Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    
    	I would only question one point in Helen's article.
    Statistics show that woman are mathematically superior to
    men.  However, in childhood a girl's natural ability in
    math is usually squashed in grammer school.  So unfortunately,
    they are not directed towards math related jobs such as 
    engineering.  However, I am quite glad to see the trend is
    changing, slowly, but it is changing.

    
    
      Are you sure women are mathematically superior to men?
    I read an article last night the claimed the opposit. Men
    are mathematically superior to women. While women are more
    superior in the "languages". But I guess it depends on how
    you slice the statistics.
    

    My father did a study for his masters in education, and found that
    women are only inferior to men in math because the system is slanted
    against them (i.e. overt or covert encouragement is often given
    to boys to excel in math and science, while it is often given to
    girls to excel in the language arts).
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .3
    
    Jody, are you saying, then, that females *may* be equal, or superior,
    to males in math, but this fact doesn't manifest itself because of the
    "system"?
    
    Using this logic, could it also be argued that, perhaps, males *may*
    be equal, or superior, to females, vis-a-vis, languages or social
    studies, but this fact doesn't manifest itself because of the system?
    
      Alan  
          

    

.0 >
.0 >
.0 >
.0 >The rise of economically  autonomous women is a new phenomenon that is in
.0 >reality very old.  For  more  than  99  percent  of  human  evolution, we
.0 >existed as hunters and gatherers, and  women  in  those  cultures enjoyed
.0 >enormous clout because they probably brought back 60 to 80 percent of the
.0 >food.  At least that's the case in  most  contemporary  hunting-gathering
.0 >communities, such  as  the  Kung  bushmen of Africa, whose  lifestyle  is
.0 >thought to mirror that of earliest Homo sapiens.

    Trying to equate the behavior of the entirety of earliest Homo Sapiens
    to the behavior of one tribe of bushmen in Africa seems like a rather
    large leap in logic to me.  
    
    If the women bring back 60 to 80 percent of the food, what do the
    men do, sit around the campfire and drink beer?
    
    Mike 
    

    RE: .5
    
    >  If the women bring back 60 to 80 percent of the food, what do the
    >  men do, sit around the campfire and drink beer?
    
    Mike, the answer should be obvious: the men think of more and more
    ways to oppress the women, so their methods can, in turn, be copied
    by men in the rest of the civilized (and not-so-civilized) world. :-)
    
      Alan

    The men hunt while the women gather vegetable products. In general
    the portion that the women gather is larger than the portion the
    men get in hunting.
    
    
    Bonnie

    
    so what exactly does 60 to 80 % mean.  is that just bulk or is
    that nutritional value?

    I think I'd rather sit around the campfire and drink beer made from
    the 80% the women gather!
    
    Mike

    60 - 80% of the total calories

    re: .4
    
    yes, I am.
    
    

    re: .9
    
    There is a theory that the incentive for the human switch from
    hunter-gatherer societies, which had functioned extremely well
    for hundreds of thousands of years, to farming societies was
    the desire to have more grain to make beer.
    
    This is a serious scientific theory with solid archaeological
    evidence behind it.
    
    --bonnie 

    
    
     This subject bearly warrents any type of reply.  The historical
     perspective can not be simplified to the point of we hunted
     you gathered and now we drink beer.  Are you people serious?
     There is a whole bulk of history left out.  I'll touch on as
     much as I can.  The hunters wander and the gatherers end up
     defending.  Therefore you get castles in serfdom and wanderers
     who settle further and further away from home.  This came to
     allow the cast system to set up taxes. Also more education but
     war. Then religon purged people. Then industrialism isolated
     people into working class and rich.  Now parity of the sexes
     has destroyed family life for the most part. Instead of equal
     rights having a desired effect of making everyone happy it has
     cost society the ultimate price................family decay.......
     Let's get married have children get divorced go our separate ways
     and the next generation will suffer over our freedom.
     This view may not be popular today but the future will look back
     and sum it up this exact way.
    
    
                                     Ken P>

    
    i'd have to agree with .13
    
        the article seemed to condone the "return" to an extended
    family.  that may work in a tribal society where everyone knows
    that they are all in the struggle for life together and the
    children represent survival of their tribe, so each individual
    would feel a shared responsibility of raising the children.
    their was no extraneous B.S.
         in society today, i don't see any such feeling for raising
    the children.  well, certainly not wide spread.  society is such
    a complex beast these days that children need solid reference
    points to learn from.  they need both a male and female role
    model.  i think single parenting should be avoided, and women
    who choose to single parent are depriving their child of a 
    balanced upbringing simply because they selfishly want to have
    children.
        the increased divorce rate and the raising of children in
    day care centers by strangers has decayed the family nucleus
    which is where we traditionally learnt our values.
    
    (i write this out quickly without much thought - so if asked
    i'll deny everything)
    
    Bob
    

    	RE: .13, .14
    
    	Since you both seemed to say (pretty much) the same thing, I'd
    	like to ask you some questions:
    
    	Do you think women were selfish for wanting equal rights with
    	men?  Do you think that those of us who desperately wanted equal
    	opportunities (and felt the same longings that men feel for
    	education and professional achievement) should have sacrificed
    	those goals (and dreams) for the sake of the family while men
    	continued to enjoy those opportunities?
    
    	Do you think that very many men who strongly *wanted* careers
    	would have been willing to give them up for the sake of the
    	state of the family?  (I'm not talking about men who would
    	*rather* have stayed home, but men who felt a strong desire
    	to be out in the working world.)

    	Do you think that there is something inherent in women that
   	would have made it "better for everyone" if many/most women
    	had been prevented from fulfilling their potential (and their
    	dreams) as individuals for the sake of the family?  Do you
    	think it would have been fairer somehow to hold women back
    	than to have held men back if the end results had been the
    	same?
    
    	Just asking...

    I thought dinosaurs were extinct. Aren't they? 

    	Oh, by the way, (authors of .13 and .14) -- I'm not trying to
    	attack you or to second guess you about your individual philosophies
    	on this subject...  My questions were not meant to tell you
    	what you meant, but rather to ask *you* what you think about
    	all this.
    
    	Also, I was wondering if you fully understood what the alternatives
    	to 'parity between the sexes' might have been (and if you saw
    	anything that could be considered unfair in the scenerios that
    	I suggested.)
    

    
        well, lets see.
    first i think the whole question of equality is rather silly.
    we're not equal, we're different.  this is not to say one should
    be valued higher than the other.  both sexes should be afforded
    every opportunity to do what they want and achieve their potential.
    we are all in this together and the most prosperity will come from
    the most people reaching and using their potentials.  so to cut
    off opportunities for over half the population just because of
    some ignorant biases is just plain stupid. 
        secondly, i've always felt that if you start a family, you can
    best serve the community by raising your kids properly, and the
    best way i see is with both a mother and father.  now of course
    sometimes this is not possible and you have to do what you can,
    but i've always thought it was selfish for a person to consciously
    decide they wanted to raise a child alone, thus depriving that
    child of every having either a father or mother.  also, i'm
    not saying single parenting is doomed to failure, but i would
    say its more stressfull for both parent and child.
    
    (hope i'm not getting myself into trouble)
    
    Bob

    re equality:
    
    yeah that's a difficult word.  I prefer congruent (math term meaning
    of equal value but not the same), myself.
    
    re .14, .18 Bob
    
    You're only getting yourself into a _little_ trouble :).  Pardon
    me if this seems like baiting but the comment about single parenting
    is a tough one to let go.  Consider the following (real) scenarios:
    
    You are pregnant.  The man who is "in this" with you beat the crap
    out of you recently (after the incident which caused the pregnancy),
    but is willing to marry you.  Do you marry him and have the baby?
    He will beat you and probably the child again.  Do you abort?  Do
    you have the baby by yourself?  Do you then give the baby up for
    adoption or keep it yourself?  Which is more moral and why?
    
    You are pregnant.  You want the baby, but the father does not, nor
    is he willing to marry you.  Do you: 1) abort, 2) have the baby
    and give it up, 3) have the baby and raise it yourself, or 4) find
    someone else to marry and raise the child together?  Why?
    
    You have two kids and a wonderful husband who leaves you (the kids
    are 3 and 7, or so).  What do you do?
    
    Perhaps these are your "some circumstances" when single parent-hood
    is unavoidable, but they are quite common (from what I remember,
    these scenarios account for the bulk of single mothers).  Once you
    have sex, even once, with adequate birth control, you risk having
    this happen to you, unless you are a man.
    
    Lee

    RE: .19
    
    Lee, the scenarios you've given why a woman may be(come) a single
    mother are certainly true.
    
    However, recently there has evolved a new reason for some women
    becoming single mothers: they want a child, but do not want to
    have to deal with marriage/relationship/men.
    
    These women make a conscious decision to become pregnant, either 
    through artificial insemination or via sex with a man whom they feel
    possesses the proper genetic background for her baby.
    
    Perhaps, it is to this category of women that Bob is directing his
    comments.
    
      Alan

One question I have is, if those cultures were so great how come they
vanished ? And if the Kung bushmen of Africa are the only ones living
close to that culture, how come they didn't progress ? If the outside
world didn't come to them they wouldn't even know there is a world
outside of their own. If women gathered 80% of the food, how did men 
gain the power that women claim men have ? She implies that the broken
homes we have today are a good thing. Some how the pain experienced in
so many divorces, doesn't make it look as a positive thing. I like to 
know what the other experts have to say about her report.

Jim

    
    re.20
       yes. that is what my poor wording was supposed to convey.
    
    re.19
       those are tough situations all and require hard moral decisions
    and i don't think its my place to preach morality to people, though
    i can't resist saying two things.
       any man who beats a woman is not a man
    and any husband who abandons wife and kids is far from wonderful.
    
    "if i was afraid of being called a hypocrite, i'd never speak."
                                             Emerson
    
    i say this because i probably had some moral preaching in the
    other notes.
    
    Bob

    I believe there are other hunter-gatherer societies left in the
    world besides the Kung.  As for why most of the world switched to
    agriculture, there was an earlier suggestion that it was to produce
    beer; I kind of like that one, myself.  Seriously, I believe that
    is a subject of debate among anthropologists.  I have run across
    some theories, but, unfortunately, I don't remember any of them.
    Oh well.
    
    I have actually run across the suggestion that many of the "inevitable"
    social ills of humanity are actually non-existent in hunter-gatherer
    societies. In such societies, no one owns possessions, other than what
    they can carry with them; there is no resulting competition for wealth,
    and greed for possessions is pointless.  It was apparently after the
    invention of agriculture that we began to see the rise of powerful
    classes of people, massive inequality, and the corresponding oppression
    of the powerless, including such wonderful institutions as slavery.  In
    hunter-gatherer societies, the people do have a generally leisurely
    life; their "work week" is short, and yet they are better fed than the
    people in many agricultural societies, with hunger non-existent. 
    
    I'll admit that this picture is rather utopian, and I suspect that life
    is not quite as wonderful for these people as some have claimed. I
    personally would not choose to trade my life for theirs. I remember
    seeing a PBS documentary on a tribe of hunter-gatherers in the Amazon,
    and while their life could be pretty idyllic, it also had its dark
    side; blood feuds were common, and many people were killed.  I don't
    think that this is typical of hunter-gatherer societies, but, even so,
    I guess it shows that there can be problems under any social
    arrangement. 
    
    -- Mike    

    
    RE:13&14  Right on!
    
    RE:15  Who says that men want to work for sucess and recognition?
    Most of the men I know work so as to be able to provide for their
    families.  If being more sucessful means more money (providing a better
    life for the people who you love) then you work as hard as you have
    to sa as to become more sucessful.
    
    RE: The last few.  As I see it, the reason we went from hunter/gatherers
    to farming is because of progress.  When we learned that the things
    we could gather could be cultivated we did so.  I think (hope) that we
    will be farmers again. Not because I want to see women be treated
    as unequal, but because it represents a time when people are working
    mostly for the sustaining of life rather than the destruction of
    life.  
    
                                             See ya'll on the farm!
                                             Mike
    

    	RE:  .24
    
    	Did you say something about working hard to provide for the
    	people that we love?  Gee, that sounds familiar!  I've been
    	working hard as provider (for my son) for 17 years, and it
    	is definitely an important part of my life.  However, I like
    	the things I've been able to do at Digital (and it's worth
    	more to me than just the money or my standing as a provider
    	for my family.)  Maybe other people don't feel this way,
    	but I certainly do.  Having interesting, challenging work
    	to occupy my time at work matters a great deal to me, as a
    	matter of fact.  
    
    	You made a comment about wanting to go back to the "farmer"
    	times.  Can I assume that you are saying you would like to
    	go back to what things were like before the women's movement
   	(that is, before the onset of attempts at 'parity between
    	the sexes'?)  Please correct me if I'm mistaken in this.
    
    	If you *are* saying that you would like to go back to those
    	times, consider this:   Most of us would probably agree that
    	the most important people involved in these issues (about
    	family, divorce, etc.) are the children.  I agree with that
    	myself, completely.
    
    	However, we need to remember that ~50% of the children that
    	we care so much about (and consider to be our future) are
    	female.  If we were to sacrifice women's rights for the sake
    	of "the children" (i.e., "the family," "marriage," etc.)
    	then we'd be sentencing ~50% of our precious children to
    	adulthoods where they would NOT have equal rights.

    	On a personal level, any woman might be willing to give up
    	her chance at equal rights for the sake of her family, but
    	when one looks at the entire scope of the issue -- asking
    	~100 million women (and many, many MORE future women) to
    	give up their chances at equal rights in order for everyone
    	to be "happy" again (like Beaver and his family) -- then the
    	price becomes awfully high (especially if one stops to realize
    	that going back to the 'old way' is not the only option open
    	to us.)
    
    	If the family is on the decline because of the ways in which
    	women's and men's roles have changed over the past 20 years,
    	then it sounds to me like marriage *and* family life are going
    	to have to change, too (i.e., adapt in order to survive.)
    
    	If we lament about the old days and refuse to allow institutions
    	like family and marriage to grow and evolve along with the
    	humans who engage in such things, then these institutions will
    	suffer all the more (and *all* of us will be to blame for it,
    	speaking in a general sense.)
    
    	Instead of thinking about how the old ways were ruined, it's
    	time to think of what we can do to make the family and marriage
    	better (taking the changes in men and women into consideration.)
    	Again, I'm talking on a cultural level (because I'm sure that
    	all of us present are doing the best we can to make our families
    	and/or marriages the best that we can.)
    
    	There is no turning back.  As a species, we can either make
    	the future better for ourselves or we can grieve for things
    	that will never come back.  I think we owe it to the children
    	to try to move forward (and make things better for their world.)

      
       18>Bob I agree with all your words
       25> Digging into this issue is one of the largest quagmires in the
           philisophical jungle. Attached are every issue that's hot.
           We have abortion,equal rights 'sexism' on and on. I'm not
           shy about these issues.  In  .13 I am not trying to send
           equal rights backward at all.  caring families come in all
           different flavours. The most tastey being extended but 
           almost as good is the nuclear. To throw an analogy of an
           extreme case where a man beat a woman is a justice matter.
           Abortion is still a crime under any but most perilous
           situati0ns .  Weaving a stable home life may be a complcated
           matter in todays society but it comes with the promise
           when you marry and have child. You are responsible!!!!!
           Live up to that.................
    
    
    
    
                                 Ken P.     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    RE 25:  If you reread my note it states specifically why I would
    like to go back to the times when farming was the backbone of our
    culture.  I state specifically, "not so as women are treated as
    unequal."  I have a 17month old daughter at home and I want her
    to have the opportunity to do whatever she wants INCLUDING staying
    at home and raising a family.  In many cases that is not an option
    for many people who would prefer to do so because of economic
    restrictions.  Men and women are not the same, so they should not
    be treated the same.  In my family, my wife and I work together
    to provide a nice atmosphere for our family.  That is #1 priority
    with us as I am sure it is with you.  To me, equal rights have to
    do with treating a person with respect, and dignity not worrying
    about calling someone a fireman or firewoman or fireperson.  Also
    I think anyone who looks at a housewife as a second class citizens 
    are fullof garbage and second class citizens themselves.  PLease
    reread my note and see that I am not trying to take anyone's rights
    away from them, rather make society see what really is important
    (the sustaing of lives rather than the destruction of the same).
    It was Ben Franklin who said, "As soon as the United States gets
    away from agriculture as its main focus in society, it will start
    down the path of evil"
    
                                                  Mike

    To treat people as equal, (equal by todays definition) is in many
    cases discriminative. If we were to treat handicapped people as
    equals without considering their needs, then we would not bother, 
    working towards bringing down the bariers that discriminate against
    them. If we treat women as equal to men in all cases, then we could
    eliminate the womens class in the Boston Marathon, and other atheltic
    events. How many women would like that idea. Women and men are
    different, but have the same value. The problem today is, there's
    a quackery of "you can do anything you want to", as a result we
    have cardiac patients that have to wait for a secound ambulance
    crew to show up because the woman on the first crew is unable to
    lift them. Plus even when she can, the male EMT thats with her has to
    take the bulk on most calls. If you want to see discrimination
    talk to a male nurse. I don't know how it is today, but years 
    ago my cousin became a registered nurse. In the hospital he worked
    for, he was never assigned to a medical/surgical floor like the female
    nurses. He was always on call to move heavy patients, and equipment,
    like an orderly. He also, was not permitted to work on female patients. 
    He eventually became frustrated and left nursing. In some cases 
    disrimnation is right, and in some cases its wrong. Lets be clear
    when we talk about equality, because sometimes discrimination creates
    equality.
    
    Jim

    

    RE: -1  Good point.  For a few months I was the only male in my
    group.  Whenever something heavy had to be moved guess who they
    came to?  Did I mind?  Of course not, it was the gentlemenly thing
    too do.  
                                                         Mike
    

    re .28: My God! You mean that someone is hiring people for a job
    requiring strength WITHOUT SETTING MINIMUM STRENGTH LIMITS?    

    Please - don't say "she couldn't lift X because she is a woman."
    If you want your emergency personnel to be able to lift 200 lbs.
    then put it in the job requirements. True, this would probably
    eliminate more women than men, but if a woman _can_ lift the weight
    then give her the bloody job. (No pun intended...)
    
    Re .29: You sound like a decent sort, Mike. I hope that "gentlemanly"
    translates to "willing to help others" rather than "willing to help
    the little ladies," though! (I'm one of those feisty types who'd
    rather lug my own boxes around than ask for help, but that's a personal
    preference of mine.)

    -b

    I think it is unfortunate that people sometimes feel it is necessary to
    translate statistical differences between groups, which are usually
    overlapping among the members of those groups anyway, into some kind of
    iron-clad rule.  Men, in general, have more of a certain kind of brute
    strength than women do. So what?  To cite the earlier example of the
    Boston Marathon, I could not even *finish* the race, let alone defeat a
    female marathoner.  In most types of races, from the shortest ones to
    the marathons, the best female times and the best male times are very
    close; and both of these winning times are much better than I will ever
    do. 
    
    If it is wrong to treat all people the same way (and I believe it is),
    then it is also wrong to treat all people within a category (such as
    gender) the same way simply because there exist statistical differences
    between members of the various categories.  Why not judge people as
    individuals? 
    
    -- Mike    

    RE:-1  I would hope that on a one to one basis, all (being realistic
    let's say most) people would treat one another on an individual
    basis.  When you are talking about about a certain gender of people
    it is impossible not to stereotype no matter how fair or unfair
    it is.  While I agree that there is overlapping in just about
    everything when it comes to genders, these overlappings tend to
    be exceptions rather than the rule.  There is nothing wrong with
    being one of these exceptions, however, they might find the alot
    of times when rules are made for the masses, they get overlooked.
    You strive for the best for everyone, unfortunately this can't be
    accomplished much of the time so you try to do what's best for the
    most.  I hope I've made my thoughts clear as to why I feel it is
    necessary to make translate statistical differences between groups
    (in this case gender).
    
                                                     Mike

    re: .32
    
         Impossible is a very strong word, why is it impossible not
    to stereotype when talking about a certain gender.  To bring the
    female ambulance situation back, saying that women don't have the
    strength to be ambulance attendants is a stereotype.  Saying that
    90% of the female applicants fail to meet the strength requirements
    isn't using a stereotype.
    
    ASP

    RE:-1  In that situation (as I said before) it should be done on
    a one on one basis.  I'm talking about when you are having a discussion
    about a gender as a whole as we are here.  Yes, there are exceptions
    to every rule, however, when you are discussing the whole gender,
    whether it be male or female, there are steroetypes.  I commend
    the person who has never made a stereotype about the opposite sex.
    I wonder if that person is out there.  If they are, I suggest that
    maybe they either have a very short memory or a very selective memory.
    
    
    1) With regards to the ambulance attendants.  Should we take the
    chance of someone not getting medical attention in time because of 
    the 10% of the women who could lift the 250 lb person?  
                                      

    re:28
    Your right, she wasn't able to lift the patient because she was
    a woman, she just wasn't strong enough. She was hired for the 
    job because she was a woman. The private ambulance companies have
    to meet affrimative action quota's in order to get the contracts
    from the city, which causes the true discrimination I'm talking
    about. How do you think the patients family felt towards that
    person and the ambulance company for hiring her ? How do you think
    she might of felt.
    I talked to the fire chief in the town I live in now, about physical 
    requirements for firefighters. He said that there are a number of
    requirements, and one included carrying a 125lb dummy down a ladder.
    Being that we have a woman on the volunteer department, I would assume
    she passed the test. Good for her. My point is as someone mentioned,
    that people be treated as individuals, and that is why we have a
    womens and mens class in the Boston Marathon. 
    The feminist movement has gone from the individual, to the masses of
    women, and that has resulted in unfairness towards the individual.
 
    
    re:someone else, (I'm to lazy to look).
    
    Yes I couldn't run the first two miles of the Boston Marathon, but 
    I'm not a world class runner, so don't compare me to the woman who are
    world class runners. If comparisons must be done, compare them to
    their male counterparts. 200 men crossed the finish line before
    the first women did. The first place man crossed some 18 minutes before
    the first woman. It dosen't take away the amazing time the women
    put in, but eliminate their class and have them run against the
    men. Wouldn't that be unfair?  Especially with the prize money going
    to only the first three places, I don't think the women would like
    it and neither would most people.

    Jim

    Re: Someone earlier.
    
    You want us all to go back to the farm?  Is that what I heard? In terms
    of equality, I couldn't think of a better place for that to happen.
    Because of the nature of the work to be done, men's and women's roles
    would be very clearly defined.  The men doing the heavy work out
    in the fields and in the barns while the women are doing the lighter
    but endless work in and around the house.  In terms of survival,
    you are engaging in wishful thinking.
    
    Mike

> ......................................................... A peculiarity
>of the farming lifestyle is that men and women functioned as an isolated,
>economically dependent unit.  Marriage was  "till  death  do us part" for
>the simple reason that neither partner could pick up half of the property
>and march off to town.

I doubt very much that men and woman stayed together for this "simple
reason".  Is it so difficult to accept the fact that MANY, MANY couples
have stayed together "till death do us part" because they WANTED TO?

> ................................. A man is  going to think a lot harder
>about  leaving a woman who picks his vegetables than leaving a woman  who
>is  the  vice president of Citibank, because she can fend for herself and
>vice versa.  Indeed  around  the  globe,  wherever women are economically
>powerful, divorce rates are high.  

If he's going to leave her, it won't matter if she picks cabbages in a
field or counts cabbage in a bank.  Also, I'm glad to hear that divorce rates
are highest "wherever women are economically powerful".  Great news.  I'll be
sure to tell my daughters that they will NEED money=power so they can walk
out on any relationship when they so desire.  I mean, relationships are to
be taken lightly, aren't they, here in the "Ailing Eighties"?

The entire article reeks of over-simplistic, male-bashing, tear-apart-the-
central-family views - Let's Get Back To Our Roots - all for the "Betterment
of Society".

Rubbish.

Kip

    I didn't want to start another note so I felt that this was as good
    a place as any.
    
    As we all know dear Abby is somewhat "biased".  Wether or not you
    want to think that is your own business.  The reason I stated this
    is because the other day i noticed an article that...well....didnt
    show her "true colors".
    
    This, of course, is copied without permission but what the heck.
    
    Men, Women locked in the prison of stereotypes.
    
    Equality Day
    
      For every woman who is tired of acting weak when she is strong,
    there is a man who is tired of appearing strong when he feels
    vulnerable;
      
      For every woman who is tored of acting dumb, there is a man who
    is burdened with the constant expectation of knowing everything;
    
      For every woman who is tired of being called an "emotional female,"
    there is a man who is denied the right to weep and to be gentle;
    
      For every woman who is called unfeminine when she competes, there
    is a man for whom competition is the only way to prove his masculinity;
    
      For every woman who is tired  of being a sex object, there is
    a man who must worry about his potency;
    
      For every woman who feels "tied down" by her children, there is
    a man who is denied the full pleasure of shared parenthood;
    
      For every woman who is denied meaningfull employment or equal
    pay, there is a man who must bear full financial responsibility
    for another human being;
      
      For every woman who was not taught the intracacies of an automobile,
    there is a man who weas not taught the satisfactions of cooking;
    
      For every woman who takes steps toward her own liberation, there
    is a man who finds the way to freedom has been made a little easier.
    
    
    Personally, I could add a couple of others to this but what would
    it prove?  You get the picture, dont you?
    
    When Mel read this, she thought that it should be presented in a
    spacific file.  I will not enter it there, for I feel that it is
    better placed here.
    
    Take it for what you feel its worth is......
    
                                         Melissa and Al Martin