Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    it's a good vision.
    
    Get the ERA voted in and it'll be more of a possible reality.
    
    I know, this isn't what you wanted to hear.
    
    But I feel a very strong need to say it.
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  the full text of the Equal Rights Amendment is as follows:
    
Section 1.
    Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the
    United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2.
    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
    legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3.
    This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of
    ratification.
    
    

>        It's up to each individual to decide how much a participant in Life
>        he/she wants to be, and to not let others decide it for him/her.
>
> Is this a good Vision, do other share this sentiment?


	Ooooooh !  Good one !

	The statists among us will reassure us that they feel that
	each person should decide for him/herself...  
	Then, they will insist on dictating car safety/gas-mileage standards,
	mandate public schools for your children, force you to
	pay for entertainments you will not attend ( stadia, museums,
	concerts, etc. ).  They will legislate morality by 
	making it illegal for you to read certain books, watch
	certain movies, perform certain acts and say certain things.
	

	So, yes.  Each individual should be allowed to participate
	in Life as he chooses.  Anything different is just some
	variant of a police state....

	Steve H

re: .2

I really hesitate to reply in here.  This is a bit of a public forum
of ghosts.  I mean we're all ghosts in here so to speak, in that most
of us haven't ever met one another.  Our words stick out independently
of the real flesh and blood person who wrote them.

In the case of 0.2, Steve may be a very nice guy.  I might like him
a lot if I ever met him.  Certainly, my concept of him would change 
completely if we ever met - that's for sure.

But his words bother me a lot.

This morning I read the article in the focus section of the Boston Globe
on "Duke riding tide of anger".  It seems to me that the anger expressed
in 0.2 is part of that tide.   It's understandable to me up to a point.

But not wanting to get too far off the main question here, which is

>        It's up to each individual to decide how much a participant in Life
>        he/she wants to be, and to not let others decide it for him/her.
>
> Is this a good Vision, do other share this sentiment?

let me say I believe we live in a society and we have to do things that are 
not directly of benefit to us in order to benefit the large society, the other
ghosts so to speak.  

I have my axes to grind, hot buttons, etc., too, but why go into them here?
We can argue and argue and argue.   The problem is to not blame, blame, blame.

Having said that, I could go into the specifics of what Steve said: on car
safety/gas mileage standards, isn't the objective to help others?  Haven't we
had a public school system in this country for many many years, and isn't this
part of our democratic heritage?  Doesn't it help the larger society?  What 
about paying taxes only for the things we (as individual ghosts) want?  What
would happen if we did this?  

In other words, do we live in a society or don't we?

-- mardy

    > Our words stick out independently
    >of the real flesh and blood person who wrote them.
      
    This is exactly what I LIKE about notesfiles!  :^)
    
    This is probably not a good forum to discuss freedom versus society,
    as I cannot see how it is a men's issue, it is fraught with emotion
    and is probably a better topic for something like SOAPBOX.  I mean,
    the reason I got out of the New Hampshire notesfile a few years back 
    was my disgust at the discussion of exactly this subject.
    
    So I think I'll abstain for the nonce.
    						- Vick
    

.1>    Get the ERA voted in and it'll be more of a possible reality.
.1>    I know, this isn't what you wanted to hear.
.1>    But I feel a very strong need to say it.
    
Jody,

Thank you for posting the full text of the ERA.  My intent of this note is to
hear anything that contributes dialog which will help me form an opinion.  You
caused me to think about the ERA this weekend.  Sadly, I don't believe I can
share your opinion...  Will having the ERA voted in allow you to walk the 
streets without fear?  Will it guarantee you equal pay for the same job?  I
don't see it truly happening via an ERA.  This brings up the question as to what
amendments already in the Constitution don't seem to be doing the trick?
    
.2>	So, yes.  Each individual should be allowed to participate
.2>	in Life as he chooses.  Anything different is just some
.2>	variant of a police state....

Steve H,

I think there is some truth in what you say...  We seem to need protection from
ourselves; as long as the police state is of our own doing, what's the problem?

.3> let me say I believe we live in a society and we have to do things that are 
.3> not directly of benefit to us in order to benefit the large society, the 
.3> other ghosts so to speak.  

.3> In other words, do we live in a society or don't we?

mardy,

>        It's up to each individual to decide how much a participant in Life
>        he/she wants to be, and to not let others decide it for him/her.
>
> Is this a good Vision, do other share this sentiment?

Although I started this note I have doubts about the above premise...
As human beings, I don't think we can help but BE individuals.  The strength in
our society is who defines it.  This has to be a continuous process (many could
/would argue that it is).  Yet we base our basic definitions of this society 
on a time of more than 200 years ago...
 
Do we have a "ghost" of a chance or should we give up the "ghost"?

(Sorry about that!)

    The original comment had meaning (how much a participant in a child's
    life a father wants to be).  
    
    The reformulated comment (how much a participant in life he/she wants
    to be) is meaningless mush, which is why the replies simply took off in
    all directions -- any perspective on "life" is fair grist for the
    notes mill.
    
    Kit

re: .5
    
>caused me to think about the ERA this weekend.  Sadly, I don't believe I can
>share your opinion...  Will having the ERA voted in allow you to walk the 
>streets without fear?  Will it guarantee you equal pay for the same job?  I
>don't see it truly happening via an ERA.  This brings up the question as to what
>amendments already in the Constitution don't seem to be doing the trick?
 
    The ERA by itself is not the panacea which will resolve all
    inequalities, but it will help to form a solid foundation for fighting
    inequalities on the basis of gender wherever they occur.
    
    Without the ERA it will be difficult to ensure that I DO get the same
    pay for the same job, or that I CAN do whatever job I wish to do
    providing I have the personal, mental, and technical resources to do
    it.
    
    The ERA is the whetstone for the blade which will carve the future.
    
    -Jody
     

    OOOOH, Jody!  Hearing a (female) feminist talking about sharpening
    a blade to carve the future is going to make a lot of the guys over
    here in mennotes nervous.  :^)  :^)  :^)
    
    							- Vick
    

re: .7, .8

 " The ERA is the whetstone for the blade which will carve the future. "

My reaction to this was: WoW! What a great metaphor!  I looked at it as
another example of Jody's poetic powers.  And she has them, as a casual
glance at the Poetry notesfile will reveal.   One doesn't have to take the
metaphor literally.    Wish I could write poetry like she can...

-- mardy (aging white heterosexual male who supports the ERA...)

    Guess I feel the "blade" needs to be self-sharpening...

re: .10  Ben,

>>    Guess I feel the "blade" needs to be self-sharpening...

That would be quite a trick, wouldn't it? :-)

re: .6  Kit,

>>   -< Just who *doesn't* participate in life? >-

Good point.  Who doesn't?   

re: .5  Ben,

>>  Do we have a "ghost" of a chance or should we give up the "ghost"?

That's the way to wring a metaphor, Ben! ;-)  Sometimes I wonder if we
*do* have a "ghost" of a chance.   Think of the dinosaurs?

re: .4  Vick,

I agree.  The topic of freedom versus society is fraught with emotion,
as you say.  Probably does belong in SOAPBOX.

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

Well, Ben, I'm sure you had something definite in mind with this topic.
But I guess I'm confused now as to what you meant?   Maybe, as some say, 
it's not just a men's issue?   ..although the ERA ?

-- mardy

.11> re: .10  Ben,

Nope, sorry, the name is Don.  I have a son Ben but he is 4 months old.  Have
yet to meet the other Ben Soule, however, it's just a matter of time...

>>    Guess I feel the "blade" needs to be self-sharpening...
.11>  That would be quite a trick, wouldn't it? :-)
.11>  Well, Don, I'm sure you had something definite in mind with this topic.
.11>  But I guess I'm confused now as to what you meant?   Maybe, as some say, 
.11>  it's not just a men's issue?   ..although the ERA ?

mardy,

I have a certain dissatisfaction with the way things are and I can't seem to put
my finger on the problem...  Human Beings are supposed to be imbued with
Cause/Effect knowledge and yet we still make the same mistakes.  How can this 
be?  Jody's points about the ERA are extremely good!  They boil down to what can
be termed "fairness" (at least to me).  Is "fairness" a men's issue?  You bet it
is!  If we have to define every instance of "fairness" in the Constitution then
we have not come very far in 200+ years.  This is what is sad...  I would hope
that by now some things were a given.  Are things looking to get better?  Only
if a few can profit by it...

mardy, thanks for your input.  In the final analysis, I believe that it is Good
to scrutinize established "definitions" to see if perhaps they should be brought
up to date.  The U.S. Constitution is fair game.

Regards, Don

re: .12

Oh ma god!  I'm sorry, Don!  I did confuse you with that other Ben Soule.
Completely off, wasn't I.   Sorry about that.

I certainly agree we can't be wedded to the archaic past, even if it's our
own constitution.   Nothing is perfect, is it.    I think I do hear what
you are saying.   Nothing wrong with ambiguity, with not having the answers.
That's what life's all about.   

Thanks for your input, Don.   Gotta run now - can't think.

Regards, Mardy