Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    	My guess is that the button was introduced as a means of
    	getting their event mentioned in the paper.
    
    	As it was, they only got two tiny paragraphs (even with the
    	'nifty slogan.')  
    
    	Sounds to me like they knew what they were up against.
    
    	There's a WORSE one that I know about (that ought to worry folks.)
    
    	"Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" had an entire MOVIE built around
    	it.  I'd be much more concerned about that one, if I were a
    	man.
    
    	It's probably even on VIDEOTAPE by now.  (Oh my God.)  This
    	one could really catch on, if people aren't careful!  :-}

    RE: .2
    
    Suzanne,
    
    So if they used this button to get their event mentioned in the
    paper, then "the end justifies the means" ?
    
    
    

    	RE:   .3
    
    	Well, I guess I fail to see what is so horrible about the
    	"means" that it needs to be justified.
    
    	Yes, the button is in extremely poor taste, in my book.  However,
    	I've seen bumper stickers in much WORSE taste (yet I've never
    	seen them brought up as some kind of serious issue.)
    
    	Buttons and bumper stickers are pretty much the same thing.
    	The ones that are in poor taste are MADE that way to attract
    	attention of some sort.  They aren't meant to be taken seriously.
    
    	If you want to start making deadly serious issues out of buttons,
    	then I have a whole bunch of buttons/bumper_stickers that I
   	can put you to work protesting.
    
    	You can start with "Support mental health or I'll kill you."
    	How's THAT for an actual death threat?  (Another one:  "I speed 
    	up to run over small animals" for those who advocate animals
    	rights.)
    
    	There are quite a few that make VERY derogatory remarks about
    	both women AND men.  Shall we get into a serious discussion
    	about those, too?
    
    	Or is this note just another excuse to bash feminists?

    Suzanne,
    
    Obviously, you are a reasoning individual who doesn't take such
    "bumper sticker" statements at face value.
    
    But, I'm afraid we're entering an age in which sloganeering is
    replacing well-reasoned arguments. Part of this can be blamed on
    advertising, I think, in which the constraints on time and space
    necessitate brevity.
    
    WHat do many people remember from a very serious issue, namely,
    this presidential campaign? "Read my lips. No new taxes." It frightens
    me to think how many people are swayed by nifty slogans. 
    
    What do you think? 

    	RE:  .5
    
    	Wes, let me put it to you this way:
    
    	If a group paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for TV time
    	to promote the slogan "Dead Men Don't Whine," I would take it
    	as a serious issue.
    
    	Even if I got literature, and a slogan like that was in the
    	letterhead, I'd be shaken up.
    
    	As a button (or a bumper sticker, or a T-shirt) -- it's just
    	very difficult to consider nasty slogans on those items as anything
    	but questionable (to poor) taste.

    	I'm not into wearing buttons like that, so I can't speak for the
    	people who *do* wear them.  All I can tell you is that it has
    	nothing (really) to do with the feminist movement as a whole.

    Yes, buttons and bumper stickers normally should not be taken
    seriously.  A button with a derrogatory slogan bought at a five
    and dime counter reflects poorly on the individual wearer.  However,
    when such an item appears to be sanctioned by a specific group (as
    in distributed/made available), it reflects on that organization.
    Wearers of a button reading "A Woman's Place is in the Mall" may
    offend, but it is the individual wearer who is accountable.  A button
    stating "Dead Men Don't Whine" that is distributed by a feminist
    organization reflects on that organization, just as a political
    sticker reflects the party distributing it.  Therein lies the problem.

    	RE:  .8
    
    	Such buttons may (possibly) reflect on the PART of the organization
	that sponsored the individual function (which, in this case,
    	was the group in Canada) or it may just reflect on the person(s)
    	who made the buttons available for sale there that day.
    
    	In no way does it reflect on women who DO NOT WEAR such buttons
    	(nor sell them, nor make them available in any way) even though
    	they are feminists.
    
    	If you think that it DOES, then that conviction reflects badly
    	on you.
    

    	RE:  .10
    
    	Well, Eagles, you see someone (hear and now) saying that I
    	do not wear such buttons (nor have I ever even SEEN such a
    	button.)
    
    	So that should be enough for you.  Right?
    

    
    Since I am a man I felt it important to bring up a "saying" by Men
    that isn't very flattering to Women:
    
         "LIFE IS A BI*** THEN I MARRIED ONE"
    
      And yes I have seen that on both buttons and bumper stickers!
    
    Dave
    

    RE:12
    What do you think would happen if a male organization (if there
    were any allowed) distributed a button with that saying on it ?
    
    They would be sued by organizations such as NOW.
    
    Jim

    Re: .12 & .13
    
         Well, to be fair, only wear them at functions which sell the
    ones mentioned in .0.
    
                                      Greg

    	RE:  .13
    
    	That is such an easy claim to make.  
    
    	If NOW had that kind of power/inclination, there wouldn't be
    	so many buttons/t-shirts/bumper_stickers out RIGHT NOW that
    	have even WORSE insults against women on them.
    
    	The double standard that I keep seeing is the one where some
    	men ask women not to judge them by the actions of other men
    	who rape/beat/kill women ... 
    
    	YET -- if one feminist makes a button (or forces a male club
    	to admit women,) then ALL FEMINISTS EVERYWHERE ARE TO BLAME!

         and as a continuation...
    
         Men don't want to be judged by the actions of a few, BUT WE
    STILL ARE.
    
                                       Greg

    In all seriousness folks, it would be in the best interests of
    Americans (and *both* political parties, I might add), if the
    feminist organizations could just get their consciousness's
    together to the point where we don't have to engage in these
    continual conversations (about how men seem to be put down, etc).
    
    Russ

    re:15
    I agree with you except in this case it wasn't one individual, it
    was an organization.
    
    Jim

    Re: .17
    
         That makes sense.  In cases like these, women of more logical
    frames of mind should be joining the men in abhoring such idiotic
    activities.  Likewise, men should join the women in abhoring the
    idiotic activities of some men.  Otherwise, this will go on forever.
    
                                    Greg

    	RE:  .16
    
    	Actually, Greg, the sad thing is that all men are *not*
    	judged by all/most women for the actions of the relative
    	few.
    
    	Some men only *think* they are because they *already* judge
    	all women/feminists on the actions of the few (and assume
    	that women are doing the same thing to them.)

    	If you don't believe me, ask yourself why YOU wrote your
    	note (about men being judged) as a blanket statement about
    	what happens to all men (with *no allowance* for those of us
    	who definitely do NOT judge all men by the few -- as if such
    	women don't even exist) while *I* *did* specificy that I was only
    	referring to *SOME* men (who judge women by the few.)
    
    	Obviously, I *am* aware that not all men perform the actions
    	that I dislike in the few.  You do NOT seem to be aware that
    	you cannot make blanket statements that apply to all feminists,
    	though.
    
    	Or, ARE you aware of that?  I'd really like to know.

    	RE:  .19
    
    	Ok, Greg, you jumped in before me and showed that you DO know
    	that not all feminists can be described in blanket statements.
	(At least that is what I *think* you were implying.)  :-)
    
    	How would you suggest that some feminists and some men get
    	together?
    

    	RE:  .20
    
        I replaced the genders in your note, and it is still completely
        false and illogical, but here it is:
    
                                ----------------
    
    	Actually, Suzanne, the sad thing is that all women are *not*
    	judged by all/most men for the actions of the relative
    	few.
    
    	Some women only *think* they are because they *already* judge
    	all men/masculists on the actions of the few (and assume
    	that men are doing the same thing to them.)

    	If you don't believe me, ask yourself why YOU wrote your
    	note (about women being judged) as a blanket statement about
    	what happens to all women (with *no allowance* for those of us
    	who definitely do NOT judge all women by the few -- as if such
    	men don't even exist) while *I* *did* specificy that I was only
    	referring to *SOME* women (who judge men by the few.)
    
    	Obviously, I *am* aware that not all women perform the actions
    	that I dislike in the few.  You do NOT seem to be aware that
    	you cannot make blanket statements that apply to all masculists,
    	though.
    
    	Or, ARE you aware of that?  I'd really like to know.

    re .21  "...not all feminists can be described in blanket statements."
    
            A few days ago "over there", all men were, and where were
            you to defend our interests?
    
            Russ

    	RE:  .22
    
    	Greg, I'm sorry if you didn't see the logic in my note --
    	hey, I have a Bachelors Degree in Logic, not in English, after all
    	-- but what it boils down to is that some men are completely
    	incapable of hearing statements *from* feminists without
    	assuming that they are judging all men by the few (no matter
    	how many times women specifically STATE that they are talking
    	about some men.)
    
    	Must be a mental block of some kind.  :-)  
    
    	At the same time, *I* am able to see that NOT ALL MEN have
    	this mental block!  There are some men who KNOW that we do
    	not judge all men by the few (and those men often try to help us
    	to explain it to the some men who have the mental blocks.)
    	But to no avail.
    
    	Your switching the words around does not account for the
    	fact that it is STILL ME who is saying that I *know* that
    	it's only *some* men who judge all feminists as the same.
    
    	I'm still waiting for you to state (explicitly) that you
    	*understand* that all feminists cannot be lumped into the
    	same categories (based on what small numbers of feminists
    	might do.)
    
    	Next, I'd like to ask you if it is possible for you to
    	BELIEVE a woman when she says, "I do not judge all men
    	based on the few!" (and has evidence to support it!)

    RE: .4, .6, .9, .11, .15, .20
    
    I see a lot of hostility here, with accusations flying everywhere.
    Didn't the base note say that this ONE particular organization had
    distributed the button?  I don't recall seeing ALL FEMINISTS being
    labeled as supporters of this statement.  Yet you seem to jump at
    that interpretation right off the bat.  You must have pretty strong
    shoulders to carry that chip around.  
    

         A policy I think is wise is:
    
         People should support women's sexism struggles up to the point 
    where THEY become sexist.
    
         People should support racial minorities' racism struggles up
    to the point where THEY become racist.
    
                                     Greg 

    Re: .24
    
         I would like to know what kind of evidence you were referring
    to in your last paragraph.  Also, I think you know very well exactly
    how I consider women.
    
                                    Greg

    	RE:  .26
    
    	Ok, Greg, I'll buy that.
    
    	However, what if the strategy (of the group that one is struggling
    	against) is to call you "sexist" and/or "racist" before you
    	ever make it even CLOSE to equality?
    
    	What if they call you racist simply because you got closer to
    	equality than they WANTED you to get?
    
    	Would you believe that you are not being racist because you KNOW
    	you aren't being racist (or should you accept what the group above
    	you is telling you in order not to SEEM racist by disagreeing
    	with them?)

    	Not an easy question, is it?

    Re: .28
    
         The policy I stated was for each individual to apply to
    themselves.  There is no way to control the actions of others.
    
                                   Greg

    	RE: .29
    
    	Ok, I'll buy that, too.
    
    	So, as one moves FORWARD in the struggle for racial or sexual
    	equality -- since one cannot control the actions of others 
    	(and one has only one's own heart to search for the truth about 
    	whether or not one's pursuit of equality has since become
    	racist/sexist,) -- then it would seem that one should ignore 
    	and/or not_believe those who try to convince one that one's 
    	actions have INDEED become racist/sexist when one knows full
    	well that they have not.
    
    	Right?

    RE: .30
    
         I received a mail message calling me sexist.  I think that
    such things deserve consideration.  I thought it over.  I considered
    my motivations and style of delivery which was called sexist.  Realized
    that there were a couple of things which could be mis-interpreted,
    and altered them a bit.  Other than that, the person had no
    justification for the claim and I dismissed it as foolishness. I
    think that was an acceptable method of handling things.
    
                                     Greg

    	RE:  .31  [Perry who?] :-)
    
    	Greg, you sorta missed the point I was trying to make.  (Musta
    	been all those "ones" instead of saying "you" or "me.")
    
    	What if someone called you racist for believing in the civil
    	rights movement (because they said they could show you a group in
    	the movement that said offenseive things about whites)?
    
    	What if you did some research and discovered that the "offensive"
    	things were taken out of context (so that their meaning had
    	become twisted into something else)?  What if some of their
    	OTHER messages were still important to the movement (but
    	outside pressures were trying to discredit the whole movement
    	based on a few distorted facts about this group, or even some
    	other group, perhaps, that you didn't know personally.)
    
    	Would you let someone convince you that you were "racist" for
    	still believing in your cause ANYWAY (despite the persistent
    	negative campaign that had been launched against other factions
    	of the movement?)  Would you disavow any connection at all with
    	the entire movement (assuming that you were quite active in
    	it) simply because other people would blame you for the actions
    	of others (and would pass on the slurs against those others
    	to you?)
    
    	If the negative campaign against the movement got so good that
    	you were literally *bombarded* (at times) with accusations of
    	being racist, would you let them drive you away from what you
    	knew to be right?
    
    	Or would you stick to your own beliefs (knowing in your heart
    	that you were doing what you sincerely believed to be right?)
    
    	I'm suggesting this strictly from the point of view of an alleged
    	minority here!  Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

    Re: .32
    
         People have to have confidence in their points of view, but
    not so much that they hold them impervious to logical opposition.
    I have that confidence in my views.  My views HAVE changed since
    I entered notes because there is such a vast array of intelligent
    discourse.  However, they have mainly stayed intact.
    
         I could not desert the people who shared my views unless I
    had SOLID evidence that made those views unworkable.  Calling me
    a racist or sexist is not sufficient to do that.  If someone could
    prove to me with SOLID evidence that I was something despicable,
    I think it would send me into an endless loop.  That is a situation
    of which I could not predict the results.  
    
                                     Greg

     RE:32
    You use the phrase "what if" allot. "What if" is an illusion, it
    dosent exist. The original note of the buttons "dead men don't
    whine" being sold at a feminist convention is not an illusion, 
    but reality. It happened. 
    
    Jim

>   5. What would happen if the gender's were reversed? Say it was a 
>      convention for men and an equally insuilting button about women was 
>      available?
>
>
>    Arpad


I thought about this last one a while.  I think that it is really 
important for strate, white men to understand that it is not an 
"equal" comparrison to turn the tables on a minority.  The reason why 
I do not feel this is fair is because the "power" quotient is not 
being considered.  That button is anger (justifiable, in my opinion), 
and is an attempt to gain power from the people who are not giving any
power up.  If a man were to wear a button that said the same thing
about women, that would be a person in power maintaining the
oppression that keeps him in power.  The dynamics are very, very
different, and I think that should be taken into account.  One group
(women) is struggling against oppression--conscious or not--from
another group (men), and that other group is struggling to maintain
that oppression and that power.  To "support" a button like that 
is akin to rooting for the underdog.

To go on record: I consider myself to be a feminist, and I don't like 
that button.  I don't think that it accomplishes anything accept 
polarization.  However, I think that I would ask from nonfeminists 
that, even if they disagree with the method chosen by the activist, 
that they consider the anger behind the action.  That anger is real 
and it's justified.  Men can continue to ignore and pick apart the 
actions of feminists, but I think that it would be wise to recognize 
the kind of anger that is going on behind a button like that, and what 
that anger might lead to if it isn't taken care of.

A lot of women are very pissed about living in a society like this 
(and gay men and lesbians and bisexuals and Blacks and Hispanics and 
anyone who doesn't fit the almight white, het, able-bodied, young, 
Protestant male), and I think that we would all be better off if we 
could accept the anger that minorities and have and then work to get a 
better understanding of how to dissipate that anger in more 
constructive ways.  

Hey, if women were making rapid enough progress, they wouldn't feel 
the need to resort to "cheap shots" like that button.  Pass the ERA 
and see how many buttons like that you'd see.

There are good reasons for that anger.


						--Gerry

    re .35  "I consider myself to be a feminist..."
    
             Do you accept the stated positions on issues by
             Friedan, Millett, Greer, and Steinem?
    
             Yes or no.
    
                                                  Russ P.

    Maybe the political parties should print up buttons and hand them
    out to their delegates:
    "Dead Democrats/Republicans don't vote!"
    
    Of course if either party was in the minority...

    Archaeologists in Greece have just uncovered this recent dialogue that
    Plato himself wrote!  The dialogue is between Socrates and Vaxnoteo:

        Vaxnoteo:  Dear Socrates, can you settle a dispute between me
        and one of my fellow VAXnoters, Personalnameo?
        
        Socrates:  Dear Vaxnoteo, I am hardly wise enough to settle
        any disputes between such intelligent men as you.
        
        Vaxnoteo:  You are too humble, Socrates.  Please, have some more
	wine, and we will discuss the issue that is on my mind.

	Socrates:  Very well, Vaxnoteo.  Anything for an old friend.

        Vaxnoteo:  The problem that concerns me is whether or not certain
        acts are legitimate in the name of anger.  Consider the button that
        I saw some slaves in Athens passing out the other day.  They said
        "Dead Slave-owners don't whine."  I feel that such a button is
        acceptable because it is the legitimate expression of anger by an
        oppressed group.  I think that we should excuse excesses by such
        groups.  My friend, however, was most offended by the button.  How
	do you feel about this, Socrates?  If the anger is legitimate, does
	it follow that these buttons are acceptable?

        Socrates:  That is a difficult question indeed.  Let me answer your
        question with a more general question.  Assuming that someone's
        anger is legitimate, does it therefore follow that *any* possible
        expression of that anger is legitimate?

	Vaxnoteo:  I would say so.

        Socrates:  Well, then, consider an extreme example.  Today, Joe
        Feezlewax is fired by his incompetent boss over some trivial matter.
        He discovers that his wife has been cheating on him, and now she
        wants a divorce.  Someone who wasn't paying attention hits his
        chariot from behind.  Would you say that Joe Feezlewax has a
	legitimate reason for being angry?

	Vaxnoteo:  Of course.

        Socrates:  Suppose he is so angry over these events that he goes out
        onto the market and starts shooting arrows at people, totally at
        random.  Do we excuse this behavior by saying that Mr. Feezlewax has
        a legitimate reason for being angry? 

        Vaxnoteo:  Well, in that case I would say not.  But that is an
        extreme example, Socrates.  You cannot compare shooting someone with
        the mere wearing of a button.  Not only that, but who ever heard of
        an Ancient Greek with a name like Joe Feezlewax? 

        Socrates:  You are, of course, correct Vaxnoteo.  But does our
        example not prove, then, that legitimate anger _per se_ does not
        justify all conceivable actions committed as an expression of that
        anger? 

	Vaxnoteo:  I suppose not.

	Socrates:  So why is shooting someone in the name of anger wrong,
	but wearing an offensive button not wrong?

	Vaxnoteo:  Because one is a violent act, and the other is merely an
	offensive expression of legitimate anger.

	Socrates:  It is, offensive, then?

	Vaxnoteo:  Yes, it is offensive, but it is excusable.

	Socrates:  So offensive acts are excusable by anger, but violent
	acts are inexcusable in all cases.

	Vaxnoteo:  Exactly.

        Socrates:  All right, then.  Now consider the following example.
        You visit your friend Joe Feezlewax, to ask him if he'll accompany
        you to town to worship the gods, and he snaps at you and pushes you
        away from his door.  What would your reaction be, assuming that you
        know all that has happened to him today. 

	Vaxnoteo:  Well, I would understand how he felt.  And you still
	haven't explained to me how an Ancient Greek could have a name like
	Joe Feezlewax.

	Socrates:  You would understand how he felt, but would you not also
	be annoyed at what he had done to you?

	Vaxnoteo:  Of course.

	Socrates:  And would you like an apology from him later?

	Vaxnoteo:  Yes, I would feel that he owes me an apology.
        
        Socrates:  Do people normally apologize for something if they have
        done nothing wrong? 

	Vaxnoteo:  I would say not.

        Socrates:  Then we agree that, while Joe's actions were
        understandable, he still did something wrong. 

	Vaxnoteo:  I suppose so.  But once he apologizes, I forgive
        him.

        Socrates:  When someone apologizes, and you accept the apology,
        does it not mean that both of you agree that the person did
        something wrong?
        
        Vaxnoteo:  I would say so.
        
        Socrates:  Does your acceptance of his apology mean that your
        initial anger or resentment at his behavior was wrong?
        
        Vaxnoteo:  No, of course not.
        
	Socrates:  So you would forgive him, you would understand why he did
	it, but you would still recognize that he did something wrong.

	Vaxnoteo:  I am afraid that you are correct.
    
        Socrates:  So a behavior that is otherwise wrong is not made right
        by anger; although the degree of the offense may be minor and
        potentially forgivable, it is still wrong. 

	Vaxnoteo:  Correct.

	Socrates:  So all of us are responsible for our actions, regardless
	of extenuating circumstances.  But the price of that responsibility
        depends on the degree of the offense.

	Vaxnoteo:  I am afraid you have proved your wisdom once again,
	Socrates.  Have some more wine.  Let us discuss another subject,
	such as the nature of the Ideal State.

	Socrates:  Thank you, dear Vaxnoteo, but I...

		[fragment is broken off here]

    -- Mike

    	RE:  .34
    
    	>  "What if" is an illusion, it dosent exist.
    
    	Not true.  The "what ifs" in my note to Greg about racism were
    	meant as a direct parallel to events that REALLY DO HAPPEN
    	(on a fairly regular basis) to feminists.  
    
    	>  The original note of the buttons "dead men don't whine"
    	>  being sold at a feminist convention is not an illusion,
    	>  but reality. It happened.
    
    	Those women got together to fight against the REALITY of
    	OPPRESSION (which really happens, too.)
    
    	As I said earlier, I don't support the wearing or selling of
    	such buttons.  However, I *also* don't consider the buttons to be
    	such a significant feature of that ONE EVENT (somewhere up in
    	Canada) that feminists *everywhere* should have to take the heat
    	for it from those who seek to discredit the feminist movement
    	as a whole.

    Re: .39
    
    >Those women got together to fight the reality of oppresion.
    
         Now ya see, that is what I oppose in your notes.  You seem
    to be saying that the buttons are justified, even though they are
    aimed at men in general.  Sure you said that you don't support the
    buttons, but you are unwilling to actually condemn what is clearly
    a sexist act.  It wouldn't matter if their goal was world peace,
    their sexism is not justified.
    
         You can say as much as you want about how insignificant the buttons
    are, but the fact is that the image of the true feelings of those
    who wear them (or defend them) is permanently attached to the slogan
    on the buttons.   I don't think that creating ill-will is in the
    better interest of any oppressed group.
    
                                        Greg  

      Why are these buttons seen as espousing the views of the organization
    which sponsored the conference?  If this was anything like conferences
    I've been to, it very well could have been (and probably was) some
    business person who thought that some women who would think they are
    "cute" simply because they are extreme and be willing to pay $$$ for
    them. 
    
      I could open up a button stand and have that, and much worse, buttons
    for sale at some computer convention.  I can't imagine people thinking
    that the views printed on the buttons were those of the computer
    community.
    
      After seeing some of the buttons you can buy in Greenwich Village in
    N.Y.C. I have a hard time getting shocked/perturbed by buttons or
    bumper stickers anymore.  I'd view these buttons ("dead men don't
    whine") the same way some people view pornography (agggg, not that
    topic! :^)
    
    Jim

    One note I read reminded me of a true story...
    
    I knew of a person once, that came into an office area spouting
    that they had a "such & such" degree in psychology, as if to say,
    "I understand the mind, how it works, and can thereby discredit
    anything you might say, and 'logic' you lay claim to..."
    
    That person was well known and tagged as an educated idiot and the
    joke of the department.
    
    Just thought I'd share that story.... 
    Dwight

	RE:  .40
    
    	>>Those women got together to fight the reality of oppresion.
    
        > Now ya see, that is what I oppose in your notes.  You seem
    	> to be saying that the buttons are justified, even though they are
    	> aimed at men in general. 
    
    	How did you get all that from my statement that the women had a
    	justifiable reason for merely GATHERING TOGETHER?  Are you trying
    	to say that they were wrong to even GATHER for a just cause
    	if the possibility existed that buttons_against_men might be
    	present as well (even though most of the women who attended
    	the conference might not have even KNOWN that the buttons would
    	be there?)
    
    	Greg, if I tell you that I do not support the buttons, why do
    	you insist that I *am* supporting the buttons?  Are you trying
    	to tell me that you are a better judge (than I am) about what
    	it is I am *really* thinking and feeling (no matter what I say?)
    
     	> Sure you said that you don't support the
    	> buttons, but you are unwilling to actually condemn what is clearly
    	> a sexist act.  It wouldn't matter if their goal was world peace,
    	> their sexism is not justified.
    
    	Well, if I were to attend a conference on world peace and I
    	saw some person commit an act that was rather non-peaceful, I
    	wouldn't scrap my whole participation in the worthwhile cause
    	because of one small incident that bothered me.  I would
    	consider such an over-reaction on my part as being highly 
    	self-indulgent (and just plain silly.)
    
    	I have told you a number of times already that I do *not* support
    	buttons that say "dead men don't whine" (as being in poor taste,)
    	but I do not share your conviction that the buttons are "clearly
    	sexist."  Without knowing specific persons who would produce, 
    	sell, or wear such a button, I'm not in a position to judge what 
    	the meaning/intent of the slogan really is.  Unfortunately, I don't
    	happen to have any built-in prejudices against these people
    	that I can use to PRE-JUDGE THEM ALL (as to what their true
    	opinions and feelings are) without ever having met them.
    
    	Nor do I have such pre-set ideas about what they think that
    	I would be willing to completely disregard everything they
    	might say to me as not being what they REALLY meant (and how
    	they REALLY feel.)  I happen to think that they know their
    	*OWN* ideas and feelings better than I know them.  Novel idea,
    	I know.
    
        > You can say as much as you want about how insignificant the buttons
    	> are, but the fact is that the image of the true feelings of those
    	> who wear them (or defend them) is permanently attached to the slogan
    	> on the buttons. 
    
    	When did you make this break-through in the field of psychoanalysis?
    	Can you honestly tell what a person TRULY thinks and feels by one 
    	four-word button (whether the person actually WEARS the button 
    	herself or merely refuses to condemn total strangers for allegedly 
    	selling the buttons somewhere in Canada?)  If so, I'm impressed.
    
    	> I don't think that creating ill-will is in the
    	> better interest of any oppressed group.
    
    	Well, I notice that SOME members of the oppressive group don't seem
    	very concerned about creating ill-will with the *oppressed* group.
    	But then, why should they?  They already have power over the other 
    	group (and there isn't a reason in the world why SOME of them should
    	be generous with that other group unless the group does something to
    	make some members of the oppressive group feel they deserve it.)
    
    	Those members can *afford* to condemn people for a simple
    	tasteless button (letting the oppressed sweat it out as to how
    	they are going to overcome their oppression without accidently 
    	offending those members in some NEW way with an insignificant act 
    	that could easily be blown up into some kind of major issue.)
    
    	And you wonder why a group like that would come to resent SOME
    	MEN enough to wear a button that insults them...  :-)
    
    	Well, as a member of the oppressive group, it's not important
    	for you to understand it (or to empathize with people who might
    	be driven to feel this way about their oppression.)
    
    	You have the easy job when it comes to issues involving sexism.
    	You can just sit back and arbitrarily condemn those who are
    	doing the struggling (leaving the attempts at understanding
    	and empathy to those MANY MEN, thank heavens, who DO care.)

    RE: .38
    
    A fine bit of whimsy there, sir.
    
    Tell me, did the archaeologists discover, along with this long-lost
    dialogue, any buttons that read, "Live Spartans Don't Whine!"?
    

    Re: .43
    
         Doggone it Suzanne.  Don't start up with the verbose replies.
    Most of us don't have time for that.
    
         If you would READ what I said, I SAID that I realize that you
    SAID that you don't support the buttons.  However, you keep offering
    excuses for those who wear them.  That reminds me of the time that
    Ronald Reagan was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan in 1980.  All he
    said about it was "I don't support the views of the Ku Klux Klan".
    That came across as "I really do support them, but I must make this
    politically necessary denial".  
    
         Quite frankly, if you find no problem with the buttons, and
    are willing to make excuses for those who purvey such sexism, the
    discussion can come to an end.  I have nothing left to assert.
    
                                   Greg

    	RE:  .45
    
    	Greg, I wasn't making excuses for the folks up in Canada.
    
    	I was addressing the fact that you took my words and told me
    	what I *really* meant when I said them (which is, of course,
    	what you've done again.)
    
    	Well, I have nothing left to say to you on this either (since
    	you have obviously been trying to show me that your condemnation 
    	of these folks was based on assumptions you made because of your
    	predeterminations about them, and that you think it is FAR easier to
    	make judgments about total strangers from your own pre-set
    	ideas than it is to take the time to find out the real truth
    	about human situations by *listening* to people and then actually
    	*believing* what they say to you.)

    	Understanding and empathizing are (admittedly) much more difficult.

    RE: women/feminists- All women are not feminists.  The fact is that
    MOST women are not feminists.  My wife (and most of the women I
    know) would hate to be called a feminist.
    
    The buttons don't bother me because they were obviously "tongue in
    cheek" propaganda.  I can laugh at something like that because I
    know it is not meant to be taken literally.  (I once saw a girl
    who had a bumper sticker on her car that said, "Life's a bitch and
    so am I")
    
    Another thing that has really bothered me about this note is the
    "oppressor and oppressee" terminology.  Women with the same education
    and the same job experience as men get paid $1.01 for every $1.01
    that the man makes.  I do not know very many men who are trying
    to oppress anyone.  They are busy trying to make a go of it for
    them and their families.  I get real tired of hearing how men are
    trying to oppress women.
    
    Last one: THe feminist issue is not the race issue.  I, for one
    take different stances on each and they are not parallel.
    
    The real last one: The one thing about the feminist movement that
    I don't understand is that the women in this movement want their cake 
    and eat it too.  They want the choice to be able to stay home and
    raise a family or to go to work and earn a living.  Whereas I can
    understand this I can't help but wonder about where the men's choices
    are.  
    
    Mike 

    
    
    What is the definition of a feminist?
    
    In what ways are women oppressed by men?
    
    
    Deb
    
    

    Re: .49
    
         I'd like to know the answer to that first question myself.
    I tend to refrain from calling myself one, because the most visible
    examples of people who call themselves feminists seem to be supportive
    of views which call for female-superiority rather than gender equality.
    I can say, quite freely, that I support any and all women's struggles
    for equality.
    
         As for the second question, SOME women are treated badly by
    SOME men.  Of course, to a lesser degree, SOME men are treated badly
    by SOME women.
    
                                      Greg

    	RE:  .47
    
    	Mike, you overlooked the fact that I did NOT use the terms
    	women and feminists synonymously (for the very reason that
    	not all women are feminists.)
    
    	Unfortunately, thanks to the negative campaign about feminism
    	that I have alluded to in this note, there are a TREMENDOUS
    	NUMBER of WOMEN who believe in all the same things I believe
    	in (as a feminist) but who would rather be boiled in oil
    	than call themselves by that name (because of the negative
    	connotations that have been given to it.)
    
    	To be honest, I was one of those women (who believed in equal
    	rights but STRONGLY RESISTED being called a feminist) until
    	about a year ago.
    
    	In regards to your comment about women "wanting to have their
    	cake and eat it, too" (by having the choice to either stay
    	home or work) -- NOT ALL WOMEN have that choice!
    
    	The part you are missing is the fact that we have traditionally
	been stuck in ONE ROLE (which has been "at home.")  Where the
    	CHOICE part comes in is in saying that we want the opportunity
    	to work *outside* the home, too.
    
    	There are still enough men who *want* their wives to stay at
    	home (and they keep finding women who are happy *staying* at
    	home) that it appears the 'at home' choice will be with
    	us for as long as couples keep finding it economically feasible.
    
    	The rest of us will work (some of us will have to do it whether
    	we want to or not.)
    
    	So where does the "having your cake and eating it" part come
    	in?  Simple.  It doesn't.

    	What are men's choices now?  Well, for one thing, men can have
    	the kind of wife who stays home (or the kind of wife who can
    	bring in enough of an income to SIGNIFICANTLY affect the family's
	financial well-being.)  I call that a choice!
    
    	I've known men who wouldn't CONSIDER having a wife who worked,
    	and I've known men who wouldn't consider one who didn't.
    
    	There are advantages and disadvantages to both, evidently. 
    	It isn't only WOMEN who benefit from having more work opportunities.

    Gee, and all this time I thought it was the female side of
    the human species who were more apt at whining.

    
    
    Suzanne, I think you missed the obvious answer to Mike's
    question (re: women have a choice of working full time
    or of being a full-time homemaker.  What choices do men
    have?)
    
    Mike, men have a choice of working full-time or of being
    a full-time homemaker.
    
    Deborah                                     
    
    
    
    

    I don't think you have to worry about these feminist terrorists.
    I don't mean to offend the feminists either but that type of fanatical
    behavior in any group would bother me.  It is a total turn off and
    I want to know where they can get off making insinuations about
    a man being a better person for being dead.  Bumper stickers and
    buttons that are bought in the stores I believe are to be taken
    in light.  The reason for these women passing out these buttons
    at a convention are more dramatic.  It all sounds very callous and
    unappealing to me for any women to be so spiteful whether she is
    a feminist or not.  Dead women don't wine either.
    
    
    Katrina

    Deborah,
    
    That's bull and you know it.  The majority of men have been out
    working full time to provide financially for their families for 
    hundreds of years now, whether it was on the farm or another type
    of business.  Women have worked hundreds of years to sustain their
    families in different ways.  Both jobs are equally as important.
    The men are not trying to change the traditions and alot of women
    aren't either.
    
    Mike

    Re: .55
    
         Are you suggesting that it be made illegal for women to work
    out side the home?
    
                                   Greg

    
    
    Mike, you may consider my reply 'bull'.  That's your opinion.
    
    You stated that women have the option of staying home with their
    families, or working full time.  Then you asked what choices men
    have.  I simply suggested that men have the same options.
    
    Traditionally, roles HAVE been more clearly define, as you suggested.
    This is not the past.  I am NOT suggesting that supporting a family
    in not important.  Nor am I suggesting that nurturing a family is
    not important.  Furthermore, I am NOT suggesting that women should
    be forced to work (or stay home) or that men should be forced to
    stay home (or to work).  
    
    I am simply stating that each gender has a freer choice in the 
    matter.
    
    Deb
    
    
    

    Seen this one???
    
                         "My X-wife is in the trunk"
    

    
        Can we lighten it up a bit? try this:
    
             Since "dead men don't whine"
                       how about...
                   "dead women don't bitch"
    
    Lord,both terms are just plain bad and really don't effect the question
    one way or the other. All I know is, if I see that particular feminist
    group at a convention you can be sure I will NOT whine! :-)
    
    Dave
    
        

    Mike,
    
    I've asked you this before but never gotten an answer. Why issues
    of discrimination by race and gender different?
    
    Bonnie

    Eagles,
    
    In a previous discussion Mike appeared to say while it was wrong
    to discriminate on racial issues it was not wrong to discriminate
    on gender issues. I asked him why and he has never answered.
    
    Bonnie

         For the large part, the two types of discrimination can be
    considered similar, but there are some distinct differences.  
    
         They are similar in that:
    
    1.  Both experience(d) denial of voting rights.
    2.  Both experience(d) denial of some access to jobs.
    3.  Both experience(d) lesser representation in government.
    4.  Both experience(d) stereotypical derision in the media.
    5.  Both are identifiable on sight (providing for easier discrimination).
    
         Some differences are:
    
    1.  Only women (as a class) experience rape (usually).
    2.  Only Blacks were murdered and lynched on frequent occasions
        simply on the basis of their classification.
    3.  While it may be argued that women experienced a level of slavery,
        it was certainly not of a comparable magnitude, severity or
        brutality.
    
         There are many more differences and similarities, but I'd
    say the two are some 70% similar.  So, for a non-specific discussion,
    they can be considered similar.
    
                                      Greg

    Bonnie,
    
    Sinmply put women are different than men whether they be black or
    white.  There are traits that are inherent to women and traits that
    are inherent to men both physical and mental regardless of color.  
    How these traits are used and accepted are very different among cultures.  
    
    My point is that most families I know (ours included) don't give
    a darn about the feminist movement.  They just do what they have
    to do to pay the bills so as to provide for their families.  Of the 
    working mothers I know, a good majority of them would be home with
    their kids if it was financially feasible.  I think it's quite
    ridiculous to focus on trivial little things such as mens clubs 
    and things of this nature.  There are too many other important 
    things to worry about to waste time on these things.
    
    No Bruno, I'm not saying that we should bar women from the worklplace,
    I think we need to look at the forgotten women, the women who want
    to raise families but can't due to economics.  
    
    Deborah, What I was saying in regards to your note is that men have
    almost never had that choice.  To bring it up like it's an easy
    viable choice is not really fair for the majority of men.  If a
    man was trying to find a person to become his wife and mentioned
    that he wanted to be a househusband I am sure he would not have
    an easy time finding a women to go along with him.  It is interesting
    that since women have found a prominent place in the workforce they
    are not living as long.  
    
    
    Mike

    Re: .64
    
         OK, once we 'look' at those forgotten women, what do we do?
    
                                    Greg

    re:65
    Ask the feminist, they caused the problem.
    
    Jim

    in re .65 Huh????? where do you get this from?
    
    and Mike, I appreciated that who does or does not get into clubs
    is really of very little significance to the average working man
    or woman.
    
    However, feeling that it is okay to bar women from some things
    just because they are physically different from men does spill
    over in to the lives of working women, who are working just to
    make ends meet. Attitudes like that are reasons why adequate
    child care is hard to find, why salaries are lower for jobs
    traditionally given to women, and why women tend to get less
    education.
    
    Bonnie

Mike, would you be kind enough to give some examples of 'inherent
mental traits' that are gender specific?

Could you also explain where I said (in my previous note) that 
choices were easy to make, and easy to implement?

And finally, could you clarify your comment that what I said was
"bull".  Are you suggesting that men do not have the option of
being full-time homemakers, if that is their career choice?  Are
you saying that there is a gender-factor that makes it possible
for women to stay home, but not men?  Does it have to do with
testoterone levels? Perhaps I missed something in high school
biology.

And finally, would someone please define the term "feminist"?
Perhaps those of you who are throwing the word around could explain
what you mean by that word.

Deborah

    re:68
    Well from my prospective:
    Feminist are woman who bitch about being women and blame men for
    because they are.

    Jim

    
    RE: .62 and .66
    
    Bonnie, I've got to ask; how can you ask Mike that question when
    you yourself are a moderator of a conference that discriminates,
    or if that term is too harsh, makes distinctions, based on sex
    only?
    
    P.s I don't mean this in an antagonistic way. 

    
    
    Well, I didn't skip THAT particular biology class, Jim.  If your
    statement is correct, women can rightfully blame men, since it is
    the male who determines the sex of the child.
    
    Deborah
    
    

    in re .70
    
    If you read that conference you will find that one of the issues
    that I am out spoken on is that discrimination is wrong no matter
    who does it.
    
    To me a feminist is a woman who is in favor of choices for women,
    that they should get support for those choices from those who
    are close to her and from society in general. That women should
    be able to hold a job, stay and home with children, go to school,
    etc etc with the same degree of freedom that a man can. That women
    won't be denied opportunities just because of gender.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    Bonnie, are you saying that you do not feel as strongly about
    choices (and support) for men?
    
    Your first paragraph implies that you support freedom of choice
    and equality for both sexes.
    
    But you next statement reads as if you actively support only
    women...
    
    Deb
    
    

    RE:Deborah
   Ok men detremine the sex of the child, but some of us men and women like the
    difference others don't. The ones that don't are feminist.
    
    I'm still in a hateful mood, please don't take me to seriously.
    
    Jim
    

    The second paragrah was a definition of feminist - which term
    specifically relates to women.
    
    Personally I am in favor of freedom of choice and equality for
    both sexes, for all races, for handicaps etc.
    
    Bonnie

    in re .75
    
    Jim,,
    
    I very much like the differences between men and women, I would
    hate to be in a world with no men. You may have felt that was funny
    but it really isn't true.
    
    Bonnie

    re:77
    If you treat all equally you end up discrimnating. 
    If you treat a handicapped person equal to others you end up with 
    the barriers we've been trying to tear down, like stairs.
    I think "respect" should be the adjative used with equality.
    "Equal respect".
    
    Jim

    RE:78
    Must be because SOAPBOX has been down for so long.
    
    Jim

    
    
    Thanks for clarifying that, Bonnie.  I think you and I are very
    similar in our beliefs.  Well, with notable exceptions, most of
    our beliefs!
    
    Deb
    
    

    Equal respect, equal opportunity, equal pay for equal work,
    equal education, equal access to public buildings.....
    
    Bonnie

    I think I have to agree with Eagle.  When I hear feminist, I
    immediately get angry and defensive.  The word has come to mean
    beating on men and only doing that which benefits women.  I have
    said many times that I am in favor of equality.  That does not mean
    helping a woman over a man or vice versa.  That means looking at
    the desires and qualities of each equally.
    
    As for a man staying home and the woman working, I do believe that
    this man would be looked down on by society in general.  The movie
    Mr. Mom seemed pretty accurate in its portrayal, until it fell into
    the Hollywood trap of ending the movie with "...and they lived happily
    ever after.".  I know that I would not mind staying home and caring
    for the children, were I to have them, as long as my wife's income
    were able to maintain the household in the same manner as mine would.
     I believe that I could find enough to keep busy with.  If not,
    I could always get a part-time job, or start a business at home.
    
    Ed..
    

    Bonnie's earlier definition of a feminist appeared to be restricted
    to women - that is, men could not be feminists.  I know Bonnie well
    enough to know she doesn't really believe this - I presume it was
    just the particular angle the question was approached from.
    
    My personal definition of a feminist is someone who supports
    women as a group, and I further don't see that being a feminist
    makes one automatically UNsupportive of men.  Some are, some aren't.
    
    It never ceases to amaze me that so many people think of such things
    as a zero-sum game, in that just because one side "wins", the other
    side "loses".  I want to see a world where both sides win, and I
    absolutely believe that is possible.  As such, I speak out whenever
    one side attacks the other on the mere supposition that they are "the
    enemy", whether this is in fact true or not.
    
    				Steve

    Thanks Steve,
    
    you are correct in your interpretation of what I wrote, I do believe
    that men can be feminists and I don't think that being a feminist
    means that the person is for putting down men, but for uplifting
    all people.
    
    Bonnie

    
    re -.1
    
    Arrgh. Gimmee a break. I don't need any wymmun to help me 
    manage my money..
    
    And yes, it will get harder, more competitive, more
    easier for everyone to end up a street person. Hey,
    thats capitalism (or perhaps, Reagonomics). 
    
    Its only fair to make the playing field level. Self assured
    go getters have nothing to fear.

    The reason I become defensive when I hear the word feminist is
    because, I don't associate the word with the everyday woman who is
    out trying to make a living. I associate the word feminist with the
     women like Gloria Stienem, Jane Fonda, Eleanor Smeal, and the women
    who were selling the buttons talked about in .0. Women who 
    I feel are men haters more than womens rights activist. My wife
    would hate being called a feminist, because she doesn't want to
    be looked as being the type of feminist I mentioned.
    
    Jim

    RE: .83
    
    Bonnie,
    
    Should the need for a wartime draft come about, do you favor the
    government drafting equal portions of women and men to fight the
    war? 
    
    Just curious...
    
    
    Wes

    I have to agree with Jim on what he has said.  I don't think anyone
    who is for people (both men and women) is a feminist.  A feminist
    is a person (usually a women) who's interests lies totally on what's
    in it for the women.  I think people who are for both men and women
    are most normal people.  I think labelling this as being a feminist
    is sexist.  It implies that this is a feminine trait of wanting
    everyone to have what they want.  
    
    It seems to me that if feminism is looked upon negatively there
    must be a good reason for it.  It couldn't be that the more visible
    feminists (Gloria Steinem (sp), Jane Fonda (yuk), etc)  have done
    more to the detriment of there cause than to the benefit of it.
    Could it?  
    
    Maybe most women don't want to be feminists because they enjoy being
    treated differently than men.  Maybe most of them do have an
    instinctual quality that makes them want to stay at home and raise
    their own children.  I'm not saying all but most.  What if we are
    letting the minority of women dictate what the majority should do.
    Something to think about.
    
    Mike 
        

    in re .91
    
    Yes I believe that if there were a draft both sexes should be drafted.
    Even if women don't make good combat soldiers due to size and weight
    the number of back up personel to each combat soldier is something
    like 20 to 1. I see no reason why women should not take a equal
    role with men in the case of a war.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    Mike
    
    My dictionary says that feminism is the advocacy of social political
    and economic equality for men and women. That is the definition
    that I use when I say that I am a feminist.
    
    I firmly support the right of women who wish to stay home with
    their children to do so. I also support the right of women who
    want to go out to work to do so.
    
    Mike, people are more than their instincts, more than their hormones
    and body parts. We also have brains and minds. What ever instincts
    women have in re children (and I believe that men have them also)
    they also have mental abilities that may or may not be best served
    in staying home.
    
    I worked part time teaching college when my children were small.
    Now that my children are teenagers I work full time. The period
    in most women or men's lives where they will have small children
    needing full time care is quite short. Even women who choose to
    stay home and are completely fufilled by that with small children
    may well find that when the kids get into highschool or leave home
    that she will be more statisfied with a job.
    
    Mike when I hear you talk about instincts and women being suited
    best for staying home and caring for children I feel like I am
    being reduced to my reproductive organs and instincts as far as
    my value as a person is concerned. My mind and my education and
    my abilities on that level are also important. I feel devalued
    when these parts of me are ignored or denied.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    RE:94
    Bonnie I don't know where you got your 20 to 1 ratio, becasue
    when i was in the USMC all were considered grunts (rifle men)
    and the numbers of support personal to grunts was more like 
    1 to 20. Either way I don't feel men or women should be drafted,
    unless the US is under a direct threat. Even if that were the case
    I wouldn't want my daughter going to serve in front line combat,
    exactly becasue she wouldn't have a chance of survival based on
    her size and strenght.
    I don't think Mike or any of the men here are advocating women should
    stay home and keep their mouths shut. The issue is the feminist
    that are making the headlines and are leaders of feminist groups,
    are not the women like you, but they seem to be the male bashing
    types that sell buttons with "dead men don't whine" and try to 
    justify it, but will bitch and bring legal action against male
    organizations for mearly wanting to be a male organization.
    
 
    Jim

    The 20 to 1 is remembered information from articles in news magazines
    that I have read in the past. I once said something in soapbox
    that the ratio was 10 to 1 support to field soldiers and was corrected
    that I was way way too low. My point is that women can fill all
    kinds of non combat positions even if they aren't physically able
    to go into combat. Also I believe that women in the some of the
    services are being taught combat skills so as to be able to defend
    themselves and their positions should the lines be over run.
    
    If you are asking me my *personal* feelings about draft/army, I
    am for religious reasons a consciencious objector, tho I also support
    a non peace time draft. But that is separate from how I feel a draft
    should be if we were to have one again.
    
    Most groups have their extreme and out spoken members, whether
    the group is the right wing or left wing, male or female. If we
    are to condem all movements because of the most extreme members
    of the groups then we will make no progress and very real wrongs
    will never be corrected. Should we give up on ecological movements
    because of extremist groups like the "Greens"? should those who
    disapprove of abortion on religious grounds stop expressing their
    feelings and speaking out because some people bombed a clinic?
    should Black civil rights never have been passed because there
    were violent groups and leaders? Some people are angrier about
    a particular situation, some people have been hurt worse, some
    people may be out for their own gain. I don't have enough
    information to speak for the motives and sincerity of the
    women you refer to.
    
    Most women who work have run into some kind of job related
    discrimination. I think this is wrong and would like to see it
    stopped. I don't think that I have a right to discriminate in
    turn against men. It is the average woman who loses out in
    education, in salary, in promotions etc. when gender is used
    as a reason to discriminate.
    
    and I don't know that men who say that women have an instinct
    for child care and should/want what ever to be home really don't
    want all women to leave the work force or shut up...all I know
    is when my reproductive organs and instincts are used as a basis
    for making decisions about what I should be doing to the ignoring
    of my mind it makes me feel devalued.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    Some ramblings...
    
    What may seem like a double standard to some people is really
    just oposing opinions expressed by *different* women.  You
    will not get a single issue that all women agree on.  Even an issue
    that most women agree on, or else women would be a large force in
    politics.
    
    The women who are members of the Chilton gardening club, are not
    the same women who are applying to men-only gun clubs "to prove
    a point".  I myself am dismayed at women who want things both
    ways.  That is why it upsets me to hear women with professional
    careers say, (aghast) "I'm not a feminist."  They are reaping the
    benefits.
    
    I do think that it is unfair that a father has such a hard time
    getting custody of his kids, and am surprised that this is not
    a feminist issue, if indeed it is not.
    
    Linda

    p.s.  Did it occur to anyone that the media does not always focus
    on the issues, and that goes a long way towards creating stereotypes?
      I find the button in question to be sick humor of the same ilk as 
    "ex-* in trunk".  If it were meant seriously it would be scary,
    but it obviously isn't.

    Bonnie,
    
    You will get no argument from me that women are more than their
    instincts, hormones and body parts.  I also know that they have
    brains and minds.  I happen to believe that most women are better 
    equipped both mentally and physically to raise children than most
    men are.  I also think that men have some of these instincts, but
    are not as well equipped as the women.  I think that children are
    best served when raised by their own mother.  (I know this is arguable,
    but this is the primary reasoning for my arguments, its all to do
    with the family, not men or women.)  I hold a women whose a housewife
    in high regards.  I know that years ago they weren't appreciated,
    however, I believe that has changed substantially today.  It is
    probably the most valuable job that ANYONE could have.  In this
    scenario that means that the man has to provide for his family.
    So while I'm not advocating discrmination on grounds of sex, I think
    that since women still want to be able to raise their own kids,
    we have to make sure that the husbands can provide for these families.
    
    I also agree that a woman needs other interests besides her family
    and that when the kids get a little older she may want to get a
    job.
    
    Bonnie, my intent was not to reduce women to body parts and instincts.
    If this was the impression I gave, I apologize.  To me, mothering
    is very hard and many times it seems to be a thankless job.  So
    know that I hold someone who is capable to do this in high regards.
    I think alot of women could do this and alot of men would have a
    hard time of it.  It says something very positive about women (in
    my eyes).  
             
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    Thankyou :-)
    
    and yes I know that motherhood can be hard work (I do have five
    kids afterall) tho in our family my husband is as involved a parent
    as I am (sometimes more so!), so to me it depends more on the makeup
    of the person than a general rule.
    
    Bonnie

	RE:  .98
    
    > So while I'm not advocating discrmination on grounds of sex, I think
    > that since women still want to be able to raise their own kids,
    > we have to make sure that the husbands can provide for these families.
    
    	Without discriminating on the basis of sex, how do you propose
    	that we accomplish this ("making sure that the husbands can
    	provide for these families")?
    
    	Are you suggesting more money for everyone (or just parents,
    	or husbands in particular?)
    
    	Or do you have some other idea besides 'more money'?
    
    					Thanks for explaining this,
   					          Suzanne........

re:97    
>    Most women who work have run into some kind of job related
>    discrimination. I think this is wrong and would like to see it
>    stopped. I don't think that I have a right to discriminate in
>    turn against men. It is the average woman who loses out in
>    education, in salary, in promotions etc. when gender is used
>    as a reason to discriminate.
    
In the years I have been working ,the only women I have seen complain of
discrimination have done so as an excuse for not handling the job. My
boss has been called a chauvinist by women who would have been let go
if they were men. Funny thing is when some of them have left an worked
for female supervisors they have tried to come back.
    
Jim

    Jim,
    
    That is totally unfair. Discrimination in the workplace is quite
    real. To categorically dismiss all claims of discrimination as
    people who can't do their job is unworthy of you.
    
    Bonnie

    I'm not dimissing clams of discrimination, we all experience it.
    But the women I have worked that have complained of discrimination
    were the ones who couldn't handle the job. The others who have handled
    the job think the boss is overly fair to them that have not.
    
    Jim

    
    It's too late in the day for my brain to profitably engage in 
    long-term logic exercises, so what I want to do is offer my
    perspective on some of the issues raised.
    
    Whether or not I'm a feminist, I've done my best to offer the
    same level of cooperation, support, and opportunities to the
    people I've worked with - male and female.  Their political
    views and other beliefs only entered into the formula when it
    prevented them from working effectively as part of a team (I'm
    speaking mostly from my management days, here).  
    
    Many of the women I've worked with and for have called themselves 
    feminists.  I've never never run into a situation where their 
    beliefs in any way diminished their ability to perform or 
    to work with others in the group.  On the other hand, I have run into a 
    number of situations (about 8 that I can think of offhand) where 
    males have expressed an unwillingness to cooperate, support, and
    otherwise work with a colleague who was female, simply because they
    were a female.  (This is out of a sample group of about 85 people
    who I've worked with since 1976.)
    
    My experience with people (male and female alike) who are
    self-professed feminists has been one of openness, trust,
    and flexibility.  Maybe it's just the people I met, or maybe it's
    the way I project my own views.  I'm too close to it to try and
    extrapolate anything...
    
    When I get right down to it, a lot of what I see missing in 
    male-female interaction is a willingness to cooperate, to create
    win-win situations.  The people I've worked with that have been the
    most successful (both in and out of work) have been able to see
    people as individuals, not as symbols of a policy or as a threat.
    
    I'm concerned about equality for women for several reasons - I still
    talk to many people (both male and female) who feel that women should
    restrict their lives in some way because they are females, because
    I want to see my wife treated fairly, and because I want to see my friends
    treated fairly.
    
    Change may be painful, and it takes a lot of energy.  Why waste the
    energy debating a slogan on a button?  I'd rather invest the energy
    into making sure that everyone gets a fair shot.  This isn't a game
    with two teams - this is a game with one team, and the object is for
    everyone to have the opportunity to be an equal partner.  
    
    Enough of the soapbox.  I just wanted to let people know the way I look
    at things.  It may make some of my future (and I promise, shorter)
    notes, easier to understand.
    
    Ron
    

    re .70  The nice thing about that Matriarchal Conference (strict
            definition applies) is knowing just how nice the modest
            Matriarchal Conf's elsewhere are!  
    
            With Patriarchal Conf's coming out just fine too!
    
    
                                                    Russ P.

    Attitudes are important, and I don't want to sound like a person
    who has a negative attitude when it comes to working with womem.
    One of the most talented people I have worked with is a Russian 
    woman, and I can't waite for her to return from Israel. She's been
    gone over a year on a leave of absence, and there isn't a week that
    goes by that someone in our department doesn't say, they can't wait for
    her return. We all miss her. 
    The biggest obstacle in working relations is attitude. If a person 
    feels that their going to be discriminated against because of gender,
    race or religion before they even start working, then anything that goes 
    wrong will be blamed on discrimination. At the same time if a person
    has an attitude that a person will be incompetent becasue of sex,
    race, or religion, they will nitpick every thing the person does
    inorder to justify their negative feelings. I have seen men nitpick
    the performance of a woman, and these guys are themselves struggling
    on their work. The two negative attitudes are what I see as the
    major obstacle in work relations. I feel bad for people who have
    these attitudes, becasue their generally not happy within themselves.
        
    Jim

    Suzzanne, I don't know how we can address the problem of getting
    working women who want to stay home to be able to do so.  It almost 
    seems like you have to start talking about a tax credit or something
    to that effect to address the problem.  I'd like to hear anyone elses 
    ideas if they have any.  
    
    Bonnie, I have seen discrimination used as an excuse for incompetence,
    or just plain "I don't give a darn" attitudes more than honest 
    discrimination.  Not saying that discrimination does not exist,
    it is overused.  As a matter of fact I read an article in the paper
    yesterday that said just that.  It talked about the overuse of the
    word harming the people who really had a complaint because it is
    used so much where it is not applicable.  I think everyone is in
    a minority of some kind of another which has affected how someone
    has looked at them sometime in their life.  
    
    I have a question going back to the mens club issue.  Do you honestly
    believe that these clubs were used to make an example of, or really
    because of the so called "business reasons" the feminists claimed.
    I happen to think it was to make an example of them and the "business
    going on" was just the most convenient and effective vehicle to
    get into these clubs.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    The supreme court of the united states bought the business reasons
    argument, I have to rely on their well known thoroughness in
    researching issues. This is not to say that individual women may
    and probably have used the ruling in a spiteful or frivolous fashion.
    However, as I said in the long note I entered recently on unanswered
    questions I think that in many cases men excluded women from clubs
    for essentially frivolous reasons. One example I gave was the Jaycees
    which are an organizaton of small business people and town officials
    working together to improve the economic climate of towns. I fail
    to see that the Jaycees had anything positive to gain by excluding
    female business people and town officials.
    
    Bonnie
    
   

This note was copied from womannotes with permission of the author.
    
    _____________________________________________________________
    
    
      I always felt that feminism meant the belief in equal rights
     for women and men.   ...  But if you want another definition,
     let me quote from a talk given by Margaret Atwood, a Canadian 
     author best known nowadays for her latest novel 
     _A_Handmaid's_Tale_ .  It was transcribed by Judy McMullen from 
     a talk Ms. Atwood gave:

           I felt and still do feel that Feminist issues are not just
        for women.  They are human rights issues just as war should
        not concern men alone though it's mostly men in the front
        lines.  I find men who react to women's issues or women's
        studies with the standard paranoia, "Why do you hate men?" and
        so forth, understandable but ignorant.  A university is not a
        place where ignorance should be encouraged.  I look forward,
        however, to the time when both feminist groups and wars will
        no longer be with us, having become obsolete.

           Here's another answer.

           Any woman who can read and write is a feminist.  People
        chained themselves to fences and starved and were beaten up
        and killed to get you that right.

           Any woman who has legal rights over her own children is a
        feminist.  Remember the origin of the word "family".  It comes
        from Roman "familia" which meant the total group of people
        controlled by a male householder including women, children and
        slaves.

           Any woman who is allowed to vote is a feminist.  We've only
        had that right here for 52 years [I believe this speech was
        given in Canada].

           Any woman or man who believes in equal pay for equal work
        is a feminist.

           Any man who doesn't believe it's his God-given privilege to
        beat up or kill his wife or sexually molest his children is a
        feminist.

           Any woman or man who is against rape and violent
        pornography, who isn't turned on by movies of women being
        strangled, disemboweled and hung up with meat hooks, is a
        feminist.

           Any one, woman or man, who thinks a man should be judged as
        to his worthiness by qualities such as a sense of humour,
        admirableness of character, helpfulness in a tight spot, moral
        integrity, inventiveness, creativity of any kind,
        courteousness and courage, and not just as a money-making
        robot, is a feminist.  Because if women are forced to depend
        on men for food, that is how they will tend to evaluate men
        and no man I've ever met really likes to be loved just for his
        bank account.

           Hands up for the feminists in this room.

Re:107
    Mike,
>    Suzzanne, I don't know how we can address the problem of getting
>    working women who want to stay home to be able to do so.  It almost 
>    seems like you have to start talking about a tax credit or something
>    to that effect to address the problem.  I'd like to hear anyone elses 
>    ideas if they have any.  

    Its called the "Living Wage". The late Dick Martel wrote about it
    in Soapbox. When child labor laws went into effect, woman had to
    stay home in order to look after the children. The living wage
    was intoduced to enable fathers to support the family on one income.
    I don't remember all the details of his article, but it was
    interesting.
    
    Jim

    Jim,
      I think that is a really good summary of the situation, (.106).
    I have not seen cases of discrimination where it seriously hurt
    the woman's career (luckily); it is more of a perception thing,
    subtle put-downs of a woman's abilities, motives, or character.
    It is hard for me to accept that women would abuse the system,
    but I believe you that it happens.  It would have to be something
    extremely serious and clear cut before I would take personnel type
    action.  Otherwise it could hopefully be worked out with the person.
    	Linda

    re:109
    Bonnie, why don't we call them humanist instead of feminist if that
    article is a true discription of a feminist ? The problem is that
    labels don't say everything about a person, and unfortunately the 
    word feminist has taken on a negative stigma, becasue of the negative 
    campaigning of the latest feminist leaders. Its going to take alot
    of positive things to change the stigma attached to feminist.

    Jim

    
    .108
    
    Just cause the supreme court "buys" something, doesn't make it right,
    maybe legal, but not always right...
    
    Dwight

    Bonnie, 
          I like Jim's idea.  Humanist sounds more like the things which
    you wrote.  What a word is supposed to mean and what it really means
    are two entirely different things.  Since the extreme feminists
    went off the deep end and gave the word that meaning it is very
    hard to change that.  The feminists need to get the modeerates to
    the forefront and tell the extremists to give it a rest.  It reminds
    me of the saying "I can't hearing what you are saying because what
    you are doing is screaming so loud."
    
    Dwight,
          Right on.  
    
    Mike
        

    Jim and Mike,
    
    I brought up several examples before of how other groups have
    extremist members (ecology,civilrights,anitabortion,etc) but
    those extremist members have not been used as a brush to tar
    or discredit the entire group. If you two find humanist a more
    comfortable term then so be it. However, I would urge you and
    any other men reading this series of notes to try and remember
    that most of the time when a woman or man refers to themself as
    a feminist they are referring to the same kinds of things that
    I have been talking about here.
    
    Bonnie

    Its extremely interesting to me to see Mike Wannemacher mention
    that "extreme feminists went off the deep end and gave the word
    [feminist] that meaning..."  I personally think that [inaccurate
    but short descriptive phrase follows] many "religious" people have
    done exactly the same thing to the word "humanist".  Just depends
    upon where you're sitting, I guess.
    
    DougO

    in re .113 Dwight
    
    My comment about the supreme court's decision was not in relation
    to whether it was 'right' or not...only that they felt that there
    was sufficient evidence to support the claim of discrimination.
    The evidence was apparently sufficient or they would not have so
    decided.
    
    Bonnie

    re:115
    
    OK. Then I guess I'm a feminist. My wife will bust a gut when
    I tell her this one.
    
    Jim

    Actually, I find "Christian" a better term than anything I have
    heard here of late.
    
    However for the record, let me now give credit where credit is due.
    
    Feminism: Accomplishments-
    
    "Feminism has real and significant achievements to its credit.
    Feminists have played a major role in opening doors to women in
    employment, education, and sports. Feminism has provided a guiding
    philosophy to many women in their prolonged and bruising penetration
    of the corporate and academic worlds (1). Feminism has provided
    enough of a supporting framework to sustain many women through a
    difficult period of complete uncertainty about their sex roles.
    Feminists formed an important part of the constituency for abortion
    rights at the start of the 70's. They were responsible for desperately
    needed attention given to the crime of rape. They have thrown the
    spotlight on the syndrome of battered women. Feminists have played
    a highly effective role in the grass roots attempt to introduce
    humanity and common sense to medical practice in America. They
    have relentlessly hammered home the inadequacy of all intellectual
    disciplines that fail to take into account a female point of view.
    History, anthropology, sociology, psychology, sociobiology,
    primatology,and literary criticism will never be quite the same.
    Feminists have destroyed the plausibility of oversimple explanations
    for our partly arbitrary sex role. Perhaps above all, feminism
    has helped to tear open the deceptively uniform surface presented
    by the mystique of femininity to reveal the cornucopia of needs,
    talents, and aspirations within.
    
                                           - Nicholas Davidson
    
    Sources:
    
    (1) Marshall, Megan, 'The Cost of Loving: Women and the New Fear
    of Intimacy' (NY: Putnam 1984)
    
        Davidson, Nicholas, 'The Failure of Feminism' (Prometheus, 1987)
    
    
    
                                                       Russ P.

    Funny,  I never thought a  -ism could be accredited with 
    acomplishments.  It's as if men sympathetic to the cause
    of women rights had no role, while in reality they had a 
    major role.
    
    The real threat to women doesn't come from men but from 
    women.  

    I don't care what anyone says, I am not now, have never been, and
    never will be a feminist.  I hate the word.  Why must only the feminine
    attributes be considered good?  Can a man not be fair to his children?
     I strongly disagree with ANYONE who says that the woman is better
    at raising the children than the man.  There is absolutely no proof
    to justify this.  Only the courts and women will push this principle.
    
    I am a person who tries to be fair to everyone.  I am a christian,
    and believe in the policy of "do unto others as you would have them
    do unto you".  The so-called Golden Rule.
    
    Feminist will always mean man-basher to me.  You can thank Gloria
    Steinam and all of the other women who have done their level best
    to make discrimination in favor of women acceptible.
    
    Ed..
    

    RE: .119  Jim, you have me in stitches.  Yo know they can cure that
    now!;')  
    
    RE: Ed.  I think most people know what a feminist truly is.  It
    has been made that way by the people who were at the forefront of
    the cause.  The things which have been described as what feminism
    really means is really propaganda.  The feminists are telling us
    that if you believe that it's not okay to beat your wife and if
    you don't like to watch movies with women being terrorized and
    butchered, then yes, you too are a feminist.  Leaving us believe
    that if you like these things, you are just a typical male.  I am
    definitely NOT a feminist, however, I believe the enjoyment of the
    above mentioned things is sick and deranged behavior.
    
    RE: Bonnie, If it's the perceiver, then it's many men and women
    as has been shown in these notes.  
    
    Mike

    RE: Ed .122
    
                Ed, read your Bible,I have made a study of it for 15
    years and was a licensed southern Baptist preacher. There is more
    about equality (between all people) that anything else. The label
    of feminest is just that a label. Jesus did not die just for the
    "White anglo protestants". He died for all people including women.
    As a creation of God (women) they deserve just as much love and respect
    as you do. Since there will always be that segment of the population
    that believe they are more equal than others we ,as christians,
    should be on the side of the oppressed. If you remember your history,
    it was not that long ago that women had to fight for the vote. If
    you believe that ALL people are equal before God then womens rights
    ought to be one of those things you fight hardest for.
    
    Dave

    
    
           re .121

    "Funny,  I never thought a  -ism could be accredited with 
    "acomplishments.  It's as if men sympathetic to the cause
    "of women rights had no role, while in reality they had a 
    "major role.

    No, the men sympathetic to the causes of womens rights
are considered to be supportors of feminism. and of course
men played a role in the gaining of rights for women tho
I have a problem with using the word 'major' which implies
to me that they had greater than 50% of the responsibility.
Both sexes played major roles, women to speak out, to push
barriers to education, voting etc, and enlightened men to
change the laws that were barriers to women and to encourage
them in their struggles.
    
    "The real threat to women doesn't come from men but from 
    "women.  

Could you please explain this further? When have women denied
other women the right to vote? the right to attend college?
the right to equal pay for equal work? the right to equal
what evers...when have women raped and abused other women on
the scale that men have...etc etc etc...

What threat do women pose to other women?


in re .122

"    I don't care what anyone says, I am not now, have never been, and
"    never will be a feminist.  I hate the word.  Why must only the feminine
"    attributes be considered good?  Can a man not be fair to his children?
"     I strongly disagree with ANYONE who says that the woman is better
"    at raising the children than the man.  There is absolutely no proof
"    to justify this.  Only the courts and women will push this principle.
 
Um, the only person in this string of notes that has been saying that
women are better at raising children than men is a man.

and feminism does not mean that only feminie attributes are considered
good, it means social, political and economic equality of men and women.
  

    "Feminist will always mean man-basher to me.  You can thank Gloria
    "Steinam and all of the other women who have done their level best
    "to make discrimination in favor of women acceptible.
    

I'm really sorry that you feel that way, inspite of evidence that 
you are not correct.
   

in re .123
    
"    RE: Ed.  I think most people know what a feminist truly is.  It
"    has been made that way by the people who were at the forefront of
"    the cause.  The things which have been described as what feminism
"    really means is really propaganda.  The feminists are telling us
"    that if you believe that it's not okay to beat your wife and if
"    you don't like to watch movies with women being terrorized and
"    butchered, then yes, you too are a feminist.  Leaving us believe
"    that if you like these things, you are just a typical male.  I am
"    definitely NOT a feminist, however, I believe the enjoyment of the
"    above mentioned things is sick and deranged behavior.
 
Mike do you mean that you are dismissing all the things I have said
as 'merely propoganda'?

Has it occured to you that (as was mentioned earlier in this note)
you may be a victim of media distortion and media concentration
on a small vocal group? That more feminists are like myself than
the image the media publishes?

and the speach that I printed did not say that 'if you like these
things you are just a typical male" I am absolutely amazed that
you read it that way. It saddens me to realize just how far apart
we are that you interpreted the words that way. I understood them
to mean that the typical male is really supporting feminist
causes without realizing that is what is meant by them.

   
    "RE: Bonnie, If it's the perceiver, then it's many men and women
    "as has been shown in these notes.  
    

Well, Mike, shall I then call myself a humanist and get the conservative
Christians all over my case? What other word would you use?

Bonnie

p.s I'm leaving for a dr appointment so you all have the rest of 
the afternoon to pick my note appart. :-)
    

    	The negative campaign about feminism has been brought about
    	by people who have done a hatchet job on both the word
    	"feminism" (and the people who dare to refer to themselves
    	as "feminists" in spite of the way the word has been twisted
    	by anti-feminists to mean something that it never HAS meant 
    	and never WILL mean.)
    
    	The dictionary definition of feminism tracks my own feelings
    	about it fairly closely.  The explanation of the whole women's
    	movement that I read in my encyclopedia comes off as more
    	radical (believe it or not) than many of the feminists I have
    	heard (when it comes to describing why the women's movement
    	was started.)
    
    	Reading this conference the past couple of months has really
    	helped me to get a handle on what the negative campaign against
    	feminism is all about (which I appreciate a lot.)  After seeing
    	what the real objections are to feminism (and how many of them
    	are misconceptions, etc.,) I am more assured than ever before
    	than feminism is the right choice for me (as an ideology.)
    
    	People's definition of "humanism" (the GOOD definitions of it
    	and not the hatchet job versions of THAT label that have become
    	common in the past 10 years or so) sound pretty close to what
    	I feel as a feminist.
    
    	So, by rights, I could call myself a humanist OR a feminist
    	(or both.)  I sort of call myself both.
    
    	I like the word "feminist" -- not because I think the ideals
    	are those that can only be held by women, but because it honors
    	the women who have fought and died for the past 200 years to
    	make possible the increased opportunities that we enjoy today.
    
    	It is my opinion that both men and women benefit from these
    	changes in our culture (and that both men and women can have
    	the same basic beliefs about equality.)  Many, many, many,
    	MANY men and women share the beliefs that I have about equal
    	opportunity (whether they call themselves feminists, humanists,
    	or whatever.)
    
    	I don't hold it against anyone for not wanting to be CALLED
    	a feminist (because of the treatment the name has received from
    	detractors,) but I recognize what I consider 'feminism' when
    	I see it (and I see it a LOT!)  The increase in the number
    	of people who share these views has jumped dramatically in
    	the past 15 years or so (and it is very gratifying.)
    
    	Calling myself a "feminist" is a personal choice for me (and
    	I reserve the right to define it in the positive way that it
    	was intended originally, because very high ideals are still
    	present in the movement today among its grassroot members.)

    	RE:  Mike W. (on tax credits to help more women stay home)
    
    	Isn't it true that husbands with wives that do not work
    	already get a tax credit (in the form of an exemption for
    	the wife?)
    
    	What other kind of tax credit are you suggesting (and could
    	it also be applied to help women who *are* the heads of households
    	and breadwinners in their families?)
    
    	Is there some way that you feel working women should be helping
    	other women to stay at home if they want?
    
    							Thanks!
    							   Suzanne...

    I will take a guess at how women have been threatened by other
    women.  This is not an opinion that I hold, or that I am saying
    anyone here holds (although I suspect a few do):
    
    Previously a women had the wonderful and fulfilling role of wife
    and mother and could enjoy the love and support of a man who
    would provide for her for all of her days.  Now feminists have
    ruined it all.
    
    There are a few problems with this scenerio:
    
    1.  What if the man dies, or stops loving his wife, or abuses his
    role as head of family?
    
    2.  What if the woman does not find motherhood and being a wife
    all her life fulfilling?  (aka the feminine mystique)
    
    One thing that I do not understand is why, if there are still people
    around who feel this way, don't those men and women get together
    and have a good old-fashioned marriage and let everyone else do
    what they want with their lives?  It has been suggested (by no less
    than Ronald Reagan) that women entering the work force have caused
    an economy where only 2 career families can survive.  I have not
    seen any proof of this.  Just because a and b coexist does not mean
    that a caused b.
    
    	Linda

    re: "humanism, Humanism"
    
    
    Any Philosphy B.A.s here?  I recall (dimly and in fragments)
    that the term is used to describe a particular philosophy.
    From this angle, using it in a new way (i.e. to describe
    one who supports "fairness"/"equalness" for all people),
    tends to make communication a bit more difficult (if such
    a thing is possible).
    
    Personally, since I never got further than Philo. 101, I kind
    of like the "new" definition, but, since the language is already
    difficult enough, I have mixed feelings.
    
    Any PHILOSOPHY noters around?  How say you?
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .127
    
    Thanks, Suzanne.  Your sentiments on this issue echo mine precisely.
    
    				Steve

    RE: .127  Many (I don't know what the multiple factor is) more men
    have given their lives for the freedom than women have.  No, the
    lives of men aren't worth more than women, I just wanted to point
    this out. 
    
    RE: Suzanne. Yes, I believe that if the woman is the sole breadwinner,
    and the husband stays home, that family should be eligible for
    an additional tax credit.  A deduction is not the same as a tax
    credit.  A deduction is subtracted from your gross income to give
    you your net income which is used to figure your tax.  A tax credit
    is taken off of the tax you have to pay, it is better than a deduction.
    I believe if a person is the sole breadwinner in the family, that
    family should be eligible.
    
    Mike

    Re: .132
    
    Mike, how is your suggestion of a tax credit substantially different
    than the existing tax structure that favors one-income families?
    Are you seriously suggesting taxing families different solely due
    to the sex of the wage earner?
    
    				Steve

    	RE:  .132
    
    	Do you mean to include "single parents" (male and female)
    	as well?
    
    	(Just curious.)
    

    re: .126
    
    This brought a question to mind - are there any figures on how many
    males in the general US population consider themselves feminists?
    how many support the basic tenets of feminism?
    
    What I hear in this conference is a small sample of vocal noters who
    work for DEC - I don't think that we can extrapolate much from this.
    I suspect that there are some wide variations along lines of region,
    education, age, and earnings...
    
    Anybody have any figures?
    
    Thanks,
    	Ron

    .133  Please see .132
    
    .134  Yes.
    
    .135  I'm sure it depends upon which group or who you talk to.
    
    
    Mike

    I just called NOW in NYC.  They didn't know.
    
    
                                                  Russ P.

    I am sorry.  I didn't realize I was being asked any questions. 
    I did note that you mentioned the only person who felt that women
    make better parents than men was a man.  HOWEVER, how many women
    fight tooth and nail to not change any of the existing statutes
    or court opinions on this matter?  You need only read the note about
    F.A.I.R. to see this.  
    
    Yes, I know that this file is not indicative of the whole world.
     We tend to be the more vocal ones.  Whether we as a group represent
    the mainstream of our respective ideologies I am not sure.
    
    I don't believe that I have been hoodwinked by the media.  Yes,
    I know they have given some biased coverage.  But the media is by
    and large very (overly?) liberal in its attitudes.  I cannot believe
    that the only parts of the women's movement that deserved any press
    was the radical fringe.  I have to believe that more of the mainstream
    women believe in what has been reported.  Otherwise, why did they
    not move to squash (maybe too hard a word) the radicals and see
    that their organizations got a better name.
    
    I hold nothing against women.  I do believe that at times they are
    not given a fair shake.  But I don't believe that I, or anyone else,
    should have to go out of my way to be different with women than
    with men.
    
    I got a flyer on my truck last evening at the supermarket which
    I would like to ask a question about.  The flyer was for a health
    club in Lowell.  It made a special mention of having a separate
    area for women-only.  I saw no mention of a special area for men-only.
     The club is co-ed.  Why should this be condoned?  I am not trying
    to be stupid or anything.  I am just curious why women would need
    a special area and men not.  From what I gathered from the flyer,
    the area had a sauna or hot-tub or something like that plus other
    things.
    
    I am not afraid of answering responses to my notes.  I am sorry
    if anyone perceived me of staying silent.
    
    Ed..
    

    in re .140
    
    what are you seconding?
    
    that you will never be a feminist? that you hate the word? that
    it is wrong that only feminine attributes are good? that men
    can be fair to children or raise them? that you are a Christian?
    
    hmmm
    
    Bonnie

    
    OKAY!  OKAY!  
    
    I second .122's entire first paragraph!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    mr comet::berry

    RE: .142 (AKA .121)
    
           First off I am a Man, so maybe this note/reply will be more
    effective to you. Now I am sure that I don't have to review history
    to you is there? If you will, please put yourself in the position
    of a Woman. Over the passage of time, I think you will admitt that
    "equality" has come much more slowly to Women than any other segment 
    of the "worlds" people. If you were a Woman, don't you think that
    you would be a little angry and yes frustrated at the injustice?
    
           About Women being better mothers....there IS very good
    scientific evidence that this is true. There occurs, at birth, a
    "bonding" that only mothers have. Now notice that I said mothers
    and NOT women. But since only women can give birth, it stands to
    reason that they would be more effective (effective is a better
    word that better in this case).
    
           Mr. comet::berry (for lack of a first name) the Women I have
    talked to do NOT want to "bash men" but only make known  that there
    are differences in how men and women are treated under the same
    situations. That is what I get from the "feminists" as you have
    called them. And so I ask you....is there not room in our "world"
    for total equality?
    
    Dave

    
    
    Dave, please recheck your scientific facts.  Bonding also
    occurs between new infants and fathers (men).  In fact, 
    adoptive parents also bond with their babies, although
    they may not receive the child immediately after birth.
                                                          
    Deborah
    
    

    RE: .144
              Yes, you are right about the bonding between fathers and
    infants. But the bonding between mothers is much stronger because
    of heart rates, chemical "sharing", and emotional "dual" reactions
    during the second and third trimesters of a full term pregnancy.
              The bonding you are talking about occurs only at birth
    and only if the father is allowed (which occurs more and more now
    days) to be part of the bonding process at birth. But that ,or so
    doctors say, is not nearly as strong as the mothers bonding.
    
    
    Dave

    Give me a break, Dave...
    
    After reading your replies, I have to admit... they said "nothing"
    to me.  Sorry.  I don't agree.
    
    Dwight (also a minority figure.... a white male)
    
    Acutally, not really white,... I keep a pretty nice tan... :^) 
    Sorta, a nice golden brown...  :^)

    Well, I told my wife that I'm a feminist. She acted like she was
    gut shot. Then she said, "what is it, you want to buy that new truck"?
    I said, "no, I'm for equal everything for everybody, and thats what
    a feminsit is". She "said, "give it up, I've had a bad day, I don't
    need your jokes". I said, "no really, Bonnie explained what a feminist
    is in the mens notes and by her definition, I'm a feminist". "Ok"
    she said, "your a feminist". I then asked her, "whats for diner" ?
    She said "your the feminist you tell me".
    
    Jim (I made tunafish sandwich's)

    Jim,
    
    Did you put pickles in the tunafish?
    
    Bonnie

    re:  separate workout spaces for co-ed and women...
    
    There are times when women don't *like* to be seen by the opposite
    sex wearing sweats or spandex or shorts, twisting and bending in 
    embarassing positions, and lifting less than a fifth of what most
    men lift.  I know I felt that way when I was really overweight.
    Also, there are different machines with lighter weight stacks,
    smaller dumbells and barbells on the women's side (generally).
    
    Some women *will not* work out, unless they know men aren't looking.
    Heck, there are fitness centers that are just for women, specifically
    because they are aware how difficult it is for some women to address
    their lack of fitness and their weight, let alone with men looking
    on.  Typically, when I went to a mostly-male gym, I would feel very
    awkward, because I knew I couldn't lift what they could, and I knew
    they were all watching me to see how good I was, and I knew I couldn't
    possibly surpass their expectations, and I knew they'd write me
    off as just another dizzy female who thinks she wants to weightlift
    (that was the attitude *there* in *that particular gym* - other
    gyms I have been to do not have that problem).
    
    So the women aren't getting special treatment because they're better
    or anything, they are being given a separate place so that they
    will feel more comfortable if that's the kind of space they need
    to shape up in.  Often, when they have been lifting a while and
    feel comfortable with their own abilities, the women will go train
    on the mostly-men's side and a pleasant general comeraderie will arise.
    
    -Jody
    

re: .129 <LIONEL::SAISI>

>    .............................. It has been suggested (by no less
>    than Ronald Reagan) that women entering the work force have caused
>    an economy where only 2 career families can survive.  I have not
>    seen any proof of this.  Just because a and b coexist does not mean
>    that a caused b.
    
I'm not sure if this addresses this issue or not.  But I basically agree
with the above-stated premise.

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

From the Boston Sunday Globe, 11/6/88, Page 2 (copied without permission)

UPI - Washington

A dramatic increase in the hours worked by wives and mothers kept many
families above water in the past decade but 40 percent of all families
lost income, according to a study released yesterday.

"This study leaves little doubt that ... American families have been
under greater economic pressure in the past decade than in any decade of
the postwar perid," said Jeff Faux, president of the Economic Policy
Institute.

The study found that average American per capita income growth declined
from 2.1 percent in the boom of the 1950s and 1960s, to 1.5 percent in
the 1970s, then down to 1.2 percent in the 1980s.

The study found that husbands' salaries declined in 80 percent of married
couple households, with a steeper drop among lower income families.

The average husband's wage has fallen 4 percent in recent years, the survey
of Census Bureau data found.

Between 1979 and 1986, wives increased their working time in the paid labor
force by 18 percent, the study found.  If they had not done so, family
incomes would have grown by one-third less.

"Since 72 percent of the population live in these families, the increased
work effort by wives was the major reason many families have maintained
living standards in a period of declining wages," the study said.

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

I have an opinion on this, but am out of time at the moment.

Kip

   RE:148
    Nope, no pickles. Just tuna an mayo, on whole wheat "Priory" bread.
    Fri. night is bowling night for the bride an myself, so it's always 
    a fast and easy meal night.
    
    Jim

    
>             Do you accept the stated positions on issues by
>             Friedan, Millett, Greer, and Steinem?
>    
>             Yes or no.
>    
>                                                  Russ P.

I would have to read them before I would commit to a "yes or no"
answer.  Plus, it is not out of the question that I would accept some
stated positions and not others.  I have not ready any of the authors
mentioned (with the exception of a few articles by Steinem). 

I don't feel that I have to agree 100% with those authors to be a 
"feminist."


						--Gerry

    	RE:  .152
    
    	> I don't feel that I have to agree 100% with those authors
    	> to be a "feminist."
    
    	Neither do I, Gerry.
    
    							Suzanne ...

    in re .152 and .153
    
    make that three of us...
    
    further, I don't think that negative or antimale articles or 
    writings by a few well known feminists should be used to discredit
    the entire movement.
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. to those men who refer to the 'man bashing' writings of leading
    feminists, could you supply me with some examples of articles/books
    that you have read by them that you consider to be 'man bashing'
    I would like to read them to understand what you are referring to.
    (and also I do have to admit, because I have some slight suspicion
    that there may not be such articles, but only media hype._

    Also I am talking about people like Friedan and Steinam, not the
    radical fringes like SCUM.
    

    Bonnie,
    	most of what I have read from these women has been in the
    Newspapers, or they have been on talk show such as Phil Donahue.   
    
    
    I have a serious question for you. Why is Philis Schafly (Spelling
    Guess) hamered so much by the womens movement ? I seen her on Donahue
    and she seemed very intlelligent and made lots of sense. Whats the
    gripe ?

    Jim

    Re Dave (Bonding)
    
    	I cannot believe that you honestly feel that only a woman can
    have a strong bonding with an infant.  Just because they share chemical
    reactions, etc. does not ensure bonding.  There are many mothers
    who made terrible mothers.  There are also many fathers who made
    terrible fathers.  I feel that you are doing men a disservice when
    you reinforce such unfair beliefs (I wanted to use the word dribble).
    
    Until men and women are treated equally in ALL situations, including
    such areas as child custody, alimony, child support, etc. I will
    always find it difficult to accept many of the arguments for aiding
    women over men.  I am sorry, I am not trying to be unfair in this
    at all.
    
    Re. Separate workouts
    
    	Why would not the feelings that were described to justify separate
    women's areas (fear, discomfort, perception of unfairness) also
    be a reason to have separate men's areas?  I think if someone tried
    to set up a health club with just such an area, that many people
    would be unhappy with that.  Now that is just my perception and
    if I am way off base from the mainstream and majority, then I
    apologize.  But just the fact that I feel this way says something
    to me about the women's movement and its impact on our culture.
    
    Ed..
    

    If men feel uncomfortable with women around, there is absolutely
    no reason why they should not create/find their own place to work
    out.  I believe that most women are *much* more self-conscious about
    how they look when they're working out than most men are, though,
    - and this might explain the fact that there are women-only workout
    places and not men-only (although I haven't checked to make sure
    there aren't any men-only - but if there are, they're relatively
    few).  Also, some health clubs only have one locker room, so they
    let in one sex on MWF and the other sex on T-Th-Sat.

    -Jody
        
    

    
>    I have a serious question for you. Why is Philis Schafly (Spelling
>    Guess) hamered so much by the womens movement ? I seen her on Donahue
>    and she seemed very intlelligent and made lots of sense. Whats the
>    gripe ?

Because she is a very powerful woman who has taken advantage of the
"women deserve a good education and a good job if they desire" ethic
that feminists promote (she is a lawyer and a working woman), and she 
uses her power and influence to discourage women from following in her 
footsteps.  She preaches "motherhood and housekeeping," and, as a 
businesswoman, she reaps a healthy profit from this type of 
conservative campaigning.  She is a hypocrite and an opportunist.  She 
is a classic "do as I say and not as I do" person.

						--Gerry

    RE .156
             Ed,
                 You may call it anything you want but Doctors call
    it FACT. In your reply you refered to mothers and fathers might
    be bad. Of course that is correct. I was refering to the "normal"
    situation. There are exceptions to every rule but they are just
    that...exceptions.
    
    Dave

    Re: .159
    
    I seriously doubt "Doctors call it FACT".  Maybe one doctor has
    expressed an opinion like this, but it hardly seems to be something
    universally accepted (and what is, nowadays?)  In any event, it sounds
    like baloney to me.  If what I felt when I held my 1-minute-old
    son for the first time wasn't bonding, I don't know what is.
    
    					Steve

    re:158
    I see. I'm not sure, but I thought she said she stayed home until
    her children were grown, before she went out to work, but if
    what your saying is true, then I see your point.     
   
    Jim

    RE .160
          
            Please go and talk to the physician of your choice...but
    look at it - does it not seem reasonable that the bonding between the
    child and the mother after 9 months IS stronger that your 1 minute
    encounter with your child.
    
            This explaination is from the childs point of view....not
    yours.
    
    Dave
    

    RE: ed,steve,comet::(whatever),all
    
         After reading my replys and all of yours I think there is a
    missunderstanding. I have never said or ever will say that the ONLY
    bonding occurs between mother and child and I support all of the rights
    Men are fighting for in the courts. My position is that women(mothers)
    have a "kind" of bonding at the birth of the child that fathers
    do not. This "bonding" is a natural thing and reinforced at birth
    because of the trauma expierenced by the child at birth. That is
    the reason why "most" doctors try to give the baby to the mother
    as soon after birth as possible....It calms them down. The voice,
    smell, and even the heart sounds of the mother reassures the child
    that it is in good hands. Try this.....Take a child,a toddler, and
    put it between you and the mother,equal distance apart, and if the
    child get really scared 99.9% of the time he/she will go to the
    mother. Mother is security. The child knows that and responds in
    time of crises to the mother. I hope this clears up my position
    on this issue. I really did not mean to cause ANY hard feeling in
    any of this. :-)
    
    Dave 

    Re: .163
    
    I still think this is just conjecture.  I've read a lot on this
    subject and have never seen any hard data to support your supposition.
    It sounds great, but contains "handwaving" about "chemical changes",
    "natural thing", etc.  If you want to believe it, fine.  But please
    don't propose biases against fathers due to such folklore.
    
    				Steve

    RE: .164
               Steve,
                        Good lord  Steve you can believe anything you
    want! Try reading your psych. book from school. That should tell
    you a lot. By the way, I am not into "Handwaving" if you want to
    live in ignorance then go ahead,it is NOT real, but go ahead. If
    you don't want to believe me then GO...talk to your doctor or anybody
    you trust to know the right answer. Then you don't have to "think
    its conjecture".
    
    Dave

    Dave...while there has been research about the affect of
    many things on infants in the womb, there no conclusive,
    widely-believed evidence that babies are more attached to
    the mother at birth.  While the heartbeat does give the
    child a soothing rhythm, just about any old heartbeat-een
    a prerecorded one, will sooth a fretful baby.  It works the
    same on puppies too.  Since the sense of smell is not func-
    tioning in the womb, it's a little difficult to believe that
    the mother has a familiar odor.  Babies are often handed over
    to the father.  Birth IS a traumatic experience.  It certainly
    was for my child, who was immediately taken to intensive care
    and subjected to any number of medical procedures (this after
    24 hours of hard labor culminating in an assisted delivery-I'm
    not sure who was more traumatized, him or me).
                                                                  
    I didn't even SEE my child until the next day.  I can't speak
    for my son, but our bonding took place the minute I laid eyes
    on him.  He was, and is, every bit as 'bonded' with his father
    as he is to me.  Given the experiment you mentioned earlier, if
    he were and equal distance from his father and myself, and was
    startled, the chances are 50/50 that he would choose me.  The
    other 50% of the time he would have gone to his father.
    
    I'm really fed up with this nonsense that women are genetically
    better at parenting.  Parenting is a learned skill.  You're big
    on scientic studies.  Check the studies of gorillas that have 
    not been raised amoung their own kind. They have no maternal skills
    and literally must be taught to nurture their own infants!
    
    I've known enough men, including my son's father, and his stepfather
    who didn't even come into the picture until my son was 6 eyars old,
    who are excellent fathers.  If I were to be unable to care for my
    son, I would have absolutely no qualms to leave the child-rearing
    up to them.  And I know they would do a job at the least equal to
    the one I am currently doing.
    
    Deborah
    

    hey people,
    
    this is getting a bit silly, dave was basically trying to be 
    supportive of women ( as I read it ) and stepped into some
    other people's hot buttons. 
    
    there are many examples of prenatal influence, like babies
    responding to music and voices that show that the baby has
    formed some kind of link with the prenatal environment..
    
    and that this contributes to the postnatal bonding, and also
    that the mother, after the birth, bonds strongly (perhaps
    as nature might have intended given how rough the birth
    process is). I think what other people are reading into what
    he is writing is that he is saying that this is the only
    sort of bonding or it is the best sort of bonding. Perhaps
    it is fair to say that there is a unique sort of bonding 
    that develops from the pregnancy and birth experience which
    in the absence of any other supportive adult will suffice to
    protect the baby. However, bonding is common in many kinds of
    relationships. I will agree with Steve that paternal bonding
    is rapid and immediate, having seen my husband take his
    first  born into his arms and burst into a chorus from the
    Messia.."I have a son" (I beamed all over my face!) and I today
    feel no less a bond or closeness to my 4 adopted kids than I do
    to my homegrown son. and I will say that the bonding came the hardest
    to the last and oldest at time of adoption...Stevie is mildly retarded
    and handicapped and seven when we adopted him.  It took much
    longer to to bond to him, but it has happened. Perhaps we should
    look at a kind of a spectrum of attachment...from the initial
    instinctive response of a mother after hard labor to having her
    child placed on her breast, to only a short breath behind it,
    the father who coached the labor and caught the baby, and placed
    it on the breast, to the adoption of an older child, to forming
    a close friendship with a person that you then regard as a courtesy
    child/parent for the rest of your life.
    
    Bonnie

    Well, this note has gone way off the subject. I'll start a new note
    so as to keep the subject at hand going.
    
    Jim

>                        Good lord  Steve you can believe anything you
>    want! Try reading your psych. book from school. 

I was browsing around my roommates books, and I found a copy of an 
Abnormal Psychology text book written in the mid-Seventies.  I was 
curious to find out what pearls of wisdom it contained about 
homosexuality.  Sure enough, it stated that homosexuality was an 
abnormality caused by the overly-nurturing mother and the father who 
didn't play enough ball with the boy (notice they never talk about 
lesbians!).  

That is a theory that has been disproven for the past two decades.  
(Though it doesn't surprise me that a Jesuit university would use such 
a text book with such outdated information.)  Not to mention that, in 
the Sixties, before homosexuality was removed from the American 
Psychiatric Association's list of "sicknesses" in '73, it used to be 
common to place gay people in institutions and to melt their brains 
with shock therapy; this is how Alan Turing died.  So much for modern 
science, huh?

Moral of the story: Don't believe everything you read in your 
psychiatry manual.  Smart as we are (ha!), we still have a lot to 
learn about human behavior and development.


						--Ger

    
    re: .169
    
    	Good point!  I hate to think about all the little bits of 
        misinformation I've picked up in schools over the years.
        I'm very wary now of pulling out writings as proof (and
        I'm less and less sure of the capability or even need to
        "prove" anything).  Writing is such a powerful tool, and so
    	pervasive, that we tend to ascribe a high value to anything in
    	print.  One of the most useful classes I ever had was
    	"Literature and Ideology" - the basis was that all written
    	material is inherently ideological because it constitutes
    	a process of selection guided by the beliefs and values of
    	the writer(s).  
    
    	I've seen enough contradictory "evidence" on both sides to
    	feel that there's a lot of gray area here - especially because
    	what gets written up about human behavior centers on how people
    	have been observed to behave in the past, not how they're
    	capable of behaving now and in the future.  We're really in trouble
    	when we start seeing ourselves as static...
    
    	Ron