Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Gee, Wayne, I think most people would have put you as a 1 and 5.  I'm
    not sure I understand what 2 means.  Maybe some kind soul could splain
    it to me.  I don't see myself anywhere in there.  Should I be bothered
    by that?  At first I thought I must be a 2, but Wayne and I can't both
    be a 2.  I know Wayne thinks I'm a 3, but though I sympathize with the
    feminists, I don't feel any guilt about the situation.  And I've only
    used a PC pronoun once and that was as a joke.  I think the problem is
    that the list was made by a woman.  I think Wayne fell for the bait.
    Didn't you feel the ridicule, Wayne?  You fell right in and at a
    woman's beck and call you went a-trashing your fellow male human
    beings.  Let's not let women (lord love 'em as I do) define us.  
    
    						- Vick

    Vick,
    
    		Your sense of humor appears to be a little twisted. Yes, I
    do think you are a three. This was only one of many I could have
    entered. If you want to snipe at everything I enter I would have no 
    problem entering many more. Men are back whether you like it or not and
    feminists ( male and female ) are not going to define us anymore. That
    was the jist of the base note, the tactics that have been used on men
    no longer work. You may continue to try and push those tactics, but it
    is a new day and a new way.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne 

    Re: sense of humor
    
    Least I got one.
    					HATD
    					- Vick
    P.S.
    :^) even if you don't feel like it.
    
    P.P.S.
    I only snipe at good targets.

re .3, "Men are back"

I didn't realize that we had gone anywhere. :-)

Dan

    re. last two

    		I'll give you guys credit you are persistent.



    			HAND
    			Wayne
    
    P.S. At least I have something to say. I am at least trying to promote
    a level playing field and I have *ALL* my sandwiches for my picnic.

>    a level playing field and I have *ALL* my sandwiches for my picnic.
    
    Baloney sandwiches no doubt.
    						- Vick

Great to see nothing changed in my absence...

    re .7

    	Sure as H*LL beats your Limburger. I catch your drift though.
    
    			 ha ha ha.

     This has been fun but I really think we need to get back to the topic.
    No more insults for today let's get some other people involved in the
    string. OK ?

    			HAND
    			Wayne
    

    Re: .9
    
    Sure, Wayne - but only those who think like you?  That's what you 
    implied in the base note.  Or can anyone play?
    
    
    Actually, I enjoyed the quotes.  I think there's more than a kernel
    of truth behind the hyperbole and satire.  I've certainly seen all
    of the tactics mentioned used, at one time or another.  But I
    generally assume that those who use such are taking themselves just
    a bit too seriously, or perhaps fail to recognize that they're actually
    hurting their own cause.
    
    				Steve

    
    >Like generals, women are wondering what the condition the enemy is in
    
    I guess it was said in one line what many of us have been were
    woundering for so long. That there exist a war between the sexist.

>    woundering for so long. That there exist a war between the sexist.
    								^^^^^^
    That's either a wonderful typo or a brilliant pun.
    
    					- VicK
    

    
    Nice base note Wayne, thanks for entering it.
    
    
    							Hank

    Great basenote! My main gripe about this "war" is that the major
    casualty has been romance. It's hard to feel romantic about women
    anymore and that is sad, at least for me.

    RE: .14
    I'm not too sure
    The conquest of beauty still thrives in my veins

	Great basenote. Though the 1-5 list certainly doesn't cover all
	permutations of men, I think I tend to move through each of these
	options; though not hopeless from 1 or obsessed from 2 or guilty
	from 3; seeking connections with the past in 4 without dwelling 
	there; not pissed off from 5 but thinking about what is the reality
	of what my own needs are in relationships that I feel are between
	equals.

        >716.14                     
        >Great basenote! My main gripe about this "war" is that the major
        >casualty has been romance. It's hard to feel romantic about women
        >anymore and that is sad, at least for me.

	I agree though for me, I still feel very much in touch with 
	romantic feelings towards women but it doesn't seem to me lately that
	women allow me the luxury of staying in that romantic place too long.
	There seems to be a need to test and test,test,test over and over again
	my ability to communicate,empathize,be sensitive,etc. With that many
	tests, I'm guaranteed to get caught in a Neanderthal moment (usually
	Sunday morning when I was still in bed - mouth not connected to brain).
	Once 1 test is failed all others are invalidated in light of this new
	info and we're back to square one. I did this cycle for a long time 
	before realizing how stressful it was on me. When I complained, I got
	what I consider to be a classic statement about relationships today.
	She said "I'm sorry but you're paying the price for every a**hole who 
	came before you." We lasted only a couple months beyond this conflict.
	As is typical of my own dual thinking, I felt immense relief when 
	we ended the relationship and immense guilt and inadequacy at not 
	being able to pass all her tests.

	To quote Barance Whitfield and the Savages, "Stop twisting my arm,
	I already love you".

	Ray Hayes
    
               

    I am of a type not listed in the basenote:  Non-Neaderthals who
    don't give a damn even when hit upside the head.
    
    I have to confess that just about every orchestrated social movement 
    which has gone on in the past 30 years has come across in my mind
    as a bunch of dissatisfied, disenchanted, and disturbed individuals
    looking for someone to blame for their own failed lives.  It's easier
    to blame society as a whole for shafting you or the group with which
    you identify than it is to take responsibility and do something
    more productive than whine.
    
    There do exist legitimate unjustices.  There are causes of great
    social worth.  Compared to feeding the worlds hungry or healing
    the sick, ragging about the opposite sex just doesn't seem worth
    the effort.
    
    Kris
    

For about the last 20 years of my life I have been fed a constant diet of
what women are about and what they aspire to etc.  I took a lot of notes
and while I have never:
	
	1.  Raped a woman
	2.  Hired a man over a woman (never hired anyone)
	3.  Abused a woman

I have quit calling women girls, ladies etc.  I have come to know that
women want the same opportunities as men, including the right to increase
their mortality rate and acquire colitus and ulcers due to careers etc.  I
have also learned that most women I know still want to have doors opened
for them and will only rarely ask a man out for a date.  I could go on and
on about what I've learned about women in the last two decades but you guys
know the list.  We've heard it from everyone from Betty Friedan to Phil
Donahue.  What have women learned about us in the last 20 years?  I think
not very much.  I still hear women say stuff like:  "Well you KNOW how men
are."  I say to them "No I don't know, why don't you tell me."  They say
"Well everyone knows that men only think about ONE thing!"  I want to say
"Well, I've listened to you for five minutes and all I can think about is
that you don't know anything about men.  You have memorized a stereotypical
myth about men and as long as you hold on to it you will never look for
what men really are about.  You would jump on any guy who made a statement
like 'Women only think about one thing; shopping!'"

I hear women trying to break down stereotypes about women at the same time
they are spewing unsubstantiated mytho-illogical crap like:

"Men aren't as nuturing as women."
"Men don't know how to handle kids."
"Men only think of sex."
"Men are slobs."
"All sex with men is rape."
"Men are selfish."
"Men aren't intuitive."
"Men only think of their jobs."
"Men only think of sports."
"Men think with their *icks."  (I know this is a repeat, couldn't help it)
"Men don't make good single parents."
"Only men abuse kids."

Again I could go on but you know the list.

Do I think men are sick of taking all the heat?  I know it wears on me.

patrick

    .20
    You forgot to mention discrimanation (sp) of the reversal rolls. As in, at 
    one time it was a gym/club for men and one for women. Then came for men
    and women. Now its women and no men. And they are still kicking down
    doors on men like storm troopers. Feminazi's? Case in point. Holiday
    Health centers across the US have a section for women and a section for
    every one else. How about a bank! A bank for women by women?? I
    donno.... Sounds sexist to me.....  
    

re. 21

How about the Leggs Mini-Marathon for women only.  There are NO men only
road races.

patrick    

    .22 
    Don't forget the one way street in divorce courts.

	  Personally I think women are afraid of men. Masculinity is no longer
a desirable trait and the base note supports that statement. Masculinity is 
under attack, femininity is not. My quandary is why? I don't understand why it 
would be in the best interest of humanity to have men respond and feel like 
women. Women need not fear or be jealous of men. The position men and women 
are in today is not desirable for either gender as the anger, and frustration 
in MENNOTES and WOMENNOTES prove. Have both genders allowed a vocal 
minority to create a battle of the sexes that neither, in truth, want.

	  	I wish I knew the answers because I do not want women angry 
at me and at the same time I don't want to be angry with them. At the 
present time it is either acquiesce or fight for gender survival IMHO.


	  		HAND
	  		Wayne
    

    Wayne, I realize my comments aren't welcome in this topic (and I don't
    intend to argue with you about your views on this, nor do I intend to
    stick around for any other reason...)

    One thing you should take into account is that the struggle for women's
    rights has been going on for over 200 years now (starting with the
    beginning of the movement during the Renaissance in Europe.)  The U.S.
    women's movement dates back to 1848.

    The struggle has spanned many generations in these past two centuries
    - and no matter how badly a generation manages to squelch the issues,
    they just keep coming back (as new generations of women are born into
    a social/legal/political/economic environment they regard as unjust.)

    You may not agree with some women's and men's perspective on this - 
    and you have every right to resent it (if you do.)

    However, the equal rights problem won't go away.  It took women 72
    years to win the right to vote (from 1848 to 1920.)  It's now been
    72 years or so since the ERA was first proposed.

    It isn't just a "vocal minority" keeping women's rights issues alive.

    Long after you and I are gone from this earth (even if we live to be
    100,) the issues will still be present, I'm sure.

    At some point, those against the women's movement might want to ask
    themselves why these issues are important enough to live on after
    generation upon generation of men and women die without reaching a
    solution.

    I wish someone would document for us the remaining clear injustices
    that "patriarchy" is inflicting upon women. Whenever they quote
    disparities in pay (which are certainly not our fault) I never see
    statistics which are clean, devoid of factors such as scholarity,
    experience, leadership or motivational ability, etc. which do and should
    influence pay. Whenever they talk about rape statistics they forget
    that it affects us, their brothers, fathers, lovers, husbands, etc.
    also. When they discuss child abusers they compare us, decent people,
    with violent or sick people. When they extoll the virtues of
    self-determination or "pro-choice" they forget that many women are
    against those issues, not men in particular.
    
    But I will say to the fellow who didn't "pass" all the tests: Good
    riddance, she didn't desire you enough. Someone eventually will!

re. 24

I hear ya' Wayne.  I don't think that the Andrea Dworkin's of America
represent women anymore than Skinheads or Neo-Nazis represent me.  But they
are very vocal.  I suspect that since they don't like men (Andrea Dworkin
has proposed a separate state for men and women) they have no interest in
narrowing the gender gap.  I suspect that these types of women don't have
an agenda of good will.  I suspect that they have an agenda that will
punish men in any way possible and promote themselves as Supreme Guardians
of Women.  Like Gunner Joe McCarthy was protecting us against Communists by
punishing anyone who disagreed with him or J. Edgar Hoover's preoccupation
with everyone's sex life because he didn't have one.

What seems to escape many of these type of women is that men have HELPED
women get more rights.  When women were given the right to vote there were
NO WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT.  Who voted for all this?  MEN!  So why are men
declared the enemy simply because of their gender?  Beats the heck out of
me.

patrick

    RE: .28  Patrick
    
    >What seems to escape many of these type of women is that men have HELPED
    >women get more rights.  When women were given the right to vote there were
    >NO WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT.  Who voted for all this?  MEN!  So why are men
    >declared the enemy simply because of their gender?  Beats the heck out of
    >me.
    
    You may not realize this, but one of the big final pushes for women's
    vote came when women starting killing themselves over it.  Among other
    things, some women went on a hunger strike in prison (where they served
    sentences for protesting about this issue.)  They were "force fed" by
    having tubes jammed down their throats into their stomachs.  The fight
    had gone on for 72 years at that point.  It's not surprising that the
    legislators finally passed the amendment.
    
    "Men" (as a group) are not the enemy, and never have been.  It's the
    injustice of the situation that is the enemy.
    
    P.S. As I'm sure you know, there are only a very, very, very few more
    women in Congress today than there were in 1920 (and its now 72 years 
    since then.)

    Suzanne seems to assume that because I am concerned about men losing
    their rights that I am against women's rights, which I'm not. Men are
    taking the short end of very stinky stick. I'm saying get rid of the
    stick not stick it to another group. Some people seem to need this
    gender conflict to justify their their presents on the earth. I truly
    believe men are waking up and the shrill voices of radicals will be
    talking to themselves.



    			HAND
    			Wayne 

    Wayne, when our children are 100 years old, the issues will be still
    be an integral part of our culture (unless the injustices end.)

    It's been a consistent pattern (over the course of almost 150 years
    in this country) that the women's movement comes back every time a
    generation manages to squelch it (temporarily.)

    Our children will be fighting this off and on for the rest of their
    lives (and so will their children) as long as the problems continue.

    As much as the whole series of rights issues exists in the forefront
    of our cultural psyche - I see less and less indication that these 
    issues will be momentarily squelched again any time soon.

    After all, topics like this wouldn't be here if this were a non-issue.

    Suzzanne,
    
    		Tell me, what rights don't you have that I have? Don't go off
    the deep end just answer the question.
    
    
    
    
    
                                HAND
    				Wayne

    Wayne, let's not personalize this with a battle between how we each
    perceive our own lives.  It has nothing to do with the culturally-imposed
    injustices that have been issues in Western civilization since 150 years
    before either of us were born.

    If you want a list of some of the main rights issues we still face today
    (as a society,) I'd be more than happy to list them for you.
    
    Just let me know.

    Do it.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    .34> Do it.
    
    Ditto.
    
    
    			FOOT
    			Bubba

    Fine, Wayne and Jerry.  I'll put something together this evening.
    
    I don't expect to change anyone's mind about any of this (any more
    than my mind would be changed if someone hotly disputed every issue
    I listed.)
    
    My point is that you aren't the enemy, Wayne, nor are you, Jerry -
    if you were, we'd be picketing your houses.  :-)
    
    Men (as a group) aren't the enemy, either.  As I said before, they
    never were.
    
    It's more complicated than that (which is why the whole thing has been
    going on for over 200 years in Western culture.)
    
    More later...

    
.18>    I am of a type not listed in the basenote:  Non-Neaderthals who
.18>    don't give a damn even when hit upside the head.

    Ditto, dude.

    re -1
    
    		We are a varied group but we are being beaten up as a
    sterotypical group.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

.33> ..since 150 years before..

.36> ...going on for over 200 years..

Please hurry up and post your response .. looks like we're 
on a on a 50 year per 3 note acceleration here.  Before long
we're at creation day ...

Bubba

    RE: .40  Jerry

    I'm not sure how you missed this, but...
    
    As mentioned several times before, the women's movement started in 
    Europe over 200 years ago (during the Renaissance.)

    The U.S. women's movement dates back to 1848 (144 years ago, to be
    precise,) when the first women's rights conference was held in N.Y.
    There was significant interest in women's rights prior to that, but
    the conference was the first such meeting recorded in the U.S.

    I'm not going to post the information I have about the injustices
    that still exist.

    It's obviously inappropriate here.

    HELLO,
    
    	Just one point, for me, a European, the RENAISSANCE is the XVth and
    the beginning of the XVIth century. It is more the 200 years old.
    
    	May be you mean RESTAURATION, after the french revolution.
    
    	THIERRY  

RE:  Note 716.29  GORE::CONLON 

>    P.S. As I'm sure you know, there are only a very, very, very few more
>    women in Congress today than there were in 1920 (and its now 72 years 
>    since then.)

So?  Would would suppose that they are elected to Congress by the people.

When you quit balancing the scale with men on one side and women on the other,
and start to see them as people, you'll quit losing sleep at night.  Squaking
about having more males vs females in Congress or anything else is silly.

Reminds me of a friend that worked in Texas.  His boss was visited and told by
the NCAACP, (or whatever letters they stick in there), and told that they
wanted him to start working the same number of blacks that he did whites.  They
came back a couple of weeks later when they learned he had fired 4 blacks. 
When asked why, he told them he honored their request.  Since he was working 4
more blacks than whites, he fired four of them.  True story.  They left him
alone after that.  It's all silly.

    	Suzanne,please enter your list as the discussion was quite 
    interesting & I would like to see what issues you feel are relavant.
    
    	The list would definitely be suitable to this discussion

.35>                        -< With baited breath .... >-

	:-)  :-)  worms on your tongue???  arr arr arr  ;-)

 Nah, he was eatin' sardines... :-)

    RE: .42
    
    Thanks - I stand corrected.  The women's movement in Europe did start
    during the time period you mentioned (after the French revolution.)
    
    Suzanne

    Funny, how some know their rights, but know not the rights of others.

How did we turn a note entitled "Men Are Happening" into a history lesson
of the women's movement?

I don't want to come across as a Robert Bly II but I for one am not going
to apologize for being male.  I am not going to do engage in flagellant
behavior to punish myself or other men simply because of gender.

patrick

    RE: .43  Dwight
    
    > When you quit balancing the scale with men on one side and women on 
    > the other, and start to see them as people, you'll quit losing sleep 
    > at night.  Squaking about having more males vs females in Congress 
    > or anything else is silly.
    
    Dwight, if you're ever in a divorce situation where there are kids and
    your lawyer tells you that there isn't any hope *at all* of getting
    custody (because it's always given to the Mother/woman) - tell
    yourself to quit balancing the divorce scales with men on one side
    and women on the other (and that you'll only be silly if men's
    treatment in divorce bothers you.)
    
    This is one of the things that would change if we had equal rights.

re:<<< Note 716.32 by CSC32::W_LINVILLE "sinning ain't no fun since she bought a gun" >>>
                                 -< question >-

>>    Suzzanne,
    
>>    		Tell me, what rights don't you have that I have? Don't go off
>>    the deep end just answer the question.
  
Well, I'm not Suzanne but...for one thing, men have the right to walk around
in public without a shirt on, but women get arrested for that sort of
thing...

			KNEE
			Jenna

    RE: .51
    
    Why ... you're right!  What we need is a Constitutional amendment
    on breast and the display thereof!
    
    

    .52 I'll vote for that too! Why hide some good things? 

    
    Re: .49 Patrick
    
    	Happens all the time here. Usually by the same noter(s).
    
    							Hank

    Like this topic, many topics evolve into the women's movement because
    the basenote is ABOUT the women's rights movement (or men's reaction 
    to it) in the first place.
    
    Statements were made about the conflicts involved with the women's
    rights movement - men and women angry at each other over it, etc.,
    and claims that the whole thing is only a few loud voices - before
    someone stepped up to say, "Men are not the enemy, but this thing
    has gone on way too long to be a 'few loud voices.'  It's more
    complicated than that."

    See .27 by Bustamante to see who turned this note into a discussion
    of women's rights.  Ask and ye shall receive.
    
    					- Vick

I saw .27 as a rhetorical question rather than a solicitation but I can see
how others may not.

patrick

    .55
    Susanne,
    
    	Why don't you re-introduce yourself. You checked out of here once.
    Don't want to confuse anyone who is getting confused as weither your
    here or not. I like to see you hang around and make your points. But, I
    don't know if its you or Memorix? :-)
    
    In good Fun
    George

    re .51

    		That is a law not a right. Please, spend some time learning
    the difference between a law and a constitutional right.



    			HAND
    			Wayne

re:<<< Note 716.59 by CSC32::W_LINVILLE "sinning ain't no fun since she bought a gun" >>>
                                -< It's a law >-

>>    		That is a law not a right. Please, spend some time learning
>>    the difference between a law and a constitutional right.

Yes, I know it's a law. That's why women get arrested for running around
topless. You didn't say anything about constitutional rights. I don't
know if there's anything in the constitution that says men have a right to
run around topless. I just know they can and women can't.

Jenna

re .60

>>You didn't say anything about constitutional rights.

>>Jenna

***    Suzanne,
    
***    		Tell me, what rights don't you have that I have? Don't go off
                              ^^^^^^
***    the deep end just answer the question.
    
   	I sure did!!!!!!! 

    		The point is you have exactly the same rights that I have.
    What you are really talking about is advantages, real or perceived.
    Women have confused some very stupid men with the argument of
    advantages = rights. I will be glad to help women realize equal
    advantages, but I will fight with all my ability to stop radical
    feminist and other groups screwing with mine and your rights. 
    

    			HAND
    			Wayne
    
    
                                HAND
    				Wayne
    

    RE: .61  Wayne
    
    > The point is you have exactly the same rights that I have.
    
    On paper, perhaps.
    
    These rights are meaningless if culturally-imposed, systematic
    discrimination deprives groups of their rights in practice.
    
    This is the fight involved with equal rights movements.  No one
    wants (or intends) to take away your rights.

    This is fruitless. Why don't we rename this conference to WOMENNOTES II
    and it get over with.
    
    
    			Wayne
    

    
    	...or you could respond to the comments about the point you
    	raised, Wayne.
    

    I will respond to you this one last time Suzanne. Type the list in this
    string, until then we have nothing to say to each other.
    
    
    
    			Wayne

.63> This is fruitless. Why don't we rename this conference to WOMENNOTES II
.63> and it get over with.
    
    Someone either (1) steal Wayne's keyboard, (2) cut his fingers off,
    (3) tie his hands behind his back, or (4) all of the above.
    
    :-)
    			TEETH
    			Jerry

    Just frustration Jerry.
    
    
    
    			Wayne

    Amen.
    
    
    			Jerry

> This is fruitless. Why don't we rename this conference to WOMENNOTES II
> and it get over with.
    
    Yo, you're the guy who keeps wanting to drag feminism into this
    conference.  Sure, it's only to attack feminism, but that's not the
    same as avoiding it.  If you're going to keep bringing the subject up,
    why should readers be restricted to 1) agreeing or 2) not saying
    anything?  (Although I get as bored as the next guy (almost), and pick
    2 fairly often.)
    
    Personally, I'd just as soon we went back to talking about underwear
    and divorces.
    
    Ray

    Naw, let's get back to nose hair....
    
    			Steve

    If it were up to Steve and Ray all we would talk about are Neanderthal
    subjects, that way we would not know when we were getting screwed. You
    guys can take your pot shots at me all day, it will be a waste of good
    electrons. If I can't motivate the men here to speak up and say WHOA
    to the crap pushed on them then you win and can you talk about your
    underwear all you want. I can't lose cause I could care less about your
    underwear and could only hope that the short stick finds you sometime.



    			Wayne

    It amazed me to see not one response to Suzanne's .50.  I interpreted
    that as her SUPPORTING mens rights.  Since what she brought up happens
    to be one of my hot buttons, I'll try to elaborate.  Suzanne is right. 
    Men have gotten screwed over time and time again in the divorce courts. 
    It frustrates me to NO END to see what is happening to men time and
    time again in the courts and custody.  I'm not writing this very well,
    because this is such an emotional topic for me.  I fully agree with
    Suzanne that equal rights will go to help all of us.  I get INCREDIBLY
    angry when I see women get vindictive over the divorce, make the man
    the bad guy and the kids end up suffering over it because she won't put
    her resentments aside for the children.  I hear stories like this ALL
    THE TIME.  
    
    I gotta go on record and say that BOTH women and men have had the
    shaft, from each other.  Why can't we learn to work together????????  
    What do we have to do to come together as a whole?  Is it possible or 
    am I living in fantasy land?  I suspect I am.
    
    Karen

    Ok, Wayne.  Let's see YOUR list of the "short stick" as you put it.
    We can then have something to compare Suzanne's list to.  I certainly
    agree that there are many areas where men get a raw deal, but we've
    only done it to ourselves, and it seems pointless to me to be so
    eager to blame the whole mess on women, as you seem to want to do.
    
    			Steve

    Re: .72
    
    I agree 100%, Karen.  What it takes is folks willing to stop looking
    for "enemies" and start looking for solutions.
    
    				Steve

    Well said Karen. I don't know how to get done. That's all I want equal
    rights for everyone, and everyone have the same advantages.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    This is sitting with me, so I'm gonna say it.  This is the way that I
    see things.  For many years, women put up with being second class
    citizens.  When we were battered, etc., there was NO WHERE for women to
    turn.  Now, there are shelters, womens groups etc., that women can now
    turn to for help.  I say YAY!  We need them.  BUT, now the pendulum has
    swung too far in the other direction.  Because the problems of
    battering, rape, child sexual abuse were ignored for so long, men are
    NOW being punished as a result of "the sins of their fathers".  What's
    it gonna take for the pendulum to quite swinging so far to either side? 
    What's it gonna take so ALL men aren't punished and treated like pond
    scum in custody cases?  I say this because it's MY perceived reality. 
    When and HOW can this country become balanced enough to survive?  I'm
    one of those women who didn't receive child support.  My ex-husband is
    one of the contributors to this dilemma and if any of you want to shoot
    him I'll gladly give you his name and address. :-)  Sorry, I needed to
    lighten up.  Now, alot of people would think I am crazy for feeling the
    way I do.  I've seen both sides of the issue and I just think the men
    who want visitation, who want to pay child support, who want active
    involvement in their children's lives are getting screwed over because
    of men like my ex.  I also believe that the men who want the above far
    outnumber the men who don't/won't.  I've heard too many women be furious 
    and resentful towards their ex-husbands and I've seen too many men in pain
    over the woman's actions.  This is the norm as I see it.  And sadly,
    the judges listen to the women, because we are out of balance.
    
    What can we do to get a balance?  Men and women fighting each other
    isn't the answer.  What can we do to work together and resolve these
    issues?  Resentments and anger and finger-pointing aren't the answers
    and both sexes are equally guilty in my book.  
    
    I feel like I'm leaving this hanging, but I ran out of words.
    
    Karen

re:<<< Note 716.61 by CSC32::W_LINVILLE "sinning ain't no fun since she bought a gun" >>>
                                 -< Sure did >-

re .60

>>You didn't say anything about constitutional rights.

>>Jenna

***    Suzanne,
    
***    		Tell me, what rights don't you have that I have? Don't go off
                              ^^^^^^
***    the deep end just answer the question.
    
>>   	I sure did!!!!!!! 

Well, I don't see the word *constitutional* in there.

>>    		The point is you have exactly the same rights that I have.
>>    What you are really talking about is advantages, real or perceived.

No, I'm not talking about advantages. But you can call it what you
want. The fact is, men have the right to take their shirts off in 
public and women get arrested for it. Men have the *advantage* of
being able to pee in a bottle when they're in a boat.

>>    Women have confused some very stupid men with the argument of
>>    advantages = rights. I will be glad to help women realize equal
>>    advantages, but I will fight with all my ability to stop radical
>>    feminist and other groups screwing with mine and your rights. 
    
I'm not trying to confuse anyone or screw with anyone's mind, and I'm
not a radical feminist (subject to whatever your definition of radical
feminist is). Fact is, I'm just trying to mind my own business and be
myself and not hurt anyone in the process.

Jenna

    Jenna,
    
    		No problem. Karen has expressed my feelings on this matter,
    and did a darn good job. I'm just looking for the middle ground.
    
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

.73> ...but we've only done it to ourselves...
    
    How the hell do you figure this?
    
    /Bubba/

    Bubba,
    
    Maybe what Steve was talking about is the centuries where women have
    been second class citizens.  All the years where we had nowhere to turn
    to.  I don't think you can deny that our culture is male-dominated. 
    Why does anybody have to dominate anybody?  Since I've already vented,
    and would only be repeating myself here, I'll shut up for now.
    
    Karen

        RE:  Note 716.50  GORE::CONLON 

    	>tell yourself to quit balancing the divorce scales with men on
        >one side and women on the other (and that you'll only be silly
        >if men's treatment in divorce bothers you.)
    
        We all know that men generally get the shaft in court.  This
        does not support your argument of having more men in Congress
        than women.  Your note suggested that we need to "bus" in
        women to any area that may be mostly male populated,
        regardless of circumstances.

        But hey, if you make a bad argument over here... then change
        it to something else and pretend its the same argument, hoping
        no one will notice.

RE Note 716.78            EDWIN::THIBAULT "Land of Confusion"                  

>No, I'm not talking about advantages. But you can call it what you
>want. The fact is, men have the right to take their shirts off in 
>public and women get arrested for it. Men have the *advantage* of
>being able to pee in a bottle when they're in a boat.

    
    No lie: I have seen 'devices' advertised so that "you to can stand at
    the rail with your man..." on a boat.
    
    BTW: This is biology. How did this get to be my problem? Like blaiming
    PMS or your period on me. The shirt thing, advantage, yes, it is cultural 
    though. Get the laws changed.
    
    
Steve

    Another vote for Karens .72!! Very well said. But sometimes silence is
    also an acceptance. Silence is a funny animal. It is either acceptance
    or not. In this case I would believe it is for no one attacked her on
    that point. I too believe that both sides should find a happy medium.
    But, the wheels are in motion, and to stop them is going to be as tuff
    as it was to make them happen. Who knows..... It might take 200
    years... Mean time. If you want change, gotta suport those who are
    writing change and for what reasons are the good and benificial.
    
    Bottom line. I so no reason not to have a woman president if she is a
    good canidate. Not that someone wants to make history to say, "Yep,
    one more in our belt". Then its a tweeking of the nose, a slapping in 
    the face. And the trenches get deeper. 

    .82
    >I don't think you can deny that our culture is male-dominated.
    
    Its a persective of where you stand. Men and women have been programed
    from other generations to behaive as we do. I cannot understand that I
    am to fault for child rearing that your parents and my parents have
    done to make us who we are today. And it is sad that we, Men, are held
    to blame for it. Just as women don't like to hear things that they ate
    some apple and its all their fault. Cut the crud. WE can make the
    change if we stop finger pointing, as you have said very very well in
    .72.
    
    George

    RE: .83  Dwight
    
    > Your note suggested that we need to "bus" in women to any area that 
    > may be mostly male populated, regardless of circumstances.
    
    My note suggested no such thing.  I merely pointed out that there
    are almost as few women in Congress as there were in 1920 (when
    women won the vote.)  I said nothing about a "solution" for this.
    
    Did my note about men being denied custody of children also suggest
    to you that men be "bussed" into single parent homes?

    >that men be "bussed" into single parents homes?
    
    Why not? Isn't that what your posturing has been doing? Sometimes
    placing women in positions that they are not qualified to do? Men are
    most oftenly shut out of the homes of their children. Why no? Many men
    have been falsely arrested for things they have not done in divorce,
    have been trown in jail when they are not able to pay child suport
    because they have lost their jobs. I thought we did away with debters
    prisions. Guess your wrong agian? They are falsely accused of beating,
    molesting, etc. 

Karen,

You make many good points, Thank You!  I read your very sane reasoning and
wonder why voices like yours are so few.  I suspect that as a man I hear
the ravings of women like Andrea Dworkin (we should have a separate state
for men and women and all heterosexual intercourse is rape and all writings
about it is pornographic) and because she is so vocal I conclude that she
represents women.  She says she does.  I read things from Susan Estrich
(all intercourse is rape) and Mary Koss (most sex is rape) and I wonder if
most women feel this way.  Susan Estrich is a Harvard Law School professor
and Mary Koss works for MS Magazine.  I read about the Hill/Thomas fiasco
and wonder how widespread this is.

As a man I have done a lot of self examination in the last 20 years.  I
asked myself if any woman I've known would say that I raped her.  I asked
myself if I have given women's opinions less merit than men's.  I asked
myself if I had in any way contributed to women being denied access to
anything.  I know a lot of men who have asked themselves these types of
questions.  And they were/are tough questions.  And for most men the result
is change.  For example I used to call women girls.  I didn't know anyone
would be offended by this as I called men 'guys'.  I've made a major change
in my way of speaking.  It's now Police Officer instead of Policemen.  It's
Postal Carrier instead of Mailman and on and on and on.  Men have done a
LOT of changing lately.  I think we have learned a lot.  I think it's time
women learned about men.  It's true we men all think about ONE thing; and
that thing is LIFE!  Better life for us, our wives/SOs, kids.

patrick

    Quit nitpicking me George.  You know what I meant, we've discussed it
    before.  I agree with what you said, but what's it gonna take to change
    the mindset?  In my mind this is still a male-dominated culture, but
    it's not as out of balance as it was 20 - 30 years ago.  
    
    Karen

    Oh, Karen. Nit picking is being done just as equally by women as it is
    by men. I wasn't intentionally nitting on you. Just trying to make it
    known to other fellow nits of the pics. The world is not a fair and
    equal place. But, if we bring it open. Perhaps there will be something
    done about it.

    RE: .88  RAUH
    
    >> that men be "bussed" into single parents homes?
    
    > Isn't that what your posturing has been doing? Sometimes
    > placing women in positions that they are not qualified to do?
    
    If someone were to claim that (most) men are denied custody of their
    children because they are unqualified for the job, can you imagine
    how furious (and rightly so) people would be here?
    
    I've never in my life suggested that women be given jobs they are
    unqualified to do.
    
    The problems of widespread job discrimination against women *and* 
    discrimination against men in divorce court come from the SAME
    CULTURAL PREJUDICE (eg, the myth that men are "designed" or "suited"
    more for the role of "breadwinner" while women are "designed" or 
    "suited" for the role of "nurturer.")
    
    Thus, men are given most of the good jobs, and women get the children
    (and money from the men after divorce) in many/most cases.
    
    If people in our society want men to be given the opportunity to raise
    their children more often after divorce, we have to come to an
    agreement that this myth is crap (and that individual men and women
    are "designed" and "suited" for both careers and family when they are
    willing to work at them - and MANY, MANY, MANY men and women work
    damn hard at both.)

    <The problems of widespread job discrimination against women *and* 
    <discrimination against men in divorce court come from the SAME
    <CULTURAL PREJUDICE (eg, the myth that men are "designed" or "suited"
    <more for the role of "breadwinner" while women are "designed" or 
    <"suited" for the role of "nurturer.")
    
    I don't think that many laws are based on some notion of how men or
    women have been 'designed' or 'suited'.
    I think the CULTURAL PREJUDICE you speak of is more typically based on
    recognition of the way the culture runs itself rather than the way the
    culture OUGHT to run itself. 
    (there are of course some laws that speak to recognition of ideals
    rather than cultural reality)
    e.g. anti-discrimination laws.

    Suzanne didn't say anything about laws.  She mentioned discrimination
    in the job market and in divorce courts.  The latter is a matter of
    how a law is applied, rather than what the law says, and the way the
    law is applied is heavily culturally based.
    
    					- Vick

    <The problems of widespread job discrimination against women *and* 
    <discrimination against men in divorce court come from the SAME
    <CULTURAL PREJUDICE (eg, the myth that men are "designed" or "suited"
    <more for the role of "breadwinner" while women are "designed" or 
    <"suited" for the role of "nurturer.")
    
    I don't think that widespread job discrimination against either women
    or men is based on some notion of how men or women have been
    'designed' or 'suited'.
    I think the CULTURAL PREJUDICE you speak of is more typically based on
    recognition of the way the culture runs itself rather than the way the
    culture OUGHT to run itself. Although it seems clear, that some people see
    the way the culture IS to by synonomous with the way the culture OUGHT
    to be.
    
    (there are of course some laws that speak to recognition of ideals
    rather than cultural reality)
    e.g. anti-discrimination laws.

    As far as I know, no laws exist which require judges to grant custody
    to women in most divorce cases.  Neither are there laws which require
    people to assume that women are unqualified for many/most of the
    highest paid jobs in our culture.  Yet, both things happen.

    The Twentieth Century has produced close to the same number of college
    educated men and women - if you don't believe it, check an analysis of
    Law schools sometime (as an example) and see that Law graduates are
    split pretty close to 50/50 among men and women.  Even so, only 1% of
    the Law firm partners in this country are women.

    On the wall at my doctor's office is a photo of his father's graduating
    class at Medical school in 1906.  One THIRD of the graduates of this
    class were women.  (In 1906!!!!)  In his own graduating class photo,
    close to half the graduates were women.

    Even so, women are still regarded in this country as being (in general)
    "less qualified" for the higher-paying jobs.  Meanwhile, women with
    Bachelors and Masters degrees fill up an unbelievable number of
    clerical, secretarial and administrative positions in the work force
    (despite the fact that a larger percentage of women are currently in
    the work force than at almost any other decade in this century.)

    Quite a few people dismiss all this with "Women don't want the higher-
    paying jobs" or "Women's careers don't flourish because they're too
    busy with their families."

    When a judge denies a man custody of his children, would it be ok for
    the judge to say, "Yeah, but men don't want custody of their children"
    or "Men are no good at child rearing because they're too busy with
    their careers" ??  (It's not ok with me!)

    As long as our culture conducts affairs with these prejudices in mind,
    men will continue to be burdened with the financial end of family life
    (while being discriminated against when it comes to custody.)

    What a horrible price for men to pay for the cultural prejudices against 
    men and women - they lose their families *and* go broke in the process 
    (as ordered by the court.)

    Sexual discrimination hurts us all, in other words.  Things will never
    improve significantly for men in this area until our culture wakes up
    and puts an end to the myths about what men and women are "designed"
    to do.

    Herb, 
    No one ever said prejudice had a simple basis.  If a person behaves
    prejudicially based on their perception of the way society currently
    works, there still is at work at some level, in some stone in the
    edifice of this prejudice, the notion of how the victim is designed
    or suited based on something other then his/her abilities.
    
    					- Vick

    Once upon a time, men and women worked together in the fields, on the
    farm. They still do in many other places. The idea of mens work or
    womans work seemed to come as an after thought. 

    re .97
    
    danke schoen, Herr Professor

I think what the author of .0 is trying to say is that, although women
*are* still getting the short end of the stick in a lot of cases, 
"feminists" are beginning to hurt their case more than helping it with all 
their shrill rhetoric.  Especially rhetoric about "equal rights" that on closer 
inspection are not really "equal". 

More and more men are getting fed up with being presented the bill for 
all the wrongs that any man in history has ever done.   They're getting 
fed up with truck load after truck load of barnyard fertilizer being dumped 
on them.  They're sick and tired of being branded as sexists/bigots every
time some "feminist" doesn't get her way.  And they're increasingly angry
with demands that "men" should "help" fix all the problems of women
have while the "feminists" don't give a tinker's $#@% about the problems
that men face ( after all we're big, strong men who should be able to
fix our own problems ).

Like Karen and Michelle, I believe that this is unfortunate since there
are a lot of problems that could be fixed if men and women could work
together.

fred();

    RE: .100  fred

    Susan Faludi's book "BACKLASH" has its first chapter devoted to the
    topic "Blame it on feminism."

    Feminists are every bit as tired of being blamed for everything from
    the economy to women's stress during sexual discrimination.

    Dumping a truckload of manure on feminists is as useless as you claim
    it is to dump such a truckload onto men.

    If you listen closely to what feminists actually say, MEN are not
    being condemned and blamed as often as you think.  The injustices
    are being protested (as well they should.)
    
    If "finger-pointing" is as pointless as you suggest, then why point
    fingers at feminists?

    
    re .101
    
    And that is about the answer I expected.  However, as in .0 and .100
    it does nothing to change my mind.
    
    I did indicate in .100 that I believe that women *do* have a lot
    of injustices,  and what did I get for it but ( yet another ) round
    of "everything feminists say and do shoud be beyond reproach and 
    regarded as comming straight from the mountain".
    
    fred();

    <If you listen closely to what feminists actually say, MEN are not
    <being condemned and blamed as often as you think.

    Who are these feminists we should listen to?
    
    Andrea Dworkin 
    Susan Estrich
    Mary Koss

    or some other hysteric (present company obviously excluded)
    

    .72
    
    No, Karen.  You are not living in a fantasy land.  I think there are
    more and more of us that want real equal rights.  Divorces shouldn't
    end up with one of the partners "winning" and the other "losing".  It
    hurts the children, and later the children's children, not to mention
    the initial brunt of the divorce itself.
    
    Argh.  This is a hot button for me too!!  
    
    -Janice

    RE: .102  fred

    > ...and what did I get for it but ( yet another ) round
    > of "everything feminists say and do shoud be beyond reproach and 
    > regarded as comming straight from the mountain".
    
    Gee, you have quite an imagination.

    I suppose I could say that your note was a suggestion to have
    feminists rounded up and executed.

    Would either of these gross exaggerations help the situation?
    
    I thought your note was about how we could make things better (rather
    than pointing fingers, etc.)  Then you go on to point fingers.
    
    Sounds rather self-defeating.

    Re .105
    
>>>    Sounds rather self-defeating.
    
    HMMMMM!  now where have I heard this before????
    
    fred();

    As in the similar earlier topic about Our Suffering, the only
    injustices being brought up are:
    
      1) Bad custody and alimony decisions. (Agreed, but the problem is
    sort of abstract if one's had the good sense not to marry.)
    
      2) Someone with no power whatsoever said something you thought was 
    unfair. (Hurts, don't it? How do you think YOUR targets feel? Oh, I
    forgot; they just have no sense of humor.)
    
      3) Things men do to themselves or other men. (Agreed. That's why I
    don't intend to band up with those men.)
    
    Ray

    RE: .106  Fred
    
    Ok, fine.  Point fingers all you like, if it helps you in some way.
    

    1) Get more women judges.  (No kidding.  They're less likely to
    romanticize and condescend, which in this case means less favoritism to
    the wife.)  Continue to cut back on the woman=maternal man=breadwinner
    equations.  Keep equalizing access to high paying jobs (and, alas, low
    paying jobs).
    
    2) Let people generalize if they want to, as long as they aren't being
    obnoxious-or-worse in person and as long as letting off steam doesn't
    turn into violence or oppression.  I don't mind Wayne getting P.O.ed at
    women; I just don't like him insisting that the other way round is
    unfair.  I don't mind Andrea Dworkin making speeches (though if she was
    Governor or President, I'd worry); I have the right to argue against
    her.
    
    3) Fight the batards.
    
    Ray

    RE:  Andrea Dworkin
    
    Keep in mind that speakers like Andrea Dworkin are deliberately
    controversial in order to keep the issues alive (even if they
    stay alive because people are verbally roasting Andrea over a
    pot of boiling oil.)
    
    It doesn't hurt the movement at all.  It moves otherwise "radical"-
    sounding feminists closer to mainstream.
    
    Whatever Andrea Dworkin says, the bottom line is equal rights for
    everyone - which means getting rid of the discriminatory practices
    against men and women that really do hurt many/most of us.

Andrea Dworkin is a Lesbian; nothing wrong with that.

Andrea Dworkin is a Lesbian writer who writes very explicit material about
Lesbian sexual encounters; nothing wrong with that either.

Andrea Dworkin is working on a bill in Minnesota that would ban
pornography but ONLY HETEROSEXUAL PORN.  She says that what she writes is
not pornographic because she is a more artful writer; if you can't see
anything wrong with that . . .

patrick

    
    	If what you say about the bill is true, Patrick, then work to
    	defeat it.
    
    	I certainly wouldn't be opposed to such a bill's defeat.
    
    	She's an individual.  I didn't sign anything (in blood or
    	otherwise) stating that I have to agree with every thing
    	she says or does simply because she is a famous feminist.

> Andrea Dworkin is working on a bill in Minnesota that would ban
> pornography but ONLY HETEROSEXUAL PORN.  She says that what she writes is
    
    For the most part, the battle for First Amendment rights (and, more to
    the point, for smut (: >,) seems to have been won within the loose and
    contradictory collection of interests dubbed "feminism".  At least I
    haven't had a rousing fight on the subject in a while, and any number
    of nasty books and periodicals are rolling about in the muck with ERA
    T-shirts on.  (Maybe living in S.F. spoils me?)
    
    Suzanne, I think Dworkin is an OK writer -- certainly smarter than
    William F. Buckley Jr., say -- but she seems about as relevant to MY
    brand of feminism as he does.  My (het male) brand is not everyone's,
    of course.  I've had rousing fights about that, too (: >,) but
    HAIR_IN_THE_DRAIN_NOTES might not be the right place to rehash them....
    
    Ray

    <certainly smarter than Buckley>
    
    Is that an editorial about their relevant political posturings, or have
    you developed some new standardized test based on evaluating writings?
    
    
    				

>    Is that an editorial about their relevant political posturings, or have
>    you developed some new standardized test based on evaluating writings?
    
    Editorial based on how well / entertainingly / scarily they argue their
    loopy ideas.
    
    Believe me, I stay well away from standardized tests.... (: >,)
    
    Ray

 >   I don't mind Wayne getting P.O.ed at women; I just don't like him insisting
 >   that the other way round is unfair.
    
 >   Ray

  	I am in no way P.O.ed at women and I don't mind at all if a woman
    is P.O.ed at a man.

    	Karen, Michelle, and others in this string have shown me that there
    are indeed women looking for a mutually beneficial middle ground.
    Their notes and the responses to them have been positive. Their are
    still others who only want their position to be taken into account.
    There are two genders, two positions, they are NOT mutually exclusive.
    The way we will survive as a society is to reach that middle ground.


    			HAND
    			Wayne 

    
    If I had a cause I was working on, I'm not sure it would be a
    benefit to have Andrea Dworkin *or* Andrew Dice Clay as one of
    my spokes-persons.  IMNSHO Andrea Dworkin has done more to alienate
    supporters and potential supporters of "feminsim" than anything I
    could do in the next 10 years.
    
    See .0
    
    fred();

    Fred,

    		Andrew Dice Clay is a pussycat compared to Judy Tenuta (
    another comedian ).

    	Quote:
    		"What ever happened to the kind of love leech that lived in
    his car and dropped by once a month to throw up and use you for your
    shower? Now all these pigs want is a commitment. It makes me sick.
    These Alan Alda, family focused, dead-men-do-eat-quiche hogs all say,
    "Oh now that it's the nineties, we're sensitive. We just want to sit
    arround with a bunch of men and cry." Well go to a Yankees game! It's
    tough love.

    		Now these baby-men want a 1-900-slutsicle, like Jessica
    Hahn, ( Right, like her body ws not donated by Du Pont.) Or they want a
    multimedia bondage goddess like myself to spank them. Like I have time
    to disipline some sperm whale with a Visa card. Excuse me, you middle
    aged minoxidil millionares, but why can't you figure out that that nude
    blonde who lives in your jockstrap is working her way up to your
    wallet?"


    	The point being, some nasty mud is being thrown from both
    directions and it is not right. This and Andrew's stuff is not funny
    except to some very sick puppys.
                           

    			HAND
    			Wayne
    

    Whoops, I thought that was funny!
    
    There go my PC creds,
    Ray

    So this is what it's come to.  People decide their lives on whether
    they think Clay or Dworkin is more amusing.
    
>    my spokes-persons.  IMNSHO Andrea Dworkin has done more to alienate
>    supporters and potential supporters of "feminsim" than anything I
>    could do in the next 10 years.
    
    Yeah, well, IMwhateverO Andrew Clay has done more to alienate me from
    you and your supporters than anything Suzanne Conlon could say in the
    next 10 years.  In fact I dislike Clay so much, I decided that men
    DESERVE to lose custody battles and pay outrageous alimonies.  Clay
    proves that men are all violent clods and have to be locked up for the
    good of society.
    
    (Not really; I just thought you should see what it looked like.)
    
    Ray

    Ray,Vick,Steve,and others,

    		Here is another quote. This one is from Jenny Holzer (
    artist ).

    		"I thought I'd write something light about masculinity
    because a few hundred words can only laugh at the job of describing
    male traits. Then I was awake at night, spooked by the assignment. A
    look at the masculine reminds me that I do not have equal rights under
    the law. The Gulf War made me remember that I am afraid of men.

    		I watched World War II when I was a child. The bomb threat
    grew with me. I was chased and hurt by male relatives. Who cares what
    happens to me, because now I am a successful male impersonator, but it
    matters that every life might end in a fight between men. It also
    matters that women, children, and less dominant men do not have equal
    access to food,resources, opportunity, happiness, and protection by
    law.

    		I know that some women are dangerous and that some men are
    not, but one line to this effect is enough because I'm talking law of
    averages.

    		I have always thought that men might kill me and I hate them
    for it."
    		

    		Now, say what you want but this woman and others who feel
    this way are the ones testifying in front of out of touch congress
    people. Does she sound like she is fair and is looking for a better
    world for men and women. I don't think so. But she speaks at a national
    level for "feminist" ideas and concerns. Some people here can
    distance themselves from her ideas, but she and others with similar 
    agendas are pushing their form of feminism on us all. This is the type
    of thing I have been talking about, not equal pay and equal
    opportunity, I support and believe in those type of policies.


    		HAND
    		Wayne

    re: .124
    
    Hmmm.  I've read over that several times trying to find the danger in
    it.  I can't even find any stridency.  It seems pretty mild stuff to 
    me.  A lot of women ARE afraid of men.  I don't know how many women
    her views represent, but I bet most of the congresspersons listening
    to her have a pretty good idea how many of their own constituent
    females feel about the things she says.  She asked for equal rights
    for women, children, and "less dominant" men (whatever she means by
    that).  Though she left out us dominant men :^), it is implied in what
    she said that women, children, and "less dominant" men should be on an
    equal level with the rest, namely (apparently) dominant men.  So then
    all would be equal.  The rest of what she said was just an expression
    of her own personal fears derived from her own personal experience.
    She doesn't even claim that any other women feel the same way she does.
    She doesn't say all women should hate men, just that she does.  It's
    her right to hate men.  
    
    I don't know what you thought I would read into that message or how it
    would "make" me feel.  Reading the message I felt sad for her, but not
    angry.  I didn't feel threatened by someone asking lawmakers to make
    laws to ensure equality.  If she had asked for money to buy guns to
    start a female resistance organization to kill dominant males, then I
    might have felt threatened.  
    
    						- Vick

>    One is an actor, one is not.  One says things to get a laugh,
>    the other says what she believes, even though she also gets
>    laughs.

So, Mike, you think we can't learn about how a person's mind works by
learning what they think is humorous?  We can't deduce substantial
information about their worldview by extensive glimpses of their sense
of humor?  I disagree; people react to their perceptions of who ADC is,
not only to the personna he puts on.  His personna(s) of course include
the one that does "serious" interviews claiming to be a SNAG (sensitive
new age guy); its just one more image he presents to us.  How are we
supposed to tell which one is false and which is true?  Both personnas
are ADC's public image.  He is responsible for the gestalt person that
people deduce sits behind the images.  And frankly, even if the SNAG
iage is the one he likes to think of as 'true', I really don't respect
someone who presents the other personna as 'funny'; so *even* if he is
a SNAG, he has legitimately alienated people from respect for men as a
gender by being so outrageously uncouth and unfunny; (or so went Ray's 
analogy; note that the purpose of this is to show how ridiculous it is
to bash an entire group based on the antics of one member.)  People can 
think whatever they want to about Dworkin, but decrying her as the 
ultimate reason not to respect feminism is a copout from people who 
want to dislike feminism anyway, and find Dworkin-bashing a convenient 
rhetorical device of outrage behind which to hide.

DougO

    After reading the last 30 replies or so I'm amazed.  Do I live a
    sheltered life?  I'm not a feminist.  I never have been and to be
    honest it's only in the last year that I have begun to pay attention to
    the feminist agenda.  What I've read about Andrea whats-her-name and
    I've heard about her in this string, I do not support what she is
    saying.  It borders on the ridiculous.  What good would it do to
    separate men and women?  The stance on intercourse is also utterly
    ridiculous.
    
    My reaction to this is that it has been shown through history that
    extremists seem to have the power (?) to change history.  Hitler did a
    heck of job at it.  We can sit and bitch about the extremists, but we
    need to keep an eye on them.  Remember history and the fact that
    communism made it's greatest progress in this country during the 
    depression.  My point here, which I am making very poorly, is that when 
    people are hurting, fed up and want CHANGE, it's the extremists that
    they turn to.  
    
    So, back to my question in .72, what is it that we as a collective whole,
    need to do to find the balance?  
    
    Karen

    p.s.  Everything that I said in my last note is strictly IMHO and it
    may not be so humble!  :-)
    
    Karen

>    Were she the only radical lesbian feminist with an anti-heterosexual,
>    anti-male agenda in the public's eye, I would agree with you. But the
>    truth, and I think we both know it, is she's only one of many.

Lessee, 3 women were named in this string, though actually, very very little
of what they've thought and written about has actually been described.  So, 
Mike, how "many" "radical lesbian feminist[s] with an anti-heterosexual, anti-
male agenda" does it take to discredit a movement that has spanned 150 years
in this country, attracting the attention, wit, and life's energy of dozens
I could name and thousands of others?  How's this: I betcha *I* can name two
more sexist pig comedians to put on the 'this discredits all men' ticket with 
ADC.  I find it a heckuva lot simpler to locate sexist pig comedians than
'radical ...' etc.  Doesn't strain the analogy much; its still an invalid
tactic.  What we both know is that there are hundreds of feminists who don't
espouse anything more radical than equal education and employment opportun-
ities, and we both know they're just as much hated by anti-feminists as the
more radical fringes are hated.  And even worse, such hatreds are only
encouraged by such descriptions as yours above.  Just how do *you* know that
 
>    Susan Estrich
>    Mary Koss

belong in the generic smearing categorization you so blithely provided above?
Have you read their writings?  If you haven't, you're just hate-mongering
against feminists in general.  Frankly, your "one of many" statement is false.
I *don't* think there are very many lesbians out there who could be bothered
to give a goddam about men; they aren't "anti-heterosexual anti-men", they're
uninterested in men at best and indifferent at worst.  I think anti-heterosexual
is a ludicrous characterization of any lesbian I've ever known or read, and I
think the same about the characterization anti-male.  No, you can't get away
with that.  If you know so many to whom that characterization applies, you'd
better provide me sources; reference the writings and make the case that they
are truly anti-heterosexual and anti-male.  Can you?  Put up or your hate-
mongering is exposed.

DougO

    RE. 128	
    >>So, back to my question in .72, what is it that we as a collective whole,
    >>need to do to find the balance?  
    
    Karen,
    
    As I see it, what we as a collective whole need, is to keep the lines
    of communication OPEN.  Let everybody get their say in.  I believe
    there are enough rational people around that will recognize that there
    are a whole spectrum of stances on this issue.  If there are enough
    calm and reasoned opinions like *yours* out there (subtle compliment -
    I think you are about the most rational writer in this string :) ....),
    then people will embrace those ideas rather than the extremist rhetoric 
    which is also being offered.
    
    The consciousness of people has been raised a great deal in the past
    quater century.  There is still much to be done and much to be said,
    to raise this consciousness still higher.  It's all too easy for both
    "sides" to resort to bashing the other - but it seems to me to do
    little but generate heat and little else.
    
    						--Eric--
    
    P.S.  Keep writing, Karen!

 Doug-

 Because you are a no holds barred feminist supporter, you have a tendency to
dismiss some pretty hysterical ravings by self-described feminists as
just being anger and such, whereas you appear to be substantially more critical
of male anger. I have seen some notes written by women that to me have indicated 
a pretty deep seated hatred which you have defended as simply being anger. Your
bias is to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who describes herself
as a feminist, seemingly regardless of whether she shows signs of being a
man hater or not. But you seem ready, willing and able to use the label
misogynist on other men. This is troubling.

 I fully believe that neither gender is without its moments. Just as there are
misogynistic men, there are misandristic women. 

 I believe in feminism's stated goals of equality. It's in my best interest
as well as others. But I refuse to give women carte blanche to spew hatred
about men any more than I believe that men should be given carte blanche to
spew hatred about women. There IS alot of anger between the sexes. Alot of
it is deserved, on both sides. That does not make hateful characterizations
justifiable. That does not make separatism a viable or acceptable solution.
That does not make the Andrea Dworkin's of the world acceptable.

 Of course you can name more sexist comedians than radical feminist sicko
philosophers. Who gets more press?

 I think there are alot of lesbians who harbor feelings that are a whole
lot more negativeabout men than ambivalence. It's not just what they say,
it's how they say it. In the same way that you can recognize misogyny in
a male statement about women that has no direct anti-woman message in it, I
can recognize anti-male sentiments when I hear them.

 The Doctah

> Because you are a no holds barred feminist supporter, you have a tendency to
> dismiss some pretty hysterical ravings by self-described feminists as
> just being anger and such, whereas you appear to be substantially more critical
> of male anger. 

Well, Mark, there's this thing I have about power imbalances; since it's so
obvious and unquestionable that men have the right to be angry in this culture
while women are just 'bitchy' if they dare to express any anger at all, I've
worked very hard to recognize that bias and try to reverse it.  Though you
probably don't think you've complimented me, you have (thanks).  Your statement
would be an indictment, though, if women and men were perceived as equals in
this culture (but we both know they aren't.)  I *am* more critical of male
anger, because my inculturation and that of everybody I know has put into
place subtle and deep-seated biases against listening to women fairly in the
first place; and having recognized that, I'm actively adding to the gain on
'listening-to-women' and upping the criticality filter on 'listening-to-men.'
You bet I do.  Are you going to pretend there's no justification for that?

>  That does not make the Andrea Dworkin's of the world acceptable.

I'm not a prominent defender of Andrea Dworkin.  I don't consider myself well-
enough informed about her writings.  The very few snippets people actually do
enter here seem very inflammatory; but I'm far too well versed in the typical
use of quotes of radical feminists; they're all-too-often taken out of context
for a smear job.  Tell me, Mark, HOW MUCH Dworkin have you read?  Lets hear an
explanation of how you can call a woman 'unacceptable' (and in a later extract, 
'sicko') if you haven't actually read what she has written, but only what her 
detractors have written.  Man, I love it when you give me examples of that 
cultural bias against actually listening to women I was just discussing above.

> Of course you can name more sexist comedians than radical feminist sicko
> philosophers. Who gets more press?

Actually, I dunno.  We've had misogynistic 'humor' around for centuries, but
'sicko' philosophers?  I'm sure that in the idiom of their times, Susan B
Anthony, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Sojourner Truth were negatively described
by so-called reasonable men as well.  And there's always room for hate in
the papers.  That doesn't settle the question at all, you know.

> I can recognize anti-male sentiments when I hear them.

Mark, how much work have you done on your filters?  What you would characterize
as anti-male I would probably just as often hear as anger against a male-
oriented, male-dominant system/institution.  Who can say which of us is right?
You hear what you hear; I've been working on hearing what is said.  Tell me,
do you consider remarks about 'the patriarchy' to be anti-male?

DougO

    my opinion
    
    I considered myself a feminist of the Doug Olson pursuasion a couple of
    years ago.
    What turned me away from 'feminism' is what I feel is the 'hate
    correspondence' in =wn= and what I feel is the insensitivy by the 'pc
    men' in mennotes, insensivity that frequenty borders on or actually
    becomes intellectual bullying. 
    
    I still consider myself a feminist wrt my wife and my young adult
    daughters
    
    				herb
    
    p.s. IMHO Andrew Dice Clay is a very funny *ssh*le. I wish I didn't
    believe in freedom of speech. His voice would be one the first I would
    throttle.
    
    				h

    >I still consider myself a feminist wrt my wife and my young adult
    >daughters
    
    Why some of my best friends are...
    
    I guess I'm probably missing what you mean, Herb, but it sounds like
    you want equality for your wife and daughters but not for all those
    other bitches.
    
    						- Vick
    

    thankyou, for your arrogance

    My opinion...
    
    I also want to make it clear that in my opinion the opportunity for
    heartfelt interaction simply doesn't exist in this conference (actually
    I rather doubt that heartfelt interaction _with civility_ is very possible
    in ANY public conference that doesn't have a clearly defined and
    narrowed focus -and I have even seen tempers rise in the WOODWORKING
    conference). Electronic conferencing is a great vehicle for
    communication information. It isn't a bad medium for voicing our
    opinions, it's a LOUSY medium for addressing differences. It's an
    atrocious vehicle for resolving differences.
    
    
    
    
    				herb

>I *am* more critical of male anger

 I'm glad that you are willing to say so. Many others who share that trait
deny it.

>I'm actively adding to the gain on
>'listening-to-women' and upping the criticality filter on 'listening-to-men.'
>You bet I do.  Are you going to pretend there's no justification for that?

 It rather depends on how much of it you do, wouldn't you say? I agree that
men need to be sensitized to the needs of women, women's issues, and
women's complaints. But I believe that women mistakenly believe that because
we live in a culture that is in many ways centered around men, they have little
or nothing left to learn from men. How many times have I heard or read "as
if we don't know what men's wants are, living in this culture"? I think that
many women have stopped listening, but even more importantly, I think that
most men either haven't really taken the time to introspect and find out what
really matters to them or are just doing it now, and hence cannot possibly
have related this information to women yet.

> Man, I love it when you give me examples of that 
>cultural bias against actually listening to women I was just discussing above.

 I haven't read Mien Kampf, but the excerpts of what I've read about Hitler's
philosophy told me enough, even though they were written by his "detractors."
Is that a cultural bias too?

>Mark, how much work have you done on your filters?

 Probably more than you give me credit for, but I certainly don't have the 
gain on women turned up as much as you, nor the squelch on men. That doesn't
mean that I haven't worked on my filters; it means I have chosen different
settings. 

>You hear what you hear; I've been working on hearing what is said.

 By choosing these words, you imply that I am not. I disagree with that 
assessment.

>Tell me, do you consider remarks about 'the patriarchy' to be anti-male?

 Not necessarily.

 The Doctah

    RE: "Tempers raised in the WOODWORKING conference"
    
    Ha-ha-haaa!!! :-)
    Sorry, but that struck me as really funny. It brings up all manner of
    strange quotations and scenarios...	:-)
    
    								- JIM CAD*

> It rather depends on how much of it you do, wouldn't you say?

Funny; used to think so.  There are some related threshholds I've crossed,
regarding my realization of just how limiting it is to attempt to appear
always as an unbiased listener.  I'm not unbiased.  You're not unbiased.
Nobody in the history of humanity is unbiased.  Attempting to achieve that
position is false to the spirit of truth, the purpose of attempting to
communicate.  Insofar as your question goes, 'how much of it I do' will be
'as much as I deem appropriate', and if it seems to be too much to you or 
somebody else, hey, you obviously aren't doing it enough.  Again, how do
we know who is right?  You do what seems right to you and I'll respect you
for doing what seems right to you.  I'll expect the same courtesy.

> How many times have I heard or read "as if we don't know what men's wants 
> are, living in this culture"?

As you noted, men have hardly been conscious of [some of] their needs; yet
the culture *is* full of stuff that can't be interpreted as answering anything
*but* men's needs.  Tell me, you used "T&A" recently to describe a pepsi
commercial; think about it!  The fact that we have an acronym for such 
rather proves my point that the culture is full of examples, yes?  Do women
have multitudes of examples of what men's wants are, even if men aren't
comfortable admitting it?  Is the ironic statement thus justified?  I think 
so.  Just because it makes some folks uncomfortable doesn't remove the truth
when an individual says it.

> I haven't read Mien Kampf, but the excerpts of what I've read about Hitler's
> philosophy told me enough, even though they were written by his "detractors."

I see, Hitler and Dworkin in the same camp?  A radical philosopher and a
mass murderer.  I rather prefer the comparison to an MCP comedian, but hey,
Mark, if you're comfortable with that, go for it.  If Hitler had done nothing
other than write Mein Kampf, it would've been forgotten long ago, methinks.
How many men has Dworkin had rounded up and gassed, since you're making such
blithe comparisons?  Do you really think that our cultural memory of Hitler
is of the same sort as our cultural treatment of women?  If you are starting
to think better of this comparison, perhaps you'll return to my questions of
how you can so easily dismiss Dworkin as 'sicko' and 'unacceptable' without 
having read her work.  A comparison to Hitler is insufficient.

As far as work on your personal filters, hey, maybe my words did imply that
you aren't working [at all]; sorry about that.  I don't think that of you.
I mean to say, you hear what you hear, I hear what I hear; and I know what
work I'm doing on my filters.  That's all.  The important thing to recognize
is that, back to your original objection: yes, I treat expressions of anger
differently when they come from women than when they come from men.  The
culture taught me to respect men, listen to their anger; the culture taught
me to discount anger from women, discredit them as bitchy radicals who hated
men, fear them because they were illogical and couldn't be understood.  One
can obviously see that in the backlash against feminism right here in this
file; a couple of the folks here can't *stand* to see a woman express anger,
they'll shout her down.  Or try to.  Those guys are just products of this
culture, I don't blame them for not knowing how to hear women's anger.  I
know how hard it is, I know how much work it takes to listen instead of the
instinctive striking out, when someone seems to be mad at your gender for the
things you never did.  Or never meant to do to hurt someone, but only because
you've always done it that way.  Like laughing at some misogynistic bozo like
ADC.  What can I say?  This culture teaches us all that laughing at women is
fun and funny!  You can do it with a bunch of other guys and feel great!  So
all I'm saying is, this culture lies to us men.  Laughing with ADC at women
doesn't feel great, it feels rotten, it feels like trampling on the pride and
hope of the best woman friend you ever had.  No wonder men are confused; and
its also no wonder they hate feminists.  Feminists rock the boat; feminists
suggest that the ways we've always done things hurt people, and should be
stopped by people waking up and realizing it and refusing to patronize that
kind of humor, and refuse to elect that kind of Senator who would bully Anita
Hill for daring to tell her story, and refuse to accept the kinds of things
that women get legitimately angry about after facing them for every day of
their lives.  Feminists make people uncomfortable.  Oh, well.

DougO

    Cool that Mike caught half of my joke comparing Dworkin & Clay; too bad
    he missed the other half, which is that Clay seemed to owe his
    (defunct) success not to his humor but to his hate-mongering. 
    
    Unfortunately, I think his fans have graduated to a preference for
    genuine demagogues.
    
    Unlike DougO (though I really like his .141), I don't have that much
    against misogyny.  A lot of my favorite artists stink with it -- just
    off the top of my head, there's Steven Wright, Alfred Hitchcock, Robert
    Musil, William S. Burroughs, dozens of blues and rock guys, Patricia
    Highsmith...  Even my beloved Henry Adams, although surrounded by women
    friends and capable of clearly setting forth the tragedy of educated
    women in the late 19th century, was against female suffrage.  
    
    And I don't have that much against women hating men. I understand
    people getting frustrated with the way things are; when they express
    those frustrations clearly, they help show us where things are wrong:
    they diagnose.  Where I kick back is on stuff which will make matters
    worse, stuff which simplifies and seduces people into becoming addicts
    to the very illness they're complaining of.
    
    As far as Jenny Holzer goes (and I wish I could remember where I know
    that name from), hey, it's likely that _I'll_ be killed by men too.
    Such killings happen a couple of times a year in my neighborhood, and
    women aren't doing 'em.  In her circumstances, I don't blame her for
    assigning the odds the way she does.
    
    I do think Holzer is confusing the way men have taken the
    administration of violence upon themselves (as part of keeping power)
    with some mythical man/woman split -- on the rare opportunities that
    women gain power, they've shown themselves able to administrate
    violence efficiently. But that doesn't have much to do with either of
    our day-to-day lives.
    
    One reason I don't worry that much about Holzer is that, perhaps unlike
    Wayne, I can't picture the sensitive New Age guys on the Senate Arms
    Committee resigning en masse 'cause they hear some artist say that men
    give her the heebiejeebies (although frankly I wouldn't mind if they
    did). 
    
    I CAN picture Senators saying "Hey, this 'sexual harassment' stuff is
    ridiculous -- WE do it -- what's the point of making it illegal?"  That
    just sounds more like real life in the '90s.
    
    Ray

    Doug, it seems to me that you've moved the target once again.

    We were discussing Clay, then Dworkin, then feminism, now men
    who aren't feminists.

    Please stay in one place, it makes it easier to hit the target
    (I must commend Le Docteur for his marksmanship so far).

.142>    Cool that Mike caught half of my joke comparing Dworkin & Clay; too bad
.142>    he missed the other half, which is that Clay seemed to owe his
.142>    (defunct) success not to his humor but to his hate-mongering. 

    I saw it, but why should I argue opinions, Ray?

    Will you change your mind just because I say "Hey Ray, I think
    you're wrong?"

>    We were discussing Clay, then Dworkin, then feminism, now men
>    who aren't feminists.

Gee Mike, the facetious answer is that you missed Hitler, yourself.
The serious answer is that Clay, Dworkin, and feminism were all intertwined
in one large analogy, not separate and unrelated.  I think we've pretty well
nailed your target into mush; sorry you weren't around, but the discussion
has moved along.  Go ahead, join in if you want.  And Le Docteur and I are
having serious fun being serious about it, if you can dig that; I don't feel
like he's taking shots.  Come to think of it, you owe me some proof that 
Estrich and Koss are "anti-heterosexual anti-men", don't you?

DougO

>    Will you change your mind just because I say "Hey Ray, I think
>    you're wrong?"
    
    Only on questions of fashion.
    
    Ray

    
I originally made the Andrea Dworkin vs. Andrew Dice Clay analogy
because I believe that Andrea Dworkin is just as far off the meter
in one direction as A.D.C. is in the other.   Even though A.D.C. is
a *character* and is no more representative of men than Matilda the
Hun of women's "professional wrestling" is representative of women,
A.D.C was ( and maybe rightly so ) (figuratively) tarred, feathered,
and ridden out of town on a rail.  Dworkin, on the other hand,
is being hailed as a champion of "feminism" and are being asked to
DRAFT LAWS.  I ask you now---WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE???!!

The problem I have with "feminists" (note quotes) is the all-or-nothing
approach.  Or to try and put it more clearly their PC attitude that 
"because I have a legitimate complaint in one area, then *all* my
complaints must be legitimate".  

Goebels, Nazi Germany's minister of propaganda, utilized "THE BIG LIE",
i.e. that if you say something often enough and loud enough then people
will start to believe it.  Every oppression of any group in history
began with a hate campaign against that group.  "They are a bunch
of _____'s, therefore we have a *right* even a *duty* to show them
the error of their ways or to enslave them".  With the Andrea Dworkin's
of the world being hailed as champions, it makes me very suspicions
as to what really are the goals of "feminism" (again note quotes).

However, I, like Karen and others in this conference have often extended
my hand and said that "yes I am willing to help work *together* on what 
may be legitimate problems" only to have that hand bitten off by
the all-or-nothing-because-I-support-feminism-therefore-I-am-correct-
and-you-are-wrong PC crowd.

fred();
    

    RE: .147  Fred

    > Dworkin, on the other hand, is being hailed as a champion of 
    > "feminism" and are being asked to DRAFT LAWS.  I ask you now---
    > WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE???!!

    Who's hailing her as a champion?  Who's asking her to draft laws?
    (What happened to the legal process usually involved in law-making?)

    I haven't seen any feminists giving Dworkin carte blanche support of
    any kind in notes.  All I've seen (so far) is Andrea being used as yet 
    another excuse to slam feminism.

    > However, I, like Karen and others in this conference have often extended
    > my hand and said that "yes I am willing to help work *together* on what 
    > may be legitimate problems" only to have that hand bitten off by
    > the all-or-nothing-because-I-support-feminism-therefore-I-am-correct-
    > and-you-are-wrong PC crowd.

    Feminists here have AGREED that men are discriminated against in
    divorce.  Where is the "all-or-nothing" you describe?

    As others have stated, your reasons sound like excuses to trash the 
    women's rights movement (for someone who wouldn't have supported it 
    anyway.)

    If equal rights is a just cause, it stands on its own (and is not
    affected by whether or not anyone happens to LIKE those who converse
    about it in public or in notesfiles.)

    re 147

    		Good note Fred.

    I would like to add my two cents worth.

    		Back in the 50 and 60's civil rights took off. Black people
    voiced the disadvantages they had suffered. A large segment of the
    white people said," you're right what can we do to help." Many laws
    were passed to level the playing field, but something happened along
    the way. The playing field tilted. The very people who were helping
    became something to detest. Suddenly white people ( read white males)
    owed black people anything they wanted. But voices of reason, both
    black and white, began to speak. White people ( white males ) were
    saying "I never owned a slave and neither did my ancestors, I didn't do
    anything wrong, why am I being punished". Black people were saying "
    hey, we need to accept responsibility for our plight also". This
    problem is still ongoing.

    	Now, here comes "Feminism". This time it's the patriarchy ( read
    white males ). It's the same thing different words. I and many males
    here know we didn't do anything and we will not be punished again. That
    is why anger is shown here. Thank God for people like Karen, it gives
    me hope. As a side point I noticed the male feminists did not support
    Karen's statements but the knuckle draggers gave her their support and
    thanks. 

    		You can only beat a mule so long before it turns around
    and kicks the H*LL out of you. All we are say is stop beating us for
    something someone else did.


    			HAND
    			Wayne 

    	Wayne, what did WOMEN do that we deserve to continue to be
    	punished (by being denied equal rights and being discriminated
    	against in the work force)?
    
    	When you slam women who want equal rights (because you feel
    	"put upon" that some women are still asking for the rights we 
    	have not YET received,) you're adding insult to injury.
    
    	What did women ever do to you to make you feel that those of us
    	who feel natural anger at the lack of equal rights should care
    	more about possibly hurting YOUR feelings if we bring it up?

    re .148
    
>    > However, I, like Karen and others in this conference have often extended
>    > my hand and said that "yes I am willing to help work *together* on what 
>    > may be legitimate problems" only to have that hand bitten off by
>    > the all-or-nothing-because-I-support-feminism-therefore-I-am-correct-
>    > and-you-are-wrong PC crowd.
>
>    As others have stated, your reasons sound like excuses to trash the 
>    women's rights movement (for someone who wouldn't have supported it 
>    anyway.)

    	I ask you now.  What is wrong with this picture???
    
>    If equal rights is a just cause, it stands on its own (and is not
>    affected by whether or not anyone happens to LIKE those who converse
>    about it in public or in notesfiles.)
    
    Agreed.   It's the sex=rape b.s. that I have a problem with.
    
    fred();

    
    	By the way, those who participate in the "backlash" against the
    	women's rights movement *are* part of the problem (by helping
    	to delay the attainment of equal rights.)
    
    	Such people can't really claim they've "done nothing" against
    	women's rights.
    

    RE: .152  Fred
    
    >> If equal rights is a just cause, it stands on its own (and is not
    >> affected by whether or not anyone happens to LIKE those who converse
    >> about it in public or in notesfiles.)
    
    > Agreed.   It's the sex=rape b.s. that I have a problem with.
    
    Have you seen anyone here support this?
    
    Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to
    the death your right to say it"?   Doesn't Andrea Dworkin have the
    right to free speech (even if ALMOST NO ONE agrees with her?)
    
    What gives?

    Sussane,
    
    	What do you want to do with making that bridge? What and where do
    you want to meet to discuss making bridges to help each other. I can
    be reached anytime. I live in Nashua N.H. and will drive just about 
    anywhere in New England. Start off with a coffie? Then talk to state
    reps and others to make legal changes in our system. I am, as well as
    others here ready.
    
    George

    
    	Thanks, George, but I don't live in New England.
    
    	I appreciate your offer, though, I really do.
    

    Your welcome. The only way to resolve our differnces is to make change.
    Meet, have a coffie. Then write whom ever it takes. AS pointed out
    both sides have their problems. Both sides have been the brunt of the
    dark side of our society. And the only way to make it happen is to stop 
    yapping and pointing and lets start finding things that we both agree
    are bad.

 Doug-

> Do women
>have multitudes of examples of what men's wants are, even if men aren't
>comfortable admitting it?  Is the ironic statement thus justified?  I think 
>so.  Just because it makes some folks uncomfortable doesn't remove the truth
>when an individual says it.
 
 It may be true that we live in a culture where women are bombarded with
men's apparent wants (I as much said so.) Nonetheless, this does not justify
the attitude that women can ignore men because there is nothing left for them
to learn about men. That was the point I was making. There are still things
for women to learn from men about men. The culture, skewed as it may be, does
not obviate this.

>I see, Hitler and Dworkin in the same camp? 

 It was an example, Doug. You know that. Why the games?

>If you are starting
>to think better of this comparison, perhaps you'll return to my questions of
>how you can so easily dismiss Dworkin as 'sicko' and 'unacceptable' without 
>having read her work.  A comparison to Hitler is insufficient.

 The comparison was and is valid, even if it makes you uncomfortable. While
have not read Dworkin's "work" at length, I've seen enough excerpts to recognize
that she is not working with a full deck. Do you mean to tell me that there
are no circumstances under which you can make a negative opinion of someone
without having exhaustively read every page they've ever written? What, do you
think that on the last page of her latest work, she has written the word "not"?

>The culture taught me to respect men, listen to their anger; the culture taught
>me to discount anger from women, discredit them as bitchy radicals who hated
>men, fear them because they were illogical and couldn't be understood. 

 Moving to the other extreme is counterproductive, IMO.

 The Doctah

    Re .154
    
    >Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to
    >the death your right to say it"?   Doesn't Andrea Dworkin have the
    >right to free speech (even if ALMOST NO ONE agrees with her?)
    
    'Bout as much as A.D.C. has.
    
    fred();

    Karen,

    		Awhile back you asked what we could do to make things
    better. My suggestion is, if you could get other women who feel the
    same as you do, to have more women involved in this string so we can
    talk. A coalition of reasonable men and reasonable women taking a 
    reasonable approach to gender problems.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    RE: .158  The Doctah
    
    > While have not read Dworkin's "work" at length, I've seen enough 
    > excerpts to recognize that she is not working with a full deck.
    
    In other words, you disagree with her.
    

    RE: .159  Fred
    
    >> Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to
    >> the death your right to say it"?   Doesn't Andrea Dworkin have the
    >> right to free speech (even if ALMOST NO ONE agrees with her?)
    
    > 'Bout as much as A.D.C. has.
    
    Fine.  So it's ok with you if ADC is used as a cultural justification
    to fight against men's rights in divorce?  ("Hey, the Diceman makes
    me real suspicious about men raising kids.  Let's just take all their
    salaries in child support instead.")
    
    Does that sound ok to you (if what's good for the goose, etc...)?

    RE: .149  Wayne
    
    By the way, you have an interesting definition of "reasonable voices"
    in your note:
    
    > But voices of reason, both black and white, began to speak. White 
    > people ( white males ) were saying "I never owned a slave and neither 
    > did my ancestors, I didn't do anything wrong, why am I being punished". 
    
    > Black people were saying "hey, we need to accept responsibility for 
    > our plight also".
    
    People on both sides are "reasonable" if they help absolve white people
    (or white men?) of blame for racial (and/or sexual) inequality, right?

    A quote from Erica Jong:


    		"Since there are no forests left for men to clear, no
    continents to discover, no voyages of discovery to sail, much male
    activity turns into violence. it is time to colonize space--if only to
    find a home for all the restless male energy which in other times could
    be absorbed by this planet's vastness. As the planet shrinks, so does
    the playing field for males. Women are less unhappy with the shrinking
    planet, more able to conceive of it as a garden of earthly delights.
    These differing responses to the same situation will make men
    increasingly obsolete if we remain earthbound in the twenty-first
    century. Some speculative writers have posited a world of women and
    computers. Practically speaking, that would work. Emotionally, it would
    be a disaster. I, for one, would hate to lose the wild card of male
    restlessness. A world of women,or of *womanish men*, is as terrifying
    as world of man-eating Amazons. For all the faults, we still need the
    spice of opposite sexes to create a vital society---long live
    masculinity."



    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Blecch.  The women stay at home and garden while the men are astronauts.
    
    Ray

    Challenge accepted Wayne.  Here you go.
    
    Karen
    
    
            <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V4.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 198.0                      Becoming balanced                      2 replies
RIPPLE::KENNEDY_KA "Strong and Determined"           14 lines  10-JAN-1992 17:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following two replies are notes I entered in MENNOTES
    a couple of nights ago.  One of the men in that conference issued the
    "challenge" to me to get more womens voices in that particular string
    to discuss what we can do to create more balance.  Keep in mind that the
    issue here isn't child support, or what men have to pay.  The issue
    here is creating a more balance, equal society and what can we do to
    come together as a whole to create that.  IMHO, some of the men in =mn=
    want to do just that.  So, here is a general invite to the women of
    this conference to come together with the men and do some problem-solving 
    of the issues.
    
    Let the battle begin! (said *very* tongue in cheek :-) )
    
    Karen

.145>Come to think of it, you owe me some proof that 
.145>Estrich and Koss are "anti-heterosexual anti-men", don't you?

    Doug, I haven't said a word about Estrich or Koss.

    Let's be fair, now, I'm not asking you to substantiate statements
    that you didn't make, why do you ask this of me?

    
    As Homer Simpson said, "Its funny cause its true!"
    

I think if you look at past history "famous" and "sane" can't be spoken 
about the same person.

Those that have become famous usually have fairly radical views about
any subject.  The key here is, if you want to be famous, you must be
a radical.

"sane"!!  Define it if you can.......

    Re -1
    
    Conformist?

Ah, the differing values we see in this conference:

.169> in defense of the "Dice Man"..."Its funny cause its true!"

.141> Laughing with ADC at women doesn't feel great, it feels rotten, it 
    > feels like trampling on the pride and hope of the best woman friend 
    > you ever had.

methought it an interesting juxtaposition.  no flames, Dwight, just 
a comparison.
-------------
re .167, Mike-

>    Doug, I haven't said a word about Estrich or Koss.

Sorry, Mike, I guess I was giving you more credit for following the discussion
than you deserved...all of three quote radical feminists unquote have been
named (to be pilloried) in this string and I just assumed that's who you were
slamming when you said you knew so many with "anti-heterosexual anti-men 
agendas".  So your count is back down to one (Dworkin), this is "many"?
---------
re .158, Mark-

> There are still things for women to learn from men about men.

Sure there are.  But come on!  You are reacting to the exasperation expressed
in that ironic statement as if it is a statement of philosophy.  I think that
we'll hear a lot less of that exasperation when all of that one-sided male-
fantasy-sexual-needs garbage isn't the *only* clear statement of men's needs
and/or wants in evidence.  I consider that to be up to men; when we get our
stuff together and explain our needs/wants/etc, I'm sure we'll get just as
much respect for it as is deserved.  But it's up to people like us to get that
message out so it competes with the bimbos-on-mtv message currently everywhere.
Until then, the statements of exasperation are going to be heard and they're
going to be something men deserve to hear.  Lump it, pal; you're a man like
the rest of us, and the neanderthals make us all look bad.  Don't shoot the
messenger (in this case, the woman expressing exasperation.)  And don't pretend
its shorthand for "we're not listening", 'cause it isn't.

> It was an example, Doug. You know that. Why the games?

No, I think you misinterpret.  Let me put it this way: like you, I haven't
ever seen a thing quoted from Dworkin with which I can wholeheartedly agree.
But unlike you, I can recognize that it's only the bashers who're doing those
extractions, to pillory Dworkin for her most extreme statements.  I can compare
that extraction technique; I've seen it used against, for example, Brownmiller,
who's famous line about rape being a process whereby all males keep all females 
in a state of fear (loosely paraphrased) has been misquoted by our old friend 
Russ Pollitz and more recently cited by David Simpson if memory serves; people 
looking for ways to bash feminists will always look for the most outrageous 
line and bandy it about forever.  I can see it so clearly when they drag out 
Dworkin-quotes yet again.  It's boring and it proves nothing.  And I repeat that 
I think your comparison to Hitler is ridiculous; you didn't answer my question, 
did you, on how many men Dworkin has had gassed.  Hitler and his philosophy are 
*only* examined because of the excesses of the Third Reich (deservedly so).
Dworkin's WORDS, on the other hand, ARE the worst excesses any one can even 
find about feminism; thus we keep hearing about them.  Go ahead, Mark, equate 
mass murder on a scale of millions with a radical feminist philosopher.  It 
brings you no credit for insightful analysis in my book.  It doesn't make me
"uncomfortable", as you mistakenly implied, because there's no parallel.  It 
makes me laugh at you.  It's fine for you to have a "negative opinion" of
Dworkin if you want, I can respect that; but you have yet to defend "sicko".

>>The culture taught me to respect men, listen to their anger; the culture 
>>taught me to discount anger from women, discredit them as bitchy radicals who
>>hated men, fear them because they were illogical and couldn't be understood. 
>
> Moving to the other extreme is counterproductive, IMO.

Man, I'm barely past center; you wouldn't believe what more there is to hear
in women's self-expression when you learn to listen.  Most of it has little to
do with men at all!  That's why I laugh so hard when people say 'man-haters'.
Feminist philosophy (to the extent we're discussing it here) is about defining
identity for women; which, for the individual woman, may or may not have room
in it for men or a man.  From the radical side, its actually funny to see men
declaiming "bashing" when all they're really getting is indifference.  There's
something profoundly threatening to a lot of men about [some] women becoming
indifferent to men.  To me, hey, there's plenty of room in my universe for some
women to be totally indifferent to men.  Doesn't bother me at all.  That's why
I laugh when you (above) accuse me of moving to "the other extreme".  Ha!  It
isn't about extremes at all; its about making room for individuals!  Can't you
see that?

DougO

 >>And I repeat that I think your comparison to Hitler is ridiculous; 
 >>you didn't answer my question, did you, on how many men Dworkin has 
 >>had gassed.  
    		Hitler did not gas anyone, he had others do it for him. He
    just talked them into it.

 >>Hitler and his philosophy are *only* examined because of the excesses 
 >>of the Third Reich (deservedly so). Dworkin's WORDS, on the other hand, 
 >>ARE the worst excesses any one can even find about feminism; thus we 
 >>keep hearing about them.

    		Just for the record, Hitler's excesses started out as
    WORDS, then later as he built support among the radicals he started his
    campaign of terror. I pay attention when someone like Dworkin talks
    because there are people who will support her agenda. 

>>Man, I'm barely past center

    	I guess center is relative. Also, it is interesting how women who
    disagree with you are BIMBOS and the men are NEANDERTHALS. You must be
    sooooooooooooo highly evolved Doug (IMHO of course). 


                            HAND
    			    Wayne

    DougO,
    
    I hear what you are saying. But what about the extremists, like Andrea
    Dworkin?  Can you disagree that they are hurting "the cause"?  It's the
    extremists that DO hurt "the cause", in this case being women's rights.
    Granted, hers is only one opinion, but then again so was "Mein Kampf".
    I originally made the comparison between Dworkin and Hitler, because
    the extremists need to be watched.  I would hate to see a separatist
    society such as the one Dworkin is talking about.  And, IMHO, when
    people get angry, frustrated and fed up enough, it is the EXTREMISTS
    that get the following.  As much as I want to see more women involved
    politically, it scares me that more women like Dworkin will be the ones
    to do so.
    
    Karen 

> Just for the record, Hitler's excesses started out as WORDS,

nu?  He wrote Mein Kampf while he was in prison.  His excesses did NOT 
start out as words.  Better check your 'record'.

>Also, it is interesting how women who disagree with you are BIMBOS 

misquote.  try again.

>and the men are NEANDERTHALS.

also a misquote, but, this one is closer to being accurate.  Not everyone who
disagrees with me is a neanderthal, but the neanderthals out there certainly
do disagree with me ;-).  FWIW, when I used the word 'bimbos' I was talking
about the male-fantasy-objects that the culture enshrines, and when I used
the word 'neanderthals' I was talking about the kind of males that did that
enshrining, or who see nothing wrong with consumption of such images.  You 
one of 'em?  Fine, if you want, I'll call you a neanderthal in the future.
Let me know.

'highly evolved' implies the ability to follow the argument.  Keep working
at it, ok?  In this case, the point of the 'bimbos' and neanderthals' is to
help people make an emotional connection with the needs/wants of men that
Mark says men are just starting to try to explain vs the ones that are obvious
(because they're everywhere).  You yourself have been part of the chorus which
says that men get screwed in divorce/custody cases, I think; which is a good
(positive) example of men identifying men's needs, recently.  Try to come up
with more of the same, unless you LIKE being misidentified as one of the many
neanderthals...ok?  I bet you can.  And I'll respect it.

DougO

Karen, 'the cause' is hard to pin down.  Everybody has to do what seems 
right to them...even Andrea Dworkin.  It isn't like we're working in a
vacuum; we're working with the mostly fair-minded people of this country
who've been brought up on the Bill of Rights and the rule of law.  When
the nation saw Bull Connor setting police dogs and fire hoses on civil
rights marchers, the nation supported civil rights legislation because
it was obviously necessary and was the right thing to do.  So I hold hope
for eventual empowerment of women when we can show the majority of the
country how the current system is unfair in a way analgous to Bull Connor.
Dworkin may not be the most successful or helpful or moderate ally in that
fight, but at least I know she isn't Bull Connor, she isn't for holding us
back.  And to some extent, she *is* useful in recruiting moderates; by the
work of pushing the radical fringe further out, she makes previously-held-
as-radical ideas seem more middle of the road.  

DougO

    DougO,


    		Please check your own record. Hitler started out with an
    idea in his head, he then verbalized those ideas ( words ), then came
    the plea for support. His agenda was successful because he found groups
    that he inspired his followers to hate. He preached power to his
    followers ( empowering if you will ). This is an old and still used
    method of radical politics. I see parallels in feminist movement ( in
    method, not to demean any group damaged by Hitler ).


    				HAND
    				Wayne  

(Hey Mark- you happy now?  Look at the level we're dealing with when you
introduce a comparison of Dworkin to Hitler.)

All right, Wayne, you want me to take this seriously?

>             ...His agenda was successful because he found groups
>    that he inspired his followers to hate. He preached power to his
>    followers ( empowering if you will ). This is an old and still used
>    method of radical politics. I see parallels in feminist movement...

What parallels do you see, Wayne?  I've had it up to *HERE* with several
years of accusations against feminism as man-hating.  Tell me which "groups"
which "feminist leaders" are inspiring their "followers" to hate, if you see
so many parallels.  I've looked long and hard at feminism and I see NO such
parallels.

DougO 

    Doug,

    		You unfortunately would never see or acknowledge the
    parallels. Radical politics start fires not put them out. We need
    solutions today not rhetoric. You are great at pointing out real or
    perceived inequities, not much on solutions that are acceptable to all
    the people. Inequities are happening to the races and both genders and
    all you are concerned with is your own little corner of the world. If
    you have four flat tires you can't fix one and expect the car to cruise
    smoothly. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a people
    issue not a gender issue. When you are as strident in your support of
    men maybe I and others will take you seriously.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

So, when pressed, all of the parallels that Wayne finds between feminism and
Nazism aren't quite so easy to describe.  Permit me to say I'm not surprised;
I've said all along that the two aren't even remotely similar.

Wayne, in generalities, the first step in solving problems, any kind of
problems, is identifying what the problems are.  To get specific, if you
and I don't see the world the same way, which we don't, then we aren't
going to see the same problems.  Obviously, what ideas I work on to solve
those problems are going to not make sense to you because you can't even
see the problems my ideas address!  You can call it my rhetoric, you can
call me names like 'strident', that's your way of dealing with me; but you
won't change my analysis of the problems in the world with those epithets.

I see huge problems in the world today directly related to the power inequity
in relations between men and women.  I attempt to make my world work better
by analyzing, talking, discussing, and thinking about this power inequity and
ways of changing the systems and institutions that preserve it, and working to
change them when it seems indicated.  Honest people can and will disagree with
me, I can accept that.  But you can't even seem to recognize it, which is kind
of sad.  Hey Wayne; you do what seems right to you; I'll do what seems right
to me.  But I can tell you right now that attempting to drive feminism out of
mennotes isn't going to work, because its an integral part of the way I see
the world and identify those problems I'm working on; and as a mennoter, its 
my right to use whatever philosophical systems and analytical systems I see 
fit to use, here in mennotes.  Feminism has shaped and will continue to shape
the way I understand the world- and the way I work to improve the world.  Hope
your ways of understanding the world work as well for you as mine work for me.

DougO

    Doug,

    		Give your crusade a rest. My reference to parallels
    concerned radical politics, not between feminism and Nazism. You are so
    caught up in your arguments that you view me as an enemy to your precious
    feminism. I could care less about radical feminism, but I do care as to
    what affect it has on lawmakers opinions. Their opinions have a direct
    impact on my day to day life. Non radical feminism is call equal
    opportunity, I think we all can live with that.


    			HAND
    			Wayne  

.172>Sorry, Mike, I guess I was giving you more credit for following the
.172>discussion than you deserved...

    You can call it not following the discussion, but you know that's
    not true.  The measure of my attention is not counting how many
    things you falsely attribute to me. What you were doing was putting
    words in my mouth and then calling on me to justify what I had not
    said.

    The systren must surely be as disappointed as I am.


.172>agendas".  So your count is back down to one (Dworkin), this is "many"?

    No, one is not many.  Many is many.

    Hope this helps.

.176>Everybody has to do what seems right to them...even Andrea Dworkin.

    But of course it seems right to her. People do not lay their
    emotions behind words they do not _believe_.

    But that is not the issue, my friend, for if Ms Dworkin is as
    mentally maladjusted as some people believe, what she believes
    has no relation to reality.

    The question is : on the whole, does she help or does she hinder
    feminism?

>I see huge problems in the world today directly related to the power inequity
>in relations between men and women.  I attempt to make my world work better
>by analyzing, talking, discussing, and thinking about this power inequity and
>ways of changing the systems and institutions that preserve it, and working to
>change them when it seems indicated.  Honest people can and will disagree with
>me, I can accept that.  But you can't even seem to recognize it, which is kind
>of sad.  Hey Wayne; you do what seems right to you; I'll do what seems right
>to me.  But I can tell you right now that attempting to drive feminism out of
>mennotes isn't going to work, because its an integral part of the way I see
>the world and identify those problems I'm working on; and as a mennoter, its 
>my right to use whatever philosophical systems and analytical systems I see 
>fit to use, here in mennotes.  Feminism has shaped and will continue to shape
>the way I understand the world- and the way I work to improve the world.  Hope
>your ways of understanding the world work as well for you as mine work for me.

    Doug, that is exactly what Wayne and I and other noters have been
    saying all along, maybe not the way you think it, but this is what has
    been said.  *MY* position on this is that the pendulum has swung in the
    other direction and in some areas, particularly in the child support
    and custody issues, it is now beginning to *HURT* men.  Doug, I will be
    the first to admit that I am not educated on the feminist agenda.  It's
    not that I don't want to be, just other things have taken priority in
    my life.  But, I do have pretty good perception and I'm just calling it
    the way I see it.  Both men and women are getting hurt and I'm not
    blaming the feminist agenda.  I'm not even blaming anyone.  We need to
    come back into some sort of balance and remove the power inequities
    that you talk about.  The feminist agenda alone won't do that.  It's
    men and women working together that will do it.  
    
    Karen

    re .172 (DougO)
    
>But unlike you, I can recognize that it's only the bashers who're doing those
>extractions, to pillory Dworkin for her most extreme statements.  I can compar
>that extraction technique; I've seen it used against, for example, Brownmiller
>who's famous line about rape being a process whereby all males keep all female
>in a state of fear (loosely paraphrased) has been misquoted by our old friend 
>Russ Pollitz and more recently cited by David Simpson if memory serves; people
>looking for ways to bash feminists will always look for the most outrageous 
>line and bandy it about forever.  I can see it so clearly when they drag out 
    
I thoroughly resent being included in the class of deemed feminist bashers 
simply because I have attacked certain radical feminists.  I have always 
clearly differentiated between feminist theories and goals. 
    
Brownmiller's Myrmidon analogy is at the heart of her argument, it attacks all 
men, and as such she is properly open to refutation.

    RE: .184  Karen

    > *MY* position on this is that the pendulum has swung in the
    > other direction and in some areas, particularly in the child support
    > and custody issues, it is now beginning to *HURT* men.

    "Child support and custody issues" are not new problems for men.  When
    fewer women worked outside the home, men bore a far bigger portion of
    the financial burden of divorce than some men do now.

    How can the "pendulum" have swung too far when women STILL do not yet
    have equal rights?

    If women had equal rights, it would help BOTH men and women.  It's not
    the case that men have something to lose with every single right women
    gain.  When our culture stops looking at women as "nurturers" and men
    as "breadwinners," for example, men WILL be taken more seriously as
    custodial parents (instead of being automatically viewed as "income
    objects.")

    > We need to come back into some sort of balance and remove the power 
    > inequities that you talk about. 

    We have yet to reach this balance.  We need to keep moving toward it.

    By the way, women like Andrea Dworkin DO NOT hurt the cause of women's 
    rights.  Women are often labeled as "insane" when they disagree with
    the mainstream.  It's a sexist stereotype.

    As DougO mentioned, radicals HELP the movement (by pushing moderate
    feminist ideas closer to the mainstream.)  

>    How can the "pendulum" have swung too far when women STILL do not yet
>    have equal rights?

 Simple. You overcompensate in some areas to make up for difficult to solve
deficits in other areas. That's how mothers can be awarded sole custody unless
the father can prove her to be an unfit mother, while women still are
compensated less than men on average for like work.

    RE: .187  Doctah
    
    If what you say is true, then the "pendulum" is trying to swing far
    enough so that such "overcompensations" won't be necessary.
    
    If we were to swing the pendulum BACK in the other direction, women
    would be making even less money "than men on average for like work,"
    which means that men would have to pay even more for child support
    AND would be denied child custody even more than they are now.

    Suzanne,

    		Either enter the list of constitutional rights and pseudo
    rights given by law that men have and women don't, or quit making false 
    statements.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Wayne, my statements don't become "false" simply because I refuse to
    follow your orders about submitting the list you demand of me.
    
    I've already told you that I do not intend to submit such a list in
    this conference.  I had planned to do it, but I saw immediately that
    this is an inappropriate forum for me to submit such information.
    
    You promised to ignore me if I did not submit the list.
    
    Go back to ignoring me.

    What an interesting string.  Thank you, Wayne.  (BTW, I don't
    understand HAND?)
    
    A few comments:
    
    Comparisions of Andrea D and ADC-I agree with Mike Z that a
    commedian is taken less seriously than is a public figure
    using a particular agenda to achieve his/her goals.  That 
    doesn't mean I find ADC more palatable, but will be more
    concerned with him if he should become an advocate for the
    men's movement.  Also, on the exchange between Suzanne and
    Fred-when Suzanne made the comment about defending to the
    death someone's right to disagree in reference to Andrea,
    Fred's comment regarding ADC seemed to ask that the same be
    applied to him or at least that was my interpretation.
    
    DougO
    
    While I find some of your points interesting, the way in 
    which you phrase things sometimes grates on my nerves.  Now,
    the only exchanges I've noted here which have done so are
    yours and Mark's (the Doctah's).  While I see Mark's arguements
    as clear and organized, in some of your replies, comments such
    as 'you make me laugh' too loosely paraphrase make me want to
    stop reading the rest of you well thought out response.  Perhaps
    this is a dynamic of how you two particular noters interact and
    I am just missing that nuance, but what the heck.  When Mark 
    originally made the comment about not reading Hitler's publication,
    I got the impression that he was saying that he could dislike Hitler
    without reading everything he wrote, therefore, he could disagree
    with Dworkin without reading all her materials.  I did not think
    he was comparing the two persons.  Also, when you state that you
    listen to women's anger more that men's and Mark commented that 
    there was the possibility that you were going too far to one side,
    instead of feeling that Mark wasn't getting it as you suggested, 
    I felt that his comment meant, yeah, you can recognize and work to
    fix womens anger, but that doesn't mean that you should totally 
    discount men's anger as a quick fix.  At least those were my
    observations.
    
    Wonderful notes, Karen.  I also agree with your statements about
    Sworkin.  While I would not say that she and her opinions are 
    valid enough reasons for discounting feminism, the thought of her
    as an individual or others purporting her separist viewpoints 
    reaching a position whereby they could control/manipulate facets
    fo the feminist movement causes me grave concern.  I can disagree
    with her viewpoints without invalidating feminism, however that
    doesn't seem to be the general concensus here.  She can say whatever
    she damn well pleases, but I would never vote her into a position of
    pwer as is my right.  
    
    I too feel that equal rights will benefit men and women.  I think
    some men are afraid that equal rights to some women mean more equal
    for me than for you.  I will admit, I have run into some feminists
    who do believe this, but it still does nothing to harm the fight or
    the ideal of equal rights for the majority.  
    
    All this is of course, my opinion only.
    
    CK 

>    If what you say is true, then the "pendulum" is trying to swing far
>    enough so that such "overcompensations" won't be necessary.

 The overcompensations aren't necessary NOW. That's why they are called
_over_compensations. They are nothing more than another barrier to equality, 
one more thing that will have to be broken down to achieve equality. Call
me silly, but it would seem that we have enough barriers to equality to overcome
without adding more.

 If ever there was an analog of boinking for virginity, it's gotta be
creating inequality to acheive equality.

 The Doctah

    
    but it sure makes the politikally korrekt feel vindicated..

    RE: .192  The Doctah
    
    > The overcompensations aren't necessary NOW. That's why they are called
    > _over_compensations.
    
    You called them "overcompensations," I didn't.  I only quoted you.
    
    As long as wages for "like work" are inequal, men are going to be forced
    by the courts to shoulder the financial burden of divorce (while women
    are seen as being "better equipped" to handle the job of nurturing.)
    
    The two inequalities go hand in hand.
    
    > They are nothing more than another barrier to equality, one more thing 
    > that will have to be broken down to achieve equality.
    
    It's the price men pay for the lack of equal rights for women.  If men
    aren't happy with it, let's all work to change it.
    
    > Call me silly, but it would seem that we have enough barriers to 
    > equality to overcome without adding more.
    
    Doctah, men's treatment in divorce wasn't ADDED.  Men used to pay a heck
    of lot more (proportionately) in alimony and child support when more
    women stayed at home raising children.  The increase of women in the
    workforce has HELPED men already (by making it extremely rare for men
    to have to pay alimony these days.)
    
    If you want things to get even better for men, we have to solve both
    problems (eg, women===nurturer and men===income_object) at the same
    time.
    
    > If ever there was an analog of boinking for virginity, it's gotta be
    > creating inequality to acheive equality.
    
    Feminists didn't create the situation where men lose their children
    (and pay heavily) during divorce.  Feminists have done much to help
    move away from this, in fact, by improving working conditions for
    women (and affecting the increasing number of women who work outside
    the home.)

    re .186
    
    Suzanne,
    I am not disagreeing with you.  My argument here is saying that more
    and more men ARE saying that they are as capable of nurturing as women,
    that they are TRYING to be heard.  FWIW, my father is MUCH more
    nurturing than my mother will *EVER* be capable of.  Men are not being
    listened to, anywhere.  Read back through my notes and really listen to
    what I am saying.  The feminist movement has brought women a long, long
    way.  We now have recourse in cases of wife battering, rape, etc.  We
    have gained more credibility in obtaining the help we have so
    desparately needed.  BUT, now, MEN are being more penalized than ever. 
    The courts seem to have adopted an attitude that ALL men ARE batterers,
    rapists and child molesters.  Men are not being heard in child custody
    cases.  Suzanne, I invite you to read through the Non-Custodial-Parents
    notesfile.  Case after case in there that supports EXACTLY what I am
    talking about.  Men who are penalized on NO MORE than verbal testimony
    of alleged battering, no pictures, no arrest, just the womans say so. 
    Suzanne, this happens ALL THE TIME.  There is a man here in Washington,
    that I know personally, that was slapped with a restraining order and
    is only allowed to see his infant son 5 hours a week.  This man is not
    a batterer, he is not a child molestor.  His wife simply claimed that
    the THREAT was there and there was NO PROOF to back up this claim. 
    There has to be a more equal and fair way to determine charges like
    this.  Sorry Suzanne, men at this time are not heard that they are
    capable of being nurturing.  The courts WON'T listen and neither will
    the Guardian Ad-Litum's.  Somehow, someway, there needs to be a balance
    here.  Somehow, someway, men need to gain credibility that they can be
    just as sensitive and loving as women.  
    
    Karen

    Suzanne,
    Exactly how has the feminist movement helped these men?  Again, read
    the NCP notesfile.  You will see several cases in there where the woman
    actually earns MORE than the man, yet the man is paying so much in
    child support that he can't afford his own apartment, has had to live
    in his car or lives on $10 a week.  Sorry Suzanne, I don't agree with
    you .194.  There is no equality for men in the divorce courts at this
    time.  And if there is, it's because men like George Rauh have gone to
    extreme lengths to prove that the man is the better parent.  The
    lengths some men have to go should not have to be done.  Attitudes must
    be changed.
    
    Karen

    In New Hampshire, reciently. A man who had a business, had the business
    sold off to pay for her attorny bills. This man's livelyhood was
    removed. He was installing, maintaining, repairing pools. Now he works
    for a junk yard for under $5.00. He could have made enough for suport
    of his children. Now he lives, barely. There is no shelter for him,
    there is no battered mens lines, there is no sympithy for them. They
    truely are the 'quiet men who lead lives in quiet desperation'.

    RE: Karen and George - 

    I don't think Suzanne said the situation in divorce court is equal.

    I think she said it used to be worse.  It was worse because far more
    women were "just" homemakers and far fewer men expressed a desire
    to nurture their children.  So the courts had even greater reason
    to place the kids with the mother and stick the father with the bill.

    A lower divorce rate in the past just meant fewer people were affected
    by a more unequal justice system.

    Today, feminism has helped the courts (some courts) to not take male
    and female roles for granted.  What I hear Suzanne saying is that
    further progress in this area will ultimately eliminate the sexist stereo-
    types in family courts that are so devastating to men and women alike.

    The key is that the sexist stereotypes that forced George's friend
    in New Hampshire to foot the bill for his wife's attorney (assuming
    there are no legit reasons for it) are precisely the kind of thing that 
    feminism is working against.

    /Greg

    RE: .195  Karen

    > My argument here is saying that more and more men ARE saying that 
    > they are as capable of nurturing as women, that they are TRYING to 
    > be heard.

    More and more women have been educated and have joined the work force
    all throughout this century.  More and more women are the breadwinners
    of their families, and they say they are as capable of the better jobs
    as men.  Yet, women are still kept from over 95% of the best-paying
    jobs.  Of the total number of adults in poverty in this country, 80%
    are women.  Women are TRYING to be heard on this.

    I say, let's fix both problems at the same time.  You (and others)
    seem to be asking to fix men's problem first (and barely acknowledge
    the problems women still face.)  Why is that?

    > We now have recourse in cases of wife battering, rape, etc.  

    What recourse??  Rapists and batterers still face little or no jail
    time for it (and women are characterized as "insane" or "delusional"
    for bringing up the charges.) 

    > We have gained more credibility in obtaining the help we have so
    > desparately needed.

    Oh, I see what you're talking about.  Yes, women can get all the
    "mental health counseling" we want (for being insane and/or delusional
    enough to dare to charge a man with battering or rape.)

    Perhaps we could help men best by giving them "mental health treatment"
    to help them accept the loss of their children.  Do you think this
    would be a fair (or pleasant) consolation prize for men?

    > BUT, now, MEN are being more penalized than ever. 

    Men are penalized because of the inequalities against women.  As I say
    again, let's fix both problems at the same time.

    > The courts seem to have adopted an attitude that ALL men ARE batterers,
    > rapists and child molesters.

    Courts treat WOMEN as "insane," and "unable to tell the difference
    between fantasy and reality" (even if one is a college professor at a
    Law School) - or else they just damn the women with "The bitch is lying."

    > Sorry Suzanne, men at this time are not heard that they are
    > capable of being nurturing. 

    Women are not heard that they are capable of equality in employment
    (and other areas.)

    > Somehow, someway, there needs to be a balance here.  

    The balance is to fix the problems of men and women at the same time.

    > Somehow, someway, men need to gain credibility that they can be
    > just as sensitive and loving as women.  
    
    Women need to gain credibility that we can be just as capable and
    dedicated to our careers as men.

    When our culture stops the sexist stereotyping of MEN AND WOMEN,
    we can all move towards a more equitable future.

    Greg,
    Can you cite cases for me where this has happened?  I'm sorry, I
    haven't seen it.  I hear MORE about the inequality than I hear about
    the equality.  George's story is just one of thousands of similar
    cases.  I'm not saying I'm right, you are wrong here.  I've been
    totally shafted by my ex-husband in this area.  For the first 12 years
    of my sons life there was no attempt by him or his family to see my
    son, make any kind of contact with him or to pay child support.  When
    my son was 12, through various circumstances, they reentered my sons
    life.  My son made the decision to go live with his father when he was
    13.  My X, being the perpetual victim that he is, promptly went on
    welfare and now I'm paying him child support.  Feminism has not helped
    me one whit in getting me my child support and don't think I haven't
    tried to.  First, I couldn't get it because I wasn't on welfare.  Now I
    can't get it because my son lives with his father.  When my son (who is
    now 16) turns 18, I lose all hope of obtaining my child support.  The
    courts attitude, well, you lived without it for this long, why do you
    need it now?  That's not the point, the point is making my X live up to
    ALL of his responsibilities.  There is absolutely NO balance in our
    legal system for men and women in this area.  And who gets hurt the
    worst?  The children, thats who.
      
    
    >The key is that the sexist stereotypes that forced George's friend
    >in New Hampshire to foot the bill for his wife's attorney (assuming
    >there are no legit reasons for it) are precisely the kind of thing that 
    >feminism is working against.
            Then feminism is failing in this area.  There is no equal
    justice, unless you are a welfare bum.  My initial thought on this is
    that maybe feminism should be renamed to peopleism.  Facetious, maybe,
    but then it wouldn't be gender specific, would it?
    
    Karen

    RE: .201  Karen
    
    Now I'm confused.
    
    > Feminism has not helped me one whit in getting me my child support 
    > and don't think I haven't tried to.  
    
    Feminism has freed up more men from paying so much in child support.
    I thought this was what you wanted??

    RE: .201  Karen
    
    >>The key is that the sexist stereotypes that forced George's friend
    >>in New Hampshire to foot the bill for his wife's attorney (assuming
    >>there are no legit reasons for it) are precisely the kind of thing that 
    >>feminism is working against.
            
    > Then feminism is failing in this area.  There is no equal justice, 
    > unless you are a welfare bum. 
    
    Karen, our SOCIETY is failing in this area.  Feminism is trying to make
    changes, but take a look at the resistance against the very changes
    that would help MEN AND WOMEN:  People bitch that Andrea Dworkin said
    something they didn't like.
    
    Meanwhile, the inequalities continue (despite everything feminism does
    to stop them.)

    re .716

>    The key is that the sexist stereotypes that forced George's friend
>    in New Hampshire to foot the bill for his wife's attorney (assuming
>    there are no legit reasons for it) are precisely the kind of thing that 
>    feminism is working against.

    	AS a 10 year veteran of the divorce/custody wars, I can safely
        say that it has NOT been feminism that has brought chanGes in
        men's plight in the divorce courts, but the #5's of  .0  that
        are finally starting to say "this is b.s" and starting to 
        stand up and fight for their rights. 
    
     The biggest fraud perpetrated on men in this centurny has been 
    "no-fault" divorce.  What it basically boils down to is that the
    woman has no-fault.  That the woman can pick up at any time for
    no reason whatsoever and sell the man into the pseudo-slavery
    of "child support".  I call it pseudo-slavery because there is
    no accountability of the custodial parent for the "child support"
    and there is *nothing* done to inforce the access of the child to
    the non_custodial parent.  The time when a persons faimily could
    be forceabley taken from him and his income could be confiscated
    supposedly went out with the Emancipation Proclimation---LOOK AGAIN.
    
    This is a prime case in point of what happens when the injustices
    of one group are addressed while the injustices against the other
    group are ignored.  
    
    fred();

    >> My argument here is saying that more and more men ARE saying that 
    >> they are as capable of nurturing as women, that they are TRYING to 
    >> be heard.

    >More and more women have been educated and have joined the work force
    >all throughout this century.  More and more women are the breadwinners
    >of their families, and they say they are as capable of the better jobs
    >as men.  Yet, women are still kept from over 95% of the best-paying
    >jobs.  Of the total number of adults in poverty in this country, 80%
    >are women.  Women are TRYING to be heard on this.
      
       I'm not disagreeing with you on this Suzanne.  This is a very valid
    point.  Maybe this is where the cultural stereotyping needs to be
    changed.  I watched a movie the other day, "One Good Cop".  The
    storyline is about a cop whose partner was shot and killed and his 3
    children were left orphans as their mother had died sometime before. 
    One of the scenes was that social services showed up to take the kids
    and the comment was made "Well if you get a bigger place and your WIFE
    (my emphasis) takes some time off from her job, you have good chance of
    getting legal guardianship of the kids."  I wondered at the time, why
    does the WIFE have to take the time off?  It's these kinds of messages,
    all over the media, that continue the stereotyping that you are talking
    about.
    
    >I say, let's fix both problems at the same time.  You (and others)
    >seem to be asking to fix men's problem first (and barely acknowledge
    >the problems women still face.)  Why is that?
   
           No, I am not saying lets fix the mens problem first.  I am
    saying let's fix the PEOPLE problem first.  Take it out of gender
    specific.  I do acknowledge the problems that women still face, but we
    have come along way in solving our problems, while men are being hurt
    more.
    
    >> We now have recourse in cases of wife battering, rape, etc.  

    >What recourse??  Rapists and batterers still face little or no jail
    >time for it (and women are characterized as "insane" or "delusional"
    >for bringing up the charges.) 
          
       Do you remember the movie "The Burning Bed".  Do you remember in
    that movie that she had nowhere to go, nowhere to turn?  Shelters for
    battered women didn't exist at that time, they do now.  Yes, women are
    still characterised as "insane" or "delusional" in many parts of the
    country.  In Washington state we have come along way with it, so I am
    basing my experiences on the liberalism of WA.  There was an incident a
    few years ago here.  A woman rode the bus to and from work daily.  The
    bus driver continually asked her for a date and eventually became quite
    threatening to her.  She made repeated calls to the police, and was told
    there was nothing they could do unless a crime was committed,
    harrassment at the time not being considered a crime.  This man
    eventually killed her.  It's sad that it took this case for our
    legislature to wake up and pass harrassment laws.  These laws are quite
    effective.  One time I was advertising for a female roommate and I
    received a call from a man who stated that he had my address and that
    him and some of his friends were following me and I had better do
    exactly what they said.  I hung up on the guy and when I related the
    story to my sister, she told me about the harrassment laws and to call
    the police.  I did and they came out promptly and took a report.  In
    this state, women are being listened to and we are being given more
    credibility for this sort of thing.  I am *VERY* aware that this is not
    the case in every state.
    
    > We have gained more credibility in obtaining the help we have so
    > desparately needed.

    >Oh, I see what you're talking about.  Yes, women can get all the
    >"mental health counseling" we want (for being insane and/or delusional
    >enough to dare to charge a man with battering or rape.)
    
        No, that's not what I am talking about, please don't twist my
    words.  Here there are rape crisis lines, battered womens shelters,
    stronger rape laws.  This is what I am basing my experiences on.  Here
    in Washington, women have a great deal of credibility for ACTUAL cases
    of battering and rape and child molesting.  
    
    >Perhaps we could help men best by giving them "mental health treatment"
    >to help them accept the loss of their children.  Do you think this
    >would be a fair (or pleasant) consolation prize for men?
 
       Why should men have to accept the loss of their children?  Why can't
    men have equal access to their children?  Neither parent should have to
    grieve the loss of their children.  This shouldn't even be an issue,
    IMHO.  I do believe however, that more men should seek therapy in
    learning how to cope with their feelings in general.  Can you deny
    Suzanne, that men are taught not to feel their feelings?  That in order
    to "be a man" it's not ok to cry, it's not ok to grieve?  IMHO, that is
    where alot of the problem comes in.
    
     >> BUT, now, MEN are being more penalized than ever. 

    >Men are penalized because of the inequalities against women.  As I say
    >again, let's fix both problems at the same time.

    I agree with you 100% on this point.
    
    >> The courts seem to have adopted an attitude that ALL men ARE batterers,
    >> rapists and child molesters.

    >Courts treat WOMEN as "insane," and "unable to tell the difference
    >between fantasy and reality" (even if one is a college professor at a
    >Law School) - or else they just damn the women with "The bitch is lying."

    Your points have some merit and I don't disagree.  The Anita Hill
    fiasco really did hurt women's credibility and our esteemed lawmakers
    sent a very powerful message to the women of this country.  I agree
    with you on this point.  But I disagree that the courts treat women as
    INSANE in divorces cases. IMHO, they are given too much crediblity when
    the credibility isn't warranted.
    
    >> Sorry Suzanne, men at this time are not heard that they are
    >> capable of being nurturing. 

    >Women are not heard that they are capable of equality in employment
    >(and other areas.)
        I agree with you.
    
    >> Somehow, someway, there needs to be a balance here.  

    >The balance is to fix the problems of men and women at the same time.
        
           Again, I agree with you.
    
    >> Somehow, someway, men need to gain credibility that they can be
    >> just as sensitive and loving as women.  
    
    >Women need to gain credibility that we can be just as capable and
    >dedicated to our careers as men.

       I agree with you again.  When I was trying to decide what I wanted
    to be when I grew up, I went to my father with several choices and I
    always heard "You can't do that, what's wrong with secretarial school?"
    Well, I didn't want to be a secretary then and I still don't want to be
    a secretary.  Unfortunately, this attitude of my fathers has hurt me. 
    I have had to work hard at overcoming his stereotyping of me and now I
    know I can do anything I set my mind to.  But I bought into the message
    when I was 18 that women aren't as capable as men.  And FWIW, he's
    proud of me today and is proud of the career choices I have made.
    
    >When our culture stops the sexist stereotyping of MEN AND WOMEN,
    >we can all move towards a more equitable future.
    
    Suzanne, I couldn't agree more.
    
    Karen

    RE: .206  Fred
    
    > AS a 10 year veteran of the divorce/custody wars, I can safely
    > say that it has NOT been feminism that has brought chanGes in
    > men's plight in the divorce courts...
    
    Feminism has brought more women a measure of financial independence,
    which has changed the status of more and more women in divorce courts
    (away from "totally dependent and in need of alimony or maintenance.")
    Alimony is awarded a lot less now, in other words, because of feminism.
    This is a help to men.
    
    > The biggest fraud perpetrated on men in this centurny has been 
    > "no-fault" divorce.  What it basically boils down to is that the
    > woman has no-fault.  That the woman can pick up at any time for
    > no reason whatsoever and sell the man into the pseudo-slavery
    > of "child support". 
    
    You mean, men can NOT pick and leave for no reason??  The "no-fault"
    portion only affects women?  (Surely this isn't the case.)
    
    When women reach economic equality, the courts will be a lot less
    inclined to put so much of the financial burden on men.

    re .208
    
>    You mean, men can NOT pick and leave for no reason??  The "no-fault"
>    portion only affects women?  (Surely this isn't the case.)
 
    Have you looked at the legislation being passed in regards to 
    "child support" colletions.  Men cannot leave for ANY reason.
    Not without leaving his children and everything he as worked for
    in his life and selling himself into pseudo-slavery of having
    a *major* portion of his future income confiscated.
    
    I'm NOT saying that the non-custodial parent should not pay
    support, but I do have a problem with the "child-support" awards
    that leave the non-custodial parent living in his/her car.
    
    I say this from a custodial parent viewpoint.  A year and a half
    ago, I was awarded custody of my children.  When my ex had custody
    I paid every dime of my "child support".  So far, she hasn't paid
    me a dime.  
    
    fred();   

    RE: .207  Karen
    
    > No, I am not saying lets fix the mens problem first.  I am
    > saying let's fix the PEOPLE problem first.  Take it out of gender
    > specific.  I do acknowledge the problems that women still face, but we
    > have come along way in solving our problems, while men are being hurt
    > more.
    
    Women still haven't reached equality, which is the reason men are being
    hurt more.  If we solve the problems of inequality, men would stop
    being hurt as much (and so would women.)  You call it a "PEOPLE" 
    problem (non-gender,) but then you go on to plea again for a solution
    to men's problems.  Why?
    
    >>Perhaps we could help men best by giving them "mental health treatment"
    >>to help them accept the loss of their children.  Do you think this
    >>would be a fair (or pleasant) consolation prize for men?
 
    > Why should men have to accept the loss of their children?  Why can't
    > men have equal access to their children? 
    
    As you can see yourself, counseling is NO CONSOLATION AT ALL for having
    to go through the unfairness of discrimination.  This was my point!
    
    > But I disagree that the courts treat women as INSANE in divorces cases. 
    > IMHO, they are given too much crediblity when the credibility isn't 
    > warranted.
    
    Please explain this.  Do you think women (as a group) don't warrant
    being believed in divorce cases?

    Well, I guess I'm living on another planet.  How is it that 90% of all
    divorced men do not pay child support?  Just this week on CNN, they
    showed a case where the husband simply moved to the next state across
    the border and *not one court* has been able to get him to pay child
    support.  To this date, he owes $85K.  
    
    I just can't buy this inequality stuff when it comes to the poor guy
    in the courtroom.  I know too many men who refuse to visit their
    children, let alone nurture them.  I also know too many women and
    children who end up living in substandard housing projects while
    the ex remains in "their house."  Men can afford to live the life
    they are accustomed to in most cases.  In most cases, women and
    children become yet more statistics in the poverty line.
    
    Maia
    

    <how is it that 90% of all divorced men do not pay child support?>
    
    I don't know, how is it? 
    And where did this 90% come from, please?
    
    Is it because those are the terms of the divorce settlement? Or is it
    because men are deadbeats.
    Which point are you making? Saying <he owes $85k> sort of suggests you
    are using anecdotal evidence to 'prove' that 90% are deadbeats. But I
    can't believe you would use one individual case to 'prove' that men are
    deadbeats!

    re .211
    
>    Well, I guess I'm living on another planet.  How is it that 90% of all
>    divorced men do not pay child support?  Just this week on CNN, they
>    showed a case where the husband simply moved to the next state across
>    the border and *not one court* has been able to get him to pay child
>    support.  To this date, he owes $85K.  
    
    It's only beginning.  *Federal* legislation has *already* been passed
    that requires *all* states to set up a computer network that will
    *automatically* track all "deadbeat-dads" and *automatically* 
    garnish their wages. Federal legislation is being proposed that will
    make non-payment of "child-support" a FEDERAL offense punishable
    with *heavy* fines *and* imprisonment.
    
    Up until now, disappearing was the *only* recourse a man had if the
    "child support" payments became unbearable.  Now even this is being 
    taken away.  Actually I'm looking forward to the repercussions.  If 
    you back even the sorriest dog into a corner where he can't run and
    hick him hard enough and often enough,  he's going to come out
    fighting.
    
    fred();

    
    >> No, I am not saying lets fix the mens problem first.  I am
    >> saying let's fix the PEOPLE problem first.  Take it out of gender
    >> specific.  I do acknowledge the problems that women still face, but we
    >> have come along way in solving our problems, while men are being hurt
    >> more.
    
    >Women still haven't reached equality, which is the reason men are being
    >hurt more.  If we solve the problems of inequality, men would stop
    >being hurt as much (and so would women.)  You call it a "PEOPLE" 
    >problem (non-gender,) but then you go on to plea again for a solution
    >to men's problems.  Why?
      
        Review some of my past notes Suzanne.  They explain why.  To
    reiterate, many men are being forced out of their childrens lives on no
    more than a woman saying that there is a THREAT there for her
    well-being.  The is no documented evidence that he has battered her or
    will batter her.  This is what I am talking about and it's happening
    more and more in the divorce courts.  The solution here is to have
    clear, documented evidence.  At this point it's not happening.  And I
    know this is coming, so I'll argue it now.  Yes, women DO need MORE
    credibility when we do have very clear, documented evidence in rape
    cases.  We have two different extremes going on here.  The extreme of
    women going into divorce court and not having any physical evidence of
    battering and obtaining credibility and winning.  The other extreme is
    a woman going into criminal court with tons of physical evidence and
    not having any credibility and losing.  
    
    >>Perhaps we could help men best by giving them "mental health treatment"
    >>to help them accept the loss of their children.  Do you think this
    >>>would be a fair (or pleasant) consolation prize for men?
 
    >> Why should men have to accept the loss of their children?  Why can't
    >> men have equal access to their children? 
    
    >As you can see yourself, counseling is NO CONSOLATION AT ALL for having
    >to go through the unfairness of discrimination.  This was my point!
    
        I need to toss this one around for awhile.  I'm not sure I agree or
    disagree with it.
    
    >>> But I disagree that the courts treat women as INSANE in divorces cases. 
    >>> IMHO, they are given too much crediblity when the credibility isn't 
    >>> warranted.
    
    >>Please explain this.  Do you think women (as a group) don't warrant
    >>being believed in divorce cases?
        
       Of course I don't think that Suzanne.  What I'm saying is that many,
    many women get restraining orders, etc., when there isn't any physical
    proof, just implied.  I want to see the divorce use FACTUAL evidence in
    determinations, not just one person's say so, whether it be man or
    woman.  This is not happening in the divorce courts today!!!!  
    
    Karen

    My source is CNN.  Daywatch Today or one of those programs.
    
    Dogs don't have to be cornered to fight incase you've never noticed.
    
    M.
    

    >I just can't buy this inequality stuff when it comes to the poor guy
    >in the courtroom.  I know too many men who refuse to visit their
    >children, let alone nurture them.  I also know too many women and
    >children who end up living in substandard housing projects while
    >the ex remains in "their house."  Men can afford to live the life
    >they are accustomed to in most cases.  In most cases, women and
    >children become yet more statistics in the poverty line.
    
    Maia,
    Have you asked yourself why men stop visiting their children?  I'm
    reading very black and white statements in the above and this is
    definitely NOT a black/white issue.  There are SO many gray areas.  I
    disagree with the 90% figure.  And furthermore, what are most of these
    women on the welfare rolls doing to better themselves?  How many of
    them are going to school are trying to make their lives better?  How
    many of them continue to have more children just to stay on welfare? 
    My ex owes me $15,000.  I will never see it.  Yes, there are many
    dead-beat dads out there.  There are many dead-beat moms out there. 
    Like Fred, he paid all of his child support, but has yet to see a dime
    now that he has custody.  I haven't wanted to say this before, but I'm
    going to now.  The issue of child support and custody needs to be taken
    OUT of individual state jurisdiction and placed in federal
    jurisdiction.  Then maybe (hope, hope) we will see more equality for
    both men and women.
    
    Karen

    RE .215
    
    I probably saw the same report (or one similar) on NBC Nightly News
    last Sunday.  The report was in support/justification for legislation
    *already* in the House and Senate that will make non-payment of
    "child support" a federal offense.
    
    I personally believe that most "deadbeat-dads" run because they feal
    they have no other alternative.  I am starting to hear women's groups
    and even judges support that hypothesis.  If you make it so that
    they can no longer even run---then what??
    
    fred();

    re .218
    
    Fred,
    
    I do not agree with running as a recourse to solve the issue.  It's a
    chicken way out.  My ex-husband did it and it hurt my son deeply.  Tell
    me, is $95 a month in child support "draining" him?  No.  Fred, we all
    need to come together and lobby for better guidelines.  It seems that
    this new organization, FREE, is working to solve these very issues. 
    Yes, men are getting hit with unfair support payments, to the point
    where it is almost impossible for them to live.  But running away only
    hurts future cases, it will never help.
    
    Karen

>How is it that 90% of all divorced men do not pay child support? 

 I find this figure exceptionally difficult to believe. Even so, I imagine
that a goodly portion of the "deadbeat dads" are that way out of economic
necessity. Too many "awards" amount to "killing the goose that laid the
golden egg." How is it that a court can award child support that exceeds
what was spent on the children during the marriage? Do they really expect 
the man to be able to live? The usual response is "that's his problem."
Brilliant solution. Force the man to choose between continuing to live
and fulfilling his court imposed obligations. Then go on the offensive when
he makes the only choice he has. Wonderful. Is it any wonder why men act
as if they are desparate?

>Just this week on CNN, they
>    showed a case where the husband simply moved to the next state across
>    the border and *not one court* has been able to get him to pay child
>    support.  To this date, he owes $85K.  

 Criminy, $85K! Is this a millionaire, a prolific breeder, or has he not paid
for a very long time?

>I also know too many women and
>    children who end up living in substandard housing projects while
>    the ex remains in "their house."

 I've never heard of this happening. Ever. I've heard of the man living in his
car while his wife does lines and treats her boyfriend to cruises while
she trots the kids into court, shabbily dressed, and tells the judge she
just can't make it on the 3/4 of the man's weekly salary she's getting. Oh,
and she quit working too, because it's "too stressful."

 Everyone has their own horror stories. For every deadbeat dad story you
can come up with I'll match it with a vicious bitch mom story and raise you
a down and out dad story. What'll that prove?

    re .220
    
    Thank you for stating it so well!!!!
    
    Karen

    RE: .213  Fred
    
    > Up until now, disappearing was the *only* recourse a man had if the
    > "child support" payments became unbearable.  Now even this is being 
    > taken away.  Actually I'm looking forward to the repercussions.  If 
    > you back even the sorriest dog into a corner where he can't run and
    > hick him hard enough and often enough,  he's going to come out
    > fighting.
    
    Perhaps there will be more incidents like the man in Marin County
    who killed his newer wife (and her sister and mother, plus two of
    his own young children - his other one survived having her throat
    cut) plus someone at his job.  All this happened after he received
    papers from the court about child support for the child from his
    first marriage.
    
    Do you really look forward to such violent repercussions, Fred?

    
    Karen,
    
    I said nothing about welfare.  I said women and children are in the
    poverty line.  It's no secret that the nouveau poor in this country
    are women and children.
    
    IMHO, of course, there is no reason why a grown adult male 'cannot'
    visit his child (unless the court decrees it for some reason or other).
    I'm talking about good ole dad who waves to his little girl when he
    passes her on the street.  Not bothering to stop to say hello.
    If there is a problem between the wife and husband, that is not reason
    enough for the husband to stop seeing his children, period.  I'm tired
    of hearing the 'my wife gives me sh*t everytime I go over there, so
    I stopped going over.'  What about the children?  A 'real man' puts
    up with sh*t from the wife if he really wants to see the kids, IMHO.
    
    But what do I know afterall?
    
    M.
    

    re 716.215
    
    CNN Daywatch Today or some such REPORTED that 90% of men don't pay
    child support?
    And so what? 
    If it is the case that 90% of divorces are settled without stipulations
    for child support then OF COURSE 90% of men don't pay child support
    
    Is it 90% of those divorced men who are supposed to pay, who don't pay?
    Is it 90% of all divorced men, whoi don't pay (whether they are
    supposed to or not?)
    Is it 90% of all men whether divorced or not. 
    
    <Dogs don't have to be cornered to fight incase you've never notices.>
    what in the world is that supposed to mean?

    <But what do I know afterall?>
    
    mmmmm
    

    <Dogs don't have to be cornered to fight incase you've never notices.>
    what in the world is that supposed to mean?

 Men are mean, vicious dogs that stirke out without provocation. What did
you think?

    re .-1
    
    I thought maybe she was talking about bitches.

    Uh huh, 90% of all divorce cases don't stipulate child support.
    
    Believe what you want, so what.
    
    CNN also REPORTED a war in Iraq, so what.
    
    CNN also REPORTED silicone breast implants that may be dangerous, so
    what.
    
    Actually, you see or don't, the report mentioned that 90% of all
    divorced husbands do not pay child support; instead some run to other
    states, some go into hiding, some are arrested in contempt of court.
    Therefore, they are passing this federal law to keep track of men who
    owe *their children* money.
    
    Are you saying that if a court does not decree it, a father has no
    responsibility to see that his children grow up healthy, in a nice home,
    go to college?  So his 'nurturing' simply depends on the judge of the
    day?
    
    

    re 219
    
   > I do not agree with running as a recourse to solve the issue.  It's a
   > chicken way out.
    
      I agree.  But I think that most "deadbeat dads" *feel* that they
      have no alternative.  They no longer have the resources to
      single-handedly fight a biased and biggoted system, they have
      no support systems, and they cannot stay and continue to have 
      any kind of life for themselves.
    
    >  My ex-husband did it and it hurt my son deeply. 
    
    I can't speak for your ex, but I can say (and in your position you
    will probably agree) that it doesn't feel real good to leave your
    kids behind or have them taken away either.  Nor ( not saying that
    this was your ex's case) does it feel real good to pay through the
    nose and then see your kids do without while the CP parties 
    (and again I don't say you did or would do this) with the "child
    support" because there is no accountability.    
    
    I wonder how many NCP's would GLADLY pay support if there was even 
    a shred of evidence that the children were actually benefitting from 
    the payments.  Even in cases where the children may indeed be
    benefiting from the payments.  The NCP may not see any tangable
    evidence that they are and will come to the conclusion that they
    are not.
    
    fred();

This was recently sent around Westminster in All-in-One Mail. I don't know
    if it is best here or in a different topic or on it's own, but I'll
    enter it here for now.
    
    Bonnie

______________________________________________________________


headers and distribution lists deleted ...

From:	DELNI::STRUTT "CHRIS LKG2-1/X2 POLE Y2 DTN:226-7286  06-Jan-1992 0918"  6-JAN-1992 09:17:09.13
To:	@INTEREST
CC:	
Subj:	Life Magazine article - Sexual Bigotry


The following article appeared in December's issue of Life Magazine.


                            Sexual Bigotry

                          by Roger Rosenblatt



The reason people are having so much trouble identifying sexual harassment
these days is that the offense has less to do with sex than gender.  Ever
since Professor Anita Hill accused Supreme Court nominee Judge Clarence
Thomas of lewd and overbearing conduct toward her, the country has been
trying to determine the difference between innocent fun and genuine pain.

But the pain felt by a woman who suffers indignities from men in a place 
of work rarely has anything to do with the men's sexual desires.  The pain 
is experienced because women are made to feel inferior -- inferior 
intellectually, emotionally, professionally -- in a situation where they
have every right to feel equal.  They are not so much sex objects as 
targets of bigotry.

Now, bigotry between sexes, unlike bigotry between races, is fraught with
a lot of biological tension that can make it seem something other than it
is.  And sex often does involve the deliberate exertion of leverage or
power.

But when some guy calls a female colleague "honey" and does nothing else
suggestive, I think it's a stretch to assume that "honey" is a sign of 
his wanting to roll in the hay.  When the word is dropped into, say, a 
professional disagreement, or a competition of views, however, it has the
edge of an attack.

"That's all well and good, honey, but if you had as much experience with
these things as I..."

In that sort of case, which is far more common than a man's making a pass,
the term of endearment is actually a term of derision, of purposeful
belittling.  Not very subtly, the male in the office wants to tell the 
female: "O.K.  You've got a big, responsible job now.  But this is still
a man's world, HONEY, and I'm going to try and make you feel as uncomfort-
able in it as I possibly can."

The movie "Tootsie" brought out this kind of sexual bigotry as well as
anything.  Dustin Hoffman, passing as a woman, and playing an actress in a
soap opera, chews out "her" director, played by Dabney Coleman (America's
favorite male chauvinist pig), when Coleman uses the supposedly affectionate
nickname of Tootsie.   Coleman isn't interested in squeezing Tootsie's body
but in squeezing her mind.  He wants to make her feel she does not belong,
or that she exists at his sufferance.

That, I think, is the real and brutal motive behind most sexual harass-
ment -- to keep a woman in her "place" whenever she emerges into a "man's 
place."

These recent years have been kind of hard on the old boys' network.  (I
know, I'm an old boy myself.)  In the 1990s men are finally beginning to
realize that the women's movement has moved; it has happened.  With the
economy requiring two wage earners in a family, and the general enlighten-
ment that follows a right idea, nothing is going to make it UN-happen.

Some men take the news well, some grudgingly, some angrily.  Some take it
angrily who only appear to take it well.

There are the ones you often find leering like Red Riding Hood's wolf over
the watercooler or reaching out to make a pinch.  They don't want sex,
they want dominance.  They want to set back the office clock to when those
desks and nameplates were all theirs.

We have seen this type of bigotry before, of course, but it was in the 
South before the 1960s, at swimming pools and lunch counters, when American
blacks were told they were not Americans.

And we saw it at the start of the century, when American Irish, Slavs,
Jews, Italians and others were told they were not Americans either:  
"Irish need not apply."  American Hispanics are told the same thing today,
as are American Asians and American Indians, and American homosexuals and
the American handicapped.

With civil rights laws in place, bigots have nowhere to turn except toward
lesser forms of tyranny.  The matter often lies in intention.  Most male
bigots intend to bring women down, all right -- not in the bed, in the
whole society.  They hope to injure a woman's self-esteem by bringing her
low.  It is one sure way such men can think better of themselves.

Like conventional bigots, too, they will treat the targets of their
bigotry as inferior because of fear.  Usually men who behave badly toward
women coworkers are afraid of them, afraid that women will show them up
as less capable or that the women will band together in a sorority as 
clannish and exclusionary as men's clubs.  You wouldn't want THAT.

Many observers feel that the gray area in the harassment issue lies where
a woman misinterprets a man's intentions.  I think that is so.  Many men,
myself sorrowfully included, are bumblers when it comes to knowing what's
cute and what's rude or worse.

But I also think that the misinterpretation of intentions is far more
likely when it comes to sexual desires than when it comes to bigotry.

No law can prove it, but the heart knows when it is being assaulted as
something less, not worthy, not human.  The man who does anything --
anything at all -- to intentionally make a woman feel not human is no
different from the coward Klansman hiding his hatred under a sheet.  
He's not making love, he's making war.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======

    RE: .214  Karen

    > Yes, women DO need MORE credibility when we do have very clear, 
    > documented evidence in rape cases. 

    What sort of documentation is acceptable, though?  A sworn affidavit
    from the rapist (with several witnesses and a notary) that a rape was
    committed?

    What if he threatens her with a knife, but doesn't cut her (or her
    clothes) after jumping out from a bush.  It still boils down to her
    word against his (whereas a robbery victim doesn't usually face the
    sordid questioning - "Well, isn't it true that you've given money to
    strangers on the street before?" or "Isn't it true that you simply
    IMAGINED someone robbing you because you had your lunch money stolen
    as a child?")

    We need to change the system so that "the woman is clearly insane
    or promiscuous" is not a valid defense for rape.

    Wives have the same problems with "clear, documented evidence."  

    Should we decide that all wives who report abuse are lying if they
    don't have incontrovertible evidence?  

    By the way, no one has mentioned it, but there have also been cases
    where sexual child abuse existed and the court ASSUMED the Mother was
    lying (even though there was definite evidence of sexual assault.)

    One Mother noticed that her baby daughter had a discharge in her
    diaper - it turned out to be gonorrhea (and the only person who had
    been alone with her daughter besides herself was the father on
    unsupervised visits.)  When the mother reported it - the judge gave
    custody to the father (on the basis that the mother must be lying
    to make such a charge.)

    Some courts nowadays believe in the stereotype that women lie about
    these things - so if the woman reports sexual abuse, it's a sure way
    to put her child in the custody of the abuser.

    re .223
    
    Maia,
    
    Ok, my interpretation of what you said was that men go on to live
    wonderful lives and women end up on welfare.  I apologize if I
    misinterpreted what you said.  Yes, I agree, that the majority of
    people that are in the poverty line are women and children.  But again,
    I gotta ask, what are the women doing to help themselves out?  Are they
    going to school, trying to make themselves better, or are they
    remaining on the poverty line through choice?
    
    As for the rest of what you said I agree with you  100%.  You stated it
    very well, IMHO.
    
    Karen

    re .233
    

 >   Some courts nowadays believe in the stereotype that women lie about
 >   these things - so if the woman reports sexual abuse, it's a sure way
 >   to put her child in the custody of the abuser.

    and every case you can name I can name you two where the ACCUSATION
    (no evidence) of physical/sexual abuse was the TRUMP CARD in the
    custody award.  So where does that get us?
    
    fred();
    
    

    >> Yes, women DO need MORE credibility when we do have very clear, 
    >> documented evidence in rape cases. 

    >What sort of documentation is acceptable, though?  A sworn affidavit
    >from the rapist (with several witnesses and a notary) that a rape was
    >committed?
	  Come on Suzanne, you know what I am talking about.  Isn't there a
    note over in =wn= that talks about a woman who was raped, with bruises,
    with cuts that wasn't believed?  And what about Patty Bowman?  I
    believe she was raped.  What I don't believe is that in DIVORCE cases,
    that a woman can just walk into court and SAY she is frightened of her
    husband without some kind of history to warrant the charge.  Review my
    note about my friend here in Washington for clarification on that.
    
    >We need to change the system so that "the woman is clearly insane
    >or promiscuous" is not a valid defense for rape.
   
      I completely agree, have I disagreed with you yet on this point?  
    
    >Wives have the same problems with "clear, documented evidence."  

    And I disagree, based on personal experiences.  It's happening more and
    more in divorce cases.  With judges believing women on no more than
    hearsay in divorce court don't you think it is hurting the feminist
    cause in the long run?  Don't you think this will hurt women's
    credibility in rape cases or valid battering cases?
    
    >Should we decide that all wives who report abuse are lying if they
    >don't have incontrovertible evidence?  
       
            NO!  Of course not.  I want to see a history of abuse proven,
    not just implied accusations, WHICH IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING.  
    
    And FWIW, I completely agree with your .233.  Society still hasn't come
    to accept how widespread childhood sexual abuse is and I agree that
    many molestors are getting custody of their children.  This is another
    injustice that we need to find a solution to.  
    
    Karen

    
    	It gets us nowhere, Fred, except for my suggestion that we should
    	work on equal rights issues (and that both men and women have much
    	to gain by any work we can accomplish to stop sexual discrimination.)

    Bonnie,
    
    Thank you for entering the LIFE article.  It is the most RIGHT ON
    article I have read for awhile.  
    
    Karen

    >         <<< Note 716.237 by GORE::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
    >                          -< RE: .235  Fred >-

    
   > 	It gets us nowhere, Fred, except for my suggestion that we should
   > 	work on equal rights issues (and that both men and women have much
   > 	to gain by any work we can accomplish to stop sexual discrimination.)
    
    I thought that that is what I've been trying to say---that sexual
    discrimination needs to be worked on from *both* sides of the 
    inequities.
    
    fred();

    RE: .236  Karen
    
    > What I don't believe is that in DIVORCE cases, that a woman can just 
    > walk into court and SAY she is frightened of her husband without some 
    > kind of history to warrant the charge. 
    
    What if it's true, though?
    
    > With judges believing women on no more than hearsay in divorce court 
    > don't you think it is hurting the feminist cause in the long run?  
    
    No, actually, it's probably hurting the JUDGES' cause, ok?  Feminists
    are not the ones sitting on the bench.
    
    > Don't you think this will hurt women's credibility in rape cases or 
    > valid battering cases?
    
    Many wives report VALID BATTERING CASES, Karen.  Domestic violence
    accounts for ONE/THIRD of all the police calls in the city where I
    live.  Do you think all these couples stay together (and that all
    or most of these women lie about being frightened when they get to
    court???)
    
    You seem to assume that being battered means there must be SOME
    documented evidence of it (and if not, then it's all a lie.)
    
    Such prejudice doesn't hurt the women's movement (if it's true that
    you are making this assumption.)  On the contrary, it is one of the
    very reason the women's movement is so important.

    thanks Karen, I wondered if it got lost in the shuffle :-)
    
    Bonnie

    
    >> What I don't believe is that in DIVORCE cases, that a woman can just 
    >> walk into court and SAY she is frightened of her husband without some 
    >> kind of history to warrant the charge. 
    
    >What if it's true, though?
        
       The I will eat my words.  
    
    >> With judges believing women on no more than hearsay in divorce court 
    >> don't you think it is hurting the feminist cause in the long run?  
    
    >No, actually, it's probably hurting the JUDGES' cause, ok?  Feminists
    >are not the ones sitting on the bench.
    
       Yes, it's ALSO hurting the judges cause.  Some of you men from NCP
    correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a FEMALE judge in Colorado that
    was just removed from the bench because of her unfairness towards men. 
    Now, what was this judge doing to help the  feminist cause?
    
    >> Don't you think this will hurt women's credibility in rape cases or 
    >> valid battering cases?
    
    >Many wives report VALID BATTERING CASES, Karen.  Domestic violence
    >accounts for ONE/THIRD of all the police calls in the city where I
    >live.  Do you think all these couples stay together (and that all
    >or most of these women lie about being frightened when they get to
    >court???)
    
       I'm not saying there AREN't valid battering cases.  What I am saying
    is that there are a proportinate amount of women that are using these
    VALID cases as ammo to be vindictive in court.  The VALID cases can
    show police reports etc.  This is the kind of history I am talking
    about.  What I am saying is that with the pendulum swinging more in
    favor of women and women being believed in VALID battering cases, the 
    less than honest women are using it for their own agendas and more and
    more men are getting hurt.
    
    >You seem to assume that being battered means there must be SOME
    >documented evidence of it (and if not, then it's all a lie.)
    
       No, I'm not saying that.  See above answer.
    
    Karen

re .240
    
>    You seem to assume that being battered means there must be SOME
>    documented evidence of it (and if not, then it's all a lie.)
    
    Unfortunately (or maybe fortunnately depending on how you look at it)
    in our society it takes more than an ACCUSATION to get someone arrested
    for MURDER.  Let alone for smacking someone around.  What do we do
    about it?  Suspend the bill of rights?
    
    I think the women's movement (and women) would be better served    
    if the "feminists" would start educating women on what to do and
    now to do it in the case that they are raped/assaulted/harassed and
    what evidence they will need and how to gather and document that
    evidence.  
    
    One singel false accusation will do more harm to people who really
    are in a desparate situation than anything else imaginable.  How
    many rapes/asaults go unreported because the person just doesn't 
    know what to do or is to "ashamed" to make the report.  How many
    rapists go free to rape again because someone just didn't bother
    to make a report because she was afraid.  Whose problem is that?
    Do we suspend the Bill of Rights just because someone is afraid??
    
    fred();

    RE: .243  Fred
    
    > One singel false accusation will do more harm to people who really
    > are in a desparate situation than anything else imaginable.  
    
    If our culture is so prejudiced against the group (of which this
    person is a member) that a single false charge can create suspicion
    and pre-judgments about all (or most) of the other members, then
    the PREJUDICE is the problem, not the false charge.
    
    > How many rapes/asaults go unreported because the person just doesn't 
    > know what to do or is to "ashamed" to make the report.  How many
    > rapists go free to rape again because someone just didn't bother
    > to make a report because she was afraid.  Whose problem is that?
    > Do we suspend the Bill of Rights just because someone is afraid??
    
    Rapists go free nearly all the time even when the victim DOES make
    a report and testifies.  Rape is one of the all-time easiet crimes
    to commit without fear of legal retribution.
    
    Is it any wonder many women don't report it?  The problem isn't
    theirs!

    RE: .242  Karen
    
    >>> walk into court and SAY she is frightened of her husband without some 
    >>> kind of history to warrant the charge. 
    
    >> What if it's true, though?
        
    > The[n] I will eat my words.  
    
    Start eating, Karen, because I'm absolutely dead positive that at least
    SOME of the women who report abuse without evidence are telling the
    truth.  You can't possibly generalize that ALL the women who cite
    abuse without evidence are lying - or if you do, I'm sure you must know 
    that you're operating from a prejudice (read: pre-judgment w/out facts.)
    
    >>No, actually, it's probably hurting the JUDGES' cause, ok?  Feminists
    >>are not the ones sitting on the bench.
    
    > Yes, it's ALSO hurting the judges cause.  Some of you men from NCP
    > correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a FEMALE judge in Colorado that
    > was just removed from the bench because of her unfairness towards men. 
    
    Gee, thanks.  An example of how a Judge can actually get in TROUBLE
    for being unfair to men (and you guys have been writing here as if
    being unfair to men was an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT of divorce courts.)
    
    > Now, what was this judge doing to help the  feminist cause?
    
    What makes you think she was TRYING to help the so-called "feminist
    cause" (as you seem to be defining it)?  She was an individual making
    judgments about individual divorce cases - and she was fired for doing
    what everyone here says is commonplace in divorce.
    
    Karen, feminism works toward equality.  If women's equality is dependent
    on making sure that NO WOMAN ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET EARTH ever says
    or does anything that can bother anyone in the most remote way, then
    it couldn't be called true "equality," could it?
    
    Please get off this kick of suggesting that every individual woman is
    responsible for the doom of feminism if she does anything you consider
    wrong, ok?  (Thanks!)
    
    > The VALID cases can show police reports etc.  This is the kind of 
    > history I am talking about. 
    
    You are dead wrong about this.  Many, many, MANY battered women don't
    call the police.  They worry that it will only put them in more danger.
    
    > What I am saying is that with the pendulum swinging more in
    > favor of women and women being believed in VALID battering cases, the 
    > less than honest women are using it for their own agendas and more and
    > more men are getting hurt.
 
    Karen, more and more women are being beaten up (with a very, VERY small
    number of men doing jail time for it.)
    
    The police may believe battered women more, but it doesn't result in
    safety for the woman.  If the husband is determined to kill her after
    she reports it, there is almost NOTHING that can be done to stop him.

>                                       <<< Note 716.244 by GORE::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
>
[stuff deleted...]

>    > Now, what was this judge doing to help the  feminist cause?
>    
>    What makes you think she was TRYING to help the so-called "feminist
>    cause" (as you seem to be defining it)?  She was an individual making
>    judgments about individual divorce cases - and she was fired for doing
>    what everyone here says is commonplace in divorce.
>    
>    Karen, feminism works toward equality.  If women's equality is dependent
>    on making sure that NO WOMAN ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET EARTH ever says
>    or does anything that can bother anyone in the most remote way, then
>    it couldn't be called true "equality," could it?
>    

Maybe someone should tell the feminists that's what they are working toward?
Seems to me that women who I have know that call them selves feminists, have
other ideas and goals. Equality is not a word in their vocabulary from my
observations. It is more to dominate and stamp out men who do not share their
views so that we all end up as whipping boys.

I personally have no problem with equality and my SO and I share equally all the
joys and pains in life. Both of us have no room in our lives for so call
feminists who haven't a clue as to what it's all about.

I know a handful of women who I would call true feminists, while the rest are
only just fooling them selves. Maybe that is why the latter are either still
single or divorced?

re: .243

I second that Fred();

John

    RE: .246  John
    
    > Maybe someone should tell the feminists that's what they are working 
    > toward [equal rights]?  
    
    Do you really think you know what exists in the thoughts and minds of
    millions and millions of men and women in the feminist movement?  
    
    I don't think you do.
    
    >           Seems to me that women who I have know that call them selves 
    > feminists, have other ideas and goals. Equality is not a word in their 
    > vocabulary from my observations. It is more to dominate and stamp out 
    > men who do not share their views so that we all end up as whipping boys.
    
    You make equality between the sexes sound so terribly threatening to
    men.  I'm sorry it seems so scary to some people.
    
    > I personally have no problem with equality and my SO and I share 
    > equally all the joys and pains in life. Both of us have no room in 
    > our lives for so call feminists who haven't a clue as to what it's 
    > all about.
    
    Have feminists been asking to move in with you two?  Sounds kinky.  :-)
    
    > I know a handful of women who I would call true feminists, while the 
    > rest are only just fooling them selves. Maybe that is why the latter 
    > are either still single or divorced?
    
    So "the rest" don't really know their own political viewpoints - but
    YOU know what they really believe (better than they know themselves.)  
    Do you also know what the men in the feminist movement think and feel?
    
    Oh, and you know whether or not these millions and millions of men and
    women are still single or divorced???
    
    Do you make any extra money as a psychic?  :-)

re .246,

>I know a handful of women who I would call true feminists, while the rest are
>only just fooling them selves. Maybe that is why the latter are either still
>single or divorced?

How is marital status relevant to whether someone is (in your
opinion) a "true feminist"?

Dan

    The lunatic fringe (ie. Andea Dworkin and her ilk) aside, why do most
    men associate the feminist agenda with an anti-male agenda?  

    My experience with feminists is a whole lot different from the
    impression I'm getting from men in this conference.

    Fundamental respect for a person's diginty as a human being should not
    be something for which a person has to ask.  And as far as I can tell,
    that's about all feminists have requested from as far back as the
    movement goes.
    
    Yes?  Or maybe I've been lucky and met only the kinder, gentler
    feminist?
    
    Kris

    RE: .250  Kris
    
    > Fundamental respect for a person's diginty as a human being should not
    > be something for which a person has to ask.  And as far as I can tell,
    > that's about all feminists have requested from as far back as the
    > movement goes.
    
    AMEN!
    
    (And I'm not even one of the kinder, gentler feminists!)  :-)

    Kris,
    
    You just said it all for me too.  Thanks!
    
    Karen

    >>>> walk into court and SAY she is frightened of her husband without some 
    >>>> kind of history to warrant the charge. 
    
    >>> What if it's true, though?
        
    >> The[n] I will eat my words.  
    
    >Start eating, Karen, because I'm absolutely dead positive that at least
    >SOME of the women who report abuse without evidence are telling the
    >truth.  You can't possibly generalize that ALL the women who cite
    >abuse without evidence are lying - or if you do, I'm sure you must know 
    >that you're operating from a prejudice (read: pre-judgment w/out facts.)
   
       No, I won't start eating my words Suzanne.  I never did generalize
    that.  Haven't I given credibility to the issues you bring up?  But
    c'mon Suzanne, can't you believe that some women do lie?  Can't you
    believe that some women manipulate the system for their own gains?  Or
    do you believe that there is not a single woman out there that doesn't
    lie?  Sorry Suzanne I don't buy it.  I'm going off my own observations
    here and my observations, years worth, tell me that women do lie and
    IT'S THE ONES THAT DO THAT MAKE IT HARDER FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN IN
    DIVORCE COURT and hurt the feminist movement in general.
        
    >What makes you think she was TRYING to help the so-called "feminist
    >cause" (as you seem to be defining it)?  She was an individual making
    >judgments about individual divorce cases - and she was fired for doing
    >what everyone here says is commonplace in divorce.
    
    And it should happen to more judges, IMHO.  

    I'm not on any kick here Suzanne.  I believe what I believe.  And I
    don't think that every individual woman is responsible for the doom of
    feminism if she does anything I consider wrong.  Go back and read .72. 
    Read it carefully Suzanne, those are my beliefs.
    
    >> The VALID cases can show police reports etc.  This is the kind of 
    >> history I am talking about. 
    
    >You are dead wrong about this.  Many, many, MANY battered women don't
    >call the police.  They worry that it will only put them in more danger.
       
    Ok, yes I concede on this point.  But what about the case of my
    friend?  He has absolutely NO history of battering, has never made a
    threatening move towards his wife, yet she slaps him with a restraining
    order because of false allegations!  Yet, HE has is documented that she
    was passed out drunk on the floor while their infant son was screaming
    so loud that one of the neighbors finally came over and got the baby. 
    THIS is what I'm talking about Suzanne.  And there are many, many cases
    like this Suzanne.  It happens.  And FWIW, he doesn't drink, at all.
    
    >Karen, more and more women are being beaten up (with a very, VERY small
    >number of men doing jail time for it.)
      
       I don't disagree with you Suzanne.  I know what it's like, I've been
    there.  Yes, a very small number of men are doing jail time for it, but
    also remember, alot end up not pressing charges either and end up going
    back to the batterer.  So what can we do to solve that problem?  
    
    >The police may believe battered women more, but it doesn't result in
    >safety for the woman.  If the husband is determined to kill her after
    >she reports it, there is almost NOTHING that can be done to stop him.
    
    I'm not disagreeing with you Suzanne.  There was a case here, just over
    the weekend where that very thing happened.  He killed her WHILE she
    was on the phone to 911.  
    
    As I said to Maia, these are not black and white issues, they are very
    gray.  I do believe women are battered.  I believe that alot of women
    that show up in divorce court are battered wives.  I also believe that
    a number of women who show up in divorce court that claim to be
    battered, aren't, they are manipulating the system with the express
    intent of hurting their husbands as much as they can.  It happens
    whether you want to believe it or not.
    
    Karen

>       Yes, it's ALSO hurting the judges cause.  Some of you men from NCP
>    correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a FEMALE judge in Colorado that
>    was just removed from the bench because of her unfairness towards men. 

Anyone know if this was true?  And what was the judge's name?

    also, thankyou Kris
    
    Bonnie

>    The lunatic fringe (ie. Andea Dworkin and her ilk) aside, why do most
>    men associate the feminist agenda with an anti-male agenda?  

 Because "mainstream" feminists don't seem to ever openly contradict the
radicals. Silence appears to be agreement. Besides, who gets most of the
media attention, the "all men should be castrated" crowd or the "equal pay
for equal work" crowd?

 It seems like whenever a prominent feminist makes a diatribe against
one thing or other and it sounds pretty much anti-male, there appears to
be a circling of the wagons. There's some pretty open back slapping, some
'attagirls', and some pretty hateful stuff is the cause of virtual celebration.
When a man makes an nasty statement about females, he is routinely challenged
by feminists and usually labeled "misogynistic." The converse is rarely if
ever true. One would think that if equality were first and foremost in the
minds of feminists, that the situation would be more nearly parallel. It's
not. Not even close.

 So one asks, why is it that people for equality rarely if ever make statements
critical of anti-male comments made by self-described feminists. "Well, it's
different." It's _always_ different. Everyone can rationalize things they
do as being different and therefore justifiable than the similar things
that others do that are categorically condemnable.

 Like many other movements, feminism has appealing goals. I believe in feminism.
But there are alot of feminists that I don't like. There are alot of people
that call themselves feminists that make me wonder if anyone ever told them
what feminism's stated goals were. And in my dark days, I wonder if these
people are the ones that are really with the program, and the stated goals
are just a front to gain support before the real agenda is exposed...

 The Doctah

 > 					    Besides, who gets most of the
 > media attention, the "all men should be castrated" crowd or the "equal pay
 > for equal work" crowd?

    That one's easy - I see infinitely more coverage of the latter
    than the former.

    Maybe people should just dispense with the simplistic labels
    ("feminist", "radical", "redneck", whatever) and deal with actual
    ideas and issues?

    RE: .257  The Doctah

    > Because "mainstream" feminists don't seem to ever openly contradict the
    > radicals. Silence appears to be agreement. 

    Doctah - silence is NOT agreement.  "Silence" is (sometimes):  "Hey, I'm
    not going to get down on my knees and do penance to you because you've
    quoted some author I've never met (and possibly never read) and because
    you seem to think all feminists are personally responsible for every
    word uttered by anyone who states that he/she is a feminist."

    Lack of agreement is LACK OF AGREEMENT.  Ok?

    > Besides, who gets most of the media attention, the "all men should 
    > be castrated" crowd or the "equal pay for equal work" crowd?

    Who are these "all men should be castrated" people?  (I want definitive
    references here.)  Should I refer to those who disagree with feminism
    as the "All women should be raped and murdered" crowd?

    > When a man makes an nasty statement about females, he is routinely 
    > challenged by feminists and usually labeled "misogynistic." The converse 
    > is rarely if ever true.

    Doctah, I'm shocked that you haven't noticed that feminists on the net
    are savagely bashed for simply standing up to hold to a debate position 
    (even when NOTHING is said against males at all, nor even implied.)

    By the time people finish bashing those feminists who say NOTHING 
    against men, I (for one) am not going to join them when they bash
    someone like Andrea Dworkin.  I don't agree with the quotes I've 
    seen of her work (especially when it comes to hetero_sex===rape.)

    When I see someone like Andrea Dworkin bashed, I don't think to
    myself "OH NO!!  I'd damn well better jump on the bandwagon to
    lash out at her so that no one thinks I agree with what she says!"

    I think, "So - they're bashing another feminist.  Ho hum."

    The point remains that the billions of women on this planet DESERVE
    equal rights (whether anyone can find women they dislike or NOT.)

    The cause is just.  If someone decides to go against the idea of
    equal rights out of anger at a few (or many) women - it's a petty
    stab at HALF the human race.

    RE: .258  Paul
    
    > That one's easy - I see infinitely more coverage of the latter
    > [the "equal pay for equal work" crowd] than the former.

    Me, too!  (Except in notes, when people are criticizing the women's
    movement.)
    
    > Maybe people should just dispense with the simplistic labels
    > ("feminist", "radical", "redneck", whatever) and deal with actual
    > ideas and issues?
    
    AMEN!
    
    "Feminists" is a name many men and women in the women's equal rights
    movement call ourselves.  There is NO real "feminist cause" (beyond
    the simple idea that women deserve equal rights.)
    
    When someone gets angry at "feminists" and goes against "our cause,"
    they're striking out at billions of women needlessly.
    
    Whatever anyone thinks of individuals or their ideas, it has nothing
    to do with the justice of the cause for equal rights.
    
    I'd love to see people stick to ideas and issues (rather than attacking
    feminism in general because of individual women and/or feminists they
    dislike.)  It's pointless to do otherwise.

    
    	Karen, I apologize if I misunderstood what you wrote earlier.
    	I do agree with much of what you've said in the past few days.
    
    	I also see (now) that some people DO hold billions of women
    	responsible when a woman abuses the family court system in
    	divorce (and that some people DO decide that the billions of
    	women on our planet do not deserve equal rights if any women
    	at all are capable of lying.)
    
    	I think it's rather pathetic, though, as you can imagine.
    
    	Take care,
    	Suzanne

    	<I also see (now) that some people DO hold billions of women
    	<responsible when a woman abuses the family court system in
    	<divorce (and that some people DO decide that the billions of
    	<women on our planet do not deserve equal rights if any women
    	<at all are capable of lying.)
    
    	<I think it's rather pathetic, though, as you can imagine.
    
    I agree! (who couldn't?)
    
    Note that the above works pretty well if 'women' and 'woman' are
    changed to 'men' and 'man'
    
    				herb

>    Doctah - silence is NOT agreement.

 Remember that the next time that you feel that the "patriarchy" is oppressive
because a few neanderthals make statements that go unchallenged by the rank a 
file men.

>    Who are these "all men should be castrated" people? 

 Have you ever heard of hyperbole as a literary device?

>    Doctah, I'm shocked that you haven't noticed that feminists on the net
>    are savagely bashed for simply standing up to hold to a debate position 

 Not by feminists. I was talking about what feminists do, not the world at
large. If you had to tally the number of times you heard feminists say
two words, misogynist and man-hater, which word do you think would have the
most tallies? Why?

>    By the time people finish bashing those feminists who say NOTHING 
>    against men, I (for one) am not going to join them when they bash
>    someone like Andrea Dworkin.

 Being critical is not the same as bashing. Calling criticism bashing is
a transparent attempt to stifle discussion, undertaken most often when
further examination is feared by one side or another.

    re .255
    
    Judge Joyce Steinhardt resigned under the pressure of a letter writing
    and call campaign to Gov. Romer and the Judicial Disciplinary Commission
    by a group called Citizens Against Prejudice and Unfair Judges in
    Arapahoe County.
    
    fred();

    RE: .263  Doctah
    
    > Remember that the next time that you feel that the "patriarchy" is 
    > oppressive because a few neanderthals make statements that go 
    > unchallenged by the rank a file men.
    
    The "patriarchy is oppressive" because women don't have equal rights.
    The words of neanderthals are only a reminder.  When other men don't
    step forward to disagree, I don't ASSUME that they all must agree
    with what's been said.  (I still don't understand why you make this
    assumption, per your note.)
    
    >> Who are these "all men should be castrated" people? 

    > Have you ever heard of hyperbole as a literary device?
    
    Fine, so I guess it's ok with you if I call you (or people you know)
    the "All women should be raped and murdered" crowd?  You wouldn't
    mind, I presume.
    
    >> Doctah, I'm shocked that you haven't noticed that feminists on the net
    >> are savagely bashed for simply standing up to hold to a debate position 

    > Not by feminists. I was talking about what feminists do, not the world at
    > large.
    
    When you look at how feminists are bashed by the "world at large," tho,
    is it any wonder many of us don't join in on the plentiful bashing of
    feminists (even when manipulation is attempted via "Gee, then I guess
    you must agree with what <some certain feminist> said!")
    
    > Being critical is not the same as bashing. 
    
    True.  Bashing is most definitely bashing, though.
    
    > Calling criticism bashing is a transparent attempt to stifle discussion, 
    > undertaken most often when further examination is feared by one side or 
    > another.
    
    Implying that no bashing ever takes place (and it's all just "criticism")
    is a smokescreen.  Bashing feminists is so much fun, after all - why
    take the chance that it might be curbed if pointed out.
    
    Discussions are great.  There are few things in life I enjoy as much.
    However, if you want to characterize these "talks" as though feminists
    don't take tremendous heat for standing up to a position, it ain't so,
    Doctah.

>    .199
>    The problem is that there are feminist, and imposters who are riding
>    the shirt tales. Bottom line. I cannot see where or how
>    feminist/feminazi's have really helped. Execpt themselves of course.
>    But, time will tell. So far what I have seen is jack boots, more walls,
>    and martial music. 
    
    you're generalizing, George...
    
    I am a feminist, and if it weren't for feminists before me speaking
    that women need to be acceptable in all careers I wouldn't have had a
    chance in hell at succeeding majoring in electronics as a major in high
    school (tech school, I was the second woman to do it).  And if it
    weren't for feminists, my college would never have gone co-ed, and I
    never would have gotten the Electrical and Mechanical engineering
    background I have now.  They have helped me to fulfill my purposes in
    life, and this in turn gives me tremendous satisfaction.  I don't feel
    like I'm missing something important.  And now I reach out to women and
    men and invite them into the new Technical Writing major at WPI.  And
    now I reach out to women and men and teach documentation usability. 
    And now I feel fulfilled in my career, and empowered to be strong
    enough to be gentle with the men and women in my life.  And it does
    take strength to be gentle, and it takes a place in your life where
    you're not fighting anymore because there's far less stopping you.  And
    there's far less stopping me in this life because some women took the
    time and energy to speak their needs.  And they sometimes had to shout,
    so people would listen.
    
    Do you hear strains of martial music from my heart?  I have played
    funeral dirges for the women before me who always wondered "what if I
    could have....", and I have played lullabys for when the people in my
    life who are in pain, men and women both, finally were able to rest
    easy in themselves, and I have played "flight of the valkyries" when
    I'm striving to reach beyond myself - to men and to women - and asking
    them to look at things in new ways, and looking at things in new ways
    myself.
    
    Am I building walls here?  I'm inviting you to see who I am and what
    the feminist movement has done for me - the vast difference my life has
    been since it existed and has been making efforts since long before I
    was born.
    
    Oh sure, I hear you say in your head "yes, but, you're the exception."
    
    Am I really?
    
    -Jody
    

    yes there are good feminists and bad feminists (and probably imposters)
    
    Jody, in my opinion you are one of the really _good_ feminists. (and
    not because you 'make nice', i don't see you that way). Andrea Dworkin
    isn't. 
    I think it would be very difficult to reject feminism as represented by
    you. I am a feminist too! 
    It would be very difficult to ACCEPT feminism when defended by _some_
    of its adherents. (sort of I would NEVER be a member of ANY club that
    would accept HER (e.g. Dworkin) (or him) as a member.
    
    Intemperate reactions on either side accomplish little more except
    increase the flow of bits and bytes.
    
    I would hope that the kind of anti-male anger that one sees sometimes
    in =wn= could be seen as inarticulate cries about personal injustices,
    but not when expressed in mennotes.
    Similarly, I would hope that the kind of 'anti-female' anger that one
    sees sometimes in mennnotes could be seen as inchoate cries about personal
    injustices but not when expressed in =wn=
    Perhaps such a symmetry might be ONE measure of equality?
    
    				herb

>    Fine, so I guess it's ok with you if I call you (or people you know)
>    the "All women should be raped and murdered" crowd?

 If that is your wont, nothing I can do will stop you. But just in case you
think you don't use hyperbole when it suits you, here's a little gem from
this morning's contributions:

        "(and that some people DO decide that the billions of
    	women on our planet do not deserve equal rights if any women
    	at all are capable of lying.)"

 Ciao.

    
    	The bottom line of feminism is "equal rights" (however anyone
    	chooses to categorize people who believe in it.)
    
    	I could never go against the idea of equal rights for women,
    	even if David Duke declared himself a feminist.
    
    	(I won't hold myself responsible for it if he does, though.)

    RE: .268  Doctah
    
    > But just in case you think you don't use hyperbole when it suits you, 
    > here's a little gem from this morning's contributions:

    >    "(and that some people DO decide that the billions of
    >	women on our planet do not deserve equal rights if any women
    >	at all are capable of lying.)"
    
    When someone says that one woman's lies (in court, for example) hurt
    the women's movement, I wonder if the person realizes that they are
    talking about people deciding to go against the rights of women in
    general (NOT just people who call themselves feminists.)  Feminists
    have NO CAUSE other than equal rights for women (as a group.)
    
    When you describe someone as wanting all men castrated, it's your
    projection of hate onto them (it isn't theirs.)  I've never read a
    so-called radical who stated a belief in the destruction (or the
    dismemberment) of all men.  Falsely characterizing a group you
    dislike as wanting the deaths and/or dismemberments of half the
    human race is a pretty shoddy stereotype.
    
    Surely you don't need this to make your argument.

    The ideal of feminism is great.  I have a problem with
    individuals who label themselves feminists whose particular
    views I find unacceptable.  The problem is mine in that I 
    disagree with certain radical viewpoints.  It is those individuals 
    with those viewpoints which I dislike and feel I can't support.  
    I consider this to be a disagreement, but not bashing.  It's kind
    of like this-I consider myself to be more conservative in my politics
    (republican).  David Duke is a republican.  Do I support him?  No,,
    a abhor what he has stood for in the past and don't trust his change.
    Would I vote for him?  No.  But I can disagree with him without saying
    all Republicans are like him.  Not all feminists are like Andrea
    Dworkin, but for me, that doens't invalidate the cause of feminism
    but not all women who lable themselves feminists do so for the main
    issue of equality.  For many such women like this, there has been a
    personal agenda.  I just don't agree with them.  Not all are good, not
    all are bad.. . yyet any disagreement is called bashing.  It's a wonder
    why people (in general) choose to use labels at all.  We loose the
    issue fight over who is who.
    
    RE: Mark .257-greatt note.
    
    CK  

    RE: .272
    
    > It is those individuals with those viewpoints which I dislike and feel 
    > I can't support.  I consider this to be a disagreement, but not bashing. 
    
    > Not all are good, not all are bad.. . yyet any disagreement is called 
    > bashing. 
    
    Do you feel you have the right to label what others call "bashing" as
    mere "disagreement"?
    
    Presuming that you do (and that Mark Levesque does, since he makes the
    same claim) - then I wonder why almost ANYTHING women say in criticism
    of men's actions is called "male bashing" (or "anti-male" or "man-hating.")
    
    It seems that Mark Levesque can describe people as "the All men should
    be castrated crowd" (as if this is any sort of real agenda) - yet you
    both protest my statement that anti-feminist remarks are even "BASHING"
    at all.
    
    This is precisely what I've been trying to point out.  It seems far
    more acceptable for people to be free to attribute opinions (and
    the emotion of hatred) to mostly-women feminists than it is to even
    suggest that anyone might be engaging in the "bashing" of feminists.
    
    It makes me wonder if there is a sense of "HOW DARE these women
    criticize MEN???" in there somewhere.
    
    Nah....

    <It makes me wonder if there is a sense of "HOW DARE these women
    <criticize MEN???" in there somewhere.
    
    <Nah....
    
    
    I suggest you engage in a little introspection to reflect just where in
    the Dorkin-Bobbitt spectrum you 
    
    	a) think you are
    	b) think others think you are

    RE: .274  Herb
    
    > I suggest you engage in a little introspection to reflect just where in
    > the Dorkin-Bobbitt spectrum you 
    
    >	a) think you are
    >	b) think others think you are
    
    As I've stated several times, I don't believe hetero_sex===rape, and I
    have no idea what other levels might exist between believing this and
    *not* believing this.  (Perhaps, hetero_sex===sorta_kinda_rape_but_not_
    really?)  :-)
    
    If anyone else believes that I *do* support Andrea Dworkin's ideas
    about sex, they're wrong.
    
    My ideas on various issues are far, far from radical in any direction,
    in fact.  I simply deliver my moderate ideas with a hell of a punch. :-)

    <i simply deliver my ideas with a lot of punch>
    
    And in so doing end up being just about as effective as I am.

    
    	Herb, you have no idea in the world what my goals or aims are
    	when I write notes.  Therefore, you have no idea whether my
    	writing is effective or not (from my perspective,) do you?
    
    	FWIW, I have no personal agenda about my notes - but I do
    	have very different ideas about what can be accomplished
    	in NOTES than you appear to have.
    

    Suzanne
    
    When I refer to "mere disagreement"  I was referring to MY
    views, not anybody elses...  I never denied that femisist
    bashing exists...it does, however in my personal experience,
    it seems that if you do disagree with an individual or idea,
    then you are accused of being a basher.  Plain and simple.
    I would not presume to tell you that all dissenters are 
    meekly disagreeing, yet it seems that you presume that all
    disagreements are blatant examples of bashing.  Perhpas I
    am missing your point, but that is how I am interpreting it.
    

    That's right, i don't know your goals or aims.
    
    If your goals and aims are to get people angry, I think you succeed
    admirably. If your goals and aims are to convince people how irrational
    a woman can be, I think you succeed admirably.
    
    I would be surprised if any other goals are successful. But perhaps
    someone else can comment.
    In addition, perhaps you can tell us what your aims/goals are and we
    can give you a report card?

    I think that one of Jody Bobbitt's goals is to convince people that
    full equality of the sexes makes sense. I think she does a damn good
    job of that. (even if that ISN'T one of her goals)
    
    				herb

    RE: .278
    
    > I would not presume to tell you that all dissenters are 
    > meekly disagreeing, yet it seems that you presume that all
    > disagreements are blatant examples of bashing.  Perhpas I
    > am missing your point, but that is how I am interpreting it.
    
    No, I don't believe that all disagreements (against feminists)
    are blatant examples of bashing.
    
    > I never denied that femisist bashing exists...it does, 
    
    Agreed.
    
    > ...however in my personal experience, it seems that if you do disagree 
    > with an individual or idea, then you are accused of being a basher.  
    > Plain and simple.
    
    Yes, this has been my experience, too (especially when it comes to
    watching the way many women are accused of "male bashing" when they
    disagree with an idea or criticize certain events involving males.)
    
    This was my point.  Thanks.

    Thank you Suzanne,  I think we are in violent agreement :)
    
    Just to make sure, we both agree that feminist/women and men
    bashing occur.  We both agree that it is *generally* the radicals
    on both sides who use this labelling.  We both agree that actual
    disagreements on women's and men's issues do not equate to bashing,
    however all too often extremeists use the tactic of labelling to
    discredit members of both parties.  Or have I still missed something
    :-)

    RE: .279  Herb
    
    Wow, are you back to name-calling, Herb?
    
    I guess I'm entitled to go brag about it in the 689.* topic:
    
    	"'Cowards', arise!  Take up yon keyboard and note!"
    
    (I'm sure DougO wouldn't mind, even though the topic seems more aimed
    at men you've insulted.)

    RE: .282  michelle
    
    Realistically, we can't seek equal rights on the basis that every woman
    on the planet is "perfect" (nor can we accept an individual woman's
    crimes or lies as reason to deny rights to women as a group.)
    
    Women aren't perfect.  Neither are men.  Some (women and men) are good,
    and some are bad (as pointed out earlier by someone else.)
    
    Women deserve equal rights, regardless of anyone's opinion of any one
    (or one thousand) women.  We're half the human race.
    
    In a sense, I do understand why certain actions are seen as "harming
    the women's movement."  
    
    I'm sure a great many men and women also regard males' violence (and/or 
    males' sexual crimes such as incest and rape) as being justification to 
    keep men from gaining custody of their children after divorce.  Based on
    the notes I've seen here (and elsewhere,) this seems pretty doggone
    unfair to a lot of folks - (as unfair as penalizing the rights of half
    the human race based on what some women do.)
    
    Thanks for your note.

    re .279.
    I'll second that.  
    fred();

    	RE: .286  Fred
    
    	You and Herb can bash me all you like.
    
    	It doesn't change a thing.

    re. .287
    
    I think around Digital it's call "constructive feedback".
    fred();

    re .287
    
    >	You and Herb can bash me all you like.
   > 
   > 	It doesn't change a thing.
    
    	Makes one wonder what is *really* being accomplished here doesn't
        it??
    
    fred();

    	RE: .288  Fred

    	> I think around Digital it's call "constructive feedback".

    	Well, at least Herb didn't tell me to stick it in my ear (or
    	in some other orifice) this time.  :-)

    	If he'd told me to buzz off, though, I know exactly what I
    	would have said.  :>
    
    	(By the way, I don't put much stock in feedback that is
    	offered while I'm peering down the barrel of someone's
    	gun - do you?)

    	RE: .289  Fred
    
    	> Makes one wonder what is *really* being accomplished here doesn't
        > it??
    
    	People are discussing difficult issues.
    
    	It's enough (for a notes forum.)

re: .248

>>     Maybe someone should tell the feminists that's what they are working 
>>     toward [equal rights]?  
>
>    Do you really think you know what exists in the thoughts and minds of
>    millions and millions of men and women in the feminist movement?  
>    
>    I don't think you do.
>
I guess yesterday was a bad day, let me try this again. To answer your question,
NO, I do not know the thoughts of millions and millions of women in the feminist
movement.

The problem is, a few so called feminists that I have personally come across (note
the words 'come across') do not have a clue what the feminist movement is all
about. My ex-spousal-unit was a good example of this. To her the feminist
movement was nothing more than a means to obtain personal gains and step on who
ever she had to in order to achieve what she wanted. Equality to her was just a
joke, she wanted it all.

The bottom line is, a few bad apples spoils the whole bunch, thus the feminist
movement gets a bad rap for the actions of a few in our society. I on the other
hand just ignore the bad apples and pay attention to the good ones.

I still feel the feminist movement needs to work at educating male and female
what the feminist movement really means. So far in my opinion, the bad apples
are farther ahead at giving the movement a bad name and distorting the true
cause.
    
>    >           Seems to me that women who I have know that call them selves 
>    > feminists, have other ideas and goals. Equality is not a word in their 
>    > vocabulary from my observations. It is more to dominate and stamp out 
>    > men who do not share their views so that we all end up as whipping boys.
>    
>    You make equality between the sexes sound so terribly threatening to
>    men.  I'm sorry it seems so scary to some people.
>
Equality is not threatening and I am all for it.
    
>    > I personally have no problem with equality and my SO and I share 
>    > equally all the joys and pains in life. Both of us have no room in 
>    > our lives for so call feminists who haven't a clue as to what it's 
>    > all about.
>    
>    Have feminists been asking to move in with you two?  Sounds kinky.  :-)
>
I was referring more to associating with the real militant types that call them
selves feminists.
    
>    > I know a handful of women who I would call true feminists, while the 
>    > rest are only just fooling them selves. Maybe that is why the latter 
>    > are either still single or divorced?
>    
>    So "the rest" don't really know their own political viewpoints - but
>    YOU know what they really believe (better than they know themselves.)  
>    Do you also know what the men in the feminist movement think and feel?
>    
>    Oh, and you know whether or not these millions and millions of men and
>    women are still single or divorced???
>    
Gee did I make reference to millions and millions, I think your putting words in
my mouth here. Read again, I made reference to a handful that I know and see in
my every day life around me. What's happening else where is not visible to me,
just those that are around me. It's like working for Digital, it only takes one
bad sales rep or one bad service delivery engineer to loose a customer and
leave a lasting bad impression of Digital. It take  twice as much effort to win
them back.


So the million dollar question, do I know what the hell I am talking about, I
believe I do. Much of what I have been spouting off about is from observations
of my so called feminist ex-spousal-unit views and what I see in the work place,
with friends and other social interactions. So if I see more bad apples than
good one's, this does not give me a good impression of the feminist movement
overall. It does not mean I disagree with the real goals of the movement or
imply this is what is happening in your part of the world.

Feminists want equality in the current male dominated world, I say this because
some countries like Iraq in my opinion treat women like shit. This means to be
treated with the same respect and courtesy as a man. Other than the real
phyiscial differences between a male and female, gender should never come into
the picture when it comes to the home, office and anything else you can toss in.

There is no such thing as men's work or women's work and we all do our part in
the home with chores, raising our children, finances, job and what ever else we
come across in our lives. 

John

    RE: .292  John
    
    > My ex-spousal-unit was a good example of this. 
    
    Ok, I understand.  Your comments were shots against your 'ex.'  I do
    understand, now.
    
    > To her the feminist movement was nothing more than a means to obtain 
    > personal gains and step on who ever she had to in order to achieve 
    > what she wanted.
    
    I can't even begin to imagine what the "personal gains" might be from
    being a known feminist (other than a personal sense of accomplishment
    in some way.)  Unless a person is joining a feminist lobbying group of
    some sort, being a feminist has no impact on career opportunities (other
    than the benefits that are given to women in general by the movement.)
    
    It should be obvious to you (after reading this topic) that being a
    feminist is not at all "cool" in our society.  If your ex found some
    way to make it work for her personally, she has a lot of imagination.
    
    > Equality to her was just a joke, she wanted it all.
    
    "Wanting it all" usually means "wanting both career and family."  What
    in the world did your ex want that could be called "all"?
    
    > So if I see more bad apples than good one's, this does not give me a 
    > good impression of the feminist movement overall.
    
    Well, I know people who see a lot more bad apples than good ones in
    the male population, which does not give them a good impression of
    men overall.  (Just a gaze at the crime/violence stats is enough
    to give a person a VERY bad impression of men, wouldn't you say?)
    
    I'm sure they try very hard not to judge men they meet by this bad
    impression - it seems to bother some men a lot to be "painted with
    a broad brush" because of what other men do.  Painting feminists
    this way is every bit as bothersome.
    
    By the way - MANY, MANY MEN ARE FEMINISTS (some of whom are right here
    in this topic.)  Please keep this in mind, ok?  I've noticed that you
    always refer to feminists as women.  You do a great disservice to the
    men of the world who are as much feminists as any woman could be.
    
    Thanks.

> Because "mainstream" feminists don't seem to ever openly contradict the
> radicals. Silence appears to be agreement. Besides, who gets most of the
    
    This is a boyo who obviously doesn't read much feminist writing.
    Sometimes it seems that the last 20 years have consisted MOSTLY of
    internal disagreements! 
    
    I don't read people who bore me, other than in Notes, so I don't have a
    bunch of Dworkin-level quotes from Luv-Ya Rush Limbo or Macho-Man
    William F. Buckley or the McLaughlin Group members. But seeing "Naked
    Lunch" made me browse back through some of my Burroughs library.  Now
    here's a guy who:
    
    	- Shot his wife dead and spent maybe a week or two in prison (quote
    from Mexican policeman: "It is a shame that a man should be put in jail
    over a woman.")
    	- Has gone on record many times as saying that women are a parisitic 
    alien species and should be wiped out
    	- Thinks of the "female principle" as ghastly to such an extent
    that he can't even stand queens
    	- Was described as "homosexual but a real man" by Norman Mailer (had
    to throw that one in)
    
    I love 'im like he was my own grandpa but I can't name a female author
    with similar credentials and success.
    
    Ray

    HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY


    		Gently now. Guys, have you noticed that this has turned
    into a ream the men string. Bonnie has subtly let us know we are
    bigots and Suzanne is back and slapping the vocal men into shape. We
    cannot open our mouths without being told to keep quite. I would love
    to say, "Suzanne leave us alone, I really dislike the sound of your
    keyboard", but I won't. I will say, " Suzanne, you could be totally right
    on a point, but I won't listen because you grate my *utt".


    		Tired of the crap pushed on men!
    		Wayne

    Wayne
    
    Believe it or not, the intent of entring that article was not
    to call you or anyone else a bigot.
    
    sigh
    
    Bonnie

    I couldn't direct you to the nearest subway Ray, you would not believe
    I knew what I was talking about, but if I were a feminist you believe
    it if I told you the moon was made out of cheese. IMHO of
    course.........
    
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    The main person trying to, err, forcefully influence THIS man has been
    you, Wayne.  You're the guy who's always telling noters to be quiet or
    go away.
    
    It's not a man/woman issue, it's a political/philosophical issue.  Men
    who disagree with your thinking are no less men; women who disagree
    with your thinking have just as much right here as women who agree.
    
    Ray

    re -1 
    
    
    	Done in the style of good loyal stormtrooper.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Wayne,
    
    I agree with Bonnie.  That article is very true and just about every
    woman I know has experienced some form of what the *MAN* in that
    article is talking about.  It's not male-bashing Wayne,  it's everyday
    occurances for women.
    
    Karen

>    	Done in the style of good loyal stormtrooper.
    
    And men who disagree with you aren't Nazis, either, though it probably
    helps you get that warm victim-y feeling to think so. 
    
    Actually, I can't even remember any Nazi leaders who were for women's
    rights...
    
    Ray

    Karen,
    
    		It's not bigotry, it's power politics. This has been going
    on between men for centuries. If women are going to enter the power
    game of business thay need be to able to play. I choose not to play, that
    is why I will always be a worker, not a power broker ( anyone who has
    the power ). Sensitive women need to stay away from men ( or women )
    with power.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

>    This is a boyo who obviously doesn't read much feminist writing.

 Boyo?

    
    You know, not twenty replies back, someone criticized his ex-wife for
    "wanting it all" and tramping over people to get what she wanted, but
    now "power-politics" in the MAN's business world, where MEN
    purposely belittle and stab others to get ahead is OK, and even, "the
    way it is, love it or die"?
    
    Confused.  Please explain.
    
    And stop telling Ray he's a stormtrooper.  If you ever actually met
    him, you might be ashamed of that statement.
    
    -A person
    

>    And stop telling Ray he's a stormtrooper.  If you ever actually met
>    him, you might be ashamed of that statement.
    
    "Amused" is more likely.
    
    Ray the Pencil-Necked Stormtrooper

    
    < Biting off bottletops and chewing glass >
    
    I go for plastic bottles myself.  Glass chips my teeth.
    
    - Homosapien
    

    re .297, Ray never really struck me as the gullible type either.
    He is pretty funny, though - "that warm victim-y feeling" - :-)
    "great uniforms" etc - only reads boring people in notes -
    
    Ray you are *so* funny sometimes. I like reading your notes.
    
    Lorna
    
    PS  I saw Naked Lunch over the weekend - it was very weird!
    

re: .293,

Well as far as my ex-spousal-unit wanting it all, she called her self a
feminist, but there was no equality between men and women. To her, men should be
bare foot and pregnant and chained to the stove. Sound familiar? Anyway, she was
not a good example of a feminist or even close. As mentioned to me by one of her
friends, she had a big chip on her shoulder.

Anyway, on to the real topic at hand....
    
>    Well, I know people who see a lot more bad apples than good ones in
>    the male population, which does not give them a good impression of
>    men overall.  (Just a gaze at the crime/violence stats is enough
>    to give a person a VERY bad impression of men, wouldn't you say?)
>    
Yes, it does work both ways....good point too!
 
>    By the way - MANY, MANY MEN ARE FEMINISTS (some of whom are right here
>    in this topic.)  Please keep this in mind, ok?  I've noticed that you
>    always refer to feminists as women.  You do a great disservice to the
>    men of the world who are as much feminists as any woman could be.
>    
I have never heard of men being referred too as feminists. I have only heard of
men who support the feminist cause. Please enlighten me.

John

    
    	RE: 308  John
    
    	> I have never heard of men being referred too as feminists. I have 
    	> only heard of men who support the feminist cause. Please enlighten 
    	> me.
    
    	Many men are, indeed, feminists.  One most definitely does not have
    	to be a woman to be an integral part of the women's movement (and a
    	feminist!)
    
    	Some men are also members of the "National Organization for Women."
    	At some chapters of NOW, men are elected as NOW officers.
    
    	As Ray said, equal rights is a political issue - it isn't a fight
    	between men and women.

    
    Now that I've finished off my Sprite bottle (prefer green plastic to
    clear), I had this idea....
    
    From reading the 300 or so replies here, it seems like the majority of
    the male anger stems from being screwed over in a divorce case,
    generally because the female was judged the better custodial parent
    because of gender.  I suppose this would happen because of the societal
    roles of male=father=goes_to_the_office, female=mother=bake_cookies.
    If one really wanted to make it so that the courts would award to the
    "better parent" regardless of gender, the female and male in the above
    equations have to be interchangeable.  It means providing the
    opportunity, and the INCENTIVE, for females to hold the same jobs as
    men, earn as much as they do, and basically be able to support a family
    themselves.  This has been a big part of the women's movement in the
    past, I probably would not have been able to hold my current position
    as an engineer if I had been born twenty years earlier.
    
    It also means that men should be able to take time off from work to
    stay with children, that men should be able to bake the cookies and
    clean the house.  Does Digital have paternal leave?  Do any companies
    have paternal leave?  Is this something that males should be fighting
    for?  Could this be the new "man's movement"?  To fight for status as a
    nuturer and not just a "breadwinner"?  To fight for the right to be
    supported by your wife and not the other way around?  And does the
    fight have to be a "win-loss" situation, like "I'm gonna get them for
    what they did to me? I'm gonna make them break their backs working and
    come home tired....etc."  
    
    It really would be the most constructive take down the gender barriers
    so that being a "home-husband" didn't imply "wimp" and "career-minded
    woman" wasn't synonomous with "glass-chewer", it would be more "that
    person has chosen what they wanted to do with life", big deal.  
    
    However, in this age of George "we're gonna kick some butt" Bush, and 
    half-naked women used to sell any product you want to move off the
    shelf.......doesn't seem likely.
    
     -Biped/sensitive-type/power-players gave us the S&L crisis, but they
    know how to run America better than the little guy that finances these
    shenanigans
     

    	RE: .310  Lisa
    
    	BINGO!!!
    
    	Great note - I agree 100%!
    

Way, way, way back in this topic someone linked men's divorce woes with 
no-fault divorces.  Well, (after having done some checking), Australia has 
had no-fault divorce since the mid-70's (been through it) - and today men win 
about 50% of custody cases where they contest.  Even where they don't get 
custody in normal circumstances they get joint guardianship, meaning they 
have equal say in things like schooling, etc.  New laws are in place 
strengthening court sanctions against people who defy court orders on things 
like access.  I thought it was hell, but it sounds like paradise next to the 
PRM.

I'm not nearly as angry as I was not all that long ago, but having lived 
through the anger of divorce I'm now profoundly distrustful of arguments that 
centre on divorce settlements as evidence of some sort of conspiracy.  
Perceived inequity is inevitable in divorce.

>    Very interesting, Lisa, and very similar to the notes in WN that 
>    claim most feminists hate men because they've been treating badly
>    by men in past relationships.

    Not really.  Virtually all of the injustices against men that get
    trotted out here involve divorce cases.  (In fact, I figure that one
    reason I don't get all PERSONALLY heated up over "male rights" is that
    since I'm not planning to get married, the divorce problem seems kind
    of academic...)
    
    I don't think that you could say that virtually all the injustices
    against women that get trotted out involve ex-boyfriends.  You can deny
    that they're injustices, or deny that they're important, but you can't
    pin 'em all on ex-boyfriends.
    
    Ray

    I don't want to step on any toes but this note was not only about
    divorce.

    		There are women out there who are afraid of me because I am
    a man. There are women who want to hurt me legally and physically
    because I am a man. There are women who would be afraid for there
    children being close to me because I am a man. There is not one women
    in this or any other conference who can say I have done anything to
    adversely affect her life ( home,job ). Yet, there are women, and some
    men who say I must pay for something some man did to her ( or them ),
    at sometime, someplace. I don't owe for the sins of others and cannot
    be convinced that I do. That is the crux of .0, men as a whole are
    paying for the sins of a few. THAT IS WRONG.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    There have been many men in this conference say they were feminists.
    Heck, even Herb.  Not only am I a feminist (moderate) but I'm also
    a Girl Scout and have been for six years.  
    
    						- Vick

.317> ...I'm also a Girl Scout and have been for six years.
    
    Vick ... cross dressing just to get into the Girl Scouts could cause
    quite a problem ... is there something you're not telling us?
    
    Bubba

        re .-1,
        
        You forgot to add the "oh er".
        
        Dan

    Just an observation: if you owned 52% of a company, you would have the
    power in that company. Why is it that 52% of the American population
    can' t get a darn thing done? Why are they looking at 48% of the
    population to do it for them? Men are the minority. How can we over
    rule the majority? Am I the only one who sees a problem when looking at
    these numbers. The women of America have the numbers on their side,
    they can do anything they want if that is what the women of America
    really want. So why blame men, after all we are the minority.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    RE: .321

    Damned good point, Wayne.  Back in another life I lived with my wife,
    two girls, a female dog and a female bird.  Talk 'bout outnumbered!!

    Bubba

RE:  Note 716.260 GORE::CONLON 

>    "Feminists" is a name many men and women in the women's equal rights
>    movement call ourselves.  

Its also a popular tag used to describe wymin with an attitude against men.
    
>    When someone gets angry at "feminists" and goes against "our cause,"
>    they're striking out at billions of women needlessly.

Billions?  Quite a recruiting program.  Strange that I don't know of many,
outside of notes that is.

RE:  Note 716.275 GORE::CONLON 

>    My ideas on various issues are far, far from radical in any direction,
>    in fact.  I simply deliver my moderate ideas with a hell of a punch. :-)

RE:  Note 716.277 GORE::CONLON 

>    	Herb, you have no idea in the world what my goals or aims are
>    	when I write notes.  Therefore, you have no idea whether my
>    	writing is effective or not (from my perspective,) do you?
>    
>    	FWIW, I have no personal agenda about my notes - but I do
>    	have very different ideas about what can be accomplished
>    	in NOTES than you appear to have.

Don't know bout your 5 year goals... but what you accomplish is obvious.

    re .321, since most men are bigger than most women and most men have a lot
    more money than most women, to say nothing of having had many more
    options, and many more opportunities to attain power, in the past,
    this outweighs the fact that there are  2% more women than there are
    men.
    
    re .310, Good note, Lisa.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Wayne, our system puts elections in the hands of major (and a few
    minor) political parties, which are run primarily by our existing
    system (read: male-oriented.)
    
    These parties rarely support female candidates - and if they do so
    for high office (such as a candidate for Vice President,) the press
    corps hounds every square inch of her life (it's big news, after all)
    until the party in question (and other possible female candidates)
    would prefer never to have been born rather than to go through it
    again.
    
    Also, the existing political machines are backed by $$$$ in our society.
    
    The numbers (48% to 50%) don't have much effect in the face of all this.

    RE: .323  Dwight
    
    >> When someone gets angry at "feminists" and goes against "our cause,"
    >> they're striking out at billions of women needlessly.

    > Billions?  Quite a recruiting program.  Strange that I don't know of 
    > many, outside of notes that is.
    
    Our planet (Earth) has a population in the billions (and, per Wayne,
    over half our planet's inhabitants are women.)
    
    The only feminist "goals" are for equal rights issues that affect 
    women.  Not a single goal or issue in the women's movement affects
    feminists alone.
    
    Therefore, when someone goes against "the women's movement" (eg, equal
    rights for women) out of anger at one or more individual women, the
    person is striking out at the rights of billions of women on our planet
    needlessly.
    
    Ok?

    RE: .285  Michelle
    
    > Are there things that I do or say that may hurt the womyn's movement?
    
    Keep in mind that women are under no obligation to PROVE that we
    deserve equal rights, so no individual woman is responsible for
    "protecting" the cause of getting the rights we deserve as human
    beings.
    
    Besides, even if we all vowed to be as perfect as possible (to keep
    from hurting the movement,) those who are determined to hold that
    women do NOT deserve equal rights will find some other excuse to
    argue against women's rights.
    
    Thanks for your note, though - interesting ideas.

    RE: .325  Dwight
    
    Yo, Dwight, I'm so flattered that you wrote a bunch of notes to me
    all in a row.  I'll try to make it a point to respond to them all
    by the end of the year.  :>

Geez, the biggest problem on this planet with feminists (male or female), men's
rights groups (male or female), and or any other damn group out there, is we are
all too preoccupied with gender. If all these groups would spend less time
finger pointing and blaming each other for the woes of the world, we may
actually accomplish something for the good of man/women kind.

Both genders have many reasons to knock the other, sorry folks this is very
counter productive and does not bring about equality between the sexes. If
anything, we tend to get defensive at having any negative point thrown at us and
only result in people digging the trenches deeper.

A point to remember, we are all trying to change a mind set that has been
pounded into men and women alike for centuries. Men and women had pre-defined
roles to live out their lives and over the years, various group have chipped
away at the inequalities over the years. Each generation has accomplished a
small step towards equality. Anyone who thinks they will solve the woes of women
or men in your life time is only fooling one's self. Each generation makes
contributions towards the better good of man/women kind.

Look back into history, we have all come along way, but it took a lot more time
to get us where we are today. This time is far longer than each of us will be
here to see.

    Re. .331
    
    That is the point I was trying to make in .131; thanks for expressing
    it better!
    
    Re. last 120 or so...
    
    Sheesh, I take a day off, and POW!  I need a speed-reading course to
    catch up....:^]
    
    Re.  Gawd knows where..... :)
    
    Bonnie, that article you entered was great.  Thanks.
    
    						--Eric--
    
    P.S.  Hello again, Karen.  Good to hear from you!

    Re. .332
    
    Quick nit - isn't that "Fuehrer" (Leader)?
    
    Oh well, my German ain't the best, anyway.   :^)
    
    						--Eric--
    
    P.S.  I like my martial music heavy on Sousa, please...:^)

    RE: .332  George Rauh
    
    >> Therefore, when someone goes agianst "the women's movement"
    
    > Why is it when I hear this I hear the martial music playing? Why is it
    > I hear the Furrer telling us of how it will be when the world is under
    > one glorious leader. And the boots in the streets, marching doing the
    > goose step. Yes, the Furror will be proud of you.
    
    Why do you project all that at the mere mention of equal rights for
    the "other half" of the world's human population?
    
    It must scare the heck out of you, I guess.

    
re: .302

>    		It's not bigotry, it's power politics. This has been going
>    on between men for centuries. If women are going to enter the power
>    game of business thay need be to able to play. I choose not to play, that
>    is why I will always be a worker, not a power broker ( anyone who has
>    the power ). Sensitive women need to stay away from men ( or women )
>    with power.
    
    No, if women are going to enter the power game of business the power
    game of business has to change to be inclusive to women, and accepting
    of the ways they can most powerfully bring about change and accomplish
    things in this world.  Right now women have NO CHOICE in how they play,
    so they often choose not to play, because the cards are stacked against
    them.  Sensitive women can also be powerful women.  These are not
    mutually exclusive.  However for a woman to create the listening
    that will allow the men and women who CURRENTLY PLAY THE GAME to hear
    what they are saying, to hear that they are able and willing to
    participate and contribute to modern business, and to create business
    as a place where they can completely fulfill the potential their skills
    and acumen have made possible, will take a tremendous amount of energy
    and time.
    
re: .316
    
>    		There are women out there who are afraid of me because I am
>    a man. There are women who want to hurt me legally and physically
>    because I am a man. There are women who would be afraid for there
>    children being close to me because I am a man. There is not one women
    
    There are women out there who are ready to listen to you.  I am one of
    them.  There are women out there who love men.  Please don't forget
    them in your list.  
    
>    be convinced that I do. That is the crux of .0, men as a whole are
>    paying for the sins of a few. THAT IS WRONG.
    
    Men as a whole are being faced point-blank with a need for change. 
    Change is uncomfortable.  Upsetting the apple cart makes everyone look
    down at their feet and shuffle them for a while, not knowing what to
    say.  A great deal in this society is done to "RIGHT WHAT IS WRONG". 
    How about looking at it like, "HERE is what has worked in the past. 
    And it isn't working the same way as it once did."  
    
    very few people set out intentionally to invalidate 50% of the population. 
    A vast majority of people do not wake up every morning and say "Hey, I
    think I'll disempower people today!".  
    
    Being with how things were and propagating a future based on that is
    not WRONG, it just isn't WORKINg for everybody.  And if everybody is
    going to work out well together, be able to grow and fulfill
    themselves, and succeed to contributing to this world to the best of
    their ability, SOMETHING will need to CHANGE.
    
    Can it change without blame, and without making someone wrong and
    someone right?  Human nature says probably not.  But I'm willing to
    make an effort.
    
    -Jody

    re .335
    
    1)Can't speak for George, but for myself and a lot of men I know
    I thing the "scariest" thing obout feminism is that, on closer
    inspection, all too many of these so called "equal rights" are
    not all that equal.
    
    2)When you correct the injustices against one group while you 
    ignore the injustices against the other, you do not create "equality"
    you create hypocrisy and domination.
    
    3)Add that to the historical fact that all opressions of a group
    *start* with a hate campaign.  I do not have any ambitions to be
    a slave owner, but I have a real repulsion against being a slave.
    
    fred();

    	RE:  George Rauh and Fred Haddock
    
    	The women's rights movement has been trying to secure equal rights
    	for 150 years (against generation upon generation of ridicule and
    	downright hostility.)  And women STILL do not have equal rights.
    
    	Most of the "inequalities" that men complain about (including the
    	"biggie" of the way men are treated in divorce courts) are a result
    	of the LACK of equal rights for women - so the women's movement can
    	help you all BEST by keeping on the course of equal rights.
    
    	If some individuals from the women's rights movement seem a bit
    	angry at the whole thing - all I can suggest is that people tend
    	to get a little testy when looking back at 150 years of resistance
    	to the correction of a cultural injustice that never should have 
    	started in the first place.

I'm a member of NOW, and among other things I get the monthly national NOW
newsletter.  Reading it can be an unsettling experience, not because of the
articles and news items, but because of the ads.  It's in the ads, placed
by individual NOW members, not the organization itself, that I see hints
(some with the subtlety of a 2x4) that there are some women who have no use
for men.  Indeed, in the latest issue I saw an ad for a book titled "Men Are
Not Cost Effective", which appeared to discuss some connection with being male
and being a criminal (at least what I could tell from the ad.)

But when I read these, even though my hackles go up, I don't conclude that
"all women want to castrate all men", or even that a majority of feminist women
(I think I could safely say most NOW members are femininsts) hate men.  Yes,
it's obvious that SOME (a small minority) do, and that perhaps some more
have become afraid of men in general and want nothing to do with them, but
if I look almost anywhere else in our society I see a far greater amount
of blatantly misogynistic material which is accepted as "normal".

Rather than get angry at the relatively few women who distrust all males, I
look instead for what it is that made them that way and work to change it.
It's apparent to me that women such as Andrea Dworkin (and Phylis Schlafly)
are so well known only because they are so outrageous, and the media (and
the public) feed on outrageousness.  It's boring to be sensible and rational,
and nobody wants to read about you.  But at least the outrageous ones make
you think about the issues, and cause you to form your own opinions, and
if nothing else they provide a net benefit.

I've seen nothing in my readings that indicate that even a large minority
of feminists support the "radical fringes" typified by Dworkin.  Most want
to work together with men to make this a better place for both women and men.
And that's a position I can support.

					Steve

    re: .340
    
    *thank you*
    
    -Jody
    

    re .340 Steve
    
>But at least the outrageous ones make
>you think about the issues, and cause you to form your own opinions, and
>if nothing else they provide a net benefit.
    
    I think the the whole jist of this string boils down is that what it makes
    me think about "the issues" and the opinions I form may not necessarily
    be beneficial to "the cause".
    
    Someone making outrageous statements .eq. kook.  Someone making ourageous
    statements and being hailed as a "hero of the cause" .eq. scary.
    
>Most want
>to work together with men to make this a better place for both women and men.
>And that's a position I can support.
    
    On when whole, so do I, but these "equal rights" keep getting lumped 
    into an all-or-nothing proposition.  
    
    fred();
    

>    Just an observation: if you owned 52% of a company, you would have the
>    power in that company. Why is it that 52% of the American population
    
    I believe there were more black slaves than white owners in the
    American South.
    
    There were more slaves than owners in Ancient Greece; probably in Rome
    as well.
    
    There are more people in ghettos in Washington D.C. than people in big
    white houses.
    
    Ray

C'mon, George, were you paying attention earlier?  By law, women who
choose to serve don't get equal opportunities to prove that they can
do the jobs (like combat) and they don't get promoted as much, and 
knowing that, you want to tell them to go 'do their share'?  How about
we pass the ERA and give women who choose to serve an equal chance to
meet the terms of that service, an equal chance at earning promotions,
before we use that as a measure of whether someone is doing their share
or not?  You think women are *totally* stupid, to go into the service
when the system is so rigged against them doing well?  By law?

And its a total rathole, because service is voluntary anyway.  How many
men here haven't served in the military?  Are you telling *them* to go
out and do their time?  If you don't, you can't say it (fairly) to Jody
nor Suzanne, either.

This string has gone a long, long way from where it was when I was in it
a few days ago (around 160+ notes ago!)  Sorry I haven't had time to
participate more.

DougO

>    		There are women out there who are afraid of me because I am
>    a man. There are women who want to hurt me legally and physically
>    because I am a man. There are women who would be afraid for there
>    children being close to me because I am a man. There is not one women
    
    Generally, being feared isn't viewed as oppression.  I can understand
    how it's inconvenient sometimes, especially if you're looking for a
    date, but being afraid is worse.
    
    How are women trying to hurt you legally (divorce, I bet) or
    physically?  As I've said before, in my experience, physical threats or
    damage tend to come from men.  Emotional threats or damage not
    surprisingly tend to come from people I'm emotionally close to; there
    doesn't seem to be a gender gap there.
    
    As for the last, there are probably women who are afraid of ANYONE
    being close to their children, or homosexuals-either-gender being close
    to their children.  As with custody decisions, I have to figure that
    some basic mindsets need readjustment here, and most of 'em would
    involve fighting against traditional sexual typecasting. Which is one
    of the things I try so tiresomely to do...
    
    Ray

Re: .342 (Fred)

>    I think the the whole jist of this string boils down is that what it makes
>    me think about "the issues" and the opinions I form may not necessarily
>    be beneficial to "the cause".

I'd say you "own" that problem, then, at least as it reflects on your own
decision-making process.  Or would you also say that, for example, David
Duke speaks for all whites?  Sure there are whites who support him and
consider him a "hero", but I don't think it's any more than a small minority.
He certainly doesn't speak for me!

>>Most want
>>to work together with men to make this a better place for both women and men.
>>And that's a position I can support.
>    
>    On when whole, so do I, but these "equal rights" keep getting lumped 
>    into an all-or-nothing proposition.  

How so?  Or are you saying you're willing to accept some equal rights but
not others?  Who makes the choice?

				Steve

    RE: .345  George Rauh
    
    > Men have been going off to war for those 150 years.
    
    Men made laws that did not allow women to be employed in combat 
    positions.  THESE LAWS STILL EXIST IN 1992.  If women had equality,
    this would most likely change.
    
    > Boys going off to war without hair one between their legs to protect 
    > their mom and sisters.  
    
    If women had equality, "boys" (children) would not have to go to war.
    A system which only allows members of HALF the human population to go
    to war should expect to find itself in the pathetic (and stupid)
    situation of sending children to war.  Equal rights for women would
    fix this.
    
    > Men have been opening doors for you when you call them sexist pigs.
    
    George, I've never in my life called anyone a sexist pig for opening
    a door for me.  Further, I open doors for BOTH MEN AND WOMEN at every
    available opportunity.
    
    If opening doors bothers you - fine.  Quit opening doors and give women
    equal rights.  It would be a wonderful trade.
    
    > Men have done many things too to allow you to open your mouth to call 
    > us sexist pigs.
    
    How nice of "men" (your term) to allow me (or women in general) free
    speech.  What a concept!  Now how about the rest of our rights?
    
    (By the way, I still don't call men sexist pigs - and I never have.)
    
    > But, AGIAN, you really don't have clue #1 about what is going on with
    > many of us. And thats because your mouth is running and your eyes are
    > closed to it.
    
    I'd wager that I know quite a bit more about men's concerns (with regard
    to these issues) than you know about women's concerns.  The bottom line
    is that both men and women are suffering from the lack of equal rights
    for women (so continuing to pursue equal rights is the right course, IMO.)
    
    > I have and will agian invite you to join me in my fathers
    > suport meetings. I will agian tell you that as I write to you there is
    > a man in jail, debtors prision. Because he cannot pay his fair share
    > of what the system has taken from him to make it as a good dad.
    
    I'm sure that these Dads have some harrowing stories to tell, and my
    heart goes out to them.  I've also know plenty of women who have been
    stiffed by "deadbeat Dads" (including two women whose husbands sold
    their houses to relatives - or in one case, to his girlfriend - for
    a dollar so that he could reap the profits from equity while leaving
    his ex-wife and children high and dry.  These men bought their houses
    back after the divorce and the women couldn't do a thing about it.)
    
    > And I will tell you, agian, that there are people who are getting 
    > crushed by you kind of justice. And they are not ALL men.
    
    Who is this "you" used repeatedly in your notes.  I'm not in charge
    of the family court system (nor any other legal justice system.)
    I have no "kind of justice" (except the justice of equal rights for
    the half the human race that has been denied such rights so far.)

    Women do not have equal rights?
    
    I'll bite - which rights are those?

    re .347 Steve.
    
>I'd say you "own" that problem, then, at least as it reflects on your own
>decision-making process.  
    
    Just because I don't buy someones line of b.s. doesn't necessarily
    mean that *I* have a problem.  Just because I do not necessarily
    buy the PC viewpoint doesn't necessarily mean I am wrong.  Remember
    it wasn't all that long ago that "Woman working outside the home" 
    was the NON-PC viewpoint.  
    
    I see a lot of people condemming David Duke (and probably rightfully
    so),  I see a lot of people cheeing for Andrea Dworkin and ilk.
    Once again I ask you WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
    
>How so?  Or are you saying you're willing to accept some equal rights but
>not others? 
    
    I have stated over and over and over again that I support true "equal
    rights".  I will not support something that requires me to pay for
    the wrongs of someone else.  This is not "equal rights" even though
    it is touted as such.  I will not support any group that preaches
    "equal rights" while at the same time they ignore or even add to
    the injustices of another group.  This is not equal rights.  It is
    hypochrisy and domination.
    
 >Who makes the choice?
    In the end. I have to decide.  This does not necessarily mean that I
    am a biggot (which I don't think that I am).  It may mean that I have
    some questions about your presentation or your sincerity.  I have
    a hard time believing in the sincerity of the "equal rights" of
    someone whow *demands* that I help correct their problems while 
    continually ignoring and belittling my problems.
    
    fred();

    RE: .351  Fred
    
    WHO are these people "cheering for Andrea Dworkin"??????
    
    I have yet to see a single person here (male, female, feminist, 
    or non-feminist) say that s/he agrees with what Andrea Dworkin
    writes.
    
    Why do you keep making this claim?

    in re .351
    
    Where do you see a lot of people cheering DWorkin? Not in this
    notes file, not in womannotes, not in the general press. 
    
    in re .350
    
    There is a difference between what is theoretically granted by
    law and what is actually granted in custom and practice.
    
    BJ

Re: .351

Fred, you had complained that your reaction to someone like Dworkin was
to label them a "kook" and, I inferred, to tend to reject any position she
might take.  You seemed, to me, to be blaming her for your reaction, and you
suggested that she was bad for "the cause".

My response was that you owned your own decision-making process, and that it
was not right to make someone else responsible for the conclusions you drew.
Thus the "problem" of a radical making you tune out was your own, and no one
else's.  


As for equal rights, it means just that.  Equal rights.   Feel free to question
the sincerity of anyone taking any position, but try not to transfer your
personal feelings about an individual's approach to the basic philosophy.

					Steve

>>I'd say you "own" that problem, then, at least as it reflects on your own
>>decision-making process.  
    
 >   Just because I don't buy someones line of b.s. doesn't necessarily
 >   mean that *I* have a problem.  Just because I do not necessarily
    
    The problem you own is that you let Dworkin color your view of
    feminism.  Since this is not necessary, since many people listen to
    Dworkin without forming a negative image of feminists in general,
    you cannot logically claim that Dworkin "makes" you feel that way.
    You decide to feel that way for whatever reasons you may have.
    
    					- Vick

    Men may have made these sexist laws, and women have voted for them.
    Even Bonnie. Right Bonnie? Send any boys of to Nam with your pick of
    presidents? Insofar as calling me a sexist pig. Welp, perhaps you
    haven't but many of my lovely dates have as I call them, drive them
    out on a date, open doors, feed them, humor them..........
    
    >(By the way, I still don't call men sexist pigs - and I never have.)
    	                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    								|
    							HORSE FEATHERS!
    
    >both men and woemn are suffering from the lack of equal rights
    
    I will agree with you there. But I really don't think that you have
    a true clue about going to jail, being denied visitation of your
    children, loosing it all to someone who has some sort of cause that she
    waves as her rights at you as you stand in a snow blown alley taking
    pictures of her and her beau who lied as they have in the fair and
    equal court system. The best way to describe what goes on is with 
    some anglo-saxen words. If you want to get justice, find a street
    walker. If you want to get f*cked, get divorced. 
    
    I have recieved hundreds of off line letters from men and women who are
    being denied their civil rights. And the fact is that they have about
    as much chance to get justice as you have to visit me for a coffie.
    Yep its that far to go to get justice.
    
    I wish you would read some of the crappie in the NCP files Susanne.

    re .354 Steve
    

>Fred, you had complained that your reaction to someone like Dworkin was
>to label them a "kook" and, I inferred, to tend to reject any position she
>might take.  You seemed, to me, to be blaming her for your reaction, and you
>suggested that she was bad for "the cause".
    
    Someone who is making radical statements who has no support can be
    dismissed as a kook.  Someone who is making radical staements who
    is being hailed by supporters as a "hero of the cause" cannot be so
    lightly dismissed.
    
>My response was that you owned your own decision-making process, and that it
>was not right to make someone else responsible for the conclusions you drew.
>Thus the "problem" of a radical making you tune out was your own, and no one
>else's.  
    
     If I have a cause, and I have radicals who are causing it to be
    difficult to present my position or even generating opposition to that
    cause, then *I* have a problem.  If I just sit back and say "well
    that's *their* problem", I may find my cause going down the tubes.
    
>As for equal rights, it means just that.  Equal rights.   Feel free to question
    >the sincerity of anyone taking any position, but try not to transfer your
>personal feelings about an individual's approach to the basic philosophy.

    This is exactly my point.  When I take an honest and objective 
    (at least as objective as I can) look at the issues for myself 
    and conclude that there are *some* issues that I do not believe that
    the intention is "equality", or that the implimentation of that 
    solution may well require the suspension of the Bill of Rights,
    support (many I do) I am attacked as a NON PC biggot because I don't 
    swollow the entire party line hook-line-and-sinker.
    
    fred();

    RE: .356  George Rauh
    
    >>(By the way, I still don't call men sexist pigs - and I never have.)
    	                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    								|
    >							HORSE FEATHERS!
    
    Show me the proof that I've done this.  Put up, or shut up (after you
    apologize.)
    
    > Men may have made these sexist laws, and women have voted for them.
    > Even Bonnie. Right Bonnie? Send any boys of to Nam with your pick of
    > presidents?
    
    This law hasn't been up as a voter issue in my lifetime as far as I
    know - has it been in yours?
    
    > Insofar as calling me a sexist pig. Welp, perhaps you
    > haven't but many of my lovely dates have as I call them, drive them
    > out on a date, open doors, feed them, humor them..........
    
    Sounds like you need a new strategy for choosing women to date.  Don't
    blame women as a group for this.
    
    > ...loosing it all to someone who has some sort of cause that she
    > waves as her rights at you...
    
    You're confusing multiple issues.  The women's movement didn't invent
    divorce, nor does it control the family court system.  If a man gets
    screwed in a divorce, it isn't at the direct behest of the women's
    rights movement.  When women have equal rights (and are not regarded
    as "nurturers" rather than "breadwinners,") men will get better
    treatment during divorces.

    George
    
    I've not voted for any laws that I thought were sexist nor have
    I voted for any person running for office that I was aware at the
    time had an anti-women or sexist bias in their agenda. Why in
    particular did you single me out for that remark btw, I've not
    said anything on the subject of sexist laws of late.
    
    and for all of her agressive style I've never seen Suzanne call
    a man a sexist pig. If you are dating women who call you a sexist
    pig then you ought to check out both your taste in women and
    your actions towards them.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, 
    
    It was some time ago, as it was some time ago with you in regards to
    your voting. We all have a hand in what has happened. And again for
    someone to say that its men who make the laws that seal our fates. Then
    my friend you have that right to vote for those who are in that power
    as much as I am or anyone else. And if you DID vote for your favorite
    democrate, there is nothing more than a moot point to the fact that we
    all seal the fate of many young men and women to their one way ride to 
    Nam. And for you and Susanne to denie it is agian a denial of
    responsibility as I am reading in this string with and for your cause.
    Hence, its not my fault, its some damn mans fault. AS you all have call
    us sexist pigs in the 70's as you all condem us in divorce court, you
    may enjoy your self fullfilling theory of how it should be. Great.
    But I am reading cases, and how it really is.

>    if women are going to enter the power game of business the power
>    game of business has to change to be inclusive to women

 The power game of business is predicated on one thing and one thing only:
the bottom line. Saying that the power game of business has to change to
accomodate women's nature so that women can be a part of the power game
doesn't seem to address this point at all. Until such time as women prove
that including them in the power game is profitable (or that not including 
them costs too much) the power game is not going to change to suit them.
And the sad fact is that if they are not given a chance, they cannot prove
themselves. What it will take is for a company to recognize that women can
play the power game, give them the opportunity to do so, and manage to
profit from doing so. This will attract copycats in the same way that every
other successful business venture does.

    George,
    
    I did suport the war in veitnam at the beginning because I felt that
    the communist threat to SE Asia was something that we should stand
    against as a nation. Over time I gradually turned against the war
    and my voting reflected this. I some how doubt that the opinions
    and votes I had as a college student mattered one whit as to whether
    or not people went to Nam. However, for the record I personally wish
    that no one had to die in a senseless war like that either then or
    ever in the future.
    
    I support draft for both sexes if there is to be a draft at all. I have
    never called men sexist pigs, (except perhaps in jest), and I am
    doing my very best, to be fair to my soon to be ex husband in the
    divorce court.
    
    okay?
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .360  George Rauh
    
    > And if you DID vote for your favorite democrate, there is nothing more 
    > than a moot point to the fact that we all seal the fate of many young 
    > men and women to their one way ride to Nam. 
    
    If we "ALL" seal the fate of people sent into combat, then don't whine
    about the fact that women are not allowed on the front lines (as combat
    soldiers/marines.)  Women are denied the right to occupy these positions.
    Whining about the fact that women don't go is totally pointless.  Women
    would go if we had equal rights.
    
    > And for you and Susanne to denie it is agian a denial of responsibility 
    > as I am reading in this string with and for your cause.  Hence, its not 
    > my fault, its some damn mans fault.
    
    If I'd had a chance to change the law regarding women in combat, I would
    have done so.  I can only vote for the candidates listed on the ballot
    (or for someone with no chance that I might write in.)  If you regard
    me, Suzanne, as personally responsible for women being denied the right
    to be in combat positions, then show me where I had the chance to make
    a direct change in this specific law but didn't do it.  Otherwise, you're
    just exhaling smoke.
    
    > AS you all have call us sexist pigs in the 70's as you all condem us 
    > in divorce court, you may enjoy your self fullfilling theory of how it 
    > should be.
    
    This is preposterous.  Women didn't "ALL" call men sexist pigs in the
    70's, and neither have we "ALL" condemned someone in divorce court.
    
    WOMEN ARE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS.  Please get this clear in your mind.
    
    > But I am reading cases, and how it really is.
    
    You have no information about what "ALL" women do, however, so please
    refrain from making accusations that include over 100 million American
    women (and billions of women worldwide.)  Ok?

    Anybody notice once again in MENNOTES in a string about men we are
    being pistol whipped by a certain person about women's issues. Why do I
    get the feeling that we are never going to be allowed the freedom to
    discuss our issues with out the feminist posse trying to re-educate us
    and make us "good little boys". Let me see if I can make this clear,

    			I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S PROBLEMS. They own
    it, not me. Stop looking for men to correct YOUR problems. Vote, if it
    doesn't go your way, you had better talk to your sisters, cause they
    ain't buying what your selling. A lot of women here have made it clear
    they want to stand on their own two feet, well, DO IT!


    			HAND
       			Wayne

    Well at least you recognize when you've been beaten.  :-)

	Re: .364

    	>>>		I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S PROBLEMS. 

    	>>>		HAND
       	>>>		Wayne


	Wow - there's a news flash.  I guess we can all throw away
	our Wayne Linville voodoo dolls at this juncture then.
	We know the culprit's out there somewhere though.  The
	search continues...


	Di

>         <<< Note 716.353 by WMOIS::REINKE_B "seals and mergansers" >>>
    
>    There is a difference between what is theoretically granted by
>    law and what is actually granted in custom and practice.

Can anyone provide a specific list of what rights women do not have?  Can you
also add what percentage of women you believe do not have those rights?  
Perhaps if there is definite list, then discussion could be about how to 
rectify that. 

(I always thought rights were things that were exercised, not granted).

-Joe

    Joe
    
    Have you seen any of the articles about the 'glass ceiling'? Studies
    have consitently shown that given equal education and time in
    a corporation that men way out number women in the upper levels
    of corporate management.
    
    Bonnie

    .365
    
    Many of us are reading and writing on breaks our when things are slow.
    So its tuff sledding to make long lengthy replys to some of you
    messages. Someones gotta be working here.

    RE: .369

    So does that mean if everyone were given all the time they
    wanted, we'd actually see a few responses to questions like:

    	o Who are the people "singing the praises" of Andrea Dworkin?

    	o Who are the people wearing the "jack boots" and playing
    	  the marital [sic] music and holding the surgical instruments
    	  needed to castrate all us nasty men?

    	o Why hasn't anyone either acknowledged or refuted the assertion
    	  that equal rights for EVERYBODY (that means women too for those
          who need things spelled out for them) will help solve the
    	  terribly unfair practices seen in divorce courts?


    ....or are you just making excuses?

    /Greg

    re.364
    
    Wayne,
    
    If you are not responsible for women's problems, then as the converse,
    women (as a general group) are not responsible for the specific problems 
    in your friend's divorces.
    
    Go get your male group together and do something about the problems you
    face.  Hold a demonstration "Men can be nuturers, not just a money
    source!" Get TV stations there, make a fuss. Fight for the ability to
    take care of the kids, fight for the right of women to hold a good
    enough job so that males don't have to be the primary breadwinner.
    This is what women have been doing for years, to earn the precious
    gains they've made (remember that it's only been three generations that
    women have even been allowed to vote).  
    
    Or as an alternative, you can go in the corner with your similarly
    "male-bashed" friends and groan, while the world continues to spin
    around you.  
    
    

.353>    There is a difference between what is theoretically granted by
.353>    law and what is actually granted in custom and practice.

    Bonnie, I'm not sure you answered the question.

    What rights do men have that women do not?

    
    The right to bear arms against our enemies.
    
    The right to equal pay for equal work.
    
    The right to equal advancement opportunities in the workplace.
    
    
    					- Vick

    Vick,

    		I see you do stand up comedy. 

    ********************************************************************
    
                1. When the law is on your side argue the law
    		2. When the facts are on your side argue the facts
    		3. When neither the law or facts are on your side attack the
    character of your opponent.

    		Thanks for the attacks ( and you know who you are ) you
    have proven once again what smoke blowers you really are.


    			HAND
    			Wayne
    		

	A couple thoughts from this stream though I can't keep up...

	I attended a meeting put on by NARAL a while back.  Though they were
	looking for financial support, as usual, they were also really asking
	people to just get out and vote their conscience. I don't have their
	statistics with me but based on their info, the pro-choice movement was
	losing ground fast. Category by category, in comparison, men and women
	who were pro-choice did not vote; men and women who were anti-choice 
	did. Anti-choice movement members wrote more letters, called the 
	congressional representatives more, attended more rallies, etc.

	In this discussion about equal pay for equal work, equality in 
	divorce settlements, etc. I was wondering how many of us have voiced
	our dissatisfaction to the powers that be and have voted. Equal rights
	for all is such a vital issue to men and women but it seems to me that
	we've got some representatives that don't really represent how lots of
	people feel.

	On the courts and divorce cases, I've been divorced and there were no
	kids so it wasn't too bad but I did end up paying quite a bit of 
	alimony because my ex was steadily declining in health and soon to be
	a ward of the state if not supported by someone. This is even though
	she filed the divorce to enter into another relationship. Long
	story. The court (Suffolk Probate in Boston, MA) has been very fair to
	me. I've filed several modifications to adjust the alimony payments
	downward as the economy changed and all were reviewed and accepted 
	even under protest from my ex. They reviewed the financials. That's it.
	She has filed several modifications to have the alimony raised. All 
	have been rejected. She filed contempt claiming that I do not pay her 
	her alimony. The court was very nasty about this to me and they 
	definitely were coming from the position of believing my ex but 
	cancelled checks do not	lie. They threw it out and appointed a liason
	to the court that she has to have cosign all her future filings. The
	court system has some inherent bias toward men but it did work with
	the facts. Custody issues, kids, etc. are definitely more complicated.

	I know for a fact, that my ex deposits her alimony checks in her
	sister's bank account and gets all kinds of extra benefits from the
	state of MA because as far as they're concerned, she has no income.
	Free medical,apartment,school etc. but I deduct this alimony and 
	the IRS has that info and her social security number from my return. 
	The IRS is a slow moving train but it does come around eventually.
	Women screw the system, men screw the system, it screws it up for
	everybody. Where does it all end ?

	I saw Andrea Dworkin open for Adrienne Rich at Wheelock College in
	the early 80's. From what I remember, she was an engaging speaker,
	quick witted, accurate in describing interactions between men and
	women in her short vignettes describing her own life. I agreed with
	her assessments of the effects of pornography on men (first hand
	experience). There was no anti-male sentiment and none of the 
	radical ideas that have been mentioned here. I remember laughing 
	quite a bit with the audience (primarily women from the schools in
	the area). I feel the need because of all these quotes to read her
	book and put these quotes in context; to see if the media has 
	reduced her writing to nonrepresentative soundbites. It seems out of
	context with what I remember.

	Lots of though provoking noting going on...Thanks to all.

	Ray Hayes
    

>    Have you seen any of the articles about the 'glass ceiling'? Studies
>    have consitently shown that given equal education and time in
>    a corporation that men way out number women in the upper levels
>    of corporate management.

I was actually looking for a specific list, not a single example.  If the claim
that women do not have equal rights, then there must be a specific way that the
two sets of 'rights' differ.  For instance, do men have freedom of speech while
women do not?  The idea is to make the claim much more factual (and thereby
more easily discussed); as it stands now, it is quite nebulous both as to the
actual rights that differ as well as the number of women that are missing a 
certain right.  The fact that women in India, for example, do not have right X 
does not (necessarily) mean that NO women have that right.

glass ceilings:

Yes, I have read about glass ceilings.  I disagree about the way they are oft
times presented (the boys up top not wanting to let women 'up').  What happens
in a company that has n top positions, all filled by the same men for the last
20 years?  Is there a glass ceiling there if there ARE no positions open to fill
with either gender?  I worked at such a place.  

-Joe

    So if a woman says, "I have the right to receive equal work for equal
    pay,"  you would say "No you don't, baby."  Why?  Let me guess.  
    Our rights are defined in the Constitution and it don't say nothin'
    in there about pay.  Well, I got news for you.   Our rights aren't
    defined in the Constitution, either of the US or of the now defunct
    USSR.  Our human rights flow from a deeper spring.  If you can't 
    fathom that, then I can't help you.  And you further claim that women
    in America all get approximately equal pay for equal work.  Is that
    right, Pal.  I don't know if that's true at DEC, but I know it ain't
    true in general.  We could work through the others, but why don't you
    go ahead and "demonstrate" how everything I said is false.
    
    						- Vick

    Wayne,
    	Calm down.  I don't see how listing three rights that I've heard
    women say they don't get deserved that overheated response.  You sure
    are touchy.
    						- Vick

    P.S.  My .378 was directed at Mike's .376
    
    I continue to be constantly amazed by the people in here who continue
    to equate the support of feminism with male-bashing.  Even Wayne has said
    that equal rights for all is a good thing, and that is all that I stand
    for and that most, if not all, the feminists here or in -wn- stand for.
    
    					- Vick

    Vick,

    		You asked and I will respond. I hear you and others use the
    term "rights" but you talk advantages, big difference. All I'm saying
    is let's get on the same page and maybe we have something to talk
    about.


>    The right to bear arms against our enemies.
 
    	2nd amendment to the Constitution. Men and women have that right. If
    you are referring to the military, you need to talk to your congress
    person. The fact that women don't have to serve on the front line is to
    their "advantage" not men.
       
>    The right to equal pay for equal work.
    
     Nobody has any "right" to be payed the same or more than anybody else.
    Equal pay for equal work is just plain morally right.

>    The right to equal advancement opportunities in the work place.
    
    People earn advancement, it should never be given on a gender or racial
    basis. Neither should it be restricted on a gender or racial basis. It
    is good business to promote the best people when a position is open. If
    the best person is a female or minority, then promote them, but if the
    best is a white male by golly he should get the promotion. 

    	On the glass ceiling: If it took a man 20 years to reach the top
    women can expect the same time commitment, if they don't want to put
    in that kind of time then the glass ceiling will remain. I will say
    that I believe no qualified person should ever be passed over due to a
    good old club. Equal opportunity, you bet I believe in it. Remove the
    barriers, don't just move them from restricting women to restricting
    the average man who didn't errect them in the first place.


    			HAND
    			Wayne 
    				

>>    The right to bear arms against our enemies.
> 
>    	2nd amendment to the Constitution. Men and women have that right. If
>    you are referring to the military, you need to talk to your congress
>    person. The fact that women don't have to serve on the front line is to
>    their "advantage" not men.

    Let me get this straight

    A women who wants to volunteer for front line duty and is denied that
    choice has the advantage?  Would you say the same if the military had a
    rule that blond men could not perform in combat positions.  These males
    lack of choice is an advantage.?   So denying cigarettes, guns, cars,
    etc (any individual choice that could kill you) is an advantage? 
    Personally I think anyone (women or male) should be able to kill
    themselves about anyway they want including combat.   

    If I can steal Suzzane's (sp?) argument ... women lack of choice to
    perform combat duty is a disadvantage for women (lack of choice) and
    also for men (a higher probability of getting killed).  Allow women the
    choice they should have and women (free choice) and men (less male
    deaths) both win.

    Take care,   
    Greg
                                       

.378> Our rights are defined in the Constitution and it don't say nothin'
.378> in there about pay.  Well, I got news for you.   Our rights aren't

    Well, I've got news for you, too - if you're going to make up
    rights, then I might as well stop right here.  I though we were
    talking about human and civil rights, not "this is what I want
    from life" rights.

    I'm calling first dibbs on the right to hit MegaBucks.

    Wayne,
    	I think maybe we've arrived at a basic problem in the discourse.
    When a pro-ERA person says they want the equal rights, they are talking
    about rights they feel they should have but which they don't and which
    they feel they would have with the ERA.  To say they don't have this
    right or that right because it isn't in the constitution is kind of
    begging the question.  I claim women have the right to be paid
    (roughly) the same for the same work.  If women on average are
    receiving less than men for the same amount of work than a basic and
    important human right of theirs has been abridged.  You may disagree.
    You may feel that for some reason or another it's perfectly okay for
    women to be paid less.  If you say it's not okay, but it's still not their
    right, then I don't follow you.  Similarly you quoted me the 2nd
    amendment as the only indication of a woman's right to bear arms.  I 
    claim that then the 2nd amendment is not sufficient to ensure my right
    not to be statistically more likely to die in combat and at the same
    time her right to fight and die for her country.  And as for my third
    point, I didn't say anything about putting unqualified women ahead of 
    qualified men.  I said "opportunities for advancement" by which I simply 
    meant that qualified women have an equal shot with qualified men.  I don't 
    know to what extent this is a problem right now, but I know women think it
    is a problem, and I certainly think it is their right, a right which
    if it isn't guaranteed under the current Bill of Rights, then an
    amendment is in order.
    
    You used the term "morally right".  That is what I'm talking about.
    Women have the moral rights to the three things I mentioned (and
    a bunch of other things I didn't).  The Constitution should be the
    moral instrument of our society.  Without our moral rights how are we
    guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
    
    						- Vick

    Mike,  I think my .384 speaks to your .383 as well as to Wayne's
    reply.  I'm not making up rights.  Before slavery was abolished, 
    I suppose you would have claimed that people didn't have the right
    not to be bound in slavery.  After all, that right wasn't in the
    Constitution, and so didn't exist.  But enough people said "I think
    everyone has the right not to be a slave" and so it became law.  But the
    question of whether people had that basic human right was obviously 
    separate from whether or not it was quaranteed in the Constitution.
    Now we are saying women have the right to equal access to the front
    lines.  You can say "I don't agree that women should have equal access
    to the front lines" and if enough people agree with you, it won't
    become law.  If enough people agree with me then it will become law.
    But in either case the fundamental question of whether they
    have that human right will not be answered.  The answer to that
    question is disjoint from the law.  To say "Women don't have the right to 
    equal access to the front lines because that right isn't guaranteed in 
    the Constitution" not only doesn't argue the fundamental principle, but 
    for many would be an argument for an amendment.  
    
    						- Vick

    It's easy - but counterproductive - to get overly legalistic about
    what constitutes a "right" versus (say) a "privilege" or an
    "opportunity".

    There really are no such things as "rights", for anybody, about
    anything. It's a semantic tool. There is a social system in place
    which, through direct and indirect influence, enables people to
    have various opportunities, puts impediments in their way.

    The speeding laws impede my opportunity to drive 90 all day long.
    If you believe speeding is a "right", they you can say my rights
    in this regard have been infringed.

    Bringing up the issue of the glass ceiling simply serves to
    illustrate an area in which women statistically have fewer
    opportunities than men - which claim can be validated by looking
    at the numbers. Similarly, the issue of opportunities in the
    military illustrates another area where women are explicitly
    discriminated against. It doesn't matter whether there's wording
    in the Constitution or the Universal Military Code - the net
    effect is that women are prevented from rising through the ranks
    in the same way that men are. Saying "this is to their advantage
    because they don't get shot at as much" is merely a smoke screen -
    the net effect is what's being talked about.

    I've always viewed the women's movement as being focused at
    improving the opportunities for women across the board until they
    are at parity with those of men. (And if women's opportunities are
    at parity with those of men, the reverse is also true - that's
    what parity is.) And it constantly amazes me that anyone would
    have any reason to object to this.

    Good note Paul.  I don't think I was being legalistic so much as trying
    to unsnarl the semantic traffic jam surrounding the overloaded word
    "right".  But you did a great job of avoiding it altogether.  Thanks.
    
    					- Vick

.385>  reply.  I'm not making up rights.  Before slavery was abolished, 
.385>  I suppose you would have claimed that people didn't have the right
.385>  not to be bound in slavery.  After all, that right wasn't in the
.385>  Constitution, and so didn't exist.  But enough people said "I think

    I hate to repeat myself, but maybe you missed this:

.383>    Well, I've got news for you, too - if you're going to make up
.383>    rights, then I might as well stop right here. I thought we were
.383>    talking about human and civil rights, not "this is what I want
.383>    from life" rights.

    If you want to discuss human or civil rights, as recognized by
    law, I'm game, if you want to spent time arguing what should and
    shouldn't be rights, you'll have to look elsewhere.

    One more point, for clairty, everyone human being deserves
    equality under the law and in real life.

    Vick, I wouldn't want you to tell me again that I would be
    pro-slavery.

    I'm about to give up, but I'll try one more time.  You might read
    Paul's note very carefully, Mike, because he said it much better than
    I did and was saying essentially the same things.  You seem to be
    saying that the only rights anyone has are those currently guaranteed
    by law.  I am saying that there are some civil rights that are not
    currently guaranteed by law.  
    
     >Vick, I wouldn't want you to tell me again that I would be
     >pro-slavery.
        
    Your logic, I'm afraid, leaves me little choice.  You seem to believe
    that whatever laws are in the books at any point in time define our 
    human rights.
    
    					- Vick

>    	Calm down.  I don't see how listing three rights that I've heard
>    women say they don't get deserved that overheated response.  You sure
>    are touchy.

 The juxtaposition of this note (.379) with .378 of the same author has got
to be as ironic as anything else I've seen all week. :-)

    I was not overheated in .378.  I was exceedingly calm as I wrote it.
    I wrote it for effect.  Perhaps Wayne wasn't overheated in his reply,
    maybe I was wrong, but he didn't contradict me on that suggestion.
    
    					- Vick

    RE: .381  Wayne
    
    > On the glass ceiling: If it took a man 20 years to reach the top
    > women can expect the same time commitment, if they don't want to put
    > in that kind of time then the glass ceiling will remain.
    
    What makes you think women have not been in the work force for more
    than 20 years (if this is what you are suggesting)?
    
    The idea is not - "Gee, I'm not a CEO yet - why not??" (when I've been
    an engineer for over a decade) but rather, "Look at the stats for upper
    level management across our whole country and NOTE THE LACK OF WOMEN
    IN THESE JOBS (even though women have been educated and employed at
    unprecidented levels throughout this entire century!)"
    
    If CEO's in our country were 93-97% women, would you wonder what the
    heck was going on (and wouldn't you assume that some systematic
    discrimination was taking place?)
    
    I remember some years ago (in a private conference) - a new "term" of
    moderators was about to be instituted and someone suggested that the
    conference needed more women.  (The conf was not about gender issues.)
    One guy complained vigorously that the PERCENTAGE of male/female mods
    didn't matter in the least - and he strongly objected to the idea of
    "purposely" appointing a comparable number of women and men as mods.
    
    Well, when the new mods were announced, it turned out that the list
    of mods was almost entirely female.  The one who stated so strongly
    that the percentages of male/female mods didn't matter - well, to
    say the least, he went non-linear.  It turned out that it sure as
    heck mattered to him when the "numbers" were reversed (eg, nearly
    all female, instead of the other way around.)
    
    It's easy to defeat the idea of a "glass ceiling" if you make the
    assumption that the average non-senior (or even non-management) woman
    is wondering why she isn't a CEO (or high-level manager.)  If you
    make this assumption, you can say "Well, gee, we can't give these
    jobs to non-qualified women over men."
    
    The point is that there ARE, INDEED, WOMEN who have paid their dues
    in management (for 20 years or more) and who are as qualified as their
    male peers - but they are still not getting the opportunities that are
    given to other (peer) employees who happen to be male.  This is the
    "glass ceiling" (and it is an indisputable fact that this phenomenon
    exists.)

    
    Anyone who can't see the glass ceiling must be blind :-).
    
    All you have to do is turn on the TV, the radio (yes there are women
    in the media, but aren't they usually considered 'co-anchors.') 
    Sometimes I have to turn CNN, news, PBS, off because I begin to
    overdose on the pinstriped suits and striped ties.
    
    M.
    

    
    The idea is not - "Gee, I'm not a CEO yet - why not??" (when I've been
>    an engineer for over a decade) but rather, "Look at the stats for upper
>    level management across our whole country and NOTE THE LACK OF WOMEN
>    IN THESE JOBS (even though women have been educated and employed at
>    unprecidented levels throughout this entire century!)"

So, where can these stats be found?  Do they take ALL companies into
consideration? A select few (eg, fortune 500)?  Do the stats merely look at the
number of positions, the number of males and the number of females?
How many of those positions were actually OPEN to allow new people in (either 
male or female)?  Do the stats cover that?  Do the stats take into account an 
opening that gets filled by one person because there are
no other qualified (I mean demonstrably qualified/not, as in a top opening
in Finance comes along.  Who would you fill it with?  A person who knows
finance or a person is a software engineer but knows nothing about finance?
What if the finance person is male and the software engineer person is female?

I have problems with statistics that take 'snap shots' of such events since
they seldom, if ever, take the events that formed that 'snap shot' into
account.  Life is dynamic (not couting some DEC meetings I have been to :-)).  
Taking a snapshot only tells how it is at that moment, not how it was or will 
be.  Take a snapshot of some women organizations.  How many women and how many 
men are there in high level positions?  Do men there have a glass ceiling?
Can a man ever lead NOW?

>    The point is that there ARE, INDEED, WOMEN who have paid their dues
>    in management (for 20 years or more) and who are as qualified as their
>    male peers - but they are still not getting the opportunities that are
>    given to other (peer) employees who happen to be male.  

Such as what opportunities?  The next promotion?  Pirks (sp)? All other things 
being equal, as you claim above, would you go for the choice of candidate for 
a position by some random means (flipping a coin, best out of 10,000 flips)?
Should it be given to the female candidate? 

-Joe

>    Anyone who can't see the glass ceiling must be blind :-).

Do you think the glass ceiling exists everywhere?

    
>    All you have to do is turn on the TV, the radio (yes there are women
>    in the media, but aren't they usually considered 'co-anchors.') 

I hate to point it out, but doesn't that make the male counterpart a 
co-anchor as well?  I fail to see how this is a glass ceiling.

>    Sometimes I have to turn CNN, news, PBS, off because I begin to
>    overdose on the pinstriped suits and striped ties.

On whom?  The anchors, the reporters, the people being reported on?
Personally, I think the genome mapping project will discover that 95% of 
the human race has a survival gene that makes them want to get ill at the sight
of a suit and/or tie, regardless of the gender doing the wearing :-) :-).
    
-Joe

    RE: .396  Joe
    
    Well, I guess you must think it's an amazing coincidence (but probably
    fully explainable) that women across most business spectrums are denied
    equal opportunity when it comes to high-level management positions (as
    if women such as software engineers were applying for all these jobs,
    rather than women who had paid their dues in the management ladder along
    with men until they simply weren't allowed to go any higher.)
    
    Well, the truth is - a male software/hardware engineer with no experience 
    in management would probably have a far easier time making it to high-level
    management than a woman with extensive experience paying her dues in
    the management arena.  The barrier is not qualifications nor experience
    - it has more to do with the sex of the candidate.
    
    You may never accept this, of course.  I'm sure it's easier to pick
    out a few examples and ASSUME that the lack of women high-level managers
    can probably be explained (everywhere) by these few situations.
    
    Yeah, right.

I get the feeling that people think that "rights" are limited to the individual
rights acknowledged in the Bill of Rights.

Have you read the BoR lately?  Article IX states:

	The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
	construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which of course says:  Hey, this is not an all-inclusive list, people...

Of course, the ninth amendment is null and void these days, since most pols
think that *only* those rights called out in the BoR are rights, and some even
ignore the whole durn Constitution, period.

                                    Roak

>             <<< Note 716.398 by GORE::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

Thank you for your ever inciteful (and I use that term deliberately) response.
(Actually, I just noticed the node name, GORE.  Synchronicity at work :-) :-).

>    Well, I guess you must think it's an amazing coincidence (but probably
>    fully explainable) that women across most business spectrums are denied
>    equal opportunity when it comes to high-level management positions (as

In your opinion.  You make a general statement as if it were TRUTH.  You then 
say, "Check the stats".  I asked where can I find the stats you are referring 
to.  Instead of revealing where these can be found, I get what comes across as 
a snide response.  In the above, you once again make a sweeping generalization 
and expect people to take it as Ultimate Truth.  Could you possibly provide 
pointers to the sources of your statistics? If you are unwilling to provide
such pointers, I understand.

>    rather than women who had paid their dues in the management ladder along

I do not know what you mean by 'paid their dues'.  Could you explain what those
dues are/were?

>    Well, the truth is - a male software/hardware engineer with no experience 
>    in management would probably have a far easier time making it to high-level
>    management than a woman with extensive experience paying her dues in
>    the management arena. 

Ah, the Ultimate Truth again (and your opinion).  Could you explain what you 
mean by High-level management?  

> The barrier is not qualifications nor experience
>    - it has more to do with the sex of the candidate.

So, if a person does not have experience for a position, and therefor is not
given it, it is because of their gender?  Somehow, the logic of that escapes
me.  
    
>    You may never accept this, of course.  I'm sure it's easier to pick
>    out a few examples and ASSUME that the lack of women high-level managers
>    can probably be explained (everywhere) by these few situations.

I asked you for information backing up statements you have made in both this 
and previous notes in order to find out what your perceptions are based on.  
My perceptions might be changed by that information; I am willing to entertain 
the possibility.  In my opinion, it appears that you want to keep this at a 
very general, non-factual, level instead of trying to discuss concrete 
since some statements might not stand up to the light of day. 

I was not trying to get you, or anyone else, to accept my point of view.

>    Yeah, right.

All women are as down-trodden as you try to picture them in this conference.

Yeah, right.

-Joe

    Re: .0
    
    Thanks for entering that, good article.  I think the author was pretty
    much on target.

    RE: .400 Joe
    
    Well, I apologize if my response came across as snide to you.  It may
    not have occurred to you that some might find it provocative and/or
    annoying to listen to "The problem doesn't exist" with regard to the
    widespread discrimination against women in upper-management positions.
    
    Now you ask "What is upper-management."  Well, I suppose we could go
    off into an endless rathole about what constitutes "good jobs" and
    "upper-management."
    
    > In your opinion.  You make a general statement as if it were TRUTH.  
    > You then say, "Check the stats".  I asked where can I find the stats 
    > you are referring to. 
    
    Check with the Department of Labor.  Numerous studies of this have been
    done (and have been reported in major magazines, TV network news, and
    CNN.)
    
    > I do not know what you mean by 'paid their dues'.  Could you explain 
    > what those dues are/were?
    
    It means "putting in the time it takes to be qualified for upper-level
    management positions."  Wayne implied that non-qualified women refused
    to invest such time (he implied that this is the CAUSE of the glass
    ceiling.)  My statement was a response to that - namely, that the women
    being denied these opportunities are people who HAVE invested the time
    (and ARE every bit as qualified for the positions as their male peers,
    except when it comes to their genders.)
    
    > Could you explain what you mean by High-level management?  
    
    Another rathole.  Shall I also explain to you what I mean by "jobs"
    and "business?"  Do you really have so little knowledge of the
    structure of companies that you have no idea what it means to climb
    through the management ranks?
    
    > So, if a person does not have experience for a position, and therefor 
    > is not given it, it is because of their gender?  Somehow, the logic of 
    > that escapes me.  
    
    NO!!!!  This is not what I said.  On an individual basis, there could
    be many reasons why a person is not given a particular job.  But when
    our entire business community (in our society) almost NEVER hires women 
    for certain jobs, there is more going on here than an individual job.
    It becomes an unmistakable pattern of discrimination.
    
    If almost all CEO's (or VP's) were women - I'm sure people would
    notice (and would wonder what the heck was happening.)
    
    > In my opinion, it appears that you want to keep this at a 
    > very general, non-factual, level instead of trying to discuss concrete 
    > since some statements might not stand up to the light of day. 
    
    I presumed that most people were aware that the existance of the "glass 
    ceiling" has already been highly documented in our society.  If you
    want me to start from scratch (including explaining to you what high-
    level managers are, and what "paying your dues" means) - then we could
    take this to an endless rathole that would certainly sidetrack any
    discussion of said "glass ceiling."  Is this your point or what?
    
    > All women are as down-trodden as you try to picture them in this 
    > conference.

    > Yeah, right.
    
    Women (as a group) are not down-trodden - and I have never stated that
    we are.  I think we've done remarkably well (considering the inequities
    many of us have had to face in our society.)
    
    Also, not ALL companies refrain from giving women equal opportunities
    - and some companies have obolished the "glass ceiling" in their
    environment.  Otherwise, the number of male high-level managers would
    be 100% (instead of 93-97%.)
    
    Still - there is a problem.  You can refuse to acknowledge it, but
    that won't make it go away (and it won't stop some/many women from
    pointing it out and protesting it.)

>    It's no wonder that the women's movement doesn't spend much (any?)
>    time trying to help men's issues when the movement has its hands full
>    enough with answering the charge that the problem of unequal rights
>    DOES NOT EVEN EXIST in our culture.

I asked before, I will ask again... Exactly what are those unequal rights?
I am not saying everything is equal; I am asking to know what they are.

-Joe

    Joe, if you really want the whole story (documented by 80 pages of
    footnotes citing studies, Department of Labor stats, etc.) - read
    a new book called "BACKLASH: The War Against American Women" by
    Susan Faludi.
    
    She has all the documentation you could ever want about the lack of
    equal rights for women in our society.
    
    I'd repost the material for you, but it's way too extensive.

    By the way, I recently read about a discrimination lawsuit (against
    a customer of ours who shall remain nameless) where women who had 
    consented to surgery to remove their uteruses as a condition of 
    employment sued the company when they lost their jobs ANYWAY shortly 
    after having the surgery.  (The discrimination case was based on the 
    idea that ONLY the women were judged as being at risk from high lead 
    levels - even though the men were every bit as much at risk - and that 
    the company required the women to submit to the surgery instead of simply
    making the workplace safer for everyone.  Management also wrote memos
    referring to these women as "NEUTERED" before they fired the women
    anyway after their surgery.)
    
    The defense won the case by challenging the plaintiffs to prove that
    discrimination against women EXISTS in the first place (which ratholed
    the whole case.)
    
    It's no wonder that the women's movement doesn't spend much (any?)
    time trying to help men's issues when the movement has its hands full
    enough with answering the charge that the problem of unequal rights
    DOES NOT EVEN EXIST in our culture.

    By golly I finally get it. I and others have been talking established
    law and rights therein, while Suz**** and others have been talking
    natural law. The funny part is these same people were against Clarence
    Thomas because he was big on natural law. Natural law is fluid and as
    such dangerous in the wrong hands. People, you can't have both ways, you
    work against a Supreme Court judge and yet ex-spouse the same philosophy. No
    wonder your message is muddy and garbled.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    re .403
    
    
   > It's no wonder that the women's movement doesn't spend much (any?)
   > time trying to help men's issues when the movement has its hands full
   > enough with answering the charge that the problem of unequal rights
   > DOES NOT EVEN EXIST in our culture.
    
    So are you admitting that the "women's movement" doesn't give a 
    tinkers d##n about men's problems?  That that only problems that
    deserve attention are "women's issues"?
    
    Can I conclude that the reverse can/should also be true that men
    are/can not give a d##n about "women's issues" because they don't
    care about ours?
    
    Do we just further polarize the genders as Karen has been saying?
    
    fred();
    

>    Well, I apologize if my response came across as snide to you.  It may
>    not have occurred to you that some might find it provocative and/or
>    annoying to listen to "The problem doesn't exist" with regard to the
>    widespread discrimination against women in upper-management positions.

I have not said the problems do not exist.  I am trying to figure out for myself
to what levels the problems exist.  If someone asking you for facts about
statements you have made is 'annoying', then I see why facts are lacking
in a lot of these notes.  If someone asking you to point to the stats that
you told them to go look for is annoying to some... well, what needs to be
said about that?
    
>    Now you ask "What is upper-management."  Well, I suppose we could go
>    off into an endless rathole about what constitutes "good jobs" and
>    "upper-management."

How is it a rathole?  You say women are denied access to upper-management
positions.  I am trying to find out where you believe the denial starts.
I suspect that pinning it to a specific level would allow someone to
verify how prevalent such things are.  Keeping it general allows for
broad brushstrokes.
    
>    Check with the Department of Labor.  Numerous studies of this have been
>    done (and have been reported in major magazines, TV network news, and
>    CNN.)

Well, I was hoping for the exact stats that you used so that we would be
discussing the same stats.  That way, it would not be a 'well my stats
say this... Oh yeh? well my stats say this".  I apologize for trying to take
some of the opportunity for miscommunication out of things.

Such miscommunication can be seen in any number of notesfile, on any number of 
subjects, by any number of noters.
    
>    It means "putting in the time it takes to be qualified for upper-level
>    management positions."  Wayne implied that non-qualified women refused
>    to invest such time (he implied that this is the CAUSE of the glass
>    ceiling.)  

Thanks.  I seem to have missed his comment.  Personally, I believe that
the long hours invested is a characteristic of existing managers (like what
they end up doing) and NOT one of the actual job requirements.  I have seen 
many effective managers that did not work/invest_in long hours.  That should 
certainly NOT be something, in my mind, to hold someone back from a management 
position.  If it is, I would certainly look for other reasons for the denial.
I just don't always assume that other reason is gender based.  Not that it
could not be, I just don't see it.  And since that is MY opinion on that,
please leave it alone :-).

>    > Could you explain what you mean by High-level management?  
>    Another rathole.  Shall I also explain to you what I mean by "jobs"
>    and "business?"  

Here I am trying to avoid confusion (since I believe management in very small 
companies differs drastically from that in Fortune 500 companies, and I 
consider that you might think differently).  Again, I apologize for wanting to 
consider your side of things (I keep having this urge to use the phrase 
'to know where you're coming from', but I am afraid that would seriously date 
me).  

>Do you really have so little knowledge of the
>    structure of companies that you have no idea what it means to climb
>    through the management ranks?

I am well aware of what gets done, by both genders, in their move to the top.
But thanks for giving me an insight into what you think my intelligence level
is :-).
    
>    NO!!!!  This is not what I said.  On an individual basis, there could
>    be many reasons why a person is not given a particular job.  But when
>    our entire business community (in our society) almost NEVER hires women 
>    for certain jobs, there is more going on here than an individual job.

Ah, that was my perception.  I HAVE heard women use the glass ceiling claim
for failure to get a job they wanted.  Perhaps there is some 'diluting' of
the actual glass ceiling effect.  What are these 'certain jobs' that women 
aren't hired for?  While you may consider these to be common knowledge, I
doubt they are.

>    If almost all CEO's (or VP's) were women - I'm sure people would
>    notice (and would wonder what the heck was happening.)

Aren't there women owned companies where that is exactly the case?  Could
a glass ceiling exist for men in such companies?  (I have to ask in order to
get at least mention a men-related issue, considering the conference :-).
    
>    ceiling" has already been highly documented in our society.  If you
>    want me to start from scratch (including explaining to you what high-
>    level managers are, and what "paying your dues" means) - then we could
>    take this to an endless rathole that would certainly sidetrack any
>    discussion of said "glass ceiling."  Is this your point or what?

No, I do not need you to start from scratch.  I will be going off and looking
into some of the 'literature'.  Are you saying it is my intent to side track
glass ceiling discussions?  If so, you are wrong.  I just see a lot of
generalizations going on and want to pin things down to specifics.  After all,
that is where any solutions are going to have to be applied.

>    we are.  I think we've done remarkably well (considering the inequities
>    many of us have had to face in our society.)

And what are these inequities?
    
>    Still - there is a problem.  You can refuse to acknowledge it, but
>    that won't make it go away (and it won't stop some/many women from
>    pointing it out and protesting it.)

I have not refused to acknowledge anything.  I AM refusing to accept 
generalized statements with no support other than the "it's common
knowledge".  If enough people just keep saying "All horses have 6 legs"
without any proof" of that, it might very well become common knowledge,
but it still won't be true.  

-Joe

>    Joe, if you really want the whole story (documented by 80 pages of

Thanks.  I'll be going over to WN to look up various references for different
things.  I recall seeing that mentioned in there.

-Joe

>    work against a Supreme Court judge and yet ex-spouse the same philosophy. 
                                                ^^^^^^^^^

Freudian slip :-) :-)?
-Joe

    RE: .407  Fred
    
    > So are you admitting that the "women's movement" doesn't give a 
    > tinkers d##n about men's problems?  That that only problems that
    > deserve attention are "women's issues"?
    
    Fred, I said no such thing (and you know it.)
    
    What I said is that the women's movement has its hands full enough
    getting ratholed with denials that the lack of equal rights for
    women EVEN EXISTS!
    
    Sure, many of us care a great deal about men's problems - but the
    women's movement has been fighting for BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS issues
    for 150 years (with only slim progress in the face of ridicule,
    hostility and incessant denials that the issues exist.)
    
    When we've made more significant progress (in another 300 or 400 years,
    perhaps) - then we can turn more of our attention to men's problems.
    
    In the meantime, the women's movement can't afford to divert our
    attention away from progress that is measured in millimeters by
    generation after generation after generation of women's rights
    workers (especially since MOST of men's problems were caused by
    the lack of equal rights for women in the first place.)
    
    Help us win this fight, and the problems of women AND men will be
    better addressed.

    Nor should the men's movement concern itself with women's issues.
    But that doesn't mean that progress made in the women's movement
    won't benefit men, nor that progress made in the men's movement
    won't benefit women.
    					- Vick

    I've never heard a single person say they were against Clarence Thomas
    because of any issue of "natural law".  I was against Thomas because
    he is a relatively inexperienced, undistinguished juror and because
    he probably sexually harrassed Prof. Hill.  What's that got to do
    with natural law?
    					- Vick

    RE: .408  Joe
    
    It's not annoying to me to be questioned about facts.  It *is* annoying
    to come up against someone that does not know the definitions of simple
    things like "paying dues" or "high-level management."  It comes across
    as an intentional sidetrack (diversion) - even if this was not your
    intention.
    
    By the way, I didn't intend "paying dues" to mean putting in 80-100
    hour weeks, etc.  I meant it as working through the normal ranks and
    investing job time gaining the necessary experience to be qualified
    for the job.  (Again, this was in response to the suggestion that
    women applying for management jobs haven't done this, thus accounting
    for a self-imposed glass ceiling.)
    
    When I look at these issues, I don't take anecdotal evidence into
    account much.  Any individual person is bound to be refused a job
    for any number of reasons.  It's the overall picture that I find
    horrifying.  Unless one believes in the inferiority of women, it's
    impossible to accept that the millions of women in the workforce
    don't make it to the top "by accident" (or for reasons one can
    introduce via anecdotal evidence.)
    
    Read "BACKLASH" - Susan Faludi gives all the documentation you could
    ever need to support the existence of widespread job discrimination
    against women in our country.  As mentioned, I'd post her book here,
    but it would take me years to get it all in.

    So Wayne, are you saying that the "established laws and rights" in this
    country are exactly all the rights anyone should ever have?  Are you
    saying that everything is perfectly equal and hunky-dorry just the
    way it is, both for men and for women?
    						- Vick

re: .377
    
>I was actually looking for a specific list, not a single example.  If the claim
>that women do not have equal rights, then there must be a specific way that the
>two sets of 'rights' differ.  For instance, do men have freedom of speech while
>women do not?  The idea is to make the claim much more factual (and thereby
>more easily discussed); as it stands now, it is quite nebulous both as to the
>actual rights that differ as well as the number of women that are missing a 
    
    That is *precisely* the problem.  They are difficult to quantify.  If
    young girls are discouraged from entering math and science tracks to
    later qualify for careers, have their RIGHTS been curtailed, or their
    directions?  Women are rats in labyrinthine mazes running for
    ever-sweeter and ever-more-difficult-to-get-to treats.  The treat I am
    after is freedom to be who I am, as i am, with complete acceptance, and
    without apology.  
    
    Women are discouraged from being outspoken, and they're often
    discouraged from advancing in certain careers by the managerial
    assumptions that they won't put in the time or they'll get married and
    opt out for kids.  Damnit, many male managers will not give women a
    chance to prove themselves.  A woman I know hit the glass ceiling in
    three separate CAREERS in her lifetime (thus far) and she was eminently
    qualified for the highest positions she strove for.
    
    If I were to say in high school I was not allowed to major in
    electronics that would be one thing (and a lie, I was and did).  But to
    say that I was *discouraged* by the shit I took in shop from the boys
    in the class AND some of the teachers, would be the truth.  But I paid
    my dues, and I promise to help other women support each other so that
    someday *dues will not have to be paid*.  It's the same difficulty some
    men might have entering the nursing or child care profession - the same
    flak, the same hassle, the same doubt of their authenticity and
    investment in their career.  
    
    I can't quantify the number of times work was given to a male co-op,
    not me, when I was in college and we worked in the same office area.  I
    can't quantify the number of times a male employee was given a more
    challenging assignment while I was asked to make copies or something. 
    I can't quantify it because I DON'T KNOW.  I honestly don't know what I
    missed out on because I COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY MISSED OUT ON IT.
    
    I can't tell you what rights I'm missing because I NEVER HAD THEM.  I
    can tell you how it feels to have a mostly-male office assume (to the
    point where they get angry if you don't) that if the female secretary
    is out you will make the coffee, copies, type forms, and answer phones. 
    I can tell you how it feels to know the managers in your company have
    their staff meetings at the local female strip joint.  I can tell you
    how disempowering it is to have them stare at me the rest of the
    afternoon.  
    
    I can tell you how it feels to have a professor tell me "there, there,
    here let me help you with that experiment", rather than letting me
    figure it out on my own and build problem-solving skills.  I can tell
    you how it feels to have a married, male employee who I thought was a
    distant friend come up behind me a kiss me on the neck and start
    massaging my shoulders when he was old enough to be my father.  
    
    It doesn't feel like a quantifiable thing.  There is an INFINITE sense
    of INCORRECTNESS.  Like something isn't counting up correctly.  I can't
    tell you what the difference is, because I have never been a man.
    
    But there is an imbalance, in both directions.  Mine affects me
    career-wise and financially and in the power structure of this world. 
    Mens affects them when it comes to nurturing and caretaking and being
    complete and comfortable in their emotional expression.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .416  Jody

    Wonderful note!

    Your examples remind me of something that happened to me in the 8th
    grade.  We were given "Aptitude Tests" (to see what sorts of careers
    we might be interested in pursuing later) and mine came up to describe
    ALMOST PRECISELY my current career!!!  It showed that I was interested
    in a technical field, including great interest in problem-solving and
    acquiring extensive technical knowledge (to be used in creative ways.)

    The counselors just chuckled when they saw the results of my test,
    and they didn't make ANY suggestions about how to get where I obviously
    wanted to go (and where I did eventually go on my own.)  They said my
    test was an aberration.
    
    I wonder how many other girls in my 8th grade class were told to forget
    the test, as well (and I wonder how many disregarded what they said to
    pursue their dreams anyway.)

    re. 413 ... Thomas and "Natural Law"

    A summary from a novice on law.  Judges can have many viewpoints
    regarding law.  

    Some judges believe strongly in precedent and are reluctant to
    overturn existing laws ... many conservative judges share this belief. 
    Ironically this is one of the best hopes/problem (depending on your
    view) for Roe v Wade ... conservative judges who will not overturn the
    precedent.                                       

    Natural law means that a higher morality defines law ... this makes it
    easier to break precedent.  So if Thomas believes in natural law he may
    well say forget the precedent abortion is murder.  This is the worst
    case for pro-choice folks ... a conservative judge who believes in
    natural law.  

    Ironically (again) an argument can be made that "natural law" was the
    fundamental thought process that led to the constitution, bill of
    rights, abolishment of slavery, and improved civil rights ... no matter
    what the precedent was the judges knew what the right thing to do was. 
    IMO overtime "natural law" has helped liberals more than conservaties
    however at this point of time that may have switched.

    Any lawyers out there?
    Greg
    
    

    It's tough Vick, when all you can do is attack and try and put someone
    on the defensive. Natural law concepts have helped in many areas
    through out our history, that is exactly how we abolished slavery. It
    is a two edged sword though. Civil rights given through law can be
    removed through law. While you and others are demanding "rights" be
    given to women ( sometimes at the expense of men ), remember they can
    be taken away and given to another group. Proper thought needs to be
    given so that a civil right is for everyone not for one particular
    group. Group rights will tear this country apart.


    		RE. ex-spouse: I meant espouse


    			HAND
    			Wayne

>    So Wayne, are you saying that the "established laws and rights" in this
>    country are exactly all the rights anyone should ever have?  Are you
>    saying that everything is perfectly equal and hunky-dorry just the
>    way it is, both for men and for women?

 I suspect that Wayne is saying that if you expect your arguments to be treated
as if the rights which you describe are in some way guaranteed by the 
constitution, you'd better not rely on philosophical "should have" rights
but instead should rely in "do have" constitutional rights.

 I think that the term "rights" has been bandied about in this string without
a consensus as to what kind of rights we are talking about. I think a disconnect
is occurring between those that use rights as "wouldn't it be nice if" and
those that use rights as "these are our rights."

    Re. .416
    
    Great note, Jody! You've given us a lot to ponder in few
    paragraphs.....
    
    						--Eric--

             <<< Note 716.414 by GORE::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    It's not annoying to me to be questioned about facts.  It *is* annoying
>    to come up against someone that does not know the definitions of simple
>    things like "paying dues" or "high-level management."  

I take you statement about my not knowing what YOUR perceptions of the terms
to be highly insulting.  I guess that is to be expected from what I have 
seen of your noting style.  Instead of providing any facts for your
generalizations, you choose personal attacks (and that is what I consider
it to be).   I'm impressed.  I am also sorry that you do not want to discuss
things.  I am certainly beginning to see Wayne's points about the directions
the conference is taking.

-Joe

    RE: .422  Joe

    > I take you statement about my not knowing what YOUR perceptions of the 
    > terms to be highly insulting.  

    "Paying dues" and "high-level management" are terms that are fairly
    self-explanatory, Joe.  I mean, how far off could my perception be
    on these than yours (really?)

    > I guess that is to be expected from what I have seen of your noting 
    > style.  Instead of providing any facts for your generalizations, you 
    > choose personal attacks (and that is what I consider it to be).  

    Joe, give me a break.  All the accusations towards me in your last
    few notes have MOST DEFINITELY been personal attacks against me.

    Now, MORE personal attacks and slurs (about my "style," etc.)  

    > I am also sorry that you do not want to discuss things. 

    I DO want to discuss things - but I don't have the time nor inclination
    to stop to define every commonplace term with you.  It would rathole
    forever.

    You asked for the resources that document the problems I've cited -
    and I gave this to you (a reference that footnotes as many Dept. of
    Labor and other stats as you could possibly require.)

    Now, go do some homework, then perhaps we can talk.

>    "Paying dues" and "high-level management" are terms that are fairly
>    self-explanatory, Joe.  I mean, how far off could my perception be
>    on these than yours (really?)


These terms are not, as I explained in a previous note, self-explanatory.  
'High-level' management is certainly a relative term.  What is high level 
to the CEO of a company?  Does it mean the same thing to the person at the
large organization's bottom?  I doubt it.  Out of an organization with
10 levels of management, where does 'high-level' management begin and
end?  Does 'high-level' management incluse top-level as well as the CEO?
The above questions are asked rhetorically.

>    Joe, give me a break.  All the accusations towards me in your last
>    few notes have MOST DEFINITELY been personal attacks against me.

Could you please point out what you considered personal attacks against
you?  I am not aware of any that was intentional on my part and I am certainly 
not aware of any complaints about any supposed attacks before this
mention of it.

>    Now, MORE personal attacks and slurs (about my "style," etc.)  

Assuming the comment about 'style' was an attack (which was not my intent),
could you explain how one instance gets expanded into "MORE personal attacks 
and slurs" (ie, plural)?  

I complain about what I perceive as an insult and suddenly YOU'RE the victim?
It is to laugh.

>    I DO want to discuss things - but I don't have the time nor inclination
>    to stop to define every commonplace term with you.  It would rathole
>    forever.

No, it would not.  But that is your opinion. 

>    Now, go do some homework, then perhaps we can talk.

If the above comment was made to you, would you consider it to be rather
condecending?  Again, a rhetorical question only.  I believe I have been 
shown that there are people that really just aren't worth talking to about
some subjects.  C'est la vie.  I will continue to add to this conference, 
but will employ a technique I learned from someone over in =wn=.

-Joe

> I think that the term "rights" has been bandied about in this string without
>a consensus as to what kind of rights we are talking about. I think a disconnect
>is occurring between those that use rights as "wouldn't it be nice if" and
>those that use rights as "these are our rights."

Which is why I asked for the list of what rights were not equal among men
and women.  I was given a pointer to follow, and have tried to get the book
tonight.  I was unsuccessful, but it did give me chance to see some of the
titles appearing in WOMEN STUDIES section of Barnes & Noble.  Interesting
titles.  I'll be making another attempt when I have more time to browse
(instead of noting :-).

-Joe

    RE: .424  Joe
    
    > Out of an organization with 10 levels of management, where does 
    > 'high-level' management begin and end?  Does 'high-level' management 
    > incluse top-level as well as the CEO?
    
    Ask the Department of Labor (and other entities who have noted that
    women are being excluded from the highest levels of management.)
    I doubt you'll find an answer to indicate that precisely 'n' levels
    up is the exact point at which women reach the glass ceiling.  The
    phenomenon is not planned out to stop women on a dime (when their
    management careers are halted.)  Sorry.
    
    > I complain about what I perceive as an insult and suddenly YOU'RE 
    > the victim?
    
    Joe, I honestly didn't realize that you weren't painting YOURSELF as
    a victim.  Forget about your insults to me.  I can take it.
    
    > I believe I have been shown that there are people that really just 
    > aren't worth talking to about some subjects. 
    
    I feel the same way.  The glass ceiling has been reported 8 ways from
    Sunday in the past several years (by reputable news sources in print
    and in broadcasting,) but heaven help me for bringing it up.  Horrors!
    
    Go ahead and ignore me.  The glass ceiling is still in place, and do
    notice when you see it reported in magazines and on network or cable
    news next time that they didn't feel the need to justify to the death
    their statements that the glass ceiling does exist.  I'll leave it to
    them to explain to you what it's all about.

    	Just for the record, Joe, I *DO NOT* regard women (as a group)
    	as victims of the glass ceiling.
    
    	It's an injustice that needs to be pointed out and repaired.
    
    	Meanwhile, many, many women still work as hard as possible towards
    	career goals despite the presence of such injustices.

    
>    Joe, I honestly didn't realize that you weren't painting YOURSELF as
>    a victim.  Forget about your insults to me.  I can take it.

Please list the specific insults.  I just went though the notes I wrote.  
Perhaps you would so kind as to point out the insults to me?  I might
then be able to modify my writing style to avoid such unintended attacks.

BTW:  I have not said the glass ceiling effect was non-existant.  I have
      been trying to get a feel for where the ceiling actually is and for 
      what groups of women.  If it is crime to try to build an informed
      opinion, then so be it.  

-Joe

    RE: .428  Joe
    
    Ok, Joe - I dug up some more specific resources for you on this
    issue:
    
    	"If women have 'made it,' then why are nearly 80 percent of
    	working women still stuck in traditional 'female' jobs - as
    	secretaries, administrative 'support' workers and salesclerks?
    	And, conversely, why are they less than 8 percent of all federal
    	and state judges, less than 6 percent of all law partners, and
    	less than one half of 1 percent of top corporate managers?  Why
    	are there only three female state governors, two female U.S.
    	senators, and two Fortune 500 chief executives?  Why are only
    	nineteen of the four thousand corporate officers and directors
    	women - and why do more than half the boards of Fortune companies
    	still lack even one female member?"
    
    						BACKLASH, by Susan Faludi
    
    Here are some of the references she used for this:
    
    	U.S. Bureau of the Census; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 
    	"Perspectives on Professional Women," Stanford Law Review, 40,
    	no. 5 (May 1988); Jaclyn Fierman, "Why Women Still Don't Hit
    	the Top," Fortune, July 1990, p.40; Bureau of Labor Statistics,
    	1987 survey of nation's employers.
    
    I apologize for my heated replies to some of your notes.  Perhaps I
    judged your statements in a more negative light than you intended.
    This isn't something we need to continue to argue about, hopefully.

>    Ok, Joe - I dug up some more specific resources for you on this
>    issue:

Awww, now you went and spoiled the book :-).  I will be picking the book up
this weekend (when I find out what section to find it in :-).  And now it is
time for me to sign off for the evening.
    
-Joe

    C'mon folks, can we cut out the personal jousting?  This note has
    been very illuminating and I'm glad it's here, but I really don't
    want to have to worry about closing it just because some people
    would rather attack other noters than discuss the issues.  (This
    statement is addressed to several people - you know who you are - 
    and if you're not sure, send me mail.)
    
    				Steve

    Why would anyone expect upper management jobs to be quickly
    populated by new workforce members?

    It's a fact that upper management jobs are basically long-term
    positions that are voluntarily vacated.

    It's a fact that upper management positions are not as freely
    created as other, lower-level positions, so the number/company
    stays pretty much constant from year to year (ie: no increase).

    It's also a fact that you don't come out of college and into
    upper management. In most companies, it takes tens of years of
    exceptional service to attain such a position

    
    	Women have been in various management positions for tens of 
    	years already - NO ONE has suggested that college graduates 
    	be placed into upper management jobs upon graduation.
    
    	Also, women are NOT new members of the workforce.  Throughout 
    	this entire century, women have been in the workforce by the 
    	ever-increasing millions and millions.
    

>    C'mon folks, can we cut out the personal jousting?  This note has

I do not believe that anyone engaged in this topic are 'common folk' :-) :-).

>    been very illuminating and I'm glad it's here, but I really don't
>    want to have to worry about closing it just because some people
>    would rather attack other noters than discuss the issues.  (This
>    statement is addressed to several people - you know who you are - 
>    and if you're not sure, send me mail.)

So don't worry about closing it down.  I am sure the individuals involved
(whoever they may be :-)) are capable of handling the situation without
moderator involvement.  In fact, from the last several notes, it seems that
they already have.  Jousting?  The jousting itself has been enlightening,
in my opinion.

-Sir G'wan

	Did you ever notice that women can get away with wearing 
	dresses/pants/frills/tailored jackets...or whatever pleases		
	them, and are not labeled, and can do it openly.  If a
	man feels comfortable in women's clothing, he is labeled
	and has to do 'behind closed doors' so to speak.

	I think men are unfairly discriminated against in this
	instance.

	IMHO
	kits

    RE: .435  kits
    
    You might want to ask yourself what's behind this ...
    
    If a woman dresses "like a man," so to speak - she's moving up in the
    world.  When women first started dressing this way (ala Marlena Dietrich
    and Katharine Hepburn,) it was a small shock at first, but then regarded
    as cool.
    
    If a man dresses "like a woman," so to speak - he's buying into one
    (or two) of the worst insults society can give to a man:  Either he's
    effeminate or homosexual.  Many men would be horrified to be regarded
    as either of these - thus, those who willingly appear in public dressing
    "like a woman" are treated badly for it.
    
    I would LOVE to see men feel comfortable in dresses.  I do think it's
    an injustice towards men to hold them to "You better not look like a
    damn girl, OR ELSE!"
    
    If we had equal rights, perhaps this would be one of the many benefits
    men would receive.  (I'd like to think so.)

	RE: 436  Suzanne

	What I find most interesting is that in Biblical times,
	men did wear long flowing garments. When was it that they
	changed to pants and why? 

	And when you look at the way we are built, it would seem
	that women are more comfortable in pants (as we don't
	have to contend with dangly bits 'tween our legs), and
	men would probably be more comfortable in skirts (long
	flowing garments) that do not confine them.
    
    
	kits   

    	RE: .437  kits
    
    	In Arab countries (and possibly Iran and Turkey,) men STILL DO
    	wear long flowing garments.
    
    	However, they aren't regarded as dressing "like a woman" because
    	women do not wear these same garments.
    
    	A man in the middle east would be treated just as harshly (or
    	worse, possibly) for dressing the way the women in his particular
    	culture dress. 
    
    	It isn't the idea of the difference between dresses or pants, but
    	rather the idea of differentiating between the sexes (since there
    	is such a severe status difference between men and women in most
    	cultures.)
    
    	All that aside - I'm with you (with regard to dresses being more
    	appropriate for the anatomies of men)!!  The only problem I see
    	is that some dresses might make it more difficult to sit in the
    	(seemingly) favorite resting position of many men (where, um,
    	significantly more room is temporarily granted to the dangly bits
    	you mentioned.)

    	Perhaps someone else knows the origin of men wearing pants in 
    	Western cultures...

	RE: .438 Suzanne

    
>    	In Arab countries (and possibly Iran and Turkey,) men STILL DO
>    	wear long flowing garments.
 
	That's RIGHT.  I forgot about them. I guess I'm thinking 
	American !
    

>    	significantly more room is temporarily granted to the dangly bits
>    	you mentioned.)

	I do think that men need more room for their dangly bits. I've
	read medical articles that made mention of the fact that 
	tight underwear/pants is not healthy and can be damaging 
	(i.e. impotence). 


	kits

    Suzanne, Kits,

    		If you want to dress your husband or son in dresses go
    ahead, and if you want to continue to discuss it, open another note.
    This note is not a forum for some of you to try and make women out of men.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    re .35
    
    Kits,
    
    I'm going to disagree and say that women are labeled depending on what
    they wear.  If a woman wears a slinky dress, she is labeled as loose. 
    If she wears a mini-skirt and spike heels same thing.  How a woman
    dresses does influence how other people think and then label her.  It's
    called stereotyping.
    
    Karen 

    RE: .435 (revisited)  kits 
    
    .436> Many men would be horrified to be regarded as either of these 
    .436> [eg, effeminate or homosexual] - thus, those who willingly appear 
    .436> in public dressing "like a woman" are treated badly for it.
    
    .442 [Wayne]> This note is not a forum for some of you to try and make 
    .442 [Wayne]> women out of men.
    
    See what I mean?

         Let's just admit it....as a society we label everything and
    everybody (purposely over generalized)!!!   Oh what a world it could be 
    if only we could see people as indiviuals first and not as a part of 
    some group....
         
                    :-) Capt. Scott (who'd love to be able to wear a kilt!)

re .442

I;m a man who would like to have more clothing choices.  I'm not saying skirts
(but then I'm also not saying not skirts), but the stores offer little selection
for men.  Usually there is 3 times as much space devoted to woman's clothing.

re .444

Good note - people must recognize that our similarities vastly out weigh the
differences.  Prejudice starts when you notice the differences first.

Rich

	re:  .441  W_LINVILLE


	Wow !  Are you paranoid ?  If you go back and read my
	note, you'd see that I was addressing the fact that 
	men who like to dress in women's clothes are discriminated
	against. I had just finished reading an article written
	by such a man, which is why I brought it up. It was a 
	small indication of the fact that women can more or less
	dress as they like, but men cannot.


>    		If you want to dress your husband or son in dresses go
>    ahead, and if you want to continue to discuss it, open another note.

	Please point out where I said anything about dressing a husband
	or son in dresses !

>    This note is not a forum for some of you to try and make women out of men.

	If you knew me at all....you'd know this is not what I intended.


	kits

    re .411 
    
>    In the meantime, the women's movement can't afford to divert our
>    attention away from progress that is measured in millimeters by
>    generation after generation after generation of women's rights
>    workers
    
    Sounds like a *great* excuse.  Mine if we men borrow it.
    
    > (especially since MOST of men's problems were caused by
    > the lack of equal rights for women in the first place.)
    
    Buffalo Chips!!!!!!
    
    fred();

    RE: .447  Fred
    
    > Sounds like a *great* excuse.  Mine if we men borrow it.
    
    Seems to me that you hardly need an excuse to oppose the women's
    rights movement, yet you seem to expect the women's movement to
    drop everything to work on men's rights???  (It's a question,
    not an accusation, by the way.)
    
    >> (especially since MOST of men's problems were caused by
    >> the lack of equal rights for women in the first place.)
    
    > Buffalo Chips!!!!!!
    
    I was referring to men's concerns over their rights as a group.
    So far, I haven't seen a single such concern mentioned that
    doesn't relate directly back to women's lack of equal rights.
    
    Divorce inequities seem to be a big one in this topic, for
    example.  Men are screwed in divorce court *because* women
    are regarded as "nurturers" (and men as "breadwinners") in
    our society.  It's a stereotype that keeps women from equal
    opportunity in employment (and also hurts men by putting a
    larger share of family financial burdens on husbands.)
    
    If we took the financial burden OFF men but didn't provide
    women with equal opportunities to earn similar breadwinning
    incomes for the same levels of education and experience that
    men are afforded such incomes, we'd throw even MORE women
    and children into poverty than we have now.  (As it stands,
    80% of the adults living in poverty now are women.)
    
    We need to fix both problems - equal rights would go a long
    way towards doing that.

    
    	what an interesting thought, kits!
    
    	i don't understand where the effeminate/homosexual attitude 
    	some men have in connection with wearing what's construed as
    	feminine type clothing. 
    	
    	of course you can bring up past instances of men wearing 
    	togas (ancient rome) long kaftans (arabs, etc...) and the
    	infamous kilt (celtic).... the reasoning behind all this 
    	was for comfort and ease.... why and how did the pant ever
    	evolve?
    
    	personally, i think a man in a kilt is very sexy, and there's
    	nothing effeminate about a kilted scotsman. absolutely nothing!
    
    	::LINVILLE,
    	do you think insecurity might play a big part in the type of reply
    	you gave?
    
    	denise
    
    	in this day and age of comfort-seeking people why not bring 
    	back the dress of yore?
    

    
    re .448
    
    >yet you seem to expect the women's movement to
    >drop everything to work on men's rights???  (It's a question,
    
    Aren't you asking men to do the same thing for "women's rights"?
    All I am asking is that we work for "equal rights" and not just
    to remove the injustices against one group while ignoring the
    injustices against another.  I also have two daughters,  I don't
    want to see inustices against them as well as my sons. 
    
   > If we took the financial burden OFF men but didn't provide
   > women with equal opportunities to earn similar breadwinning
   > incomes for the same levels of education and experience that
   > men are afforded such incomes, we'd throw even MORE women
   > and children into poverty than we have now. 
    
    It is my openion that just the opposite is happening.  That women
    are getting more "equal opportunity" without having to take
    equal responsibility.  Wasn't there a big push a couple years back
    by the "feminist" crowd that stay-at-home wives shoud be paid a 
    salery"? A man who fails to pay child support (and I do agree that 
    the non-custodial parent should pay a *fair* amount of child support)
    are "deadbeats" while a mother who sits at home and uses the child
    support to party and buy drugs instead of taking care of the chidren 
    are "poor downtrodden women who are that way because nobody will 
    *give* them". Chidren are protected against "deadbeat dads" while 
    nothing is being done to protect the child from the mother who steals 
    their livelyhood, and nothing is done to support the *child's* right 
    to access to both parents.  I'm talking *children's* rights her not
    men's/women's.
    
    Nobody *gave* me anything in my life.  Everything I have gotten has
    often been IN SPITE OF government programs, etc.  One advantage of
    being a white male is that I *know* that what I have and what I 
    have accomplished is because I *am* qualified and I have *worked*
    and *fought* long and hard for it.  I do not consider hiring 
    *any* person over a more qualified person just to fill some quota
    "equal rights".   I will *not* support biggotry and hypochrisy against
    *any* group wheather they be black, brown, red, yellow, blue, or
    female *or* male.   I will *not* support giving privilege to *any*
    group and calling it *equal rights*.
    
    fred();

    RE: .450  Fred
    
    > It is my openion that just the opposite is happening.  That women
    > are getting more "equal opportunity" without having to take
    > equal responsibility. 
    
    According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, 80% of women are still in
    secretarial, clerical, "support" and saleclerks jobs (although more
    and more women are still turning to the workforce.)  A man makes
    more money digging ditches than these jobs pay.  How do you expect
    women in these jobs to bear the financial burden of supporting a
    family?
    
    > A man who fails to pay child support (and I do agree that 
    > the non-custodial parent should pay a *fair* amount of child support)
    > are "deadbeats" while a mother who sits at home and uses the child
    > support to party and buy drugs instead of taking care of the chidren 
    > are "poor downtrodden women who are that way because nobody will 
    > *give* them".
    
    Provide the resources that show how many women are home taking drugs
    instead of taking care of their children.  (It sounds as though 
    you're talking about women in inner cities who live in abject
    poverty.  Who says these women get any child support at all?)
    I want to see your proof that this is a real problem.  We already
    know that "deadbeat Dads" is a problem - there are laws being
    enacted now to get these Dads to pay up even if they cross state
    lines.
    
    > Nobody *gave* me anything in my life.  Everything I have gotten has
    > often been IN SPITE OF government programs, etc.
    
    Gee, we have something in common!!  Cool.
    
    > One advantage of being a white male is that I *know* that what I have 
    > and what I have accomplished is because I *am* qualified and I have 
    > *worked* and *fought* long and hard for it.
    
    You're lucky.  Many women in our society have done the same thing you
    have, yet discrimination has prevented them from reaping the goals men
    can expect to get from such hard work and ability.  This is a big
    problem in our society.
    
    > I do not consider hiring *any* person over a more qualified person 
    > just to fill some quota "equal rights". 
    
    I don't consider it equal rights, either.  I only support the hiring
    of qualified candidates for jobs (including qualified women who are,
    in many cases, being deprived of equal opportunities.)  Never in my
    whole life have I supported the idea of hiring a less qualified
    candidate for anything.
    
    The other day, I heard a NOW spokeswoman urging people to vote for
    women candidates.  She said, "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, AND BOTH
    CANDIDATES BEING QUALIFIED - VOTE FOR THE WOMAN."  She didn't say,
    "Even if the woman isn't as qualified" - she specifically stated
    that the woman MUST be as qualified as the other candidate.
    
    The women's movement has never urged the hiring of unqualified (or
    less qualified) women.  The problem is that too many people don't
    regard women as "qualified" in the first place, so of course they
    assume that urging or forcing companies to hire women MEANS hiring
    inferior human beings.
    
    > I will *not* support giving privilege to *any* group and calling it 
    > *equal rights*.
    
    I don't support this, either.  However, white males already *HAVE*
    a built-in privilege in the work force - and "equal rights" means
    making moves to remove the unfair privs given to men that keep women
    from having equal employment opportunities.

    re .451
    
    >How do you expect
    >women in these jobs to bear the financial burden of supporting a
    >family?
    
    The same way that you expect a man who is laid off or involunarily
    under employed to continue to pay the full amount of "child support".
    
    >Provide the resources that show how many women are home taking drugs
    >instead of taking care of their children.  (It sounds as though 
    >you're talking about women in inner cities who live in abject
    >poverty.  Who says these women get any child support at all?)
    >I want to see your proof that this is a real problem.  We already
    >know that "deadbeat Dads" is a problem - there are laws being
    >enacted now to get these Dads to pay up even if they cross state
    >lines.
    
    The resources do not exist because men have not received the big
    government bucks to do the "studies".  However, In my 10+ years
    of working for father's/children's rights.  The biggest complaint
    I hear from men was not that they have to pay child support.  It
    is the fact that they paid child support and every time the children
    need something it was "call dad" and every time they pick up the
    kids for "visitation" (if there is visitation) they were dirty and 
    in rags.
    
    My own case as a "'ferinstance".  My ex went for over a year without
    getting my daughter's braces adjusted.  When my daughter came to live
    with me, the orthodontist had to basically start over.  The following
    is a direct quote from the Court custody hearing:
    
    Judge:   You say that your mother did not get your braces adjusted 
             because she said she didn't have the money, but wasn't
    	     she getting child support and welfare support for those
    	     things.
    
    Daughter: She said that the money had to go for rent and such, but
    	    she didn't pay the rent either because that's why we had to
            move all the time.
    
    In one year alone, my ex moved and changed my children's school FIVE
    TIMES.  Even though she was re-married, she admitted under oath that
    he was living with the family and not working and not providing *any*
    income for the family.  SO WHERE WAS THE &%$# SUPPORT GOING???
    
    fred();
    
    fred();

    RE: .452  Fred
    
    > The same way that you expect a man who is laid off or involunarily
    > under employed to continue to pay the full amount of "child support".
    
    Stop putting words in my mouth - I never said I expect such men to
    continue paying the full amount of child support.
    
    > However, In my 10+ years of working for father's/children's rights.  
    > The biggest complaint I hear from men was not that they have to pay 
    > child support.  It is the fact that they paid child support and every 
    > time the children need something it was "call dad" and every time 
    > they pick up the kids for "visitation" (if there is visitation) they 
    > were dirty and in rags.
    
    If the children were constantly dirty and in rags, how did they make
    it through the public school system without child welfare agencies
    being called?
    
    In my life, ALL the divorced women I've known in person (except for
    one or two) got NO child support at all, nor any decent settlement
    in divorce.  Once the divorce happened, they were on their own for
    a livelihood.  I, myself, raised a son without a penny of help from 
    his father.
    
    > My own case as a "'ferinstance".
    
    My case is a "'ferinstance" of a Mom who was willing to support my
    son ENTIRELY (while granting his Dad *unlimited* visitation, and much
    encouragement about spending time with his son.)  The Dad visited some,
    then never bothered again.  My son hasn't seen his Dad since he was 4.
    
    > SO WHERE WAS THE &%$# SUPPORT GOING???
    
    Never having received child support myself, I can't imagine.  All the
    women I've known in person (except for one or two) would wonder the
    same thing, since they've never received child support either.

    re .451.
    
    >The other day, I heard a NOW spokeswoman urging people to vote for
    >women candidates.  She said, "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, AND BOTH 
    >CANDIDATES BEING QUALIFIED - VOTE FOR THE WOMAN".  She didn't say, 
    >"Even if the woman isn't as qualified" - she specifically stated
    >that the woman MUST be as qualified as the other candidate.
    
    What do you think would happen if someone stood up and said "ALL 
    THINGS BEING EQUAL, AND BOTH CANDIDATES BEING QUALIFIED - VOTE 
    FOR THE [white] MAN"??   Personally I consider **BOTH**
    statements just as sexist and biggoted.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .454  Fred
    
    If the entire Senate and House of Representatives were WOMEN, except
    for an occasional one or two - then I'd understand (and would AGREE!)
    that all things being equal, and both candidates being qualified,
    people should choose the man (if they felt like listening to whoever
    suggested it.)
    
    I should have mentioned that the quote was in the context of people
    being shocked to realize (via the Hill/Thomas hearings) that so few,
    few women are in the Senate and House of Representatives.
    
    I see no problem with pointing this out and REQUESTING that people
    vote to correct this.  God knows, the Republicans and Democrats ask
    for votes for their parties' candidates (mostly male) for reasons I
    often consider less compelling than moving towards MORE EQUITABLE
    REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON!

    re .455
    
   > I see no problem with pointing this out and REQUESTING that people
   > vote to correct this.  God knows, the Republicans and Democrats ask
   > for votes for their parties' candidates (mostly male) for reasons I
   > often consider less compelling than moving towards MORE EQUITABLE
   > REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON!
    
    I do not believe that having euqal numbers of men/women in the
    Congress will necessarily bring about equality.  As I see it,
    the men in Congress are *already* doing a pretty good job of screwing
    men.  I do not believe that the end justifies the means.  Apparently you
    do.  As such we have nothing further to discuss about your version
    of "equal rights".  I do not beleive that they are all that "equal".
    
    fred();

    Fred,

    Why isn't having more equal numbers of women in areas where they
    are currently under represented or more equal numbers of men
    in areas where they are currently under represented a positive
    step for society? This is something that I've always felt to
    be a laudable goal and I find it hard to understand how someone
    could feel differently.

    thankyou

    Bonnie

    RE: .456  Fred
    
    Geesh, still putting words in my mouth, I see.
    
    My "MORE EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON!" is not the same
    thing as:
    
    	"...having equal numbers of men/women in the Congress..."
    
    "More equitable" only means more women than there are in Congress
    right now (such as one more, several more, or whatever.)
    
    > I do not believe that the end justifies the means.  Apparently you
    > do. 
    
    More words in my mouth...
    
    I would like to see more women in Congress.  If there were only a very,
    very few men in Congress, I wouldn't blame you at all for wanting to
    see the situation change a bit.  Of course, it might be very difficult
    for you to conceive of such a situation, since people of your sex and
    race are so much in control right now.  Why should you care if others
    have been left out?
    
    > As such we have nothing further to discuss about your version
    > of "equal rights".  I do not beleive that they are all that "equal".
    
    Yours don't seem "equal" to me, either.  It sounds to me as though you'd
    prefer to keep things just the way they are (with the full privs and
    societal advantages that come with the current situation.)
    
    Meanwhile, men still suffer in divorce *because* things are the way
    they are (with men having economic privs which they must share in ways
    that don't seem very fair after divorce.)
    
    Men don't have a prayer of changing this until we reach a state of
    more equitable rights between men and women.  So the men who fight
    against women's rights are keeping themselves in a bad situation,
    as well as women.
    
    By the way, I never suggested that a few more women in Congress would
    acheive equal rights.  It would make our representation in Washington
    a bit more equitable, that's all (which is a goal I support.)  Why
    this seems so threatening to you is beyond me.

    As it was pointed out by Karen. Are we nit picking about body count?
    Why not cut off both ears and that way if you come up with an odd
    number we have a more accurate measure of it.

    
    Why does it have to be a woman to be representative. IMNSHO the men
    in Congress have been doing an admirable job of screwing men already.
    In my experience it has been second wives, women lawyers, women judges
    and women representatives that have been *much* more supportive of
    children's/father's rights than the men.   Be careful of what you ask
    for.
    
    I am in favor of removing the injustices against *both* men and women.
    I am not in favor of giving pivileges to *any* group and *calling*
    them "equal rights.  Nearly all the discussion I have seen in this
    string have IMNSHO have advocated "equal rights" for women while 
    belittling and ignoring the problems of men.  THIS DOES NOT CREATE
    EQUALITY.  
    
    fred();

    Fred,
    
    Why does it have to be all men? Why not a few more women? I dont'
    have any problem btw with judges that are more supportive of
    children's and father's rights. What makes you think that I or
    women in general would have a problem with this?
    
    What privledges have people been asking for here for women? And it
    seems to me that people replying to this note have directly 
    addressed the problems of men, i.e. if women had more economic
    strenght men would directly benefit in divorce situations, which is
    one of the main issues that you and some of the other men in
    this file seem to be dealing with.
    
    Again, why is it granting privleges or otherwise wrong to try and
    work to include those currently in a minority status in any
    mileu in greater numbers?
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .460  Fred
    
    > Why does it have to be a woman to be representative. IMNSHO the men
    > in Congress have been doing an admirable job of screwing men already.
    
    What makes you think anyone here has the desire to screw men???????????
    (I mean that figuratively, not literally, of course.)
    
    > I am in favor of removing the injustices against *both* men and women.
    
    This is what I've been saying since Day One in this topic!
    
    > Nearly all the discussion I have seen in this string have IMNSHO have 
    > advocated "equal rights" for women while belittling and ignoring the
    > problems of men.
    
    You only see what you want to see, Fred.  Almost EVERYONE here has
    mentioned concern for men's problems REPEATEDLY (including me.)
    
    Do you need pointers?

    re .461
    
>    Why does it have to be all men? Why not a few more women? 
    
    I don't have any problem's with women in congress, or any where
    else for that matter.  My problem is that I do not agree with
    the means of achieving that goal.  I do not ageree that 
    discrimination against *any* group is justifiable.  I do not
    believe that it is justifiable to discriminate against one
    *person* to correct the wrongs of anohter person.  I will not
    support "solutions" that require that the Bill of Rights be suspended
    in order to achieve this so called "equality".
    
    fred();

    	How is it discrimination to ask voters to choose a candidate
    	for a particular reason ("all things being equal, and both
    	candidates being qualified")?
    
    	Not everyone is going to follow such a request, of course.
    	They may listen to someone ELSE's request (and possibly some
    	other candidates smear campaign against the other.)
    
    	Voting is a private choice (and is no one else's business.)
    	Sometimes people pick the "lesser of two evils" (or vote
    	"against" a candidate rather than "for" his/her opponent.)
    
    	> I will not support "solutions" that require that the 
    	> Bill of Rights be suspended in order to achieve this so 
    	> called "equality".
    
    	How did the Bill of Rights get into this??  Isn't it NOW's
    	right to freedom of speech to request votes for any damn
    	reason they please (and isn't it the right of every voter
    	to either listen or NOT listen to every plea for votes?)
    
    	What is the problem here?

    >I do not agree that 
    >discrimination against *any* group is justifiable.  I do not
    >believe that it is justifiable to discriminate against one
    >*person* to correct the wrongs of anohter person.  I will not
    >support "solutions" that require that the Bill of Rights be suspended
    >in order to achieve this so called "equality".
    
    >fred();
    
    Fred, I still am having trouble understanding here. I am presuming
    that the other person, the one who has wrongs is being discriminated
    against. The way I read your note, it appears you are saying that
    rather than take the smallest advantage away from person A to
    correct the wrongs against person B that person B should continue
    to be discriminated against. If the methods used to correct things
    for B appear to or actually take something from A should no effort
    be made to correct things for B?
    
    Bonnie

    	By the way, the benefit I see of asking people to vote for a
    	woman candidate ("all things being equal, both candidates being
    	qualified") is that the major political parties may WAKE UP and
    	realize that they ought to provide more support for candidates
    	of both genders, rather than continuing to support lists of
    	candidates that are most often totally male (or close to it.)
    
    	When we have more women in Congress, the idea is not to put
    	them there to support particular legislation (what the "all
    	things being equal" implies to me is that both candidates share
    	the voter's political views.)  If the man supported political
    	ideas I favored, and the woman didn't - I'd vote for the man.
    
    	All things being equal, though, and both candidates qualified
    	and supportive of political positions I favor - I'd be happy
    	to see another woman in Congress.  If the major parties realized
    	that interest existed for women, more women would have this
    	particular opportunity that has been largely denied to women
    	thus far.

    re .465
    
    >The way I read your note, it appears you are saying that
    >rather than take the smallest advantage away from person A to
    >correct the wrongs against person B that person B should continue
    >to be discriminated against. 
    
    	No. What I am saying is that in order to correct the injustices
        against B you have to take something away from C, you are not
        creating equality. You are just shifting the discrimination.
    	The difference between your way of thinking and my way of thinking
        may be in that I a dealing more in *individual* rights while you
        seem to be dealing more in *group* rights.  In my case both
        A and C may be members of the same general group (ie. men).
    
        Furthermore, in the same argument if *both* A and B are lacking
        in some (similar but different) problems,  to correct the problems
        of only B does not create equality.  It creates hypocrisy.
    
    >If the methods used to correct things
    >for B appear to or actually take something from A should no effort
    >be made to correct things for B?
       
        No, but again if the way to "correct things" is to take something
        away from C.  Then some other method must be found.
    
    fred();
    

    re .466
    
    	>(what the "all
    	>things being equal" implies to me is that both candidates share
    	>the voter's political views.)  If the man supported political.
    
    Realistically I consider this to be *highly* unlikely.  Therefore
    I have serious doubts as to the *real* motivation and goal of the
    speaker.
    
    fred();

    RE: .468  Fred
    
    >> (what the "all
    >> things being equal" implies to me is that both candidates share
    >> the voter's political views.)  If the man supported political.
    
    > Realistically I consider this to be *highly* unlikely. 
    
    In a Primary election, I wouldn't regard this as highly unlikely
    at all.
    
    The winner of the Primary would get my vote (man or woman) since
    the opponent from the other party would, then, be pretty unlikely
    to share the views I support.  (It's not impossible, tho, of course.)
    
    > Therefore I have serious doubts as to the *real* motivation and goal 
    > of the speaker.
 
    She made it abundantly clear that she was NOT asking anyone to vote
    for an unqualified candidate (and specifically stated that "all things
    being equal, and BOTH candidates being qualified"...)
    
    What other "real motivation" could she have other than wanting
    qualified women candidates to be given the chances that they have
    NOT be given in politics so far?
    
    What's the problem?

    re .469
    
   > She made it abundantly clear that she was NOT asking anyone to vote
   > for an unqualified candidate (and specifically stated that "all things
   > being equal, and BOTH candidates being qualified"...)
    
    My Daddy always told me that just because somebody *tells* you that
    this is a hammer doesn't necessarily mean you can drive nails with it.
    
   > What other "real motivation" could she have other than wanting
   > qualified women candidates to be given the chances that they have
   > NOT be given in politics so far?
    
    Real motivation---voting for women just because they are a woman.
    I find the hypothisys unlikely even in a primary election.  I find
    it unlikely that any two cnadidates will totally agree.  Otherwise
    why are they running other than because one is a man and the other
    is a woman??
    
    fred();

    BTW  another rathole, but---
    
    I have voted for women candidates in elections.  There are women that
    I would considered qualified and would vote for even for vice-president
    or even President.   Elizabeth Dole and Jean Kirkpatrick f'rinstance,
    but I would vote for them because of their viewy not because of their
    sex.
    
    Last election I supported Bob Dole over George.  I believed that if
    Bob were the candidate, then we may have seen the first legitimate
    female candidate for V.P. ( Another rathole, but I considered
    Ferarro the best thing that happened to Reagan the whole election).
    
    fred();

    Fred,
    
    What I'm afraid of seeing happen is for one group to refuse to do
    anything about problems that another group has because they see
    any effort made to solve the problems as taking something from them.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .470  Fred
    
    "All things being equal" probably doesn't indicate that the candidates
    are twins or anything, Fred...
    
    It probably means that if they agree on the issues a particular VOTER
    cares about most, then there is no significant difference from the
    voter's perspective.
    
    Haven't you ever seen elections where the candidates in the primary
    didn't seem that different?  Should all the others drop out (saying,
    "Oh, well, these other guys are saying what I wanted to say, so I
    guess I don't need to run")??
    
    Candidates run because they want to hold office.  If their primary
    opponents aren't that different, well, they still want to hold office
    anyway, don't they?
    
    > My Daddy always told me that just because somebody *tells* you that
    > this is a hammer doesn't necessarily mean you can drive nails with it.
    
    Well, I can't imagine what ghastly plot you think may be afloat here
    in someone's simple request to people that they elect more qualified
    women candidates into a political arena where precious few women 
    exist now.  It must be almost impossible for you to imagine looking
    at the Senate and seeing almost no one of your race or gender in the 
    room.
    
    I guess I can understand why you are having so much difficulty with
    the concept.

    This is MENNOTES and I ( the author ) of the base note started this
    string to discuss MEN. It has now turned into a what about WOMEN
    string. I would ask those men out there who are disgusted with the way
    this string has gone, please refrain from participating in this
    fruitless exercise. Maybe Suzanne and some others will go back to 
    WOMENNOTES, nah, they can't leave us alone to discuss problems by 
    ourselves. This string is history as far as I'm concerned.


    			HANL
    			Wayne 

    
    re .472
    
    Bonnie,
    
    >What I'm afraid of seeing happen is for one group to refuse to do
    >anything about problems that another group has because they see
    >any effort made to solve the problems as taking something from them.
    
    From the solutions I've seen proposed, you may well be correct. 
    However, I think the problem lies more in the enormous effort being 
    expended correcting the problems of one group (women) and ignoring
    or belittling the problems of the other (men), as in .0.  I could add
    several items to that list.
    
    I believe that most of "men's" problems are becuse men have not yet
    begun to fight more than anything the "feminist" movement is doing.
    But according to .0, that may be changing.  However, every time 
    a man stands up and says "wait a gul-durn minuit here" he's immediatly
    attacted by the thought police.
    
    fred();

    	RE: .474  Wayne
    
    	People talk about what they want to talk about, Wayne.
    
    	You can't control it.

    Fred
    
    I don't mind men standing up and saying 'wait a minute'... and
    I strongly support making things equal for both sides. I think 
    things are so intertwined that unless we work on everyone's
    problems we will not get any better but only keep the pendulum
    swinging.
    
    Bonnie

    I set the note nowrite.
    
    
    
    			Wayne