Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I started calling myself a radical feminist the day after I got
    (unsigned, paper, long before DEC) mail telling me the reason I hate
    men so much is that I'm so ugly I couldn't get raped in a dark alley.
    (I've heard this "analogy" a number of times since then, by the way.) 
        
    The number of sexist assumptions in that one remark (that only
    good-looking women have sex, that rape is based on sex rather than
    violence, that speaking up in favor of better pay for the secretaries
    at our school meant I hated the men who were doing the same work but
    titled 'administrative assistants' and paid accordingly ... but I
    digress) drove me to a deep belief that I had to do something more than
    pursue my own path to success, that I had to try to change the society
    that produced this attitude.

    --bonnie 

    re .0:
    Thanks, John.  I posted that dictionary definition here
    once before when someone said that she was not a feminist.
    
    Warning, personal opinion follows:
    
    How, how, how can a woman who benefits everyday from the hard work
    of feminists of the last century claim that she is *not* a feminist?!
    It's kind of like biting the hand that feeds you.  I'd almost go
    so far to say it's a kind of self-hatred.  Maybe a woman who says
    she's not a feminist deep down thinks she doesn't deserve some of
    the things we've gained in the last century?  I don't know.
    
-   Any woman who can read and write should be grateful for feminists.
    Time once was when women were not taught these things.

-   Any woman who votes on election day has feminists to thank.  Any
    woman who votes for a woman has two reasons to thank feminists.
        
-   Any woman who has attended college has feminists to thank.  It was
    less than 15 years ago that Dartmouth College began admitting women.

-   Any woman who uses birth control devices has feminists to thank for
    making it legal to obtain them.  It was only 20 years ago that they
    were completely illegal in Massachusetts (even for married women).
    
-   Any woman who has needed an abortion or has a friend, mother, daughter,
    or sister who has needed one has feminists to thank again.
            
-   Any woman who is working in a non-traditional career should be grateful
    to feminists.
    
-   Any woman who has established a credit rating in her own name or
    has taken a loan in her own name should be grateful to feminists. 
    It was only 15 years ago that professional women well-established
    in their careers needed their *fathers* to co-sign for a mortgage!

-   Any woman who is getting paid equally for doing the same job as
    a man has feminists to thank.  It is now law.
    
-   Any woman who has taken an employer to court over sexual harassment
    has the law on her side, thanks to feminists.  Those laws are there
    for *your* protection.
    
    There's far more to do yet!  FEMINISTS are doing it!  Guaranteed
    parental leave, child care issues, equal pay for equal work, and
    many more issues!
    
    	-Ellen

       I am a man. I am also a feminist. by the definition in .0 I am
       a radical feminst.
       
       By my own definition I am a radical feminist.
       
       Not only have I changed my behavior due to my belief in feminism,
       and talking to feminists, I also try to change other people's
       behavior because of my belief in feminism. This makes me a
       proseletyzing feminist.
       
       I am a feminist because I think our society is wasting an incredible
       resource in it's women, and for STUPID, SHAMEFUL, reasons. Women in
       our society are opressed, are discriminated against, are
       undervalued. I am firmly and completely conviced of these facts.
       This situation is criminal. 
       
       My sub-species of radical feminism is that I am a reproductive
       rights activist. I don't mean to devalue all of the other important
       feminst issues, but I have fought, am fighting, and will continue
       to fight for women's (and men's) right to control their own
       reproduction. The fact that there is no safe, effective, reversible,
       cheap, widely available form of birth control for either men
       or women is ridiculous and must be changed.
       
       I want my children to have strong role models, both men and women. I
       want it to be ok for me to choose to be "feminine" or for my lover
       to be "masculine". I don't want to be ridiculed for being nurturing,
       caring, and sensitive. I don't want to see women ridiculed for being
       strong, competent, and assertive. I'm tired of having to always
       be right, to be strong, to be agressive.
       
       I want to be allowed to cry.
       
       I want a woman as president in my lifetime.
       
       Damn right I'm a feminist.
       
       	-- Charles

    I am a feminist but first I am a humanist.  Should the two compete,
    I am a humanist (no religious sentiment intended).
    
    Marge

 WARNING .... The following Is of a Nuclear meltdown flame category.
              It is not, nor should be taken as a complaint towards 
              any one person, the moderators of this file or women 
              in general. It is poised at a trend and direction that
              this file and its participants have taken since its inception
              that disturbs me. And although I believe that there are others
              that agree with me, I take sole responsibility for the contents,
              and opinions expressed here.

   
 I am beginning to believe that the word "feminist" has multiple
 translations irregardless of what Webster, Funk and Waggnals or
 whoever provides a definition. There are many of us that directly
 tie the term in with the militant hard core type person.

 If the reaction and views of many of the women in this file fall
 under the heading of being a feminist, it is of little wonder
 that grim invisionment and typifying are conceded as one with
 the word. I am not talking to those women that are self assured, 
 comfortable with themselves and stand up for what they beleave in.
 But those that feel and react as if their at war with the world.

 Wile Iam more than willing to admit that women of the past that
 struggled to gain equality were justified in doing so, I just cant 
 understand why today, there are so many women that feel the need to
 be at war with the world. Its as if none of these equalities existed.
 Why is it necessary to ATTACK anyone that has an opinion or a view that
 is different from your own. What is the rational behind the hard core 
 militant headset ???? Its as if anyone who is different or disagrees 
 with you is against you, is out to get you. Got news for you ..WRONG..
 Its a matter that we think differently from you.

 What in GODS world makes you think that you are the only person that
 has had or is facing problems ?? One would get the impression that you,
 and women in general have been singled out as the only ones to get grief
 in this world. Have you had so many troubles and problems that you have
 let the hate and bitterness close your eyes to the fact that there are 
 other people in this world that are GOOD people yet different from you ???? 
 Are you so affirmed to believe its only a mans world and are angry because 
 you wernt born a man ??? Have ALL the men in the world done bad things to
 you or just a few ??? If so why are you so belligerent to the rest of us.
 Why are you SO ANGRY at everyone that dosent agree totally with you. ???
 Who made you so perfect that your always right ???? 

 I say these things because I have seen so much anger, hurt, fustration,
 expressed across these pages. YOU are not alone, There are many of us
 that have felt these things also, I can say these things from the stand
 point of being a Vietnam Vet. I and my fellow vets of that war were shit
 on by both the people and government of this country. We got a raw deal
 that only now 15 - 20 years latter is beginning to change. I say this from 
 the standpoint of having been used and abused by some of the women in my life.
 Beyond that there are numerous other groups that are discriminated against, 
 put down, and been put off from fair treatment. In each any every one the 
 militant members are shunned because of the dark cloud of bad image they 
 represent. That bad image is one that does not truly represent the goals
 they all seek to obtain.

 The difference here is we arnt a bunch of militant hard core people 
 that attack anyone that disagrees with us. The expression "in sisterhood"
 begins to take on connotations of, be a member of the click or else...
 You folk's not only go after the men who enter things here but after 
 your fellow women who have the ordasity to say such things as they arnt
 or choose not to be a feminist. With the militant attitude expressed by
 many in this file I DONT BLAME MORE PEOPLE FROM NOT PARTICIPATING HERE.
 I mean who wants to be attacked or put down because their opinion is 
 different. 

 I was under the impression that this file and its format was created 
 to allow women to exchange ideas and experiences in a SAFE environment.
 Safe in this context means free from put down or attacked for their views.
 It was also to serve as a place for a man to come and hopefully learn 
 how to better understand the women in their lives and the world. To open
 new and improved lines of communication between us. In too many cases it
 has failed, failed badly. If people wanted to haggle and hassle over views
 Soapbox was where they went, not here, yet it has become that.

 You say you want participation from men, then stop attacking them if their
 opinion is different from yours. You'll find you may get some in here.
 You say you want more participation from the other women in the co, then
 respect their opinion the same as you would ask them to respect yours.
 that dosent mean that you all must agree, yet be respectful in your 
 disagreement. Stop putting your fellow women down because what works for
 them is different from you. Granted its a lot easier to applaud those that
 agree than disagree, yet we all may learn something if we are open to more
 voices.
                    
                            Robert (Bob) C. Barber
    

    re .5:
    
    Who is the YOU you are referring to?  I can't find anyone here that
    matches the YOU whom you are addressing.  If there is a specific
    person you had in mind and do not wish to post her name here, please
    mail me.
    
    In .2, I posted some FACTS.  Self-identified feminists helped push
    for the reforms I mentioned there.  FACT is that any woman who votes
    or holds a credit card or car loan in her own name has FEMINISTS
    to thank.  Do you disagree?  Do you think this is bad or wrong?
    If so, why?
    
    	-Ellen

	I believe each individual person should be judged on their own
	merits, their own strengths and weaknesses, and not by the
	stereotypes applied to the sexual/racial/ethnic/etc... groups
	they belong to. Every human being deserves the benefit of the
	doubt.
	
	Mike

    Re: .5
    
    Okay, so we can safely assume that Bob doesn't call himself a
    feminist, since he's starting to believe that's a dirty word.
    
    I'm a dirty word, I sometimes think a somewhat radical dirty word
    (at least, in some contexts, and frequently in thought).  Proud
    of it.  Hope you are too.
    
    As I always say in this sort of situation: if you can't stand the
    heat, perhaps you're imagining more than is already there.  Have
    you thought about why this might be, lately?

    
    
    		Gee, I hope all the militant feminist in the 
    conference go to the party 'cause I'd like to meet one. :^)
    
    A "militant feminist?"
    
    
    _peggy	(-)
    		 |	The Goddess acknowledges the Gods
    			Why don't the Gods acknowledge the Goddess?
    
    
    

    I am a radical feminist and proud of it....
    
    I like men a lot!!!!!
    
    I love to bake apple pies!
    
    I have four of the nicest adult children around!
    
    And two of the handsomest grandsons!
    
    And Bob Barber, I like you...
    
    But I am not going away...as Suzanne says it seems the topic
    has been addressed and readdressed and we (the men and women in
    this file) have come to terms with our differences.
    
    We still have issues to work...as do Vietnam Vets, Blacks, and all
    other minorities.  
    
    This file is evolving into one excellent example of people learning
    and growing with each other.
    
    I would like to suggest that anyone doing a thesis for their doctorate
    has a wealth of information on human interaction in that disk space
    that is assigned to Womannotes on RAINBO!

    
    re: .3
    
    Hear! Hear! well spoke!
    
    

    First let me say that I am a Woman. I am a Lady. I am Feminine.
I am not a Feminist. I like Men. I like strong, virile, and, yes,
even some macho men. I like to dress feminine. I like to dress in
sexy, revealing clothes . I like to look up to a man for strength  
and protection. I am a professional. I enjoy being a homemaker..
yes, cooking for a man, caring for his clothes, washing his back,
being his friend and lover. I like to have doors opened for me by
a gentlemen. When I drop something I appreciate a man reaching down
to pick it up for me.       

Many of you feminists would say at this point....why are you in here ?
The answer is simple....the conference is called Womannotes. Little
did I realize when I ventured in here that if you were not a feminist,
you were not welcome. I've seen some men express their opinion...only to
be pounced on...yet if they pounce back...they are set hidden, deleted,
verbally attacked or sent Mail.

 When I said that I was not a feminist, you who are came back with an attack.
 It was mentioned that a woman who does not consider herself a feminist is full
 of *self-hatred*. How wrong you are...my own life is filled with love.
 The same holds true for many other woman,who like myself, do not consider
 themselves feminists. 

I will agree that feminists have done a lot for women. And yes I 
personally have benefited from their work and thank them for it. We
also have gained from our soldiers who were sent to fight wars, from
inventors who gave us the automobile, telephone, electricity and many
things that we use in our everyday life. 

From what I've seen in this conference the word feminist is equated
to *radical feminist*, and if a woman in here is not like the majority
she is attacked. I have talked to many women in this company about
Womannotes, and so very many have told me that they have read it, but
would never write in it because they felt they did not belong in here.
I also feel I do not belong in here, I don't feel this is a conference
for total sharing and acceptance of the differences between women.
It is a place where a certain cliche rules, and if differences are
expressed, this cliche comes back and tries to force their beliefs
down your throat.

I've found that this conference, instead of being one where women
can share, is a place where majority rules. Why not change it to
FEMINIST.NOTE and have it members only so that others, like myself,
will not be able to venture into a place that is unfriendly and
rude.  
 
Kathleen Mitchell
    

    Re: -1
    
                           Bravo.
    
    
    =====================================================================
    
    Any of you who know me know that I am a "liberated woman", holding
    my own in a "man's world/company", sometimes tending toward the
    "tough ccookie".  
    
    But I think that if the women's liberation movement gave us anything
    of value, it is the *CHOICE* between the old paradigm, housewife-y
    life or being (and proving ourselves at the) independent, capable life
    (or something in-between).  It shouldn't mean that we all have to  
    live our lives the same way.
    
    Sheila
    

Kathleen,

I am also a woman, I have been married 20 years and I enjoy the
company of men. I am not a radical anything unless it is a champion
for fairness.

First off it has never been the practice of the moderators of womannotes
to delete anyones notes. Maggie never has and I have deleted only two
and both of them after discussing the issue with the author first (and
one of the two was subsequently reentered.) Any other deleted notes in
the conference were deleted by the authors of the notes....sometimes
to the very great frustration of the moderators.

Nor do we make a habit of setting notes hidden. The only time we have
set a note hidden was when another individual wrote and complained that
they found the note offensive or harassing - and under those circumstances
we are obliged to set such a note hidden and try and work out the problem
with the individuals involved.

I also find it interesting that I have been blasted in mail by women
who felt that the file was anything but a feminist file and that they
were leaving because men were allowed or because we differed to men's 
opinions too much or what ever....There are times when moderating this
file has the flavor of the old tail about the little boy the old man
and the donkey....where nothing they could do was right :-). 

Try reading my long note entitled "all the voices are needed in the chorus"
and you will understand that I have been campaigning to keep as broad
a spectrum of points of view in the file as possible. It is both Maggie's
and my hope that womannotes can grow to the point where women from all
shades and varieties of experience will share and shape the conference and
that men will be able to grow and share with us. Neither Maggie or I
want this file to express only one particular point of view....but we
can't do it alone, it takes contributors to express other viewpoints.

Also remember that the voice of one person does not equate to the
voice of the whole conference. If you express an opinion and another
man or woman objects to what you say. This is not the *conference's*
point of view - it is the point of view of *one person*. If you don't
agree, then answer them back. There isn't any 'majority' here or 'party
line' - there are only people who write and people who choose not to
write. If you want the file to be different, to express a wider variety
of points of view - then go right ahead 'the floor is yours'....

Bonnie

    RE: .13

    Kathleen,

    I applaud your courage to write in what you feel is a hostile
    environment.  I'm sorry that it feels that way to you.  I hope that it
    isn't really that hostile.  I think that a lot of issues get pushed to
    an emotional level so that people tend to shout their opinions and may
    seem like they are unable to deal with other opinions.  Unfortunately,
    there is a lot of proselytizing going on here.  When you believe so
    strongly in something you want to convince others to believe too.

    I hope you continue to contribute, so that I can hear other viewpoints.
    After all, isn't this one of the purposes of this conference?  By the
    way, I too like to dress feminine and sexy, and look to a man for
    strength and protection.  But sometimes when I do I then feel guilty
    for not being fair to Tom (it's hard to always be the strong protective
    person).  But deep down I wish he would handle all my problems, and I
    feel guilty.  I envy those who don't have these conflicting emotions.

    Anyways, I hope you'll stay.

    ...Karen

    	Why do we in the U.S.A. spend so damned much time putting labels
    on each other and ourselves?  Why do expend so much energy telling
    each other where we stand on each and every issue?  Are we still
    so insecure that we are constantly seeking approval?
    
    	We live our lives based on our beliefs.  I believe very few
    of us, if any, know which of the labels truly applies to us.  Our
    friends and close associates might know since they see how we act.
    How many of us know how we are judged or seen by the world?
    
    	Enough with the self applied labels.  The collected actions
    of my life are labels enough and I am comfortable letting those
    who have been impacted (positively and negatively) apply the whatever
    labels they must to me.
    
    	(It is important to recognize the labels Hitler, Mao, Lenin,
    Genghis Khan, McCarthy, Mussolini, and host of others would apply
    to themselves would be quite different from the labels many of us
    would apply to them.)
    
    Douglas

    Re .13                                                       
    
    >When I said that I was not a feminist, you who are came back with an attack.
               
    Okay, everybody who did this, raise your hand.  (Everyone will note
    that my hands never left the keyboard.)
    
    Re: .14
    
    Who said everybody had to live the same way?
    
    
    I'm confused again.  Are feminists being accused of all acting the
    same, or of trying to force everyone to act the same, or perhaps
    both?                      
    
    	from the Chabot Dictionary of Flip Comments:
    
    		feminist: a militant group advocating the
    			  world-wide adoption of an unattractive
    			  uniform of t-shirts, baggy jeans, and 
    			  sneakers
                                                   
    		:-)
    
    
    If I can't disagree with your choices without it being perceived
    as an attack, um, I hardly consider this my fault.  (That's
    "disagree", not "call nasty names"; I try hard not to inadvertantly
    (or advertantly, gee) do the latter, but I'll do the former.)
    
    To be frank, I've only fiddled around here for a week, but I've
    missed all the hatred that some people have on their minds as being
    rampant here.  Unless you can come up with specific examples and
    numbers so I can find these notes, I'm going to ignore this 
    (I can't speak for anyone else, though).

    re .15:
    
    Bonnie, I think the sentiment you have stated here bears repeating
    (paraphrasing) in 1.* as part of the charter of the conference.
    
    Well said!
    Marge

    I also consider myself a feminist, but not a radical feminist. But
    then, I don't consider it radical to want everyone to have equal
    opportunity to reach their own potential.
    
    I also think it is criminal for parents to be sending their sons
    to universities and their daughters to the local community college.
    Every time a man is given a better title and salary than a woman
    for doing the same work, it sends an unconscionable message that
    women are less valued by this society. Every time a young man is
    told that he should expect to be the main support for an entire
    family, every time a young woman is told that she not train to become
    a self-sufficient person, we move a little further from full equality.
    
    On these and many other issues, I consider myself a moderate. (I
    tend not to confront others in public when they do things that make
    me question their motives.) I agree with most of the opinions in
    this file of those who call themselves feminist. I don't see what
    is "radical" about those opinions.
    
    PK

    
    re back a few (Kathleen)
    
    It makes me sad whenever a woman says she feels unwelcome here.  One
    of the things I value most about this conference is that women
    who are at different places on the politcal spectrum can come
    together and talk about their experiences.  Not wanting to open
    an already thoroughly examined can of worms, one of my regrets about
    having such a pronounced male presence in this file is that I think
    we get off of our main purpose which is to talk to *each other*!
    
    I'm still not sure what people mean when they talk about radical
    feminism.  This is the first time in my life that I have felt
    like I was on the far left politically.  As a feminist I often
    find issues of conscience coming up for me at work.  So far,
    I've been able to resolve (or maybe rationalize, I'm not sure)
    them, but at times I feel I ought to be passing out leaflets in
    Harvard Square or getting arrested at Civil Disobedience actions
    in D.C.  For me the conflict is one of balancing my desire to earn
    a decent wage in an interesting job with my desire to work for social
    change.  I imagine that for the women who spoke of more traditional 
    values there must be other kinds of conflicts.  I'd like to hear
    more about that.   To me being a feminist means working to create
    a world where all women can make the choices that feel right to
    them.  It's nice to hear from people who have had experiences that 
    are similar to mine, but I'd also like to hear about issues that
    are unfamiliar to me. 
                       
    We're all sisters  O
                       +
    
    Justine
                         

    Though I respect the tone in which Justine wrote the previous reply
    and also agree, for the most part, on what she's said, it's the
    comment "we're all sisters" that turns me off and classifies her
    (truly, don't be offended or think I'm attacking you...it's merely
    my reason for my opinions) as a radical feminist.  (radical:  carried
    to the farthest limit; extreme).  I am no more another woman's sister
    than I am another man's sister.  I'm an individual and I resent
    being thrown into such a large group when another *very* large group,
    namely males, exists on what many of us are striving to create,
    i.e. an equal level.
    
    I really never respond in this conference, but occassionally will read
    something when someone I work with says, "Did you see Note...in
    WOMANNOTES?"  Personally, I'm amazed at the amount of ridiculous and
    time-wasting rhetoric going on in here and in MENNOTES and HUMAN RELATIONS.
    But, when I read this note (after a suggestion that I do), a nerve was hit
    and I had to say something.   Ironically, it is this same topic that I
    previously had a partial discussion over with someone who frequents this
    conference. 

    She had suggested that "we" can change that, referring to my attitudes
    towards men and women.  Well, what she couldn't understand is that I don't
    *want* to change my attitude.  I happen to like the way I feel about men
    and about women and, especially, about my role in the whole "game".  Dylan
    said it best in a song called "Just Like a Woman".  I like being able to be
    a friend and a lover...and, sometimes, a little girl.   I think what
    bothered her was that I said I felt I could trust men more than I could
    women (which she *may* have taken to mean I couldn't trust her). Well I,
    naturally, don't mean *all* women and *all* men. But, for example, anyone
    who's trying to conform me to their beliefs doesn't accept me for
    me and, therefore, I admit, I don't trust them.  Would you?  
    I just question what her (and others like her) problem is that she's 
    trying so damned hard to change me! 
    
    It's true that, without many of the strong and persevering individuals who
    help improve individual rights, many of us wouldn't be where we are.  But,
    the push to change should be as a means to make a positive improvement
    on the lifestyle of those who are negatively effected, and not to 
    negatively impose a lifestyle of those who are quite content and
    happen to already feel positive about life.
                                                      
    I know what one woman meant by saying she feels guilty.  I have the
    same problem and I honestly wonder if some women out there that (no
    offense, here, just an opinion) could be "labeled" feminists have the
    same guilt problem.  I can only believe that my reason for feeling this
    way stems from being raised in a traditional home (blue collar dad,
    non-working mom) while being educated in a progressive environment (60's &
    70's social movements and being geared toward the "working mother"
    lifestyle of the 80's). 
                                                  
    As a single, 31 year old woman, I don't feel that there is any direct
    conflict within me.  But, I will admit to feeling guilty when I look to a
    man for strength and protection and, at the same time, expect him to be
    sensitive to the needs of the "independent woman".  This (I can feel
    the flames now!) is a problem with a lot of woman, many of whom will
    never understand this, let alone admit it!  And this is, in my opinion,
    the problem with the feminist movement and most movements, in general,
    that work towards creating equality of any kind. 
                                                                  
    That is not to say these movements are wrong or should never take
    place.  I say, *adamently*, the opposite.  I consider myself extremely
    liberal and have done my share of marching and "preaching" for various
    human rights.  But, until *everyone* (that means *both* sides of the
    conflict) *admits* to being even slightly partial towards the "other"
    side, then attempts at any form of equality will never be resolved.
    There is always that sub-conscious, but nonetheless active, region of
    oneself that is unable to fully commit to the radical side...even those
    that can be considered "radical".  That inability to commit 100%,
    consciously *and* sub-consciously, is the basis for these discussions.
    It is being different, being an individual, that is at the heart of the
    matter...and the problems. 
                                                   
    The most radical of feminists (WARNING, WARNING:  THIS IS *MY* OPINION
    BASED ON *MY* OBSERVATIONS OF 31 YEARS!   ;-)     ) are not pure feminists
    by definition, anyway.  I have never met or heard one speak that
    truly wants total equality.  Equal pay, pro-choice, etc....yes. Choice 
    to work in or out of the home, to marry or not to marry and not be 
    labeled...yes.  As a matter of fact, *me, too!*  But, to be *totally* 
    equal -- to be drafted to fight in another Nam -- to be physically 
    attacked in public by a stranger because of something said (most     
    men would just never hit a woman, but wouldn't think twice about     
    hitting another guy with a big mouth) -- NO!  I have also never 
    known of a woman, who dismisses feminists as being some sort of
    "plague", that cannot be considered, in someway, feminist herself.  
    Even if she doesn't vote, she probably drives her own car or is 
    working outside of the home. 
  
    In any event, the result is always two sides ramming their heads
    against each other and spending way too much time labeling others and
    not enough time being honest about themselves.  The feminist movement,
    more than any other (in my opinion) has created an immense amount of
    problems that, otherwise, wouldn't have existed.  Basically, they revolve
    around the fact that no one knows their roles any longer.  Those that want
    absolute equality panick when they see things happening that can be thought
    of as being traditional in thought and action; and those that retain
    some or all of the traditional ways have a feeling of guilt because
    they think that they *should* be doing things the "new" way. 

    Women refuse to walk through doors opened by men; men don't know if they
    should open the door.  It's absurd!  Do what comes naturally.  Don't try so
    hard that you're nailing the other person to a wall...and getting yourself
    stuck there with them. 
    
    I want a man to be able to cry in front of me and not feel
    ashamed...and I want to be able to compete for a high-level job and get it
    based on my accomplishments.  But, if total equality exists, the
    differences that actually create the bonds, to begin with, disappear
    and we can end up in a very pale world of sad-looking clones.
           
    -debbie

    I have a hard time understanding how any working woman *cannot* call
    herself a feminist.  To help clear this up,I have a few questions to the
    women who do not call themselves feminists. 
    
    Do you believe that women should be able to hold a job? 
    
    	If yes to the above, do you think they should be paid as anyone
    	else for the work they do?
    
    Do you believe that a husband has a right to beat his wife?
    
    Do you believe that a woman who's husband is abusing her has the
    right to get a divorce?
    
    Should women be allowed to vote?
    
    Should women be allowed to own property, or should all property
    be held in their husband's or father's name, even if it was earned
    by or given to her?
    
    Should women be allowed to cut their hair?
    
    Should women be allowed to drive a car?
    
    Should women be allowed to smoke or drink if they choose?
    
    Should women be allowed to learn to read and write?
    
    If you answer yes to any of the above questions, you have at least some
    of the things which would qualify you as a feminist.  At times in the
    not-so-distant past, women were not allowed these things. The feminists
    of the time had to fight hard to get many of these these rights, some
    of which are now taken for granted. 
    
    What attributes do feminists have that you do not identify with?
    
    Elizabeth
    

    >>Do you believe that women should be able to hold a job? 
                                                          
      Yes, but that makes me a working woman, not a feminist!             
                                                          
    >>If yes to the above, do you think they should be paid as anyone
      	else for the work they do?                        
                                                          
      Sure, but that doesn't mean they should also be promoted so that
    the manager gets to say he complied with EEO standards.  Unions
    were good to my father, but I don't have to join one, do I?
                                                          
    >>Do you believe that a husband has a right to beat his wife?
                                                          
      Do you believe that *anyone* has a right to beat *anyone*?  What
      does this have to do with "equal rights for *women*"?      
                                                          
      etc., etc., etc.                                    
                                                          
    >>What attributes do feminists have that you do not identify with?
                                                          
      The attribute that everything they stand for is being shoved down
    my throat.  Women who are happy being women don't call themselves
    feminists and *don't* challenge women who do.  Feminists, on the
    other hand, who call themselves feminists, are (and I've never met
    one, yet, that's different) constantly trying to convince women who 
    aren't that they really are (or should be) because of some insecurity 
    that the woman playing the traditional role will "spoil" it for them; 
    and this constitutes my definition of a female chauvinist.  
                                                          
    Male feminists are true feminists, by definition.  They strive for
    *equal* rights without imposing extremes on those who aren't conforming
    to the extremist values, i.e. they treat women (and other men, of
    course) as individuals and, if they chose to open a door for you,
    they're opening a door for someone, not for a female and *not* to
    prove a point! 
                  
    -d
    

    re .24
    
    Men used to have the legal right to beat their wives - the wife
    was considered the husband's property to do with as he wished,
    as were his children.
    
    Speaking for myself, I know many women who call themselves feminists
    who are nothing like what you described.....I talked with some
    of a group of over 100 of them a year ago at my college reunion.
    Myself, I am quite happy being a woman and am not 'constantly
    trying to convince other women of what they should be'. Infact
    unless someone comes to me with a problem I don't try and convince
    anyone to do anything with their own life. Further I don't think
    that traditional women will spoil anything....in many ways I would
    be considered to be a traditional woman....I have five children
    have been married for twenty years, live on a farm.....enjoy
    gardening....and work full time, have a graduate degree,  hate
    housework and love to read.
    
    So now where are we :-)
    
    Bonnie

    
    re .24
    
    I heard a lot of anger in your (Barnes::Reno) response, but maybe
    that will help us get at some of what it is that so divides us.
    
    To respond to some of what you said:
    
    Ending abuse against women is seen as woman's issue because:
    
    1. Until fairly recently wife abuse was legal and even encouraged.
       - even now that it is illegal, very few husbands are prosecuted
         for assault, even fewer of those ever serve time.
    
    2. To this day, a number of states have not yet changed the
       legal definition of rape to include rape by a spouse.  That
       means that in some states, if a man rapes his wife, he couldn't
       be prosecuted because he would not have committed a crime!
    
    3. Women were the first people willing to make ending woman-abuse
       a priority.  The first shelter for battered women in this country
       came about as a direct result of the women's (Yes, feminist)
       movement.
    
    I do consider myself a feminist, but I would not try to convert
    you or anyone else to my way of thinking.  In a forum such as
    this one, I would like to think that all women and men could
    appreciate the contributions that feminists have made to the
    world in which we all live.  These have been described in earlier
    notes.
    
    I must say that I flinched a little when I read your words about
    only males being true feminists, by definition.  Maybe you could
    explain that a little more because I really didn't understand.
    At the risk of being severely scorched, my *Personal Opinion*
    is that while many of the men in this file are sensitive and try
    to understand, I *personally* would not describe many of them
    as feminist.
    
    I think that in any radical movement (civil rights, women's rights,
    gay rights, veterans rights, to name a few) there are always some
    members who appear to be on the left most fringe.  But I would argue
    that to be successful, a movement needs those most radical members
    in order to keep shifting the center - the place where most of us
    are - gradually to the left.  I see myself as somewhere to the left
    of center.  I admire the work of the people on the extreme left,
    but would be afraid to do what they do.  I also understand and
    value the people in the center (and even to the right of center,
    though I'll admit sometimes I don't understand, but I'm working
    on it.)  As long as everyone gets to be where she or he wants
    to be on the spectrum, I don't really see any problem.
    
                         
    In sisterhood,
              ++
    Justine

    Re: .13
    
    :-) :-)
    
    (Hi Kath!!)
    
    

    re .26 (re .24)
    
>       I must say that I flinched a little when I read your words about
>       only males being true feminists, by definition.  

    I didn't see the word "only" in .24 - what I saw was:
    
>>	Male feminists are true feminists, by definition.  

    Not having written .24, I can't speak to the proper interpretation,
    but I interpreted it as saying that the term "feminist" refers
    to the beliefs (and perhaps actions) of the individual holding
    them, and not to that individual's gender.
    
    One problem with a term like "feminist" is that it is so subject
    to shades of meaning. Trying to attach labels to people invariably
    leads to discussions like this one; it's far more interesting
    to hear what people believe and do than what they call themselves.

    One issue that was raised in this discussion was the use of 
    the word "in sisterhood". In the past the phrase "in brotherhood"
    has often been used as an expression of fellowship, of closeness,
    and of common cause with others. The only problem with saying
    "in brotherhood" was that if taken literally it only referred to
    males - yet the sentiments it was being used to express really
    meant all humankind.  
    
    So what do we use in it's place. Well if "in brotherhood" can
    mean 'humans-generic' why can't "in sisterhood"? Afterall
    "in personhood" or "inhumanhood" or in "peoplehood" sounds pretty
    odd. Why is the one term ok and the other a sign of radicalism?
    Are "in fellowship", "in friendship" or "in cammeraderie"sp)
    ok? Can we all agree that the use of any of the above terms just
    means that the person speaking is expressing a desire to try
    and understand, support, and be connected with the others withwhom
    they are interacting?
    
    Bonnie

	As I have stated before I am a radical feminist.  There have
    been enough events in my life to convince me that I have to be to
    insure my daughters and sons a better future than I have.
    
    	As a radical feminist I expect a lot of benefits such as equal
    pay for equal skills.  I never asked for alimony, I only wanted
    half of the cost of raising the children, I would be willing to
    serve the government for a period of time.
    
        I am very concerned about the household engineer.  If her partner
    should pass away before she is 61 she is without pension or social
    security.  If her partner decides to dissolve the partnership she
    may not be compensated for her participation in their success. 
    
        And last but not least we are all individuals.  Our method of
    dress, our behavior and our interaction with men is a style.  I
    respect all styles, I just have one.
    
        Womannotes is emerging from a cocoon...please don't anyone leave...
    I did once and I thought it all out and I am back.  Over and over
    in this conference women say they don't want to be stereotyped...we
    need "all the voices in the chorus" to prevent this from happening.
    

The following is taken from a letter I sent to a noter earlier
    today.
    
    
"I get a little sad when I hear women say that womans notes
is a <_______________> file because only <___________>s write
in it, and since they are not a <________________> they won't
write.....

The only way that non<___________>s are going to have a voice
in the file is for them to start writing too. By not writing
you allow the file to be shaped by those who do."
    
    If *you* are reading this file and say to yourself....well
    all the writers are X so I won't respond because I am Y and
    they obviously won't accept Ys - that is a lot of feathers!
    
    If you want Y ideas discussed here - enter them. If an X 
    doesn't like what you say - then write back. This conference
    should be open to all women from all walks of life to express
    what concerns them. ***If a particular point of view is underrepresented
    it is *because* women of that point of view haven't written their
    opinions in the notes file!**** 
    
    Anyone who feels that the file does not represent a fair spectrum
    of topics concerning women and who wants other topics entered
    but is afraid of being attacked/flamed is also *welcome* nay
    *urged* by the moderators to send a note to be entered annonymously.
    
    Bonnie

    To all of those who disagree with me:
    
    Please don't make the mistake of thinking that because I have a big
    mouth which I'm glad to shoot off on little provocation that I know
    what I'm talking about.  I don't.
    
    Disagree with me.  Tell me that I'm wrong.  Flame me.  I'm tough.
    [Besides, I bought an asbestos suit before I started noting :) ]
    I'm not going to learn the error of my ways if you don't point out
    the flawed reasoning, mistaken facts, and inconsistencies in my
    statements.  I want to know.  I may not always be happy about it,
    but it's good for me. 
    
    If I'm treading on your rights, tell me.  If I'm not treating your
    opinions with respect, I want to know.  I'll do my best to see your
    side of things.  But first I have to know your side is there and
    that I'm overlooking it.
    
    To Kathie:
    
    You're right.  I'm not very sensitive toward women who have chosen
    traditional roles.  I'm sorry.  It's true I don't understand at
    all how any woman of intelligence could enjoy being subservient to
    a man, but I know you're an intelligent woman and you obviously
    don't see it as subservience.  You talk, I'll listen and try to
    understand.
    
    --bonnie

    To Kathie--
    
    I value your insights and your input to this file.
    
    One question--you and several others have stated that you do not
    identify yourselves as feminists, and have then gone on to list
    certain behaviors and characteristics in support of that position.
    
    For you, are those the dividing factors between feminists and those
    who do not identify themselves as such?  I am interested.
    This is not a judgemental question in any way.
    
    For me, chracteristics such as femininity, manners, enjoying
    relationships with men, and being considered a lady do not in and
    of themselves make a woman a feminist or not.  Lots of feminists
    behave in traditional ways, are feminine, have warm, close
    relationships with men, and thoroughly enjoy being a woman.  Other
    feminists are exactly the opposite, and still others have some of
    the above characteristics, but not all.  My point is that these
    characteristics and behaviors seem to be on an entirely different
    continuum than feminism.  I sometimes wonder if women think
    that identifying themselves as feminists means giving up being
    feminine, attractive, having good manners, relating to men and so
    forth!  For me it certainly does not mean that.
    
    For me feminism means defining myself as a powerful person.
    Powerful enough to seek what I want clearly and directly.  Powerful
    enough to accomplish as much as any other man or woman with my skills
    and abilities and talents.  Powerful enough to see other women as
    peers and supporters rather than as competition.  Powerful enough
    to make a difference about things I care about.  And powerful enough
    to try to ensure that other women have the opportunities they need.
    (That's just part of the list!)
        
    In the early days of the women's movement, a number of women found
    that certain things symbolized oppression for them.  Bras were burned,
    etiquette books were thrown out, men were rejected by some women,
    and others refused to do housework or make themselves "attractive",
    given some external standard of attractiveness.  I support those
    women in rejecting symbols of things which were oppressive for *them*, but
    those symbols are not an intrinsic part of feminism for all others.  They
    are certainly not universal symbols.
    
    Some women felt that all women should reject things which are
    symbols of their own oppression.  I guess some still do, and I hear 
    echoes of that in this file from time to time.  I keep thinking
    that that really is an expression of the magnitude of pain some
    women have felt, and not truly a judgement of others.  Talking about
    it sure gets tricky, though.  
    
    (I have been referring to the personal level of feminism here, and
    defining it as a relationship to one's own power.  That is relatively
    easy compared to trying to change a society.  Whose model should we
    use?  For me it should be a model which allows each person to be
    powerful in a way which is not oppressive to others.)  
    
    
    Kathie, I think that you might share some of my feelings about being
    powerful in positive ways.  I hear that you don't like the label 
    feminist, so I won't use it.  But I consider myself a feminist and 
    I think you and I have a lot more in common than not.   
    
                                
    Holly
    
    PS - I forget who mentioned "sisterhood", but I don't care for it
    here either.  It's not how I think about the women I know in this
    file.  I see that it is an important affirmation of strength and
    solidarity for many people, so I have no problem with seeing it
    here.  But it makes me think "them" rather than "us" when I see
    it here.

    Holly brings up an intersting point -- that some of us who have been
    feminists for a long time, from back when it was a fight to even be
    taken seriously, sometimes react to the old situation rather than to
    the new one.  It's easy to confuse the symbolism of certain acts, such
    as dressing in a feminine way, with the real meaning and the real
    issues. 
    
    So many times we've been through the pain of holding a friend's hand
    and doctoring her bruised and batered face while she tells us that deep
    down he loves her, that she likes men and she loves her man and he
    ought to be strong, and that it has nothing to do with women's rights,
    that when someone says similar things for different reasons, it's easy
    to react with the emotions of the other situation.  Not right, but
    easy. 
    
    When you look at the injustices done to women, it's too easy to blame
    men -- all men, any man, the nearest man -- for our problems and to
    forget that men and women alike have been in the past confined to
    rigidly defined, sex-typed roles.  Feminism has to be humanism first.
    (Yes, somebody in this file already said that.)  It's HUMAN liberation. 
    
    The issues for women trying to free themselves and find what's right
    for themselves are different than for men facing the task.  We have
    to learn how to take responsibility and gain power.  Men are learning
    to give and to share.  
    
    And in the few short months I've been here, I've seen a lot of progress
    toward understanding each other.  I know I can now accept a lot of
    things that formerly made no sense.  I came here with a great deal of
    bitterness that I had been carrying for a long time, but thanks to the
    interaction with women of widely varying points of view, women who were
    willing to point out what I was implying or really saying, much of that
    bitterness is gone.  It's like I had a big hole inside me where the
    bitterness had eaten away, and now that hole is closing up and the wind
    doesn't gust through it so often or so hard any more. 
    
    --bonnie

I am a radical feminist.  Strangely enough, one of the chief reasons that
I am a radical feminist is the same reason other women profess not to be..
...because I love men.  The difference is in our definition of the word
"love".  

I want to make it very clear that I truly believe in *equality*
in every sense of the word.  If my charming, intelligent sons, my witty,
vulnerable brothers, and my brave, talented friends can be considered as 
cannon fodder to nourish the egos of the power mongers than so can I.
Their lives and well-being are no more precious than mine or any other 
woman's.  I choose to be with them through any adversity they may
suffer, that is my right, as a woman and as a human being.  When the politician
are forced to send whole families into the battlefield, they will stop the
insanity, we will make them stop.

For so long men have been manipulated by women who force them into sterio-
typical molds, refuse to recognize their vulnerability, doubts and insecurities,
won't allow them to cry or be afraid or weak once in awhile.  There are men 
out there who, after an especially hard day, really appreciate someone 
holding a door open for them.

Its a tough world we live in.  We're in a partnership...the men of the world
and us.  Life is too intense, too complicated, too tough for them to be 
forced to continue to carry the burden alone.  They need us to be all that
we can be, to fulfill our potential as human beings.

Love is a two way street and in today's society it means we must be equal
partners in the business of survival.  If he is out of work, she must be
*able* to support him for awhile. If he gets upset of depressed, he should
be able to count on her strength.  If he is in trouble or danger, he can
count on her to fight for him... just as he as fought for her for so long.
We will be able to cover his back, carry him when he falls, be there when
he needs us, and accept his faults and weaknesses just as he has accepted
ours.  A weak, protected, restricted woman will not be able to do these
things.

I am very proud to be a radical feminist.  It means that I will spend my 
life fighting to tear down the walls that have grown between men and 
women so that our sons and our daughters will have the opportunity to 
face the future together, as equal partners, both able to take care of
the other.  Thats equality and thats what feminism is all about,...
strong people facing the future together, mutual respect and mutual 
caring.  Thats the way it was in the beginning when we first crawled out
of the primordial swamp and thats the way it must be again if humanity
is to survive.

    re: .37 -- that's beautiful, Mary.  
    
    --bonnie

The following text was from an individual who wished to remain
annonymous.

Bonnie J
moderator
----------------------------------------------------------------

	
	I believe I have political, economic, and social rights equal
	to that of ANY man. I believe in equal pay for equal work. I believe
	I can do what most men can do. What I don't understand is why
	feminists (in general) keep blaming them (men). Why are you looking
	for corporate role models of yesterday? Why must woman learn to
	share experiences, knowledge, frustration only with women?
	Why can't we learn on our own that we are responsible for our own
	position; that we CAN be the corporate role model (if that is
	even needed)?

	I, for one, have learned that I am responsible for who I am, where
	I am, and what I do with my own career. No one and I mean
	NO ONE is going to fight for me, with me, or because of me. I am
	going to get where I want to be and I am where I am because of me.
	If I am not as "high up" as I think I should be it is my problem.
	It is time for me alone to do something about it, whether that be
	strive harder, become more valuable, or if need be, move on to
	where I'm am valued.

	Why are women making 58 cents to a mans dollar? The question to me
	is how did the man get that dollar? Because he asked for it! And
	a woman has to ask for the dollar too! No one ever went to battle for
	my husband to earn his full dollar and no one went to battle for
	mine either. A woman must fight for her own and prove herself on
	her own. Groups are always threatening, let alone slow to actually
	accomplish real change. 

	Bitterness towards men only shows that you are not willing to work
	along side of them. You are promoting, by that attitude, that they
	are better.  An attitude of "I can do just as well" and then showing
	them goes much farther. If bitterness exists, keep it inside and
	make it work for you. Don't segregate more; you'll only hold yourselves
	back. 

	In my opinion, the whole idea of a feminist is to be equal to men.
	This also means men are equal to women. 

    First, thanks to Paul Beck for not putting words into my mouth and
    comprehending what I actually said regarding male feminists.
         
    Second, am I the only one who sees that most of the "heat" in this
    conference is between women and not between the sexes?  To me, that
    says that there's a greater conflict among women and much of the
    female anger which is being geared towards men should really be
    geared towards other women (just another reason why I find less
    complicated friendships with men).
    
    Third, someone said something about no gender in arguments.  What
    did you mean and what are you looking for?
    
    Fourth, I didn't take it that anyone here wants me to be less of
    a woman if I decide to label myself a feminist.  That's not the
    reason I don't consider myself one.  I've already stated that my
    reason is that most feminists try to convince non-feminists that
    they're disregarding what feminists have done for women.  Also,
    someone mentioned the original feminsts who were burning bras and
    taking other "radical" actions.  The issue is not burning bras
    -- personally, it depends on what I'm wearing!  ;-) -- but today's 
    perception of yesterday's actions.  These actions were radical and,
    so, radicalism remains attached to the word feminism.  It's nature
    not to forget serious implications attached to past activities.
    It's a condition that exists not by choice, but by a combination
    of human emotion and intellect.   Of course, we should be intelligent
    enough to dismiss what should no longer be relevant, but it isn't
    always that easy.  
    
    Lastly, and most important, I resent the word "subservient" because
    a part of my lifestyle is considered traditionalist!  You're *amazing*!
    Then, you have the nerve to question why some of us feel that beliefs
    are being forced down our throats!  Do you consider calling someone
    (according to The American Heritage Dictionary) "subordinate,
    obsequious, servile" a compliment?  Do you expect anyone who is
    referred to by that definition to take you seriously?  
    
    Someone (maybe the same person?  Can't remember...) referred to
    non-feminists as weak, protected, restricted women.  My mother was
    always there for my father for whatever reason and comforted him
    when he required strength from her.  Believe me, she'd never consider
    herself (nor would I) a feminist, but, by god, she's no weak, protected
    restricted woman!  And, she never went back to work after childbirth,
    which should make her even less of a feminist.  But, weak and
    restricted, hell no -- and neither am I!
    
    Someone mentioned that some of us have a lot of anger.  You bet
    I do!  I'm tired of defending myself.  That should get anyone angry.
    But, what many of you don't see is that you, yourselves, have even
    more anger.  You vent your frustrations out on trying to change
    people for the sake of yourself...and, when you can't or you come
    to a headway, you put words in other people's mouths because you
    feel so damned self-righteous. 
                                    
    I know some you personally and, in all honesty, think you're wonderful
    human beings (even the "feminists"!  ;-)  ).  But, some of you are
    just not heeding your own words.  Practice what you preach.  If
    you stand for individualism and equality, then don't tell those
    who don't want to be classified (why is there only the feminists
    and traditionalists here?  how about someone like me...a conservative
    liberal, huh?) that they're not being fair to others who have helped
    us.  We're not being ungrateful.  We just don't feel that we have
    to continuously be reminded.  It's sort like the parent that tells
    the child that he should be grateful for all that's been provided
    for him/her.  Well, there's a line from "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner"
    that sums it all up:  Sidney Poitier's father tells him that he carried
    that mail bag ___ miles for ____ years and he owes it to him not
    to marry the white woman.  Sidney says:  I owe you *nothing*. 
    You brought me into this world.  *You* owe me!  I love you, but
    I've got to do what I've got to do.  (or something like that)  
                                       
    -debbie

    BTW:  Please don't classify me with anyone else.  Some people may
    share some beliefs, but Kathi and I are not the same person and
    I'll bet she'd attest to that, too, right Kath?  ;-)  For the record,
    we have very different ideas on a *lot* of things!  Address us
    individually, please, as we do you.
    

     .39 stand up and be counted!  that was great!

    We are not discussing personal individual lives here.  No one person
    cares what choices the other person makes.  You (the royal you_:-)
    personally are not the issue here.  We are speaking of "women" as
    a class of people in society.  If Tammy Fay Baker chooses to wall
    herself up and try on makeup until she dies that will not impact
    society as a whole nor the woman's movement specifically.  Its difficult
    to discuss issues when individuals keep trying to personalize those
    issues.  No one said that non-feminists were weak, protected woman,
    HOWEVER, I said that weak, protected woman would not be able to
    function to their full potential.  The full meaing of equality and
    of feminism is that you make your decisions and you live with the
    results of those decisions, without blaming anyone, without expecting
    special treatment, without excuses.  What name/catagory/label you
    choose or not choose to assume is irrelevant.

    RE: .39
    
    Like you, I usually believe that I have the same political, economic,
    and social rights of men.  I work primarily with men (most of whom
    I like), have six brothers, and make more than my SO.  However I
    see that my privileged situation is not extended to all women. 
    I a fair amount of my time, money, and goods to a battered women's
    shelter.  Some of the things those women have gone through is
    incredible!  Then there are others who are so emotionally battered
    that they believe they deserve to be treated like slaves.
    
    I don't only share my knowledge, experience, and frustration with
    women.  Knowledge and experience is shared with a number of my
    co-workers who have less experience than I.  Frustration goes out
    to whatever friends I feel comfortable talking to and who are available
    at the time.  My (male) SO is also my best friend.
    
    I am not looking for a corporate role model from 1970.  Each person
    is responsible for him/herself.  But, how many women have climbed
    up to senior level management?  How many female VPs are there?
    
    And yes, I am willing to take the same responsibilities that men
    are.  Women could be used as cannon fodder as well as men - in fact,
    it might make the high-up politicos think twice before sending their
    wife and daughter into battle.  Women have equal responsibility
    for the financial care of their children.  Men have equal responsibility
    for the day-to-day care of their children.
    
    Elizabeth

    Regarding the point about feminists being hypocritical about our
    rights - wanting equal pay, etc. but not wanting to go to war or
    get bopped in the nose: uhm...somehow, it seems to me that wanting
    to avoid having violence done to my body is "sensible", not
    "hypocritical". If the society teaches males to bop other males
    for making remarks, then the society needs changing. *I* think one
    of the feminist views of society *IS* on in which such sillyness
    wouldn't happen.
    
    As to war, well, I would like to see it go the way of high-button
    shoes. However, if equality demanded both males and females register
    for the draft, then I demand that both males and females equally
    apply for CO status, or equally go to Canada, or whatever. OR if
    a woman wishes to join the infantry and crawl thru fields shooting
    at "the enemy", well, that's her right. 
    
    Regarding the various replies and various umbrage taken at them:
    Well, I figger I we-all are getting about equal amounts of "NO WAY"
    and "RIGHT ON" with everything we say, we're hitting it about right.
    
    Dawn
    

    You think labels are irrelevant?  Maybe you should take a look at
    the topic of this note...I believe that's what started this whole
    thing.
    
    I'm one of the women who occassionally read this file and, when
    I saw all the arguing and re-hashing of old topics (some have been
    helpful to some people, I'm sure) going on in here, I deleted
    it.  I came back in, on a suggestion, and what do I find...arguing
    and re-hashing of old topics?  And some are asking why don't more 
    women voice their views in this file?  Because too many women in
    here are creating their own set of double standards and taking words
    out of context.  
    
    Point:  I never called anyone a hippocrit, that's your
    interpretation...I only said you should be prepared for *equal*
    rights if that's what you want -- be prepared to be *equally* drafted
    with the men.
            
    Point:  Yes, my anger is justified because *you're* (plural) criticizing
    *me* for not wanting to label myself and verbally attacking me for
    it.  *Your* (plural) anger is frustration built-up inside of you
    because you're not getting what you want in life; and that, to me,
    is unjustified.  An old saying that some of you may remember:  Dig
    Yourself!
    
    I should have known better.  This has been a total waste of energy
    and time.  I leave your petty arguments to yourselves, since many
    of you really don't want to hear from the "other side" or hear any
    criticism.  I *certainly* don't need this.  I find more
    intelligence and open-mindednes in notesfiles that involve both 
    sexes equally and where the idea behind each note is to provide
    information and ideas, to consider the information and admit that
    you've learned from it, and, with any luck, maybe even have a little
    fun.  This isn't fun, this is a stalemate.  I am not interested in a 
    battle of wits...I read BRAIN_BOGGLERS for that!
    

    -d

    Re: .49  Wonderfully funny, especially after all the notes by several
    women saying how much they hope for a variety of opinions in this
    file.  But just who is the "you" "whose anger is frustration built-up
    inside of you because you're not getting what you want in life"?
    Great cocktail party argument technique here!--if you're criticized,
    just rack it up to the other person's personality problems.
    Yes, perhaps "many of [something] don't want to hear from the 'other
    side' or hear any criticism", but many, in this very note, have
    asked for that specifically.  
    
    At any rate, what I really mean to say is in reference to .22 and
    others, about how some don't like to hear "sisterhood".  Well, heavens,
    why should we: female-bonding is another dirty word.

    I would be grateful to everyone if there were more light and less
    heat generated per byte.  Give each other the benefit of the doubt;
    very few people say things just to be bloody-minded.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

	I don't want to be an *ist of any sort. I want to be me. Why can't I
	fail or succeed as a person instead of as a *woman*. I don't want to
	be used for others to say *women* will fail because she did and she's
	a woman. If a male manager is an idiot nobody thinks all men are
	idiot's (well maybe somebody does :*)) but if a female manager messes
	up you can almost hear the thoughts 'well, I guess women can't do
	the job here'. 

	In another topic someone mentioned what true equality is - that's
	when a WOMAN can be an (idiot,jerk,average,etc) and not have it
	mean all women must be that way just the way it is for a man. liesl

re .33

Bonnie, I did not say that I have chosen a traditional role. I 
stated who and what I am. Also, I did not say that I was
subservient to a man. Please read what I wrote...and try not
to put labels on.

re .34
Holly, I am an individual, I am myself, I am not labled.

re .35

Suzanne, I *know* that I am free to be whatever and whoever I
choose to be !!! That does not mean that I must be labeled.
I also brought up my son alone and purchased my own home. I
also hold a professional position. 

re .42

Debbi,....You're right on....

And yes, as Debbi said, we are not the same person. Just because
we share *some* of the same beliefs, you are labeling the both of
us.

It's really too bad that a sharing of experiences and
beliefs cannot be discussed without anger. Without labeling.
Without someone trying to ram their beliefs at you, and telling
you how wrong you are for being you.

I respect your beliefs....I have not critized anyone of you for
who and what you are....Respect me, respect my individualism,
respect my beliefs. 

I am happy with who I am. I am an individual. I live my life the
way the choose to live it. 

kathie
    
    

    Golly, so many neat notes on ONE subject, and I was only gone 3
    days!!!
    
    RE: "In Sisterhood" -- I must differ, with those who dislke that
    phrase.  It gives me the warm fuzzies and reminds me that despite
    the [decreasing] isolation of a female "Techie", I am NOT alone,
    that I can hear and discuss these issues without the usual disclaimer,
    "well, I'm just a radical..."  I'm not that radical, and "In
    Sisterhood" reminds me that I am not isolated, that there are those
    who represent both [all 99,999,999...] ends of the spectrum who
    share many of my concerns.  Warm Fuzzy.
    
    RE: Hate -- Hate men? Sometimes.  Hate Women? sometimes.  Hate any
    groups of people? sometimes.  Hate any individuals? sometimes. 
    But I find hatred and anger to be very tiring emotionally, so I
    try to limit it, and I personally find it not very difficult.
    
    RE: Fighting each other [women] -- I'd have to disagree with whoever
    said [paraphrasing here, and probably inaccurately] that when left
    to ourselves we digress to cat-fighting.  Yup, some individuals
    hiss.  Other individuals hiss back.  But if you come off nasty and
    angry, you should count yourself lucky to have ANYone reply without
    rancor.  Some heated debates can occur without a whole lot of rancor
    on either side.  For ex: Suzanne and I had [what was for me] a HUGE
    disagreement about successful women, fitting in with the male corporate
    world, yadyadiya.  It was a FUN debate [for me, anyway].  The issue
    seemed to be relatively important to each of us, it took a long
    exchange before we got out what each of us wanted to say, lots of
    others [mostly XXs] pitched in supporting one or the other viewpoint,
    adding to what we had left unsaid [or not thought of], we essentially
    called each other's opinion stupid, and each other names [sort of,
    more like "anyone who does -------- is a loser" or "a sell-out"],
    and there was very little hissing and nastiness.  I know her arguments
    interested and intrigued me, and am pretty sure I learned something
    from the exchange [was it good for you, too, Suzanne :)].  That
    is a form of discussion that is productive, and it happens a lot.
    Cat-fighting is stupid and preventable, but only if BOTH sides
    recognizes that the other side/opinion is probably a nice person
    who disagrees with you and maybe both of you have something to learn.
    
    RE: "Feminists" vs "Conservative Liberals" --- *some* feminists
    feel that any woman who likes any man is "selling out"; *some*
    conservative liberals feel that any woman who is mad at any man
    for his sexist behaviour wishes she were a man.  Well, it's all
    doo-doo.  There are very faint shades of truth in both extremes,
    but I'd rate that as 100000000 parts assorted bigotry/misunderstanding
    to .000000001 part truth.
    
    MANTIS::PARE - I keep forgetting your first name, sorry - pretty
    note back there.
    
    In <insert warm fuzzy phrase here>--
    
    Lee

    
    
    Sometimes I think that I am reading a different notes conference
    then some of the respondees to this note.
    
    I love being included "In Sisterhood" it is better than a warm
    and fuzzy hug from an intimate friend.  Here I am included as
    a stranger without having to go through stages. Here I just am
    who ever I happen to be and I am welcomed "In Sisterhood."
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	From the Goddess in Sisterhood
    

	Well, I don't really care for "in Sisterhood".  I don't like being
	called "Aunt Karen" by children of my friends either.  I guess I
	reserve certain relationships to people who really are related to
	me.  But if you want to say "In Sisterhood", I know what you mean by it,
	so I don't take offense or try to correct you.

	In friendship, ...Karen

    The phrase "in sisterhood" is pleasant enough to me, but mostly
    because it brings to mind the way some good friends of mine signed
    notes to their fraternity brothers - YITB.  I asked what it meant...and
    was told it means "yours in the bond".  What bonds us together is
    our similarities, and despite whatever differences we have it will
    be the basic substance, the things we all share, that will bring
    us back together.  Yes, sisterhood.
    
    -Jody
    

    I read an article awhile ago in Omni or Discover or Scientific American
    (can't remember which one) which talked about the some research
    our scientists were doing (with I believe mitochondria) which traced
    all of humanity back to one (or one of a very few) woman who originated
    the entire human race.  We truly are sisters...whether we choose
    to acknowledge it or not. 
                   
    In Sisterhood_;-)_Mary

    Mary,
    
    I read the information in Science News. The researchers were studying
    the DNA that is found in mitochondria. (DNA is the same material
    that makes up our chromosomes for those unfamiliar with the subject.)
    Mitochondria reproduce independantly of the cell's nucleus and the
    current theory is that they were once free living bacteria that
    have become permanent members of our cells. We get all our mitochondria
    from our mothers in the egg. The sperm cell contributes only a nucleus.
    Scientists that studied the mitochondrial DNA were able to determine
    that all the DNA found in the mitochondria from people all over
    the world is very similar. Extrapolating backwards they determined
    that it would have origninated in one woman on the order of 8 to
    10,000 years ago. This has made me wonder if the Garden of Eden
    type myths found in so many cultures may be a dim rememberance of
    some very real event.
    
    Bonnie 
    

    reply .61:
    
    Are you sure about that 8-10,000 year figure?
    I seem to remember something more on the order of a million or so.
    (on the same order as the evolution of Homo Sapiens)
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    The same order as the evolution of Homo Sapiens sounds about right,
    .... the point though is that we (all of humanity, male and female) are
    the children of a single mother and (at the risk of sounding religious/
    mystical) are all brothers and sisters.  We are in this together,...
    siblings in the family of mankind.  We can work out our differences
    and overcome any obstacles we are confronted with in this life together.
                                                                  

    No it was definitely a much shorter time period ....in fact my
    8-10,000 years guess may be too high.....we are talking about
    something quite 'recent' at least as far as the history of the
    human race is concerned.
    Bonnie

    Yes, Bonnie is right about what the article said.  (Whether their
    research is any good is another question entirely.)  
    
    It was very explicit and included quotes of the scientists discussing
    how surprised they were at how recently people shared a common
    ancestor.  They had expected considerable differences in the
    michtochondria, indicating long mutation, but those differences were
    much less than expected.
    
    The scientists did make the point (quite strongly) that nothing about
    their research indicated that this woman was either the first human
    being or the only one around.  All it proves is that everybody living
    today is related to everybody else.  This means men as well as women,
    so neither sisterhood nor brotherhood quite covers it.
    
    The reason that the common ancestor has to be female, by the way, is
    that unlike the regular genetic material, mitochondria (never could
    spell that word) are inherited only from your mother. 

    >>All it proves is that everybody living today is related to everybody
    >>else.
    
    Now, lets think about that!  *EVERYBODY* LIVING TODAY IS RELATED TO
    EVERYONE ELSE.  We are (quite literally) all family.   The differences 
    that seem so insurmountable between us are no more than the squabbles,
    conflicts, and disagrements of a very, large and complex extended
    family.  Surely the love of the common mother that we all share, that
    incredible neolithic woman whoes devotion and maternal instinct
    directly contributed to the survival of all of our ancestors, male
    and female, white, black, red, yellow and whatever, still exists
    deep within the conciousness of the human race.  We owe it to her
    and to our own decendants to recognize the bonds that exist between
    us all, to tolerate our weaknesses and to work together towards
    creating a *better* world for the family of humanity to live in.
    One free from discrimination and oppression of any kind.  I don't
    know if it can every be done but we surely must try.

        It took me a couple of readings to realize why this "Eve" is
        such a strtling discovery. After all with genealogy as a hobby
        you quickly realize how related we all are. Any two genealogists
        who can trace back a few hundred years will find that they share
        a common ancestor, assuming that they're from the same part of
        the world.
        
        What is unique about this woman is that for every single one of
        us she is our mother's mother's mother's ... mother. The female
        line for everyone goes back to her. Given that she was 8000 to
        10,000 years ago, it is extremely likely that she and her
        contemporaries would show up somewhere in your family tree
        (assuming that they had a number of kids). But that she is in
        the same place on everyone's family tree is much more special.
        
        JimB. 

    To me the significant thing was not that we are related to everyone
    else eventually (i.e. all humans are ultimately derived from some
    one common ancestor a couple of million years ago , just as we are 
    all, all living things derived from some original cell billions of 
    years ago) but that we are so RECENTLY all related. 10,000 years ago 
    amounts to .00025% (if I have done my math right) of the age of
    the world (about 4 billion years). 

    (.67 snuck in while I was writing :-) )

    
Actually, its not necessary to suppose that homo sap began only 8-10K
    years ago. Maybe there was just a huge change (by viral infection?)
    in the mitochondrial DNA of existing human stock. Maybe a bunch
    of more infectious "premitochondrial" bacteria came along?
    
    Nevertheless, yeah--we really are just one people.
    
    Ed E.

  Mitochondrial infection makes a lot more sense to me than a common
  ancestor (ancestress?) 8-10K years ago.  There were humans on six or
  seven continents by that time, weren't there?  In order for a woman to
  contribute any kind of genetic material to the entire human race, she
  would have to have been very fast and very loose, no? 

  JP

    I suggest you guys go out and do your homework before discounting
    this theory and calling our mother "fast and loose"_;-)  From what
    I've read, the theory is legitimate.  Perhaps she was the only
    surviving crew member of a distressed space ship.... and she got
    lonely... and forever spilled into the gene pool the characteristics 
    we call "us", ensuring our survival and evolutionary ascent_:-) 
    	(.....well I can dream can't I_;-)

    The original bacteria/mitochondrial change over was on the order
    of 3 or more *billion* years ago. All mitochondira from any source
    (mammal, bird, fish, mollusc etc. etc.) still have some similar 
    chemicals and unique enzyme reactions that are are also found in
    bacteria, but not in the rest of the cell that the mitochondria
    inhabit. There has not been any change in the basic structure of
    mitochondria.

    What they found about human mitochondria relates to the sequence
    of the nucleic acids in the DNA chain in the mitochondria. The chains
    of nucleic acids have a high degree of similarity in the mitchondria
    found in individuals from all over the globe. This similarity is
    much greater than the similarity in nucleic acids in the chromosomes
    of people in the same gene pool. (The order in which the nucleic
    acids occur is the coded message that is commonly called our genes.)
    
    By determining the frequency of random mutation (by U.V. light,
    environmental chemicals) scienctists can compute how long it would
    have taken for the existing differences to have occured - which
    is where the 8 -10,000 year figure comes from.

    Bonnie

    The problem is with the 8 - 10 thousand years thing.  I'm sure the
    various races have been around longer than that.
    
    Of course, it is possible that they are only half of race x, and
    the other half is whatever race the common mother was.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    
    re.72: Peace! I'm not slandering our common ancestress--8-10K years
    is long enough for ANYONE to have a lot of offspring, no matter
    what their habits are (except total celibacy) [:-)]
    
    re .73 It seems like since there's no coupling between the
    mitochondrial DNA and the nucleate DNA that introducing a 
    different kind of mitochondria wouldn't change the nucleate
    DNA. (But It's Friday afternoon--it'll probably seem different on
    Monday...)
    
    re .74 But that would require blending mitochondrial DNAs from two
    individuals. I don't know of any mechanism for that.
    
    BTW, none of this discredits the common mother theory; more like
    gives possible guesses how it happened.
    
    (Used to live on a goat farm myself...)
    
    E.

    re .75:
    
    I don't believe you understood me - I'm saying that common mother
    was of a particular race, and some of her offspring had fathers
    of different races (no blending between two individuals), to produce
    the various races of humans we have today.
    
    Elizabeth
    

        I don't find it hard to believe that we all have one common
    ancestor.  I do find it hard to believe that she existed only
    8 to 10 thousand years ago.
    
        According to my meager at work history reference (The World
    Almanac)  "Homo erectus, our nearest ancestor, appeared in Africa
    perhaps 1.75 million years ago and began spreading into Europe and
    Asia soon after" and "The spread of mankind into the remaining
    habitable continents probably took place during the last ice age
    up to 100,000 years ago."
    
        I find it difficult to believe that the female descendants of
    one individual spread throughout the world and contacted every
    pocket of civilization in the last 8 to 10 thousand years.

    re .78 Mike and others - I will also agree that the 8 to 10 thousand
    year ago figure seems much too short to me as well (after all in
    the current India exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science they show
    evidence of higher civilization in India nearly 23,000 years ago
    - which is way beyond the figures from the mitochondiral research.)
    So it is entirely possible that the mutation rate was off, or....
    the time line was off, but the research itself is fascinating....
    and I am looking forward to learning more and remeber my training
    is nearly 20 years old, and my current knowledge is from Scientific
    American or Science News - I am ok on the basics but have no
    special knowlege of what is current.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .75
    I've always had a weakness for goat farmers_:-)
    re: .76
    That sounds logical to me.  I've often wondered where the "quantum
    evolutionary leaps" came from.
    re: .78
    Welcome aboard .....(about time you spoke up)_:-)
    
    I imagine everyone is quite pleased that the Great Mother has turned
    out to be a real person....I know I am.

    re: several previous --
    
    The question of how this one woman's offspring got to all parts
    of the world is relevant, but most of the criticism based on evolution
    taking much longer than 10,000 years are not -- evolution is not
    at issue here.  There is *no indication whatsoever* that this common
    ancestor was not a fully developed Homo sapiens sapiens or that
    she was the only person on earth.  
    
    Mitochondrial DNA does mutate at a much more even rate than "regular"
    DNA. That's why it was chosen for this particular study. (In part
    because of the criticisms cited in .78)
    
    The article I have is long; I'll try to type in some excerpts tonight.
    
    --bonnie
    
    

    How about a new topic with a more applicable title...
    
    After all, we have no idea whether or not this "Eve" would have
    called herself a feminist, nor has anyone even mentioned the idea
    :-) :-) :-)

    The whole of the digression on "eve" turned out to be too long
    to move conveniently. I have started a new note for those who
    wish to continue the discussion at 392. To pick up on the
    original note about feminism please start at note 360.59
    
    Bonnie J

    
    re: one mother....
    
    actually, what happened was....
    
    there was this disease....
    floating in space...
    and by chance it got caught in earths gravitational pull and floated
    down to the surface.	At the time there were well over a million
    humans roaming the planet.
    The disease killed all but a handfull of them.
    The handfull was scattered throughout the planet and had no way
    to contact each other.
    one of the handfull was pregnant......
    she had twins...a boy and a girl.....
    
    the rest...is history.
    
    

    good start Rik, but how did that keep

ll the different races
    from dying out completely?

    I'm reading a book called _The_Sceptical_Feminist_ by Janet Radcliffe
    Richards.  It is an attempt to sift through all that is attributed
    to "Feminism" in order to define it more clearly and prepare arguments
    in defense of that definition.  One recurring theme of the book
    is that the proper aim of feminism should not be to pursue just
    anything and everything that is to the benefit of women, regardless 
    of what is right or wrong, fair or unfair, but to work toward establishing 
    a society in which there is "sexual justice."                   
                                                                  
    JRR's definition of feminism would include the largest number of
    people, ie everyone who feels that injustice to women exists and 
    something must be done about it.  She feels, for example, that
    feminists need not be unadorned puritains.  Naturally if a particular
    woman prefers to forgo makeup, traditional 'feminine' clothing,
    etc that is her perfect right, but that is a 
                                                 
    "...personal inclination ... it cannot be seen as a reasonable feminist 
    policy.  The fact that some feminists seem to confuse feminism and
    puritanism, and convey that it is part of the women's movement to
    see sex and sensual pleasing as a frivolous waste of time, is probably
    one of the main things which puts people off feminism.  Anyone who
    wants a puritanical movement should call it that, and not cause
    trouble for feminism by trying to suggest the two are the same."
                                                 
    (Quoted without permission.)              
                                              
    I thought this might be relevant to those who feel they have had
    to choose between being feminine and feminist.  Perhaps it is
    an unnecessary distinction.               
                                              
    HMM                                       
    
    Bibliography
    
    _The_Sceptical_Feminist, J.Radcliffe Richards, Penguin Books Ltd,
    Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England.
                                                                  

    
    
    Strange, I don't know any puritanical feminists but then maybe
    I don't know any feminists. :^)                
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	The Goddess is a feminist, I think....