    So, if you want me to vote for a person who is TOTALLY for equality
    among the sexes, then I am all for it.  However, I WILL NOT vote
    for a person who is labelled as a FEMINIST.
    
    Ed..
    

>    So, if you want me to vote for a person who is TOTALLY for equality
>    among the sexes, then I am all for it.  However, I WILL NOT vote
>    for a person who is labelled as a FEMINIST.

That's too bad, because I think that if a person is a...smart 
feminist, that person will be for equality.  

I guess that my point is that there is no one way to be a "feminist," 
and I think that the term "feminist" has received a bad rap in the 
past ten years.  I consider myself a feminist because I believe that 
women are an oppressed group and that folks might want to consider 
ways to make things more equal between women and men.  I don't think 
that there is one way to do this.  I think that there are many ways, 
and that those ways need to be discussed and modified as we learn more 
and more about what is effective and what is not.

Anyway, I would like to ask you to reconsider shutting someone out if 
they are labeled a feminist.  Who knows?  They might end up being a 
good, reasonable feminist like myself.   (Huge :-) )


							--Gerry