Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    What I know about this report comes from a 20/20 interview with
    Shere Hite. I'd like to read the whole report.
    
    I believe that most of what she reports really is true. There really
    is wide spread and (from a woman's point of view at least) valid
    complaints by women against men. Many men still don't listen to
    women. Communication between men and women (even in marriage) is
    frequently not what it should be.
    
    This didn't used to be such a problem (for men) because women didn't
    expect things to be better. Their level of expectation was low and
    men could reach that level. Today women expect more (and rightly
    so) but men are still only reaching the lower levels of support.
    Shere Hite was asked why this was a problem for men and not just
    women. Her answer? "because women will *leave* you." This is true.
    When a woman is unhappy it's a problem for her. When she gets
    unhappy enough to leave, it's a problem for a man. By then it's
    a bit late to correct.

    The question I have is, it it really all the mans fault? I think
    not. The reason I say this is that women have not been as aggressive
    at expressing their needs as they could have been. Many men don't
    see the signs that women give out because, while they seem clear
    to women, the signs are to subtle for men, untrained by culture,
    to see. I think that most men would work harder to meet women's
    expectations if they knew what they were. It easy for a woman to
    say "You're supposed to know and meet my needs." It's not really
    fair though. I don't believe that women really know and meet men's
    needs as well as they think so either. I blame that on men and
    so do some women I know.
    
    In the long run, we have to teach our sons and daughters their 
    responsibilities so they don't run into the same problems our 
    generation is.

    			Alfred    
    			Alfred

    
     RE .0
    
           Mike , I hope you have broken out your flak jacket
           for its about to come at ya. Take it from one who's 
           recently gone through it. To ad lib a line from the 
           film "Easy Rider" 
    
           " Don't tell them that they are free, they will  
             kill you just to prove that they aren't."

                                   Bob B

    The question I have is, it it really all the mans fault? I think
>>    not. The reason I say this is that women have not been as aggressive
    at expressing their needs as they could have been. Many men don't
    see the signs that women give out because, while they seem clear
    to women, the signs are to subtle for men, untrained by culture,
    to see. I think that most men would work harder to meet women's
    expectations if they knew what they were. It easy for a woman to
    say "You're supposed to know and meet my needs." It's not really
    fair though. I don't believe that women really know and meet men's
    needs as well as they think so either. I blame that on men and
    so do some women I know.
    


re: .1 (Alfred) 

I pretty much agree with your comment.  It hits the nail on the head 
about communication, expectation and fear in relationship.


The key word in the above paragraph that sets alot of thought in 
motion for me, is *agressive*.  Had a read the word assertive, I would 
have been a bit more comfortable.

This aggressive vs assertive label just hits some kind of nerve.  I 
guess there is a time for each.  Sometimes *I feel* that assertion will 
do when in reality what I get back/see is aggressive behavior.

Yes I understand and appreciate that women *have* to assert themselves 
and that men (not a man) have caused them to operate that way.  It is 
a rather large cycle of assertive and aggressive that leaves me still 
looking for an answer.

It is the fine line between the two that causes me to scratch my head 
on my views toward the feminist agenda.

Now to open up the door....

The times I feel most threatened by women is when they get into the 
behavior of men.  To me women are softer.  I don't mean weak but just 
softer when it comes to emotional and logical things.  The maternal 
ideal.  I'm not looking for a mother role, I looking for a peer.

I like women to look like women.  I wonder why a woman in a business 
suit has to wear "those little ties."  I *personally* don't like them. 
Maybe I feel threatened by them, I don't know.  I personally would 
rather see a woman is a business suit looking like a female.

I have worked for more women in my working career than men.  At DEC it 
is even about 4/4.  The women I have worked for are professional, 
competent and female at the same time.  These women have been 
aggressive in their careers yet assertive on a daily basis.  Maybe 
this is part of the distinction I was searching for above.

Now I realize some of my comments will undoubtedly encourage some 
feedback to this being.  I've be thinking about this for awhile.  I 
have been reading WOMANNOTES and trying to make sense of the "thin 
skinned" discussion.

I had previously posted a note in this file on the topic something 
like "Effect of the Woman's movement on men".  You may want to look 
there.  I don't recall a great deal of discussion.

- Howard (set human = vulnerable)

    Perhaps assertive is a better word (more accurate) I just didn't
    think of it.
    
    			Alfred

    I think that .1 is right on the money.  Thank you.
    
    	-Ellen

    Shere Hite _does_ go hot and heavy assigning blame.
    
    Still, her numbers are shocking.  Just one stat: some 70% of women
    married 5+ years have had extramarital affaird.
    
    Whew!  So much for the idea that only men mess around outside of
    their marriage.
    
    Lee

    
    	RE: .1
    
    	 I also saw the 20/20 interview with Shere Hite. While I can
    	agree with alot of what she has to say, and I don't dispute
    	her numbers, I do think she came across a little too heavy.
    	The way I read it was more of a threat, "learn to read our mind
    	or we will leave you". True men do need to make themselfs more
    	aware of how the other half thinks, but we also need their help
    	to do so. Just the old saying of "well he should know how I
    	feel" doesn't help our understanding at all.
    
    	 Still, the bottom line is the same, we men do have to start
    	to really listen to womens views.
    
    	G_B

    
    re .7
    
    Elaborate on what is meant by "true man", please....

    I have some of the Hite report in front of me. Please note that
    those who responded only represent approx. 4.5% of all the women who
    were contacted. My guess is that it is the most vocal and dissatisfied 
    percentage of women.
    
    The gist of her book is blame. Pamela Morgan of the Womens Health
    book collective even cautions that the results of such a study
    can be counter-productive, in essence turning into a blame game.
    This is something we see repeatedly in the other conference. This
    "Blame" is also precisely the theme that the media has picked up
    on. Notice the cover of Time magazine. I believe that Time even
    titles the story as "Are women fed up?" and goes on to
    subtitled the story as "A hotly disputed Hite report says yes ---
    and that men are to blame."  Great! That'll help us work together.
    
    My favorite part? 98 percent would like their husband or lover
    		      to talk more about their feelings thoughts and
    		      dreams and to ask the women more about their own.
                                                      
    Hmmm, perhaps they treat them with the same disdain that mens'
    opinions get in the other conference. 
    
    The key statistic in my opinion is that 84 % of them women who
    responded are not satisfied with their relationship. Based on that
    figure, how in the world can a study like this be taken seriously?
    The book represents the opinions of a small percentage of women
    the majority of which are not happy. Based on that, nothing in this
    book really surprises me. 
     
    

    
    RE: .8
    
    	Mr. Holt, go back and read my .7 again!  No where did I
    	say "True man", what I did say was "True men need etc."
    	I was not meaning only "True men" I did mean "It is TRUE
    	MEN do need to".
    
    	Now is it clear?
    
    	G_B

      >	 True men do need to make themselfs more
      >	aware of how the other half thinks, but we also need their help
      >	to do so. 
    
      >	 Still, the bottom line is the same, we men do have to start
      >	to really listen to womens views.
    
      
         Sorry, George. I didn't see the comma you obviously intended
         to insert.
    
         Really, one never stops listening to them...!

    
    OK, I've looked it up in the dictionary, but cannot find definition
    of what Hite considers men to be:
    
    Treacherous "TROGLODYTES"
    
    

    re .9
    
    Please do not use the good old sampling problems to diminish the
    value of such a study. 
    
    Maybe if more men were to spend more time pondering on the findings
    rather than searching for reasons to disregard the report, they
    would  *hear* the shouts of today's women.

    
    RE: .13	4,500 women out of 100,000 responded. According to
    		Dr. Levant, a director at Boston University, a 50 %
    		response rate is considered minimal for social science
    		research.
    
    		Note that 84% of those that responded said that they
    		were not satisfied emotionally with their relationships.
    		All of the following "findings" must be considered with
    		that fact in mind. 
    
    		I don't have to search for reasons to disregard the
    		report, the report does that for me.

    re: troglodytes 
    
    in a certain Star Trek episode, the troglodytes were mentally-stunted
    physical laborers without logic, wit, warmth, and hope (the episode
    was "City in the Clouds" or something like that).
    
    extrapolated, I assume it means that men are mentally uninvolved
    and emotionally unenlightened "grunts" grinding slowly onward toward
    their own goals, ignorant and uncaring of others' (in this case
    women's I assume)
    
    remember, this is just a definition...and for the record I do not
    agree.  I think men are the neatest thing since sliced bread :-)
    
    just as an aside, it sounds like this book may do the same thing
    for relationships that Andrea Dworkin's book (Intercourse) did for
    sex.....feed the fires of unhappiness and possibly preclude open
    communication by giving people unpleasant preconceptions.
    
    -Jody
    

>    	If I were a husband, I'd want to know WHY women feel that
>    	way and would NOT spend all my time quibbling about whether or
>    	not blame has been cast.

    This is a key point. I know that my main concern (and hopefully
    the main concern of anyone who wants to maintain a relationship)
    is to know what my wife feels and why. I think the main value that
    may come out of the new Hite report is that men will start asking
    some questions.
    
    o Is my wife happy with me? Rather then blindly assuming she is.
    o Why or why not? So I can keep doing the good and change the bad.
    o How can we work together? To improve the relationship.
    
    I hope that women to will decide to ask these same questions. I
    believe that there are more men happy in marriage then women but
    all relationships can get better. Both sides have to be aware of
    the needs of the other for it to really work.
    
    				Alfred

    
     I'am sorry I seem to have lost something in the translation here.
    
     For openers we as men are expected to go un-biasedly into a situation
     in which we are already behind the eight ball since we are blamed
     for the evils that have been done to women. 
    
     Then we are expected to immediately know your every thought, mood
     and emotional status by just looking at you.
     We are to stop coming from a logical basis of train of thought,
     ( that oh yes BTW has been drilled into our heads since birth) 
     and instantly assimilate a female emotional style thought process.
     and last but not least we are expected to fall inline with what
     you perceive what is right, as to the way that we are to think,
     do and say, dress, act, and exist as a person.
    
     Other wise you will leave us and cease to care about us as 
     a person any more. And we are expected to make this change 
     overnight, to overthrough years of ingrained learning and 
     become just like you .
    
     Excuse me ..... but where does this leave any room for me 
     the person. The person that (if you are in a relationship)
     you came to care about ???? How much of me do I need to scrap
     and change to make you happy ??? How do I know that you will 
     ever be happy no matter how much I change ??? 
    
     And last if not least, how can we communicate if you ignor and
     peice meal what I have to say as much as you accuse me of doing
     it to you ????

>  < Note 165.18 by FRYAR::BARBER "Skyking Tactical Services" >
>     I'am sorry I seem to have lost something in the translation here.

    Yep, you've lost a lot in the translation. Men are supposed to
    listen to women. Men are supposted to stop blindly assuming that
    women are happy and talk to them and find out. More later.
    
    		Alfred    
    	  

    
    Sure sounds to me like it's men who need to do all the improving.
    
    Certain women seem quite convinced of their omnipotence both
    on and off the job.
    
    Wise up, Bob. None of this is the women's fault. It is men's.
    Beat your breast, rend your garments, and submit. We know 
    who did it...

    
     I'am sorry , I see a very fine line here that separates communication
     from change. What I see here is women justifying changing a man
     to suit themselves. I don't call that communication. What I sense
     is that the respondents to this survey had placed a large emphasis
     for their happiness on the man in their life. In essence HE became
     responsible for their happiness, because they hadn't found it before
     meeting him. 
    
     So now when he docent become exactly what she thinks hes suppose
     to be the relationship fails and its all his fault. I don't feel
     that I should be made totally responsible for a woman's happiness.
     I as her friend, mate, or lover should add to her happiness, but
     not be the basis for it. I'am sorry, I'am too human, I make mistakes,
     that is far too heavy a load to expect any person to carry.
    
     My contention is that any person man or woman must find themselves
     and be happy to begin with before they can become involved in a
     relationship that will stand the test of them both being human
     and both making mistakes.
    
     I somehow don't get the felling that the majority of people involved
     in that survey had found that level yet.   
                                    
                                         Bob B

    There are two completely different topics being discussed here.
    They are:
    
    165A:	Is the Hite Report a statistically valid representation
    		of the feelings of women in America?
    
    165B:	Does the Hite Report contain information which is
    		relevant to the relationships between men and women
    		in America?
    
    It looks like we have A people arguing with B people and getting
    nowhere.

    Pursuing the B track...
    
    From what I've heard and read, the report has a lot of valid things
    to say, and expresses the feelings held fairly consistently by a
    significant number of women. As such, it should be of interest to
    both men and women.
    
    I also think that Hite has managed to diminish the potential impact and
    acceptance of her findings by including and promoting the statistics
    we've been hearing. From the way the study was run, you cannot accept
    that the percentages she's quoting have a lot of validity relative to
    the population at large (for example, I would doubt that as many as 70%
    of women in long-standing relationships have cheated). 
    
    Even if the statistics themselves are misleading, the underlying
    message is clear enough: a lot of women perceive that their
    relationships with men are flawed because of certain behaviors
    exhibited by the men. A similar study directed at men would undoubtedly
    turn up a lot of equivalent (if not necessarily similar) perceptions on
    the part of the men regarding the same relationships. 
    
    The study has exposed the perceptions held by a lot of women. Nobody's
    perceptions are to be wholly trusted, male of female; but the FACT that
    those perceptions exist is something to be understood and (if possible)
    dealt with. 

    My .02$:
    
    In .18, B. Barber brings up the point of women wanting *us* to change,
    as if this would cure the dreaded problem! Of course all women are
    allready adapted to this new era of womens sociatal rights, and
    need no further adaption. Riiiight..... When are women going to
    start changing? In almost every relationship that I know of, the
    first thing the woman does is to try and adapt the man into some
    unknown form of perfection, then has the balls to complain when
    they dont succeed 100%. Of course women have problems. Everyone
    does. The new hite report is a complete can of garbage though, in
    trying to assign blame to the male gender. I believe that we should
    ALL try more to understand each other, and accept the fact that
    EACH SIDE needs to adapt to the needs of the other. If women had
    to change as much as most men are required to to maintain a
    relationship, then perhaps they would understand "Why men don't listen".

    RE .30
    
    Just because there are two sides to something, doesn't mean there
    is no value in carefully studying and attempting to understand
    one of those sides. In doing so, you don't get the whole story.
    But the part of the story you do get can be very educational.
    Try pretending you're of a different species entirely - like
    maybe a Martian or a professional wrestler - and see if things
    look the same when there's no personal impact.

    RE .29 
    
    Speaking of listening, I don't believe .28 called feminists (as a
    class) sexist. One individual (Ms. Hite) was alleged to be sexist;
    feminists (as a class) were said to overlook this. (Please note that
    I don't subscribe to this, I'm just noting what was said and what
    wasn't.) 
    
    Certainly this topic (and many others) demonstrate a lack of
    adequate listening. I doubt that anybody will dispute that. So
    where do we take the subject from here? Has anybody read the
    actual report (as opposed to the interpretation of the press)?
    I've seen quite a bit of heat and fairly little light.
    
    To get specific:
    
    .28 states that the primary conclusion (and, I infer, the purpose)
    of the report was to place the blame for women's dissatisfaction
    with their relationships with men on the men. 
    
    .29 states that the purpose of the report was to say "Please
    listen" (to men, I interpret).

    Two rather different conclusions. How, specifically, did the
    authors of these notes arrive at these assessments?

    To the extent that the report represents Ms. Hite's personal
    analysis of the data she has gathered, it is worth validating her
    objectivity. However, unless one is to assume she filled out all the
    questionaires herself, any lack of objectivity on Ms. Hite's part
    does not make the raw data any less interesting (just deserving of
    greater scrutiny). 

    
    Sounds like a lot of mud slinging to me!!!  EVERYONE is so busy
    arguing!  Golly gee....
    
    "It's like the finger pointing to the moon....
    
        Don't concentrate on the finger, or you'll miss all of that
        heavenly glory..."
    
    "And in the end... the love you take...
    
     Is equal to the love..........  you make."
    
    -Dwight

re: words

trog.lo.dyte n.[<Gr. trogle, hold + dyein, enter] 1. any of the 
	prehistoric people who lived in caves  2. a recluse

do.cent n.[<L. docere, to teach] in some American universities,
	a teacher not on the regular faculty

Ray

    Hey to all of you....I have read the recent Hite report and
    discussed it with my best friend/lover/husband....and one thing
    we both saw was that the people involved are not communicating
    with each other....
    
    yes women have needs that are not being met, and so do men, and
    yes men have problems that they have trouble expressing, and so
    to women, and yes we all ache and we all misunderstand and we
    all are lonely sometimes....
    
    but I think that too many of us care more about *me* and *my feelings*
    and less about the other half of the relationship and their feelings...
    
    how about we all try to slough off past preconceptions and images
    and try to get to know other people of the opposite sex as 
    *people* first and worry about relationships later....it might
    be surprising.....
    
    :-)
    
    Bonnie

    very well put, bonnie.

    
    RE .34
    
          Well hallalua and thank you Bonnie. Extremely well put
          to put it mildly. I'am glad that at least one woman 
          has recognized that its a two way street problem. 
    
          What has disturbed me so much about all this is that too
          many women are using this report to justify changing a man
          to what they believe he should be without any input or say
          from the mans side.

                                 Bob B

    
     RE. 37    Suzanne
            
              I agree and concur with you ( stand by folk's B Barber
        and S Conlon are actually agreeing on something, gads the system
        will self destruct in disbelief :-) ) that if the lady in my
        life came to me with a problem and wanted to talk about it,
        I would stop and talk with her. But as I and some other men
        have tried to point out, there are too many women that talking
        and communication are just the tip of an iceberg.
    
       I, personally have had this happen a couple of times already.
       I have always been open to talking and trying to tie together
       the feelings and needs of the woman I care about. The problems
       start coming when she expects me to know her every mood and
       thought just by being with her. When she acts disturbed and I
       ask whats bothering her and get " well cant you tell ??? Don't
       you know ???" No I'am sorry I don't ,I'am not a mind reader, yet
       I'am suppose to be. ( BTW this is not over something that I did,
       but things that were bothering her from family [sister] problems.
    
       And then theres the times she talked about all her old friends
       and relatives that I have never met yet I'am expected to carry
       on a running conversation about these people. I'am sorry, but
       there are some women that do have unrealistic expectations 
       about communications. Another great example was when we would
       go over her parents house and I would stay in the living room
       with her father, while she and her sister and mother went into
       the kitchen. I used to get beat up because I didn't come into
       the kitchen to listen up on the latest gossip about people I
       didn't know. This is failing to communicate ???
    
       Any time she came to me and wanted to talk I was always there
       for her, yet because I could not read her mind and assimilate
       into what I call women's chit chat I'am wrong I'am the bad guy.
       Beyond that started coming the requests and demands that I 
       change this that or the other about myself. It came to a point
       that I began to wonder what it was that she saw and wanted in
       me in the first place since it was becoming very evident that
       she wasn't happy with what she had.
    
       It finally came to a point that she and I split from each other
       because I couldn't change enough of me to satisfy her. What ever
       I did was never enough in her book. Has that made me sensitive
       to when women ask me to change ?? , you better believe it has.
       And she wasn't the only case of this occurring, its happened a
       few times since. Not all women are like this, but too many are. 
       It doesn't mean that I can't or won't compromise, just that I get
       real leary when someone that "cares about me as a person" starts
       wanting things to change.
    
                                     Bob B   

    re .38
    
    Bob and Suzanne have agreed on something, or so Bob thinks! 
    
    This report can't be all that bad...  It gave you two something to
    agree on.   
    
    Wonders never cease, just daily increase!

re: .38

Bob, it sounds like you have very good reason to feel gun-shy.  But there
may be women in the same position that you were in--expected to listen to
their hubby's tales of "office politics" or some equivalent form of gossip
and to nod sympathetically and look concerned at all the right spots.

That type of mind-reading is too much to expect of anybody on a 24-hour-a-day
basis (which IS what some folks seem to expect).  It makes you feel as if
your partner thinks that your only role in life is to be part of the Supporting
Cast.

I think what Suzanne refers to is that many people have major emotional
concerns with their relationships that amount to "bare survival", and yet
their partners refuse to acknowledge such until after the divorce suit/suicide
attempt/hospitalization, etc.  I know of one couple (currently in the divorce
process) in which the wife would repeatedly tell her husband, "I'm miserable,
we can't go on like this, I love you but I am too unhappy to put up with this
much longer, etc.", and get the response from him: "Oh YOU DON'T REALLY MEAN
THAT, you're just upset now, etc.".  Fuck that!!  That's what I call NOT
LISTENING, when one person can presume to tell the other "You don't really
mean that" in spite of that other person's evident emotional distress.  And in
the particular case that I mentioned, I don't think either of those two people
are "bad guys"--they are both decent folks who have a horrendous communication
problem between them (I can only say in brief that it's a complex situation).

I think that men MAY be more prone to this type of communication lapse, just
because we get that "stiff upper lip" upbringing that says not to acknowledge
any pain or unhappiness until the house is falling down on our heads.  But the
sexual difference may just be statistical: in other words, the fact that more
women than men feel as if they are not listened to or taken seriously does not
justify "blaming all men" and declaring all women blameless--I don't think
Suzanne intends that.  There may be a sizable number of men who are suffering
from the same lack of "respect" from their mates--so let's recognize the
nature of the problem, and not blame either the bearer or the recipent of the
bad news.
								paul c.

    It sounds like the main point is that there are two different and
    unique people involved in any relationship.  A good, solid 
    relationship is hard work, but the rewards are immeasureable.  I
    think it's a little of the complacency syndrome.  What was once
    exciting and new at the start is now old hat.  In the beginning,
    the both of you communicate very well, and then.....  Blame is 
    too easy to place elsewhere.  As I said, there are two people 
    involved.  If there is blame to be placed, give it to us all!
    
    However, I am optomistic that something good will come of this 
    report, if nothing else than to focus attention on the problem
    from men *and* women's point of view.  I think we too often deal
    with the effects and not the causes.
    
                                                     Bret
    
    

    Actually, I think that responsibility is a better word than blame.
    I mean responsibility *to* each other not *for* each other's
    happiness.  Responsibility hints at a two-way street more than
    blame.  It is something you have and feel toward yourself and
    others.  Blame is not accepting any responsibility.
                                                          Bret
    

    		Also posted to WOMANNOTES
    
    	The following is Ellen Goodman's column from the Boston Globe 
	of October 13, 1987.  I don't read Ms Goodman's column too often 
	and can't comment on her personal philosophy relative to the 
	women's movement.  The column has been copied verbatim.  I have
	added some personal comments after the column.
	
	<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
		A LITTLE MALE BASHING

				Ellen Goodman

		First of all, I must confess that I'm a sucker
	for "Can This Marriage Be Saved?" articles.  You know the
	kind I mean.  First we get Her Story, then we get His
	Story.  Then we get generic all purpose advice from the
	therapist:  What Jim and Judy need to do is learn to
	communicate, share their feelings and stay in therapy
	until we get back to them next month."

		Nevertheless, despite a high tolerance for Tales
	from the Relational Crypt, I couldn't bear the latest
	Hite report.  Nine hundred pages of depressing 
	correspondence entitled "Women and Love"?

		Nine hundred pages of Her Story, or to be
	specific, 4500 Her stories?  Nine hundred pages of
	comments on things like "Men's trashy behavior and bad
	manners" and why "Most women are unable to get their	
	relationships to change"?

		Each time I crawled through Shere Hite's American
	love desert, a barren place littered with abuse, silence
	and misunderstanding, to some tiny oasis of happiness, I
	wanted to stand up and cheer.  "I am so in love with my
	husband.  I'm in love with him because he's such fun to
	be with: I trust him implicitly."  Atta girl.  Way to 
	go, kids.

		Each time I heard a male voice in this all-female
	chorus - however disparaged by Hite's commentary - I felt
	a peculiar urge to root for the underdog, "There is
	something to be said for male patterns of a certain amount
	of privacy and distance."  Sure there is.  I'm not entirely
	sure what, but there must be.

		Author and polemicist Hite made her fame and fortune
	reporting on female sexuality and then on male sexuality.  
	Her method, such as it is, is to pass out questions, turn 
	the answers into a "study," sprinkle it liberally with her
	own politics, then lob the whole package into the public
	arena and watch it explode.  This time, "Women and Love" 
	landed all over Time magazine.

		Hite is, and I suspect intends to be less of a
	reporter than a provocateur.  As scribe of the skirmishes
	of the sexes, there is no question whose side she's on.

		"This book is ... a celebration of each other and 
	the greatness of women," she writes in the preface.

		To achieve this celebration, Hite gave 100,000
	take-home essay questionnaires to women on the subject of
	their relationships.  She got back answers from 4.5
	percent.  Assuming that discontented people are much more
	likely to spend their nights on 127 essay questions, these
	900 pages are slanted towards the most unhappily relating
	women in America.

		Consider the statistics of the Hite gripe sampler:
	95 percent of the women say they experience emotional and
	psychological harassment from men in their relationships;
	88 percent say men avoid talking about problems; 83
	percent say men don't understand the basics of intimacy;
	and then, perversely, 67 percent of these women assert men
	complain more than they do.

		There is good reading here among these women's lives,
	rather like snooping through a true-confession record.  But
	there is little surprise.  It is no news bulletin that women
	long for "communication," rich, layered talk about feelings
	with the men they love.

		It's hardly a secret that women today suffer 
	"relationship burnout," exhausted from carrying a workload
	and caring overload.  Nor is it a flash that there is still
	a gap: men are changing but so are women's expectations.

		In my own life, I assume 50 percent of the blame
	in any relationship.  Sometimes I get off lucky.  In Hite's
	world, however, "it is men's attitudes toward women that
	are causing the problem."  This blanket indictment, this
	wholesale imbalance, distorts the value and indeed the truths
	spoken by many of the women.

		It is too bad that neither of these, respondents nor
	Hite, give much credence to men who are trying to achieve
	their own internal balance: to be strong and not silent.
	What is missing from this "report" is what we in the news
	business call "the other side of the story."  You don't
	know much about relationships until you get inside both 
	partners.

		Again and again, reading a wife's lament - "Even
	though my husband says we'll talk each day, he just talks
	two minutes before he falls asleep, about himself" - I
	wanted to hear from her "other."

		But man-bashing is not the worst of Hite's crimes.
	Shallowness is.  A massive collection like this ought to
	move the dialogue - move the terms of the discussion -
	between the men and women.  All Hite will move is books.

	>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

	Ms Goodman's comments are no more or less important than those
	of any other person who has read the Hite report in question.
	I chose it to copy because she has expressed my viewpoint
	rather well.  Ms Hite's objective is to sell books and turn a
	profit.  She is not offering a scientific study or anything
	that comes even close to a scholarly work.  

	I agree that there are many women in the US who are unhappy
	with their marital relationships.  How many I don't know.  
	I do know there are many women who are happy with their 
	marital relationship just as there are men who are happy and 
	men who are unhappy. 

	Ms Hite's report (I have read most of it) is interesting to
	the extent it gives the reader a peek into a series of
	one sided opinions.  But it is still a non-scientific 
	effort which does little or nothing to help us to better
	understand each other.

	Douglas

    	RE:  .44
    
    >	Hmmm...  I find it fascinating that as much as you vigorously
    >	protest the idea that any woman in the world might blame men
    >	for their problems, you see no problem with turning around and
    >	blaming your ex-SO (and "too many [other] women") for the
    >	problems that *YOU* have had in relationships.  You said that
    >	the "split" was caused by your not being able to change enough
    >	to meet her demands.  Correct?  And that other women have done
    >	the same to you
    
        Well let me see if I can make it a bit clearer this time so
        we can all understand. You may not do this, but there are *some*
        (understand not all) women out in this world that do have what 
        I will call unreal expectations of the men they form a relation
        with. the person that I referenced in the other note was of
        this type.
       
        What this consists of is that the man is expected to "second
        guess" what is going on in her mind. In essence a perfect mind
        reader. I believe this comes about when the two of you have
        been together for a wile and you are suppose to know each other
        so well that this can happen naturally. Well, I'am sorry in my
        case, I can't. I can tell that she's happy, or that something is
        bothering her, but unless I know, I did something that caused
        her to be upset, or she tells me whats on her mind, when I ask,
        it now becomes a guessing game with both of us the loosers. 
    
       The second problem comes when a man starts to get the "gee your
       really a nice/ super / wonderful ect person * BUT * if you really
       care about / love me you'll change this and that to make me happy.
       Now in certain cases this can be easy, in others almost impossible.
       The killer comes when you try and two things happen. First is
       what you have tried to change is not enough of a change to suit
       the person, in short not good enough. Then we have the insipid
       ongoing thing of, well heres the next thing that needs to change.
       
       What happens is that you as a person has to match that "right"
       person that they have envisioned in their mind. And if you don't
       stand by because you don't love or care about them enough to
       want them to be happy.
    
       Please don't laugh, scoff, or make light of it for it can and
       does happen. It just took me some time to realize that I was
       not the person that she really wanted. Since that time I have
       gotten (probably too much so ) thin skinned to a lady in my life
       that wants me to change something that is a part of me. This
       doesn't mean that I am unwilling to talk or listen when important
       things come up between us. It means as you, your self have expressed
       that this communication is a TWO WAY STREET. In the case between
       her and I it became a one way street with her name on it.      
       
       And it has been the case that I have encountered a few women
       since then that when they have started with the "you gotta change"
       I stop seeing them. Hopefully I have shown the difference between
       this and communication that results in compromise and understanding.
       Please note this is a whole lot different from we need to or I need to
       talk to you, for there is a *world* of difference.
     
       I protest the Hite report in that I feel its going to be used
       as a weapon of justification for those women that have the one
       way street attitude. I can just see it now being used by the
       type woman that I was involved in.  " See I told you *I*
       was right , your the one thats wrong, your the one thats gotta
       change. *I'am* all right !!! Men are all wrong this report says
       so ..... SEE !!!!!" That is what I object to, for I can't for the
       life of me see this as promoting an improvement in communications.
       but resulting in making them worse, and heaven knows their bad
       enough as it is.
    
                               Bob B

>         -< My own comm. skills need some improvement, too, I know!!! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    	Thanks to you, too, Bob Barber.  I can see that you *ARE*
>    	trying.
    
>    	We'll all get there someday.  :-)
>    
>    						     Suzanne....
 
    Ya know this gives me hope too ...Gasp !!! rasp !!! Oh my Gosh !!
    Bob and Suzanne are being "*NICE*" to each other !!!!! What will
    the notes gosseppers have to talk about now ????.....
    
    Yup, ya right, we all may get there some day, will miracles never
    cease to exist......... :-)
    
                                    Bob B   
    

    
     OK... One more time 
    
      Lets put it this way. I see the HITE report not as a device to
      help relations, but, as the woman from the newspaper said.
      Its a bitch sheet that lays the total blame for all a relationships
      wrongs on men. Its a men bashing device. That is not going to
     promote better men woman relations in the format and manner that
     its been published as. Men in general, if they do read it, are
     going to come back and state she (Hite) is full of it, Just as
     some of them have already done here. Very few men are going to
     see any report that paints them as the most evil and obtrusive thing
     since the devil, are going to agree with it and take it as constructive
     criticism. The old gag of look at it from the reverse holds here.
     Women would shread this report to bits if it was about them. 
     How can you expect men to see it as a good thing when it makes
     us all a bunch of allof, cold, uncareing, jerks.
    
     As far as I'am concerned BOTH men and women are to blame for the
     problems that exist in relationships today. Its a two way street
     of both BLAME and the NEED to resolve to stop laying blame and
     working TOGETHER as a team to resolve the differences. Both have
     got to learn there is no such thing as the perfect person. That
     each one of us is human with their good and bad points. The sooner
     people accecpt that and stop spending all their energy bitching
     and devote that energy to working together, the better off we're
     going to be. 
    
     The question I raise is twofold.x First if the person your in a
     relationship is or does not meet your needs or expectations, then
     WHY are you continuing that relationship. If the person you are
     married to, has changed from or is not what you perceived them
     to be then why are you staying. Damn it people if that person IS
     NOT WHAT YOU WANT THEN GET OUT AND FIND THAT PERSON THAT YOU DO
     WANT. Why, Oh why, do people keep messing around in these bad 
     relationships, bitch piss and moan about it. But wont do a damn
     thing to either change it or get out of it !!~!!  You both will
     be the better for it. Stop bitching ...DO SOMETHING !!!!
    
                                  Bob B 

    
    	One thing the Hite report brought out that I don't see any
    	of the women here commenting on is the extra-marital affairs
    	Hite claims exist. Se stated that approx. 70% of ALL women
    	have cheated on their mates. If that's the case shouldn't
    	we men take this report to mean ALL women can't be trusted?
    
    	I know, I know, darn the flame suit, incoming!!  
    
    	I can see all the women now getting their dander up, but really
    	wouldn't saying that by a man equal the same as most of the
    	report is saying? All I have been able to see in the report
    	is Ms. Hite's desire to paint all men as something to advoid.
    
    	G_B

    I haven't read all of the comments in this note but the following
    quickly came to mind.
    
    Not to side track too much but recently on the Phil Donahue show
    he interviewed an author who did similar research as the Hite group.
    But, she presented her findings in a prose, non-fiction, strong
    feminist fashion.  Her conclusion was that the biological differences
    between male and female caused men to believe that they are dominant
    figure while making love and that often times men carry this belief
    beyond the bedroom.  
    
    Her findings also pointed out that the way sex is treated in
    pornography is not a healthy portrayal because often times the
    inexperienced male will take what he sees on the screen to be true
    and act accordingly.
    
    The author tells men that they must re-assess their methods of making
    love.  And that this self-analysis will help men put down their
    defenses and share with women, on common mutual non-threatening
    ground. Once this is done, true equality can begin to exist.
    
    After listening to this a few quotes came to mind.
    
    If 2 people say you're drunk lie down.
    If 2 people call you an ass, buy a saddle
    If 2 women researchers come to the same conclusion, listen.
      
    

    	RE:  .53
    
   > 	Bob, you are avoiding my question.  You gave me examples of
   > 	situations where women are *completely* to blame for problems
   > 	in relationships (unless you are now willing to say that the
   > 	break-up with your SO was YOUR fault as much as hers.)  Was
   > 	it?  Were there things about you that really SHOULD have
   > 	changed (or was she 100% all wet?)
    
       What I gave you was examples of some of *MY* personal experience
       with *ONE* of the women I have been involved with. With time and
       reflecting on it, she was an extreme case and *NOT* representive
       of all women. But to answer your question I felt that *she* was
       wrong in about 90 % of the cases. But the thing here is that,
       these things *WERE* right for her. So the overall resultant is
       that no one was right or wrong as a person, just that we weren't
       right for each other. It equates with trying to put the square peg
       in the round hole, it dosen't work. So in essence there is no "fault"
       because of the circumstances the breakup was blameless.

       For a wile after her, when any of the women I was dating started 
       with the you need to change this or that" I stopped seeing them.
       In some of those cases she (they) were right, and in others I
       was about the things to, or not to change. The original SO left a 
       heavy mark upon me, to the extent that I begin to feel like I'am 
       "unaccecptable" when a woman I was involved with asked me to change
       things about myself.

       What I've come to realize is that I, as a person needs to evaluate 
       those requests for change as to wither I can do them or not. This 
       does not mean I am unwilling to take constructive criticism, or am 
       unwilling to reach compromises. It means that based on the previous
       experiences, I begin to think a little longer and harder about the 
       request. Depending upon the request or the amount of them, I begin
       to think about wither this woman and I are right for each other.
       Wile on that thought requests are one thing, demands are another. 
       Demanding changes is the quickest way to watch me do an exit out 
       the nearest door.
  
       An Important thing here is to remember that this is *MY* personal
       view on all this, and does not necessarily represent how all men
       think or feel. ,Every man out there has had his own personal
       experiences and upbringing environmental conditioning. These are
       what makes him what he is today.
    
    >	You also say that men *and* women are to blame equally sometimes.
    >	So -- what I'm asking you is -- is it true that sometimes it is the
    >	*MAN* who is completely to blame.  Do you believe that it is
    >	possible in some relationships for the man to be completely
    >	at fault?  Not always, mind you, but sometimes?
   
       Yes it true that a man, by himself, could be all to blame
       just as a woman could be. It is my sincere belief though that
       that being the case is rare or at best a shall percentile on
       the over all scale. In most cases BOTH partys are to blame,
       one way or another. In most cases its a matter of the EXPECTATIONS
       that each has of the other person and how things are to go. 
 
       The problems come when neither person finds a way to effectively deal 
       with the unexpected differences. Unless those differences are resolved
       to the satisfaction of both parties, the problems don't go away and 
       the inevitable breakup occurs. Or for that matter its a blameless case
       such as I made an example of. The case where two people are highly 
       attracted to each other, develop feelings and then find out that 
       they are really totally incompatible for multiple reasons.
      
   > 	My whole feeling is that "fault" is not the major issue here,
   > 	but since you keep bringing it up (repeatedly) as the reason
   > 	to be mad at everything (like womannotes, Hite's report, etc.),
   > 	I'd like a better feel for YOUR feelings on the subject.  
    
        In a personal discussion about the problems in relationships
        you would be 100% right about saying fault should, and should not
        be the issue being discussed. But in this case it is BECAUSE
        in the HITE report, fault, blame IS a major part of it. It is 
        stating that all the problems and faults for all these problems
        are attributable to men with none of them women's fault.
     
        The problem I see with this report is that the audience of men
        that needs to be made aware of these problems are the very ones
        that this report turns off. These men are in fact going to ignore 
        this report BECAUSE of the way it has been put out. The mass
        audience of men in this country are not going to do any in depth
        studying and reflecting on a report that tells them their all a 
        bunch of assholes. If you women want to develop a good and 
        understanding line of communication with the men in your life,
        waving this report in his face is going to have just the opposite
        results.
    
                                      Bob B

    re .55:
    
    Bob, just curious, have your actually *read* the Hite report?
    
    	-Ellen

    
     RE .56
    
            To answer your question , NO I have not read the report
            itself. I have read multiple synopses of it by both male
            and female authors. It is from these I make my comments.
    
                                       B

        RE .55:
    
        >But in this case it is BECAUSE
    				^^^^^^^
        >in the HITE report, fault, blame IS a major part of it. It is
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        >stating that all the problems and faults for all these problems
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        >are attributable to men with none of them women's fault.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     
        >The problem I see with this report is that the audience of men
        >that needs to be made aware of these problems are the very ones
        >that this report turns off. These men are in fact going to ignore 
        >this report BECAUSE of the way it has been put out. The mass
        >audience of men in this country are not going to do any in depth
        >studying and reflecting on a report that tells them their all a
    				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        >bunch of assholes. If you women want to develop a good and
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        >understanding line of communication with the men in your life,
        >waving this report in his face is going to have just the opposite
        >results.
    
    You claim that this Hite report says a lot of things.  For one who
    hasn't even read it (you admit in .57), you try to sound like you do.
    Why not read it and draw your *own* conclusions, based on the text,
    rather than base your frothing-at-the-mouth on hearsay!  I find it
    quite offensive that you're blasting something *sooo* strongly,
    asserting it says things when you darn well don't even know that it
    says!
    
    	-Ellen

    
    	Would I'd like to know, is when the "hipp" report on women comming
    out??
    
    Todd    	

    Since Shere Hite wrote both "The Hite Report on Male Sexuality"
    and "The Hite Report on Female Sexuality", there is probably a strong
    possibility that she will counter this "womens' view" report with
    an equivalent "mens' view".  However, it may be a while, because
    she will must send out a questionnaire to a sampling of men, give
    them time to respond, and compile the results.
    
    -Jody
    

    I suspect that if the tables were turned, the data would still support
    the evidence Shere Hite presented in her new book.  If the data doesn't
    than one can argue that her first two research projects were conducted
    incorrectly.  
         

    
    While the Hite report may indicate trends, it is hardly
    a compelling study if it represents only 4.5 % of US women.
    
    Is this a book, an article, or what? Can I buy it at B Dalton,
    or is it as yet unpublished?
    
    I suspect that most of the respondents responded because they
    were unhappy. I suspect that a report on males would have a 
    similar response.

    regarding the % # of U.S. women.  Any study conducted for research
    usually is a minority number.  Heck, Freud's theories were based
    on a handfull of women - I believe 12 to be exact when he conducted
    his study on dream research.  Look at his ideas now.  They're quoted
    daily.  Jung went and made a school from them...

    
     RE .58     Fine , thats it, tell me to "shut up" .
    
       Well tell ya what, you just you keep right on trucking blindly along
       with that real understanding militant headset of yours. Keep
       sticking to your guns that the reports totally right, that men
       are all wrong and women are all right. That is really is going to 
       promote better understanding with everyone isn't it ??? 
    
       But by the way, when you flag wave this wonder document in mens
       faces and go to ram its conclusions down their thoughts, don't
       be surprised when they tell you to go to hell. And don't say I
       didn't warn you. I just wonder when people, such as yourself, are
       going to understand that you will get more bees with honey, than
       with a baseball bat.
    
                                  Bob B
                 

     re .64:
        
       >Well tell ya what, you just you keep right on trucking blindly along
       >with that real understanding militant headset of yours. Keep
       >sticking to your guns that the reports totally right, that men
       >are all wrong and women are all right. That is really is going to 
       >promote better understanding with everyone isn't it ??? 
    
    Hey, Bob, *I* never said *ONE F$%$%$$ WORD ABOUT THE REPORT*!  So
    DON'T say that I did!!  And you wonder why people get mad at you
    for quoting out of context.  Look back on all of the replies on
    this topic, then look in womannotes.  I DID NOT enter ONE SINGLE
    response about the Hite report.  YOU quote things that WERE NOT
    SAID - just like you did with the Hite report!
    
       >But by the way, when you flag wave this wonder document in mens
       >faces and go to ram its conclusions down their thoughts, don't
       >be surprised when they tell you to go to hell. And don't say I
       >didn't warn you. I just wonder when people, such as yourself, are
       >going to understand that you will get more bees with honey, than
       >with a baseball bat.
    
    My GOD, Bob, you *DO* have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?
    Just because I called you on the report, eh?  It's just that I don't
    like people being irresponsible and slandering a report HE OR SHE
    DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO READ BEFORE LAMBASTING.
    
	-Ellen    

    re -.1:
    
    I have to correct myself _ I looked back and I did enter one reply,
    .5, but just to agree with another noter, number .1.
    
    	-Ellen

       re .64:
    
       >But by the way, when you flag wave this wonder document in mens
       >faces and go to ram its conclusions down their thoughts, don't
       >be surprised when they tell you to go to hell. And don't say I
       >didn't warn you. I just wonder when people, such as yourself, are
       >going to understand that you will get more bees with honey, than
       >with a baseball bat.
    
    Bob, the *only* one even hinting at telling me to "go to hell"
    is *you*.  And, I am  certainly *not* out to impress or catch you
    (or anyone else through notes, anyway).  *Don't* take your frustrations
    about a couple of past relationships out on *me*.  I *won't* stand
    by and take it.  *I* have a quite happy relationship with a man
    running for seven years, thank you, and he's not telling me to go
    to hell either.  What gives with you, anyway, that you think the
    Hite report will have any kind of effect on *my* personal life?
    
    	-Ellen

    
    	Love....exciting and new....come aboard....(oh, eh....ah...wrong
    	file)...back to the mud-slinging.
    
    	Todd

        RE:-
        
>  < Note 165.58 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Don't read this." >
>                        -< Read it or shut up, please >-
        and a few more...
        
        If a  man  had written some of the personal stuff in the way of
        attacks in WOMENNOTES  that  you  have  here,  they'd have been
        incinerated by the flames long ago.
        
        Like it or leave  it  Ellen,  the  Hite  report  is  based on a
        (hardly) representative sample of *4.5%*,  and I'm certain that
        of 200 people polled on any  subject  you  would  find  9  with
        extreme  views which would fit the chosen  stereotype  for  the
        purposes of the poll.
        
        For what it's worth, I for one have  no  problem  understanding
        what Bob is trying to say - I may  not agree with him 100%, but
        he's  talking  from  *his*  perspective,  and  that  is  valid.
        Especially in MENNOTES!
        
        What's the  matter  - can't you allow him the same 'space' that
        women are demanding in WOMENNOTES?
        
        Andy.
        

        RE .70.
        
        How patronising! To quote the Desiderata:-
        
        "Go placidly  amid  the  noise  &  haste, & remember what peace
        there may be in silence."
        
        Yes, I know  what  the  rest  of  it  is too, but attempting to
        impress with a degree in philosophy (that and 25 cents will buy
        you a cup of coffee)  is not in any sense admirable, especially
        against  a very nice guy who  has  trouble  with  spelling  and
        grammar, but whose views and opinions are  his  and  completely
        valid in this forum.
        
        And have a nice day (to quote REK)
        
        

    re .73's subject
    
    Here lies one of the problems with communication between men and
    women! I was *very* surprised that Ellen took that statement
    as referring to her *private* life. Maybe we should conduct a poll,
    How many *people* got the same inference as Ellen? How many men?
    How many women? could be interesting.
    
    Bob Mc
    

    RE: .69 	I gotta agree. The double standard continues
    		and of course, if we object, we're not listening.

    re .69, .73, et al:
    
    Sorry to repeat myself *again*, but I never defended or attacked
    the contents of the Hite report here in mennotes (or in womannotes
    or anywhere else).
    I simply think that people shouldn't *say* that certain documents
    and authors say certain things when they're not sure they really do.
    Is that clearer (and calmer)?
    
    	-Ellen

    P.S. What happened to .70 and .71?    

        RE .76, 
        
        .70 and  .71 and the original .73 were deleted by the author of
        the current .73.
        
        Andy.

     
    Re .65, 66 67   Lets get a few things straight shall we. I'am not
    about to play your game of how we can discredit what Bob has to
    say. I was actually under the delusion that you might have an interest
    in this discussion. That you might have an opinion with statements 
    explaining the way you feel. So what happens ?? You use the tactic 
    of lets attack and discredit anything Bob thinks or feels about this.

    You haven't come here to offer an opinion, or render facts with backup,
    NOOOO!!!!!!!    Your the one, that has come here to take cheep shots 
    at whats being said, when you know, that the people that have been
    responding here have been going on the articles about this report. 
    And then you conveniently "forget" that you had already made comments 
    about how you felt about this report, while you blast me for having an 
    opinion. This is the second time you've pulled a stunt of this nature,
    It leads me to believe you have a regular history of doing it.
        
    The fact that you have been following this since it began, is evidenced
    by your .5 reply. Your style of dealing with someone that you disagree
    with is to either try to fluff them, or their proof of what their
    saying off. Or tell them to shut up. Well I for one am NOT going
    to shut up just to please you. My replys where to stand up for my
    rights as a human being that I am not going to be the victim of
    this anti men noise anymore. I'am not going to go away, just the
    oppisite. So sorry but Iam going to continue to stand up for my 
    rights as a man, each time one of you women tries to put us down.
    
    I for one am sick and tired of all these one sided and slanted women's
    reports and headsets that continue to make men out to be the sole 
    purpertraters of every evil and wrong in this world. That every one of
    us is an uncaring aloof oaf. I intend to fight these militant feminist 
    propaganda and sensationalized money makers with the truth and logic 
    that not all men are what these reports make us out to be. And whats 
    proving to be a bigger surprise is that a lot of happy, adjusted women
    are in fact disagreeing with a number of the findings of this report. 
    
    I for one am tired of all the hoops that we as men must jump through
    to be CONSIDERED acceptable to you women. That the moment we don't
    fit your image of what were suppose to be, were now the bad guy.
    Instant evil, to be shunded and ignored because we didn't ask "how
    high" when you snapped your fingers. You may find some us us among
    you that will do that to satisfy you, but I wont !!! I owe you and
    the kind of woman that expects that of me  NOTHING !!!!!!!! This is 
    especially true when I have no dealings or personal contact with them.
    I am NOT on this earth to live up to YOUR EXPECTATIONS.
    
    I suspect that the percentage of you rabble rousers are small as in 
    the small amount that responded to this survey. Isn't it too bad that 
    I and other men don't buy your noise, that were all wrong and your all 
    right, and we as a class are totally responsible for YOUR unhappiness.
    And we, as men, are suppose to blindly believe in the goodness and 
    sincerity of those that responded especially when something like 70 %
    went out and had affairs on the man in their life. No thanks, I had that
    game played on me before. No, I think I'de rather be involved with someone
    such as the real woman I have been with. Surprise !!! She actually likes and
    cares about me the way I am. Isn't that Interesting !!!!!!An adult female 
    human being that actually likes this person that you consider to be such
    on evil ogre.  
    
    And just for your information I said nothing about you and any personal
    relation you may be involved with. If you took it that way thats
    YOUR problem. It is evident that you have found someone that is 
    acceptable in a relationship. Thats good, I'am glad for you, But on 
    other side, when are you going to GET OFF your case and attitude that 
    all the rest of us are bad. Especially when YOU have NO IDEA who and 
    what 90 % of us are like on a personal level.

    This is just to serve you notice that I am not going to stand by 
    while you or any other continues to put men as a class down. The 
    day you and other women recognize that both men and women and 
    NOT JUST MEN AS YOU INSIST or support, can and are responsible for
    the problems between them, will be the day I back off objecting
    to this noise. Do I make myself clear or are you still working 
    from that brick between your ears ????

                                     Bob B

    re .78:
    
    Very sad, Bob.  Very sad, indeed, that you feel you must continue
    to take cheap shots at me.   I am no longer angry at you - I just
    feel very sorry for someone that has to resort to acting so
    pathetically and always being on the defensive.
    
    	-Ellen

    
    	Touche~,Bob!

    When I read a portion of the report last night I was shocked
    with the statistic that 70% of women married 5 years or more have
    had extra-marital affairs. When I re-read the report however it
    seems to say that 70% of the women married for 5 years or more who
    had extra-marital affairs did so for emotional reasons rather than
    for sexual reasons. This is a completly different thing. 

    
    RE .79       Ahhhh Give me and us men a break would you please !!!
     You started this and its not the first time you've done it either.    
     The point and case here was that there was a very good discussion
     of how this report was being interpatated by both men and women,
     and what it meant to them. There was even some agreement as to some
     of the messages it was bringing out. The main objection was the
     medium and tone it set. But most important there wasn't one single
     personal attack until YOU OPENED UP ON ME WITH YOUR "SHUT UP"
     BUSINESS. And for that matter where, just where did I take a
     "cheep shot" at you ??? You wern't even involved in the discussion
      to any extent, untill you started with your shot at me.
    
     What in this world makes you think that any person should stand by
     and accept someone telling them to "shut up", because they don't
     agree with the others view is just asking too much. Why anyone
     should accept any medium of wholesale men bashing is beyond me.
     To borrow on Rhet, Frankly my dear I don't give a damn wither you
     are angry with me or not. I will not idly stand by when you or
     any other female attacks me or or another on a personal level,
     for rendering a opinion that you just don't happen to agree with.
     I am not naturally defensive, I get that way AFTER someone attacks
     me. If that makes me "pathetic" what does it make you ?????

                                Bob B
    

  >      < Note 165.81 by AOHM::JACOBS >
  >                        -< sensational statistics >-

  >  When I read a portion of the report last night I was shocked
  >  with the statistic that 70% of women married 5 years or more have
  >  had extra-marital affairs. 
        
        Reportedly, Hite  had  a  sample  return of 4.5%.  Your extract
        assumes 100%.
        
        Example:- if Hite  sent  out  200 forms in her survey, then she
        only received 9 completed forms back (Figures for example only)
        
        Of  the  9 women  in  this  case  who  replied,  70%  had  been
        unfaithful for whatever reason -  this  then breaks down to 6.3
        women - ie, 70% of 4.5% of all the women surveyed. (3.13%)
        
        Example 2:- 10,000 forms sent to 10,000 women.
                    4.5% reply     = 450 replies
                    70% unfaithful = 315 (out of 10,000 polled)
        
        A little different to 7,000 out of 10,000, hmm?? :^)

    
    	RE:  .83
    
    >	Bob, you honestly don't see anywhere in this whole note that
    >	you lost your cool and attacked anyone on this subject?
    
        I attacked no one, I presented my opinion on the subject,
        with reasons on why I felt that way. I made no statements
        that were derogatory remarks about those that disagreed 
        with me nor did I tell them to "shut up".
        
    >   We
    >	were all perfectly calm here until Ellen came along,
    >	right?
       
        Emotional charged may be a good word for it. ( and that happens
        around a number of subjects that I know of ) But no one was
        personally downgrading anyone else for their opinion, disagreeing,
        yes, downgrading or fluffing them off, no. 
       
   >  	Why do you attempt to rally all men around you in an argument
   > 	with a woman by insisting that she is not addressing just you
   > 	(but is "attacking all men")?  
    
        Sorry, but I don't see how I am "rallying men around me" when
        I make statements to the effect that "I" choose not to accept
        anti men things.
    
    >	Is that part of the "Old Boy Network" I'm seeing here (when someone
    >	disagrees with you, it's time to call in the troops to help
    >	you out by telling them that the person insulted ALL MEN instead
    >	of just disagreeing with you?)  
    
        Again I really don't see this. There is a possibility that certain
        people could read an implied message of that nature, but its
        not deliberate. A statement to the effect of "hey guys, here
        we go again, another man bashing female, lets all of us go get
        her", would coincide with what your thinking, but I never wrote
        anything to that tune. I don't see any difference to the "old
        boy network" that "exists" here than compared to the "old
        girl network" that exists over in womennotes. They both seem
        to be on a somewhat equal footing on opinions, how they are
        perceived and backed up or disregarded in both files.
    
    >	I'm just honestly asking (because I see that no one is fighting
    >	you anymore, but you are still yelling just as loudly at Ellen
    >	in particular and at all "YOU WOMEN" in general.)  [I can tell you
    >	are yelling when you use capitol letters and multiple punctuation
    >	marks, like "??????"]   :-)
    
     	Hey, you can "ask" any time you wish, OK . If you go back and
        read it one more time, you may see that I was directing my 
        comments to Ellen directly. The references to "other" women was
        to say, that if someone else different from Ellen were to do the 
        same or similar thing I would react the same as I did with her.
        To clarify, I hold nothing against Ellen or any woman personally.
        
        I am just applying the golden rule that says treat others as they
        treat you. You and others may not be wild about my style of
        answering attacks on me, but I could say that about you and
        others so why make it a rathole ?? It is my contention that
        we could have a lot better debates on controversial subjects
        if we all stopped with the personal innuendoes at each other. 
    					      
      > Peace?
     
        If your ready and willing for it, So am I..... :-)
    
                                        Salute
    
                                           Bob B	
    							
    

    May I suggest that we declare the ongoing war between Mr. Barber and
    Ms. Gugel OVER, please? Without placing the blame on either
    individual for the continued ad hominem attacks, they are not only
    adding nothing to the underlying discussion, they're BORING. I
    sincerely doubt anybody is impressed.
    
    This little battle has pretty much devolved into diarrhea of the
    keyboard and (I assert) is of no further interest to any but the
    combatants. 

    
    Yeah, pretty much diarrea all right. 
    
    Was anyone keeping score? I have money on
    this.
    
    Kao, anyone?

    I knew that it was only a matter of time before Bob and Suzanne would
    start to *disagree* with each other. (But hey, Ellen's in on this one
    too.) 
    
    Their earlier agreement was too good to be true. 
    
    Shucks. I should have placed a bet on them arguing.    

    -karen

    
    RE .86 & 87   The "war" has been over for two days now, where 
                  have you been ? The only thing that has transpired
                  since then was a discussion between MS Conlon and
                  myself.  Concerning the wars that have transpired
                  between Suzanne and myself, the peace treaty was 
                  signed and forwarded to Geniva yesterday.  :-)
    
                                          Bob B
    
                                      P.S. Hi Suzanne !!  ;-)
    

    re: .90 [ re .86 & .87 ]
    
    > The "war" has been over for two days now, where  have you been ?
    
    There are only a few hours between your last posting ( .85 ) and .86.
    
    re: general
    
    This moderator is bored with this as well.  I haven't talked to Jeff or
    Steve, they can vote "not bored" if they wish.  I keep hoping you (Bob
    and Suzanne) will wrap this up.  It never seems to happen.
    
    Sigh.
    
    - M

    
     Is this still Mennotes or did we flip out into the 
     twilight zone ?? As I said before the wars have been 
     over for a wile now and beyond that, yes I've written 
     some replys but they have been fairly civilized and
     nice. Don't bust my bubble, its taken me five rolls
     of lifesavers to work my way up to being this sweet.
    
     I've actually been calm enough that they let me out of
     my cage the last two days. I really don't understand 
     what the beef is. But alright if it makes you fell better,
     Yes Mr moderator, I promise to be good, as long as the 
     hecklers are held at bay.   :-} 

                                      Bob B    

    Reply .91 is a garbage reply. People can disagree and argue about
    how they feel. Some of us (me) are reading this and enjoying it.
    And some of my feelings are stated by both of them. Lively debate
    is something that we all are a part of here in notesland.
    
                      REK

    re .90 
    I was gone for ONE and little bit of a day.  And the war ended.
    Sorry that I'm such a Johnny Come Lately... 

    Let's see how long the peace treaty's gonna last.  :>)

Reply to EUCLID::FRASER   note 165.84
    
    Sorry but you mis-understood my reply.
    I did not assume that 100% of the people surveyed responded. 
    The point was that of the 4+% who responded, an unknown number of
    women had extra-marital affairs. Of this unknown number women 70%
    said they had affairs for emotional reasons rather than sexual.
    So basically using your numbers:
    
    200 surveys sent out
    9 returned
    Some number less than 9 had affairs lets call this number X
    of the 100% of X	70% had affairs for emotional reasons rather
    than sexual.
    
    You interpritation of my note is the same thing I was complaning
    about.
    An extremly small number.
    
    Hence my title "Sensational; Statistics" as in Sensationalized!
    
    Paul

        Ah - well explained!  I'd hate like hell for someone to imagine
        that such a  high  proportion  of  married  women  were  having
        affairs based on a  report such as this one - it also turns out
        that the report was even  more  skewed  than  I  thought - Hite
        reportedly  only polled those women who  were  registered  with
        feminist groups and organisations, which (in my opinion) render
        the  so-called  conclusions  even  less  valid.    Talk   about
        massaging the data to fit the premise!
        
        Andy.

    re .78
    NICE STUFF!!!!
    re .89
    I thought you were leaving???
    re .97
    BINGO!!!

    
    Re: .97
    
         Howdy Andy.  How true.  Once again proving how the resulting
    statistics are only as good as the data collected.  With such a
    limited sampling you get a very limited accuracy.
    
                                  Greg
    

        What is a 'feminist agenda'?    By definition, a women's group,
        religious or otherwise is primarily concerned  with the women's
        perspective and therefore feminist, so don't give  me  the 'not
        true' stuff!  No one mentioned RADICAL feminist at any point in
        this discussion - it may be that the average  married  woman is
        happy  enough within her relationship not to feel that she  has
        to join  those  organisations  -  perhaps  it's  primarily  the
        disaffected who do?
        
        Andy
        
        PS - Hey Greg - how's it going? 

    this discussion could be severly abbreviated by titling it
    
    The New Hype Report
    
    cause that's what shear hype wants
    

        RE .102, .103, .104:
        
        1. Did no one  ever  explain  to you the merits of the 'DELETE'
        and  'REPLY/LAST'  commands?   It  would  save  us  from  being
        afflicted  by your multiple consecutive  entries,  about  which
        more than one Noter has complained  (at  least  one  of whom is
        female  and  a  prominent  WOMANNOTER).  Please  organise  your
        thoughts before replying.
        
        2.  As is typical, you have seized on one  comment and assigned
        to  it your own interpretation, labelling it in an inflammatory
        way, vis;
        
        I say, "...- it may be that  the average married woman is happy
        enough within her relationship not to feel that she has to join
        those  organisations  -  perhaps it's primarily the disaffected
        who do?"
        
        You reply:-
        
.102>     "So you think you can generalize about all women who join
.102>   groups of other women (even if it is for religious purposes?)"
        
.102>   That's quite a sweeping generalization.        
                
        I speculate, you call it a  generalisation;   watch my lips and
        I'll attempt to show you the difference.  If I had said, "every
        married  woman"  or  "most  married women" then that  would  be
        generalisation,  and your off-based accusations would have some
        basis.   (Apropos  of  nothing,  are  you  offering a religious
        rathole to divert  the  train of the conversation?) The fact is
        that  I  offered  a   speculation  in  .101  -  please  try  to
        differentiate in future. 
    
.102>   Do you feel that any time that women gather *at all* *for any
.102>   reason* that it is an insult to men (and because they are
.102>   unhappy with men?)    	
        
        This  is typical of  your  tactics  in  notes  -  an  unfounded
        accusation based on your interpretation,  and  with no basis in
        fact which attempts to put your  (perceived)  adversary  on the
        defensive.  To this, I would say  what  --edp  once  said  to a
        Womannoter in SOAPBOX, but manners prevail.  You are distorting
        what  is  said  and  showering  accusations of your own  making
        rather than addressing the issues as written.  Have I ever said
        anything about 'an insult to men'?  I invite you to  quote me -
        and if you can't, your argument is shown to be the crap that it
        is.
        
.103>   Do you also think that men who join mens clubs and
.103>   spend time with men are doing so because they are
.103>   basically unhappy with their marriages?        
        
        It  may  be that some men need the stimulus  of  clubs  (please
        note:    speculation, and not generalisation) - I have a  happy
        marriage  and  prefer  to spend time with my wife and family  -
        they are vastly more important to me than any men's club.  This
        is  my choice, and if you attempt to distort that, then --edp's
        comment applies  in  spades.   I refuse to be the spokesman for
        other men.
        
Me...        
.101>	By definition, a women's group,
.101>   religious or otherwise is primarily concerned  with the women's
.101>   perspective and therefore feminist...
        
        Can you read?  Can men join women's groups?  They are concerned
        with  the  woman's  perspective,   and  therefore  feminist  by
        definition.      
        
You...
.104>   Remember, you did suggest that *all* women's groups
.104>   are the kind that women would join because they are
.104>   unhappy with their marriages.
        
        If a woman  is  unhappy in her marriage, she's hardly likely to
        join a men's club.    She  will seek what she is missing within
        the company of women, with  whom she can feel that she is being
        supported,  therefore  it's  incontrovertible  that an  unhappy
        woman will tend to look for company  within  a woman's group of
        some kind - those (to return to the  point)  were the basis for
        Hite's survey!
    
.104>   If your wife joined a woman's church committee, would
.104>   you assume that she was unhappy?
    
        Yes, if  it  was  apparent  that she preferred that to spending
        time  within the family unit (although it's not germane to this
        discussion - do you know what 'ad hominem' means?)
        
.101>           "...- it may be that the average  married  woman is
.101>   happy  enough within her relationship not to feel that she  has
.101>   to join  those  organisations  -  perhaps  it's  primarily  the
.101>   disaffected who do?"
            	    
        To  return  to  my  original  point:  if Ms.  Hite had polled a
        truly representative  sample  of American women, she might have
        gained a reasonable amount of credence.
        
        Andy.

    Re: multiple replies in one topic...
    
    Andy.. Sometimes it is nice to see the multiple replies in one topic
    if they are strong enough to warrant it... I like the style that
    Susan takes when she does this, because her thoughts don't get lost
    in a L-O-N-G rambling reply to a topic...
    
    Just a different opinion from a "woman" noter...
    
    Gale

        Re .107, Gale,
        
        And sometimes  it's  nice  to  see a reply from someone who has
        something constructive to say on the topic, not on an aside.
        
        Andy
        
        PS, If you're seriously entering this discussion, the woman I'm
        talking to is called Suzanne - who is Susan?

    Suzanne, my apoligies for the Susan....
    
    I didn't get the correct spelling, and was corrected (not by Suzanne
    BTW) in personal mail...
    
    Gale

    Oh, and yes, Andy, you were correct, I should have started a new
    topic, instead of digressing, but I digress again...
    
    Gale

    ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!
    
    - M

        
        You may  disagree  all  you like, Suzanne.  The point was (and
        is) that the  results  of  the  survey  are  bogus because the
        methodology was flawed.   The  sample  was  neither random nor
        representative.   It was what's  known  as  a  'self-selecting
        sample'.
        
        Sandy
        

    
    	Andy,
    	 You might as well give up, you can continue to show her
    	where you didn't quote something she said you did and she
    	will continue to insist that you did and fog it over with
    	all kinds of statements about why you said it. She did the same
    	kind of pounce trip on Bob B.

    Right on Andy!!!
    BTW  Wasn't someone leaving???

        RE .back a couple...
        
        Thanks for your support - I'll think of you whenever I wear it!
        :^)
        
        I think it  would be more accurate to say we agree to differ in
        our  thinking  - there  are  points  of  agreement  which  were
        resolved by private communication and  points  of  disagreement
        which weren't. Symptomatic of good healthy debate!!
        
        Cheers,
        
        Andy.

    RE.114 Is a 'self-selecting sample' necessarily unrepresentative?
    

        
   < Note 165.119 by ARMORY::CHARBONND "Maybe, baby, the gypsy lied" >


   > RE.114 Is a 'self-selecting sample' necessarily unrepresentative?

        Not necessarily, in that it may be representative of those who
        tend to answer and post questionnaires.  To try to extrapolate
        the  results  of  such  surveys  to  the  general  population,
        however, is not considered scientifically valid.
        
        

    	I heard on the radio this morning that one of the networks (cbs?)
    questioned the survey and did one of thier own. The results were
    very different. I don't remember the numbers very well but I think
    one question showed the number of married women who had cheated
    on their husband was 50% in the Hite report while this new survey
    showed only 7%.
    

        RE .121,
        
        They mentioned  that  on  the  news programme this morning - it
        *sounded* even less  credible  that  the  Hite  survey.  It was
        reported that they polled about 1000 people _by phone_.
        
        Picture the scenario -  couple  sitting  at breakfast together,
        phone rings...
        
        "Hello Ma'am, this is XYZ  TV  programme and we're conducting a
        survey  on marital unfaithfulness - have  you  ever  been  been
        unfaithful?"
        
        What would you say? :*)
        
        Ok, I know it's unlikely, but it could make for a good farcical
        comedy episode...
        
        Andy.

    
    	It looks like by now the "report" has been exposed for what
    it is, pure bull! As Barnicle alluded to, Hite became a feminist
    after being exploited during her career as a model. If you want
    to know exactly how she felt, just pay the money for this book.
    
    Interesting that she has supplied film showing her pouring over
    the data. The book is crap, but the marketing is brilliant.
    
    A final note....if she had published a book that was actually filled
    with the way life is for most people, namely that most are happy
    and are treated as equals by their partners, she wouldn't make a
    dime.  

    
         What's killing me, here, is that I would love to see some REAL
    survey results, done correctly with a much larger sampling, and
    no specific group targeting.  This could be a very valuable book.
    
                                Greg
    

    RE: .117
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    GO FOR IT!!!

    RE .125   Sadly Al, there's been a terrible overreaction, and
              mistake here. I very vaguely recall what you were 
              reacting/replying to. Someone has vanished.
                I think a no/low flame idea would work in any Conf.
              The Big concerns to me are a) Open Conf's to all.
              b) Extreme Sensitivity on 1 Gender Only Topics,
              c) Praising/flaming a noter's Ideas, and (as best able
              to/avoid) NOT the NOTER!!  No doubt the personal things
              are unavoidable. Still, such personal flames are over-
              done. And can be reduced with creating a HUGE IMPROVEMENT
                                      thus^
              in the DISCUSSIONS that go on in ALL CONF's.
              The BASENOTE and the EVOLVING *** I D E A S *** that
              Develop FROM the Basenote. If the BASENOTE isn't the
              *** FOUNDATION*** from which the evolving ideas (expanding
              elaborations,[etc]) COME FROM (!!) or DEAL WITH then I
              am on the WRONG PLANET. Well, the wrong people to discuss
              matters WITH anyway. 
                I am currently 2 books by Nathanial Brandon on the 
              important subject of Self Esteem. Self concept. Self Respect.
              It IS Destiny. Talk about looking into the fragility of
              one's own SOUL. And FACTORS! - MY  MY  MY!  I cannot even
              BEGIN to talk about.....
                So, we ARE ALL in this Together. Let us proceed with
              intelligence, sensitivity, and CIVILITY. It is NOT &
              NEVER  ---  NEVER  ***E V E R*** be or become an US/THEM
              ******************** THING **************************
    
              That TYPE of TRULY  TRULY  M O R O N I C  'THINKING'
              Has Gotten Most of the 'Human' Race to where it is
              TODAY.    WE  ALL  HAVE A LOT of things to DO.
              
              This Day & Age, Sexual Inequality (another 'fancy TERM'
              if EVER I heard one) translates to WHO or WHO's **NOT**
              Sexually Mature as a Healthy Functioning Adult. At Home
              At Work. Intellectually. Emotionally. Spiritually.
              YES, *** H O W  WE  TREAT  ONE  ANOTHER***.
    
              Anyone who lives in the past is little more than a GONER.
              So let's pick up our tools and start to use them.
              
                                                    Russ

    RE .42    Personal Responsibility. Thank you Bret.
    
                                                       Russ