Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Reading too much into the actual NUMERIC percentages in the report
    is probably misleading, owing to the way in which the data was
    gathered: (if I read the article correctly) questionaires were
    mailed out, and only that minority which were returned contributed
    to the study. I think it's likely that a higher percentage of
    dissatisfied individuals would feel the incentive to return the
    questionaire than those not dissatisfied. I also haven't read the
    article in TIME thoroughly enough to note if it said how the
    addressees were selected (e.g. mostly city-dwellers versus cultural
    cross-section, etc.). 
    
    This caveat aside, there's clearly a lot to be learned from the
    NATURE of the responses, as can be seen from some of the quotations
    and the citations in .0. Were the problems cited not fairly
    consistent in society, those who returned the questionaires would
    probably have cited a more random menu of complaints, rather
    than the higher percentages of the same ones.

    can we please get back to the .0 topic
    
    thanxs
    

    In case you are all wondering where .2 thru .5 went, they were deleted
    by susanne and I.  I made some comments that were totally uncalled
    for, they were made in the heat of the moment.  After a discussion
    with one of the mods and susanne, I realized it.... forgive me.
    I am only human.  To err is human... to forgive is a bigger human!
                                              a hothead sometimes

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

				Ellen Goodman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Douglas

    Thank you .8 for typing that in, this 2 finger typist would never
    have attempted it. :-)
    
    I saw the report they had on 20/20 (or one of those shows) on this
    and thought I *really* had nothing in common with the rest of the
    women in the USA.  With those high percentages of dissatisfaction
    with men, you'd think we'd all be asexual by now.  I felt downright
    guilty for having had so many good relationships!!
    
    Now that I find out only 4.5% of the surveys were returned I'm a
    bit annoyed.  The Hite report should not have quoted these high
    percentages without stressing the fact that this was only a small
    slice of America.  It seems like some professionalism was lost.
    Though many of the points made might well be true, the validity
    of the entire report now seems questionable.
    
    Sharon

    Thanks for the replys.  I was beginning to think that there were
    two groups of women in the world - the one's I know (who do not appear
    to feel totaly exasperated with the men in their lives) and the majority
    as represented by the New Hite report.                 

Given the assumption that *all* of the women who returned answers had been
totally abused by men (an unwarrented worst case assumption), then I am cheered
that only 4.5% of the women returned answers.  That indicates to me that
theres a good chance that 95.5% of the women were basically happy with men,
or that they had better things to do then answer the survey.

If I may be brutal...

I don't give much credence to *any* of the Hite reports. Hite lost my interest
when I heard that she had had an interview in some 'porn' magazine, publicizing
one of her reports, complete with supposedly sexy pictures of Hite with a tampon
string hanging out of her. 

Not my idea of class.

Jim.

    re .11 after the line feed
    
    eeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.  ick.   yuck.
    
    

    	Hmmmm.....  It'll be interesting to see exactly how low some
    	folks will sink to discredit Shere Hite (thinking that one
    	can "prove" the opposite of her message by saying nasty things
    	about the author herself.)
    
    	Unreal.
       
    							Suzanne....
    

    you want proof?
    
    here's proof:
    another survey with same questions:
    
    women who are unhappy and financially dependent:  hite 87%   
                                                      new  22%
    
    financial independence is accepted in relationship: hite 13%
                                                        new  83%
                      
    doesn't listen:                                hite 77%  new 46%
    interrupts:                                         59%      44%
    seems not to really hear:                           84%      60%
    rarely tries to draw me out:                        76%      44%
    uses special phrases that are condescending:        92%      54%
    is not aware of insults/hurts he causes:            42%      34%
    I still have to fight for respect:                  78%      40%
    he acts superior:                                   47%      52%*
    we have an equal relationship:                      19%      58%
    
    hows that for proof?
    note the star..... thats the only one that she was "nicer" about            
                                                                    
    this sort of thing DOES make you wonder about creditability, doesn't
    it?
    

    sorry, i ment credibility.

RE: .13

What if it's true?  What does that tell you about Shere Hite, and anything she
may 'produce'? 

Jim.

    	RE:  .14
 
    	Proof?  The only way you could "prove" that Hite's subjective
    	analysis of her findings is "FALSE" is if you could show that
    	she lied about what the surveys said.
    
    
    	RE:  .16
    
    	Jim, you can say all the cheap, nasty things you want about
    	Shere Hite and it won't change the fact that there is a message
    	in what she says.  The message may not be valid for every man and 
    	woman in this country (I never said that it was) but for *SOME*
    	people, communication between men and women is a serious problem
    	and telling nasty stories about Shere Hite can't change that.
    
    							    Suzanne...

    	
    	RE:  Jim Baranski
    
    	Considering the fact that there is NO huge discussion going
    	on here about this report (no one is going to any great lengths
    	to say that it is entirely true), I think you showed extremely
    	poor taste to include an allegation that the author appeared
    	in offensive porn photos.
    	
    	It was nasty and totally unnecessary.
        
    							Suzanne...

    Re.11 Jim, the argument 'ad hominem' proves nothing, save that you
    are incapable of logical argument. Would you care to give mathematical
    proof invalidating the author's sampling methods and the relevance
    of the statistics she uses ? 

    re .11  furthermore, did *you* see the alleged magazine article,
    or can you give us title and publication date, or are we to take
    hearsay as valid evidence ?

    re .14
    Can you give the source of your survey and how many people answered
    it?

    re .14, .21
    
    Yes, I'd also like to know the name and author of this "new" study.
    
    	-Ellen

    I think that the study recieved a little 'undue' attention, simply
    due to the fact that it was a "Hite" report.  I am sure that those
    numbers are bound to be skewed (as she knew they would be) due to
    the sampling method used.
    
    Let's face it - there has to be a reason to spend the time to fill
    out such a lengthy survey and return it.  As the old saying goes
    "if it ain't broke - don't fix it".  The satisfied (or apathetic)
    women probably didn't take the time to fill out the survey.  Now,
    if she had used a more statistically valid method, such as the 
    "marketing survey" type of method, I might be more inclined to
    beleive her.
    
    As for the "tasty" tampon comment, it was in poor taste to mention
    that.  (What was she doing? Advertising after meal flossing?)  :-)
    
    Dave
    

    Congratulations, Dave, you've hit a new "low"
    
    <observe absence of smiley face>
    
    Dawn
    

    re: .23
    
    "The satisfied (or apathetic) women probably didn't take the
    time to fill out the survey."
    
    Can't buy that one; clearly a lot of women didn't respond, but,
    at least from a straight empirical approach, we can make no
    assumptions about why.
    
    Steve
    

    re: .25
    
    Since it is impossible to determine why most women did not fill
    out the survey, we can only guess why.  Maybe this analogy will
    help:
    
    General Motors sends out a 100+ question survey to one million
    people who bought GM cars in the past 2 years.  Most people are
    probably somewhat satisfied with their car.  They may not like
    some things about it, but they can live with it.  These type
    of people are more likely to toss the survey into the circular 
    file.  (At least according to a behavioral science course I took..)
    
    Those with *strong emotions* toward their car will take the time
    to fill out the survey.  Since people assume that their car will
    be good, the strongest emotions occur when the car is a 'lemon'.
    
    The same is true with the Hite report.  Most women have been raised
    to expect a good husband/lover.  When they are disappointed, they
    are much more likely to complain about it.

    
    Dave
    

    re: .26
    
    I think that there are a couple of assumptions working here that
    may be worth looking at.  I guess I'm mostly wondering if it's
    entirely accurate to conclude that the reasons many car owners
    didn't return their surveys are the same reasons why women didn't
    return the Hite surveys.  For example, is it possible that many
    didn't return the surveys because they felt uncomfortable "talking"
    about them in "public"?  Another thought: how precise is behavioral
    science"?  Has it incorporated male-oriented thinking into its
    framwork?
    
    I guess all I'm saying is that while I completely agree that the
    low percentage of returns tends to statistically invalidate
    generalized conclusions, I'm feeling a little uncomfortable 
    about drawing conclusions about why the response rate was so 
    low.  Then too, behavioral science is a relatively new and
    imprecise "science" (vs. mathematics, f'rinstance) and so the
    ground feels double shakey.
    
    No matter what, I sure wish some people would do a whole lot
    more research in this area.
    
    Steve
    

    Frankly, I think it is unfortunate that this discussion seems to
    be centered around the validity rather than the content of the
    report.

    Even if the results are skewed and there are not really a hundred
    million women in the U.S. who are terribly dissatisfied with their
    relationships but only fifty million, or just to make sure that
    I get everyone's attention, let us say that the opinions represented
    in the survey represent only one million women (a conservative
    interpretation of the statistics no matter how you look at it) it is
    STILL a problem of epidemic proportions.

    As far as Hite's Hustler experience is concerned I am unfortunately
    not able to locate that particular issue in my vast library of 
    pornographic literature so I will have to trust the description 
    given to be accurate in its insinuation that the picture is 
    disgusting.  I would not be surprised if she were refused the title
    of Miss America and I would probably not want her to baby-sit 
    my children if I had any.  However,  I am unable to see the
    connection that this has with her ability to perform a survey
    or the reliability of such a survey.

    To me it appears that this discussion to be running along the implied 
    lines of:
       survey unreliable -> women not dissatisfied -> men good
       survey reliable -> women dissatisfied -> men bad
    This is an unfortunate way to approach the subject since it inevitably
    involves people's pride and it is impossible to proceed to the more
    constructive aspects involving how to alleviate the problem.

    Rather than, directly or indirectly, trying to assign blame for
    the lack of communication in relationships, I would like to see
    a few questions addressed.  Are these complaints always from women
    against men?  How should women deal with the problems?  Is Hite's
    suggestion that women will begin leaving their SOs realistic?
    How can men tell if they are guilty of the problems listed without
    being explicitely told?  Are the offenders aware that they are
    guilty? Is it intentional?

    In the end, since these issues can really only be solved on an
    individual level it seems to me to be more critical to be able to
    recognize whether or not one or someone one knows has a problem
    and how to deal with it then it is how many other people are guilty
    of the same.

    So much for my opinion.

    John

    A note on this topic has started up in soapbox Bethe::soapbox,
    note 622.

    <--(.29)
    
    Well said, John!
    						=maggie

    I admit I suspect the validity of the conclusions reached due to
    the small sample size (I work with tons of statisticians at my job,
    both men and women, and this can be a very real problem).
    
    I can only say that my own personal experience in relationships
    does not follow the patterns Shere Hite believes she sees.  I do
    not feel any of the dissatisfactions that she reports.  I feel,
    from the responses that she received, that there are a lot of women
    who _do_ have those dissatisfactions, and their experiences should
    not be discounted _even if the survey's statistical methodology
    is flawed._
    
    This brings me to the sore point I have with statistics and surveys
    in general.  Too many people I know (myself included) have been
    trained that their own personal experiences are not valid reason
    to act unless X% of the population is having the same experience.
    The "See, since I'm not alone in this experience, therefore it's
    valid!" school of thought.  Do we really want to live our lives
    this way?  Do we really have to?  If you're (generic you) having
    problems in your relationship, and want to make it better, are 
    you supposed to put up with your misery if some study says that
    everyone else is having your experience but is wildly happy about
    it?  Or if your relationship is great, and some study is saying
    that a just about everyone else is miserable, are you then supposed
    to say "Oh, right, yes, I'm just wretched too."?  Get serious!
    
    When one feels, (or is told) that one must ignore their own wisdom
    or reality because "it isn't statistically significant"--that gets
    very dangerous.  The same argument in reverse is, "Everybody does
    it/feels it/sees it this way."  You can lose your life believing
    things like that; you can certainly lose control of your life.
    
    Personal experience here:  the IUD, as a birth control device, has
    a very low failure rate.  Unfortunately I was one of the women for
    whom it did not work.  When the pregnancy that resulted began to
    miscarry, I was hurried in for surgery to prevent possibility of
    a septic abortion.  While I was stewing the required amount of time
    before the old tests could be performed (this was 1974) my husband
    and friends were trying to reassure me with statistics:  "You can't
    possibly be pregnant; the failure rate on IUD's is only X%; it's
    something else that's caused you to miss your period."  And what
    about the bloating, the afternoon fatigue spells, the morning nausea,
    the swollen breasts?  I had missed periods due to stress before,
    and I _knew_ this was different; it felt nothing like stress-related
    amennorhea had felt.  To hell with statistics, I thought, _I'm
    pregnant_, and the doctor confirmed it.  What I wanted to say to
    all the well-meaning people after it was all over was, "Don't ever
    quote statistics at me again, listen to _me_, to what's _actually
    happening_ to me!"
    
    How many of you out there have actually wanted to say that, instead
    of having to justify your life's experiences with study results,
    arguing over the content and validity of studies because you feel
    you need them to validate your own personal experience?  My own
    feeling is that no one should feel forced into that mode; your
    experience is valid, and don't let anyone tell you it's not valid
    just because a study says it isn't.  There have been lots and lots
    of studies done (some well, some very poorly) on just about every
    subject, and what tends to happen in the heat of statistical arguments
    is people pulling studies right and left out of their statistical
    ammo box to prove their points.  "My study can beat up your study".
    Maybe we should give ourselves a break from the study wars?
    
    Marcia

    re: .29 & .32:  well said!
    
    I was not intending in previous replies (e.g. .28) to focus soley
    on the validity question; as Marcia points out, an individual's
    experiences are always valid for that individual.  My thoughts
    were 1) that, because of the numbers, *widely generalized* 
    conclusions are suspect, and 2) speculation as to why there
    were so few returns is risky at best.  I was mostly responding
    to one noter's suggestion that the reason for the non-returns
    was, essentially, that those who didn't respond were in some
    manner content.  To tell the truth, I have a "gut feeling" that
    the high percentage of non-returns indicates some kind of problem.
    
    BTW - isn't it wonderful that I can have a tough, macho kind of
    thing like a "gut feeling"?  I mean what self-respecting stud
    wants to have one of those silly, irrational "intuitions"?
    
    On a more serious tack, I'd like to ask if folks feel that John's
    suggestion (.29) that there is an implication that, if the survey
    is "invalid", women are not o.k. and men are o.k. (and vice-versa
    for a valid survey).  
    
    About the only conclusion I could draw is that, if the survey is 
    statistically flawed, then generalized conclusions are (again 
    statistically) invalid.  As Marcia indicates, statistical validity
    doesn't enter into the validity of individual experience.
    
    Also, I'm increasingly curious what the results would be if the
    women in this conference were to respond to the questions (anon-
    ymously, of course).  I admit freely that it wouldn't constitute
    a valid statistical sample, but I'm curious nonetheless.
    
    I also agree with John about the Hustler business; I don't see
    a logical connection between posing for a picture and being able
    to perform a survey or any other unrelated task.  I think that
    emotionally there is a tendency to feel that if someone does
    something considered foolish, all her/his actions are somewhat
    suspect.  F'rinstance, one might emotionally suspect that a
    Hollywood grade-B actor is totally unqualified to, say, run a
    country.  Uh, maybe that's not such a good example. . .but
    you get the idea.
    
    Steve
    

RE: .17

"The message may not be valid for every man and woman in this country (I never
said that it was) but for *SOME* people, communication between men and women is
a serious problem"

No doubt... 4.5% I would guess.  I already knew that, I didn't need Shere Hite
to tell me that. 

"and telling nasty stories about Shere Hite can't change that."

I didn't expect that it would, I merely said I don't give much credit to
her 'reports'.

RE: .18

"I think you showed extremely poor taste to include an allegation that the
author appeared in offensive porn photos. ... It was nasty and totally
unnecessary."

Poor taste?  Yes, I have to admit that I must have had poor taste to repeat
that, at least it leaves a bad taste in *my* mouth.  "allegetion"?  It's easily
verified if you'd like.

Unnecessary?  Well, to think that the survey made the cover of Time, makes me
think that it is necessary it say something so that people don't take this
'report' as gospel, or try shoving it down my throat. 

RE: .19

Ad Hominem?  I don't consider facts Ad Hominem.  I was saying why *I* don't but
much credence in Shere Hite.

I can't say that I've read this report, although I have read other reports
by her.  I'm not impressed enough to argue about it.  (see above for reasons)

RE: .20

If you like, I will find out.  I wonder if pornography is in the 'Index of
Periodicals'? :-)

RE: .29

Well, we could get into the real numbers, if someone types them, I'll give them
an eye, but I don't really care that much about the 'report'. 

1 million?  1 million in 1 billion is not an "epidemic".  Anybody got some
*real* numbers?

"I am unable to see the connection that this has with her ability to perform a
survey or the reliability of such a survey."

FWIW, (not much), I believe that the disgusting picture in Hustler, which she
thought was sexy, was related to a 'report' on what men found sexy. (Can you
verify that .27?)

Yes, I think that that is the way to improve things.  I don't think arguing
about the 'report' will help. 

RE: .32

Hear Here!

RE: .33

I think the 'report' is junk.  Men are ok, Women are ok; Some people have
problems; Some people have other people's problems. 

Jim.

    RE:.33
    
    Oh, Steve, you big, strong, masterful guy, you! <Bat, bat, bat>
    <eyelashes, not animals>
    
    I can't tell you how much more confident in you I am, knowing that
    you're a take-charge guy who goes by "gut-feelings" and not
    "intuition". 
    
    :-) 
    
    Dawn-who's-still-chuckling
    

    in re Sher Hite posing for Hustler. I recall from an interview
    with her that she became radicalized *after* that period and
    *because* of that period of her life.

    if anyone wants to take the time and inclination (which I don't
    have, but I'd be glad to participate), they could set up a questionnaire
    similar to the one in the Hite report, for both males and females,
    with genderless notations which allow one to relate what goes on/how
    they feel about various things having to do with their significant
    others.  
    
    We could all copy it out, respond to someone who promised (cross
    your heart and hope to die) to keep the answers anonymous (like
    a moderator, as they are used to these things), and they could,
    at their leisure, tabulate their results.  Perhaps a simple scale
    of "very satisfied" to "very unsatisfied" could do in lieu of essay
    questions.
    
    Just a suggestion - but since we are discussing this amongst ourselves,
    and I'm not sure if anyone in this notesfile actually partook in
    the survey, perhaps we can arrive at a satisfactory compilation
    of how we feel.
    
    just a suggestion
    
    -Jody
    
    could tabulate the results

RE: .36

I had thought of the possibility of something like that happening to SH
inbetween her reports, but I'd have to know a lot more to overcome me
'postjudice' of SH.

Jim. 

    re .38
    
    I dunno Jim, to me the apparent fact that she did go that route
    for a while and got turned off by it makes her stance more
    creditable...
    
    (tho I violently object to her methodology) I mean to use another
    example doesn't the Christian church often use the examples of
    noted sinners (like say Chs Colson) as good examples because of
    their change in heart?
    
    Bonnie

    	RE:  .34
    
    	> ...makes me think that it is necessary to say something so
    	> that people don't take this 'report' as gospel, or try
    	> shoving it down my throat.
    
    	Jim, perhaps you should have WAITED until such time as someone
    	in this conference actually *DID* appear to take this report
    	as gospel or tried shoving it down your throat.  Like I said
    	before, your remarks were nasty and unnecessary.
    
    	For what it's worth, I don't take the report as gospel, but
    	I certainly give Shere Hite more credibility than I give to
    	*YOUR* recent statements on this issue.  Just my personal
    	opinion, to which I am entitled.

    							Suzanne...

    Last night on Ch. 5, Chronicle reviewed this latest Hite report.
    In addition to pointing out the obvious flaws in the survey (only
    4.x% responded, unhappy women were more likely to respond, etc)
    they mentioned that the surveys had only been mailed to women who
    were registered as members in women's/feminist groups and associations,
    thereby making the responding 4.x% even less "random" and
    representative of the general female population.
    
    I didn't remember anyone mentioning this before, and thought it
    was interesting....
    
    Lynne
    

    Jody (in .37) suggested that it might be worthwhile to do a similar
    survey of our membership, in part to see how we compare to the Hite
    respondents and in part for the raw informational value.  
    
    It seems a reasonable idea to me, especially if we expand it to include
    (the Hite survey didn't, did it?) both women and men as both
    respondents and SOs ad libitum.  If others are also interested, I would
    ask that we draw up a list of topics (perhaps supersetting the Hite
    topics?) from which a survey can be constructed.  My experimental-design
    skills are fairly rusty, but I think I can probably hack something
    reasonable to both use and tally. 
    
    And of course I'll be glad to act as a confidential collector and
    tallier...unless the survey design turns out disgustingly complex :').
    
    						=maggie 

RE: .40

"I certainly give Shere Hite more credibility than I give to *YOUR* recent
statements on this issue."

Which issue?  That SH had the poor taste to appear in Hustler?  That's
documented.  That 95% of women are dissatisfied?  That's your perogative; I
don't make any claims to omniscience and infallability, and I certainly haven't
taken the trouble to do any survey or reports, however biased.

Jim. 

    	RE:  .43
    
    	Where did I say that I truly believe that 95% of women are
    	dissatisfied?  I'm not convinced of that (and see no survey
    	that can tell me that to any certain degree.)  I merely said
    	that I think there is some truth to the idea that there are
    	serious communication problems between some women and some
    	men (and I believe that.)  I never committed myself to how
    	widespread the problem is (mainly because I have no way of
    	knowing that.)
    
    	You have tried to tell us that the fact that only 4.5% of
    	the women returned the surveys must indicate that the REST
    	of the women were too HAPPY with their relationships to
    	return the forms.  I don't see how you can possibly make an
    	assumption like that.
    
    	I trust Hite's findings more than your guesses because she
    	used the actual responses of real people (and didn't just 
    	make grand assumptions about the people who didn't respond,
    	as you did.)
    
    	FWIW, I don't believe in the accuracy of surveys (and I don't
    	need surveys to justify my own feelings.)  I just see some truth
    	in what she says (just the "lack of communication" part without
    	making any decisions as to blame.)
    
    	I don't think I have a radical view on the subject (unless you
    	think that anyone who doesn't say "Oh, no, we're all wonderfully
    	happy" is a radical.)
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    	RE:  .42
    
    	If this is up to a vote, I vote that we don't conduct a survey
    	like Hite's.  
    
    	Number one, we're too small of a sample to prove anything and
    	secondly, we'd be once again letting men set the agenda for
    	us in this conference.  If we were all so anxious to say whether
    	or not we agreed with Shere Hite, we'd have already done so.
    	Instead, the note died until Jim Baranski made his attack on
    	Shere Hite's past to revive it.
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    	RE:  .45
    
    >	If this is up to a vote, I vote that we don't conduct a survey
    >	like Hite's.  
    
        Why ? are you worried that the results might be that dramalicly
        different from the Hite report that it would have a tendency
        to discredit it. 
    
    >	Number one, we're too small of a sample to prove anything and
    >	secondly, we'd be once again letting men set the agenda for
    >	us in this conference.  If we were all so anxious to say whether
    >	or not we agreed with Shere Hite, we'd have already done so.
    
       I would have a tendency to disagree with you about this ( so
       what else is new right ? :-) )  First I don't see how that a 
       suggestion from a man equates with "men setting the agenda".
       if that were the case then why is it accecptable and encouraged
       that a man open a base note on a viable subject.
    
       Second I am willing to bet there are a high number of women out
       there, that, for what ever reason, have an opinion on this, but
       haven't gotten involved in a reply since its been such a high
       charged subject. A good survey could be conducted by posting
       the survey questions. A person could then extract it, answer
       it and mail the completed form back to one neutral person, who
       could compile the results, and report them back here. This would
       insure the privacy of those that responded.
    
       Third , I believe the couple hundred + unregestered read onlys
       do in fact make for a good number to pose such a survey to.
    
                                      Bob B   
    

    I also think that it would be a good idea to run our own survey,
    and I'll even help Maggie with it as a good comoderator should :-)

    	RE:  .46
    
    	How interesting, Bob!!!  You totally cut down a report that
    	has 4,500 women responding and yet think that a survey of 100-
    	200 people would be just dandy!!  :-)
    
    	Why do you question my motives (and once again, for the zillionth
    	time, try to read my mind and tell *ME* why I say things?????)
    
    	When will you get it in your head that you can't know what I'm
    	thinking when I write replies?  (You *yourself* complain about
    	women asking you to "read their minds" in relationships -- why
    	won't you quit trying to do that when someone asks you?)  :-}
    
    	No, I'm not worried about what such a survey might say (except
    	that I worry that people might be influenced by the sort of
    	backlash that we always get every time we even *HINT* that we
    	dislike the treatment we get from some men in the world.)
    
    	I just don't agree that it will prove anything (and I think
    	that whether it turns out good or bad, it will be used against
    	us.)  So what else is new, right?
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    	RE:  .46
    
    	If you really want to discredit Hite's report, you'd need to
    	get a much LARGER sample (say, at least 10,000 women) from
    	a more representative cultural cross-section (or whatever.)
    
    	If you think 100-200 people makes for a good sample, then you
    	would have to admit that 4,500 makes for an OUTSTANDING sample
    	and is to be taken as gospel (which is something that *I* have
    	steadfastly refused to do so far.)
    
    	You can't have it both ways.  Either you *DO* believe that
    	Hite's methods were sound with 4,500 (or else you must admit
    	that 100-200 is an even worse sample and will prove nothing.)
    	Which is it?
    
    							Suzanne...

    um, probably time for a couple minor corrections here:
    
    1) the suggestion for the survey came from a female (unless someone
    else suggested it before Jody did and I missed it).
    
    2) the survey results would probably be reasonably valid for our
    population, which is itself representative neither of DEC nor the rest
    of the world.  As long as we don't try to generalise from it, we should
    be safe. 
    
    3) it's not a matter for a vote unless someone wants to raise it to
    that status.  If enough members want to generate topics and take the
    trouble to respond once the survey is ready, then we'll have the
    survey.  If not, not.  (Suzanne, if you do think such a survey would be
    dangerous to us, _please_ frame the issue for a formal vote of the
    community so that we can have good guidance)
    
    						=maggie 

    	RE:  .48, 49
    
   > 	How interesting, Bob!!!  You totally cut down a report that
   > 	has 4,500 women responding and yet think that a survey of 100-
   > 	200 people would be just dandy!!  :-)
    
        Sure , why not ? I for one would really like to see if the
        women of this file and company concur with the results found
        in the Hite report. Now, just what is wrong with that ?
        Besides, this group of women, may represent a better cross 
        section of opinion, since they are not all parts of feminist 
        groups that the Hite survey was directed to, as pointed out in 
        note .41
        
    >	Why do you question my motives (and once again, for the zillionth
    >	time, try to read my mind and tell *ME* why I say things?????)
   
        Well, lets just say, that a lot of people question other peoples
        motives when they DON'T UNDERSTAND them and are trying to 
        get a clearer idea of just why, that person is thinking that
        way. But, I suppose, because its me doing the questions, its now
        not reasonable to ask questions of you is it ?  Yes, I am guilty 
        of questioning your motives BECAUSE I CAN'T read your mind and 
        I DON'T UNDERSTAND what your thinking.
    
        So, be so kind as to stop accusing me of reading your mind. I'll
        say it again, I can't read your mind ( or any other females
        for that matter ) and there is NO WAY I'am about to start attempting
        to try it. THIS is why I ask questions, or is that being too
        unreasonable ? I'am really not mad, But I do get super fustrated
        when someone accuses me of trying to second guess them. The
        words in capitals are to emphasize that I am NOT a mind reader,
        OK, ?
                                         Bob B

    	RE:  .50
    
    	Well, I only think it would be dangerous in the sense that
    	we're talking about doing it for the gratification of a person
    	who announced in another conference, "Why is it that only 4
    	or 5 women in womannotes denied being angry at all men?  That
    	must mean that the rest of them ARE angry at all men" (while
    	at the same time, refusing to believe those of who DID deny
    	being angry at all men.)
    
    	It will just perpetuate the neverending saga of "are we angry
    	at men" (and frankly, it's a no-win situation whether we answer
    	such accusations or not.)
    
    	I think that men like BB should just figure it out for themselves
    	(in their own lives) and stop taking such serious offense at
    	Hite's book.  No individual woman that *I* know is going to
    	take a happy relationship and trash it because she thinks Hite
    	has proven that we're all unhappy (because we're not.)
    
    	It's the communication issue that Hite brought up the most (and
    	that is often the most ignored.)  Who cares whose fault it is
    	-- we see serious communication problems between women and men
    	*every day in notes*!!  We don't need a survey to help us to
    	see that.
    
    	If BB wants to cut the damn survey down, let him.  I don't
    	honestly care.  But I don't believe that he is looking for some
    	kind of truth by asking us to survey ourselves.  He is looking
    	for more ammo against Hite, and I just don't feel that it is
    	necessary.  Hite's survey is not anyone's gospel (not anyone
    	that *I* know, anyway, so why spend time trying to prove or
    	disprove it statistically?)  It just seems senseless to me.
    
    	But if anyone wants to respond to a survey, great.  I won't.
    	(Now, I wonder if some of the women who didn't respond to Hite
    	were like *ME*??)  :-)
    
    							Suzanne....

    	RE:  .51
    
    	You want to know what WE think, huh?
    
    	Well, you didn't believe us the other millions of times that
    	we said we didn't feel anger at all men, so why would you
    	believe us now?
    
    	Don't you ever think about anything else (other than whether
    	or not the women in this conference like men or not?)  :-)
    	And why oh why do you think we should have to tell you
    	"one more time"?
    
    							Suzanne....

    I like the idea of a survey, too.
    
    Do we (you -- i abdicate new-note-starting for a while) start a
    note with suggestions as to topics?  Does the Hite report have a
    list of the original questions?  I would not suggest that we use
    her wording (her style is a bit too much), but it would be nice
    if we could have an idea of our collective views on the same or
    similar topics.
    
    Lee

    Bob,
    
    I can understand why Suzanne would be very upset with you.  You
    see, in her first paragraph, she gave her opinion.  In her
    second paragraph, she gave her reasons for that opinion.  In
    your response to her, you cut in between her paragraphs to ask
    "Why" she has this opinion, and to give your views on this, *just
    as if she had not written the second paragraph*.  And THEN you
    treat with her second paragraph on some other basis.
    
    I'd be ripped.  Even lousy ready comprehension doesn't fully
    explain your apparent behavior.
    
    							Ann B.

    
     RE .53
              You know ,I find it sad that you are so consumed with
          your anger and distrust for me (READ ME NOT MEN) that you
          spend so much time and energy looking for ways to punch holes
          and discredit things I have to say. That you distrust anything
          that I write or do as having an hidden agenda or meaning behind
          it. I could tell you that it doesn't, but you'd never believe
          me
    
        But that is your purgative, and this is your file (ala in that
        you are a woman and this is womannotes). I just find it totally
        amazing that you haven't seen one good thing in any of what
        I've written or had thoughts or an opinion on. That is a tragedy
        unto itself for there is good in it. Communication is a two
        way street, but a personal observation is that you have a tendency
        to close the door to it, when it doesn't suit you.
    
        Many of the things and attitudes you accuse me of, are refuted in
        the words that are there, in the things that I have written. But 
        it has made no difference, for you never saw them and probably
        never will. I shall let my words be judged for them selves, for 
        they speak for themselves.
    
                                     Bob B    
    

    
    RE .55     The reason I broke it up the way I did was to talk
               to each item as it was presented. Believe it or not
               it is a widely used method to insure clarity and
               continuity wile discussing points between the 
               two authors.
    
               Just because it does not match or agree with *YOUR*
               style of doing things, does not make it wrong.
    
                                       Bob B

    re: .56
    
    Uh, I think you mean "perogative" (tho' perhaps some do find
    the discussions purgative  :-D ).
    
    Steve

        Or even  "prerogative",  although the original word says it for
        me! :*)
        
        Andy

    re: .59
    
    Duhh!  Now you know why I don't type for a living.
    
    Steve (the ten-thumbed typist)
    

Re: Note 507.45   by  NEXUS::CONLON


    
    	>we'd be once again letting men set the agenda for
    	>us in this conference.


	Suzanne, 
			Is there some reason why a man cannot
			make a suggestion in this notesfile?
			The attitude that you project by making
			statements like this (in my opinion)
			is a *very defensive* one.  It seems
			as though you are watching for men to 
			attack you (verbally) at every turn.
			Perhaps you should *LIGHTEN UP* on this
			subject?  (Again, just my opinion...)
			I am not trying to read your mind, rather
			I am telling you how *I* view some of your
			responses.


Re:  Note 507.48  By NEXUS::CONLON


    	>I just don't agree that it will prove anything (and I think
    	>that whether it turns out good or bad, it will be used against
    	>us.)  So what else is new, right?
    

			Why must you assume the worst?  The suggestion
			was made to take a survey of the noters who
			wished to participate.  That includes you
			and me.  

RE: Note 507.49  By NEXUS::CONLON


    	>If you think 100-200 people makes for a good sample, then you
    	>would have to admit that 4,500 makes for an OUTSTANDING sample
    	>and is to be taken as gospel (which is something that *I* have
    	>steadfastly refused to do so far.)
   
		I don't believe anyone mentioned that we were
		trying to disprove anything by taking this survey.
		(Except you, of course).  I also don't believe that
		we planned to publish this survey, appear on talk shows
		pushing the survey, or pose for the cover of Time magazine.
		I believe that it's more of a 'curiosity' factor, and a 
		method of pointing out 'trends' in the DEC culture.
		(Which is what you said about the Hite Report).


Re: Note 507.52  By NEXUS::CONLON 

    	>He is looking for more ammo against Hite, and I just don't
	feel that it is	necessary.


	And you were the one complaining about 'mind reading'?
	Ha!




	I think the survey is a great idea!

Dave

    

    re: .41 
    
    Lynn - you brought up the interesting point that the surveys went
    to women who were feminist or active in womens' groups.  This does
    remove the random factor, but do you believe that feminists/womens'
    group participants are, on the whole, less satisfied with their
    relationships?  Is this because they are more demanding perhaps
    because they have a strong sense of self?  Any opinions?
    
    re: Suzanne Conlon
    in .37, I suggested the survey because I was curious.  I did not
    suggest it because some man/men changed my agenda.  I am interested
    in the information we can get from this...and perhaps the survey
    could be cross-posted to mennotes and human_relations if all goes
    well.  I am not looking for "the one and only answer", and I am
    not disputing Shere Hite's findings.  I am in no position to do
    that, and since she could stand there waving all 4,000 some-odd
    sheafs of paper at me it would do me no good.  I believe her answer
    was one answer, and ours may corroborate or overthrow her findings
    as they might relate to our community in particular.  Let's find
    out, shall we?
    
-Jody
    

    	RE:  .56
    
    	You know, Bob, I find it so sad that you read such an all-
    	consuming damnation in my words when I disagree with you
    	(especially when your text doesn't match the content of
    	my reply in the slightest, like now.)
    
    	You're second-guessing me again ("so [utterly] consumed with
    	anger" at you, huh?)  
    
    	I don't stay up nights worrying about what you think.  I just
    	think it is hypocritical of you to jump down *MY* throat in
    	another conference (and use Hite in your arguments against this
    	conference) and then tell us that although you think Hite is
    	a bunch of bunk for her measly 4,500 surveys, you are willing
    	to believe 100-200 (knowing that *OUR* results will be skewed
    	after having spent almost a YEAR fighting off the "you are
    	angry at all men" attacks in this conference.)
    
    	Think whatever you want to think (and feel sad and wag your
    	little head.)  Just don't try to feed us a line of bull and
    	think that we will all fall for it.
    
    	Telling me I am always angry at "all" of you (BB) is just as weak
    	as the one about "all men."  It's a tactic, pure and simple.
    	I've had moments where I didn't get angry with you (like yesterday,
    	if you recall.) 
    
    	End of discussion with you about this.  I don't intend to
    	respond to a survey like Hite's.  Convince someone else, and
    	give up on me.
    
    							Suzanne...
    

    	RE:  .61
    
    	Gee, I guess I got your attention, didn't I?  :-)
    
    	I'm honestly not that hard-core on this subject.  That's the
    	whole point.
    
    	Bob was the one who suggested to *ME* that I might be "afraid"
    	that our own survey would "discredit" Hite's survey.  Why should
    	I worry about such a thing, unless he has misunderstood *ME*
    	and thinks that I agree totally with everything that Hite implied
    	in her report (which I don't.)
    
    	I just think that there is some truth to what she says (in the
    	area of how badly men and women communicate) and I see it so
    	bloody often in notes that it is a sore point with me to see
    	all the FURTHUR miscommunication surrounding the one most OBVIOUS
    	part of her book (*especially* as it applies to notes.)
    
    	I'm just tired of seeing the issues of "are women angry at men"
    	and "do women blame men" brought up here more than any other
    	single thing that is ever said here.  That's what Hite's report
    	is all about according to BB in another conference.
    
    	If we have to go through this whole thing again, I'm gonna throw
    	up.
    
    							Suzanne...

    	RE:  Jody (forgot your note number)
    
    	You're going to publish the results in other conferences??
    
    	Do you plan on listing at the end of the report all the names
    	of the people who did not participate (or do we all get to
    	be branded by the sample?)
    
    	People brand us enough in other conferences (for things we
    	say and DON'T say.)  I saw our name mentioned in SOAPBOX just
    	yesterday, in fact.
    
    	Are you gonna print the results in SOAPBOX, too?  I can just
    	see it now.
    
    	Since we have real people making real replies (that are not
    	just "yes" and "no" answers, isn't that more reliable than
    	a survey?)  I'd rather see us judged on the full context
    	of what we wrote (than the numbers and someone's interpretation
    	as if it represents a sample of all of us.)

    							Just my opinion,
    							   Suzanne....

RE: survey

Such a survey would be worth while, but I think that it's sample should be
greater then WOMANNOTES.  If the sample is WOMANNOTES, it will only tell us what
the people in WOMANNOTES think, which is akin to sending it to only feminists,
as SH did.

RE: .44

"Where did I say that I truly believe that 95% of women are dissatisfied?"

You said:

"I certainly give Shere Hite more credibility than I give to *YOUR* recent
statements on this issue."

One of the 'facts' SH has given in her latest report, is that "95% of the women
in the study reported forms of "emotional and psychological harassment" from the
men they love"                                                

Do you believe this, or don't you?  I'm saying that that statistic extrapolated
to all women is way off base.

"I'm not convinced of that"

Neither am I.

"I merely said that I think there is some truth to the idea that there are
serious communication problems between some women and some men (and I believe
that.)"

I believe in that, too.  However, this is *not* what SH's report is saying.

"I never committed myself to how widespread the problem is"

Neither did I, I said,

"Given the assumption that *all* of the women who returned answers had been
totally abused by men (an unwarrented worst case assumption), then I am cheered
that only 4.5% of the women returned answers.  That indicates to me that theres
a good chance that 95.5% of the women were basically happy with men, or that
they had better things to do then answer the survey."

Please notice the qualifiers and conditionals.

"You have tried to tell us that the fact that only 4.5% of the women returned
the surveys must indicate that the REST of the women were too HAPPY with their
relationships to return the forms." 

I did not say that.  I said given some assumptions, the interpretation *I* would
make would be that *maybe* they were reasonably happy, or had better things to
worry about.

"I don't see how you can possibly make an assumption like that."

Why do you feel such an assumption is impossible?

"I trust Hite's findings more than your guesses because she used the actual
responses of real people (and didn't just make grand assumptions about the
people who didn't respond, as you did.)"

And I'm sure that I used actual responses of real people too, the people I have
experienced, which admittedly is not a large sample, but then I'm not claiming
that it is a large sample.

"I just see some truth in what she says (just the "lack of communication" part
without making any decisions as to blame.) "

My point is that that is not what she is saying.  She is saying:

"95% of the women in the study reported forms of "emotional and psychological
harassment" from the men they love"

Which I feel is way off base.

You sound angry???  I wonder why???

RE: .50

Thanks for the cold water!

Jim. 

    	RE:  .66
    
    	The fact that I give Shere Hite more credence than I give you
    	does not obligate me to agree with every one of her interpretations
    	of the statistics.
    
    	Yes, she did, too, say that there is a lack of communication
    	between women and men.  That's not all she said, but that's
    	the part that hit home with me the most.
    
    	As for the rest of it, I take it with a grain of salt.  She
   	did the survey, and she interprets what it all means.  So what.
    	It's interesting and provactive, but I don't see 100 women in
    	this conference jumping on it as proof of anything.  (I'm not
    	doing that, either.)
    
    	I think that some men are overreacting to the report (and are
    	taking their "backlash" out on the most convenient targets --
    	the women in womannotes.)
    
    	Oh, and just to show you how bad the communication is -- we
    	are not all feminists in this file (but I bet you didn't know
    	that, did you, even though we've said again and again that
    	there is no "party line" here.)
    
    						    Suzanne....

    
    
     RE .58,  Whoops, darn decspell trips me up again ..... :-)

                            Bob B

    
    	<----- P.S. to .67
    
    	In case anyone is confused here, there was already a huge
    	debate/fight in another conference (a whole set of fights)
    	on these issues.  That's why it might seem like some of us
    	are talking about arguments that haven't occured here yet.
    

    Suzanne.  No.
    
    I said "Perhaps the SURVEY could be cross posted" so we could get
    a wider range of  responses.  I IN NO WAY IMPLIED ANY NAMES WOULD
    EVER BE GIVEN OUT...IN ANY OF MY NOTES, rather I suggested and several
    people volunteered, to keep the names anonymous while tabulating
    the results.
    
    And, if you are so negatively disposed towards the survey, don't
    participate...but please let others who would like to participate in peace.
    
    -Jody
    

    Suzanne:
    
    also, per your .65
    
    I do not feel anyone would be "branded" by the survey...and in point
    of fact the percentage of people responding could be tabulated as
    a part of the whole.  Just like Shere Hite said 4.5% responded,
    we'd know that XQ.Y% responded (where X, Q, and Y are non-negative
    integers).
    
    Also, in my proposal of .37, I suggested that we have SIMPLE answers,
    such as a scaled rating of "Very Satisfied" to "Very Unsatisfied"
    to simplify tabulation.  Essays in an anonymous survey may not be
    the best way to go here, as the "tabulators" (thanx for volunteering)
    have little time to spare.

    Also, I never suggested anything having to do with Soapbox, I merely
    suggested that since some topics pertaining to both men and women
    have found wide discussion in Mennotes, Womannotes, and
    Human_relations, so could this topic reap the benefits of a wider
    audience than womannotes alone.  Soapbox does tend to get flame-filled,
    so I would choose personally not to put it there, but if others
    wish it we can take a vote.
    
    -Jody
    

    	RE:  .70
    
    	Sorry, I thought you said that the "results" would be cross-
    	posted.  I stand corrected.
    
    	I'm not standing in anyone's way on this.  I would just rather
    	not have people judge this whole conference on such a controversial
    	sort of survey (and I would like to not be judged myself on
    	such a survey, no matter **HOW** it came out.)
    
    	What is so important about Hite's report that we need to have
    	an inter-conference survey done?  That's what I don't understand.
    
    							Suzanne...

    re. .62 (re. .41)
    Jody - No, I don't believe that women who participate in feminist
    groups are less satisfied with their relationships.  But I do believe
    that feminists (especially those who hold strong enough convictions
    to join an organization) are very pro-women (sort of inherent in
    the definition, no?   :-)   ), and IF someone is decidely pro-women
    (as opposed to just pro-people) and if that same person is unhappy
    in her relationship with a man, survey results could be skewed.
    (Of course, these are just MY opinions, and not meant to put down
    feminists at all.  It's just the way it struck me.)
    
    I also wonder WHY S. Hite chose to survey ONLY declared feminists?
    Did she think no one else's opinions counted???   Just wondering....
    
    Lynne-who-does-not-belong-to-a-feminist-organization-but-thinks-a-
      -survey-like-this-would-be-fun!
    

Re:    < Note 507.73 by TSG::PHILPOT >

    
	 >I also wonder WHY S. Hite chose to survey ONLY declared feminists?
   	 >Did she think no one else's opinions counted???   Just wondering....
          
    That's one of the reasons the survey has been so widely crucified.
    
    "We're taking a survey of 100 wife-beaters.  Sir, how do you feel
     about equality for women...."
    
    	Now why would that kind of survey be inaccurate?  ;-)
    
    Dave
    

RE: .67

"we are not all feminists in this file"

I did not say that we were...

I said that taking a survey of WOMANNOTES would be *like* sending surveys to
feminists.   There *are* more feminists here then in other places.

Jim.

    re previous....she did not just send the questionaire to feminist
    groups, she also sent it to the league of women voters which is
    activist but it does not have a feminist agenda, and a number
    of (unnamed) religious groups.

    	The reality of the SH book is that there are less than 4500
     women 'out there' with lousy relationships with their SO's.  To 
    this I must respond, so what!  Four and a half percent being on 
    any side of almost any issue is less than should be expected.  Yes,
    I feel badly for the unhappy women but I still can't get excited
    over SH's reported findings.  The Boston Herald American (not one
    of the greatest paper's in Massachusetts) conducted its own pole
    of women in Boston and the findings do not come close to supporting
    those reported by SH.  I don't know if the newspaper's poll was
    conducted in such a way as to be statistically significant but SH's
    poll wasn't so what the hell!  The two polls are somewhat interesting
    but that's about it.  
    
    	Are any of us in this file surprised to read that there are
    some relationships where the two people aren't happy?  I certainly
    am not surprised at all.  Females and males are different - for
    whatever reasons.  These differences will cause relational strains
    which must be worked out.  Do any of us know women who don't work
    as hard at their relationships as they should?  Many of us seem
    to know men who don't.
    
    	Can we as people accept each others differences and make the
    best of them?  Can we invest the time to get to know each other
    before committing ourselves to a life together?  
    
    	It appears to me that we in the U.S. tend to make instant friends.
    We invite neighbors or work associates into our homes before we
    know very much about them at all.  The people in many other cultures
    work to get to know people before inviting them into their homes
    - choosing to get to meet in neutral environs such as restaurants,
    bars, the homes of common friends or associates, etc.  Then an act
    of friendship - an invitation to visit their home for coffee or
    drinks.  If the realtionship proves to be positive, they share greater
    intimacies - one of the culminating ones being inviting people to
    their home for dinner.
    
    	Did any of us profess to love the person we were going to marry
    after knowing that person for less than x years?  It is conceivable
    to me that two people can be 'in love' with each other after a short
    period but to truly love someone, I believe, we must know that person
    and this takes a long, intimate relationship (in or out of marriage).
    
    Douglas

    re:.77
    
  >  "The reality of the SH book is that there are less than 4500 women
  >  'out there' with lousy relationships with their SO's.  To this I
  >  must respond, so what!  Four and a half percent being on any side
  >  of almost any issue is less than should be expected.  Yes I feel
  >  badly for the unhappy women but I still can't get excisted over
  >  SH's reported findings."

    
    Well, from my understanding, only a certain percentage (85%?) of
    the women who responded said they were unhappy, not all of them.
     Also, only 4.5% of the surveys mailed out were returned, not 4.5%
    being on a given side of the issue.  And as for your mention that
    there are less than 4500 women "out there" with lousy relationships
    with their SO's, the sampling taken was but a small portion.  I'm
    sure if you asked all (rough guess) 100 million women out there
    with SO's to respond to the survey, you'd get a number that were
    unhappy that was probably much higher than 4500.  
              This doesn't mean I put a lot of stock in her findings,
    aside from the fact that couples need to communicate more on both
    sides of the coin in order to be truly happy in love.
    
    someone famous once said "did you know 41% of all statistics are
    meaningless?" - I can't remember who, but it reminds me that all
    statistics cited and quoted and tallied are to be taken with a grain
    of salt...maybe two.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    	RE:  .77
    
    	We've all known for a long time that committed relationships
    	have been having difficulties.  I don't know what the latest
    	statistics are on divorce, but even *those* statistics don't
    	include the numbers of people who remain married although they
    	are seriously unhappy.
    
    	You are right, though.  What does it matter what the statistics
    	say.  Each of us that has a serious relationship needs to look
    	into our own private hearts (and to our loved ones) to see if
    	we are happy and as open/loving as we could be or want to be.
    
    	Even if the odds were that 99% of new marriages were doomed
    	(or even 99.99999% were doomed), I'd be inclined to believe
    	that, as an individual, I could still find the one in a million
    	that would work.
    
    							Suzanne....

	First let me state that the only thing I know about the HITE
	report is what I have read in this conference.

	I have been involved from time to time in studies and surveys
	and a normal response from a "blind" mailing is general less than
	one percent. If in fact the response was 4.5% as stated then the 
	response is very significant. But It is "ONLY" significant with 
	the group surveyed. Unless the group is considered representative
	of a larger group then there can be no relation between the
	survey and the larger population.

	Consider the following fictitious survey.
		The Republican Senators were surveyed in July,1987 if
	they felt that Judge Bork should be a Supreme Court Judge. Of
	the 20 returning the survey 19 said yes and 1 said no. Conclusion,
	because there was an excellent response on the survey, Judge Bork
	will be confirmed. 

		What is wrong with this survey?

		Answer, It tells only what one sub_set of a group (the US
	Senate) feels about a subject. In a study done for General Foods
	it was found that most marketing studies was done this way and
	that in a large percent of cases the results were wrong when assumed
	to represent a larger population.

    	No matter how much any of us can discredit the survey because
    	of the sampling methods used, that does *NOT* mean that one
    	can assume the opposite of what Hite says.  All we know for
    	sure is that nothing has proven either way.
    
    	I think that Hite has hit on something that has a degree of
    	truth in it (the fact that relationships are in trouble and
    	that the lack of communication has something to do with it),
    	but again, we have no way of knowing how widespread the problems
    	really are (and whatever the truth is on the numbers of women
    	who are unhappy is *NOT* an indicator of how any individual
    	woman feels about her own relationship.)
    
    	What I'm trying to say is that the Hite report doesn't prove
    	anything one way or the other (her methods don't succeed in
    	proving *her* theses *NOR* do they prove that the opposite is
    	true.)
    
    	We each have to look to our own lives and decided for ourselves
    	if her statements are true for our own relationships.  If it's
    	not true for ourselves, then why get upset about the report.
    
    							Suzanne....

    
    	Suzanne,
    
    	 The only one I see that *appears* to be getting upset is you.
    	Each time someone (male and/or female) says anything bad about
    	the Hite report (if you can call it a report), you come along
    	and say something to the effect that her report DOES show a
    	problem (won't debate this, for I don't give a darn) and then
    	go on to say that it just might not hold true for you as an
    	individual. Does it really bother you so much to see anyone
    	else say Ms. Hite is all wet? 
    
    	Am just curious.....  :^)  :^)  :^)

    Just my wild guess:
    
    The survey would probably show that the women of womannotes are
    happy in their relationships.  Why?  Because the women of womannotes
    are "no one's fools".  We're smart women.  In general, we wouldn't
    stay in seriously unhappy relationships - we either do what needs to
    be done to make them happy and right, or find another relationship,
    or third choice, we're happier by ourselves.
    
    Maybe the "survey" would show, once and for all, that the women
    of womannotes love a lot of men and are happy with them.
    
    Nah, dream on, Ellen.  Some men still wouldn't get it....
    
    	-Ellen

    I also would agree that the Hite report shows that there are
    communications problems among men and women (why, yea....even
    in this very file....) and that her methodology and past history
    should not be used as a reason not to work on communications...
    
    Ellen, perhaps each of us should give a copy of the survey to
    several other women to get a better sample.
    
    Bonnie

RE .81
SUZANNE

	I feel you are correct in your view of the report (remember I know
	only what I have read here about the HITE REPORT). The problem is 
	too many people would believe that figures either one way or

	the other. The fact the "problem" exist, only the numbers "may be"
	wrong.
	There are accurate ways to conduct these surveys. Many important
	problems are not address correctly and thus the results have little
	meaning.

	Please consider the following two "real"examples of accurate
	surveys/studies:

	1.  Back in 71, I was involved in the tabulation of data for a
	study of "VD" at a state university. It seems that some important
	people were upset that a 'large' percentage the student body was
	exposed to "VD" and that the university 'was doing nothing' about
	it. The original figures came from the Veterans Admin., and the 
	university had a large body of veterans. Because the infirmary had
	no previous request for a formal treatment program they felt that
	they wanted an accurate profile of the problem. 
	    Upon the recommendation of several professors,for a six week period
	they took blood samples of every student that saw a doctor or nurse
	at the infirmary (with out the knowledge of the student as to the
	purpose). With the exception of information such as sex, age, etc. the
	samples were unmarked. Also note that about 3/4 of the student body 
	lived on campus and most students used the infirmary at sometime. Other
	factors such as what students wouldn't use the infirmary and why were 
	noted and would be accounted for "after" the raw numbers were 
	collected. 
	    In brief, out of the over 1200 samples only 4 tested positive.
	When the other factors were added in it was estimated that between 75
	and 150 students had some form of VD. The state senator that called 
	for mandatory screening was made out to be the fool he was. The 
	figures he quoted were for veterans only and veterans, for the most 
	part lived off campus and would use the VA hospital more often than
	the campus infirmary, and for the most part was receiving treatment.
	
	NOTE: Because of the study, a confidential VD program was setup.


	2.  The second deals with "NEW COKE". 

	    Several years ago Coca-Cola, after doing test marketing in
	NY, LA, and Alanta, came out with a new formula for COKE. Because 
	it only tested in large cities the results did not represent the
	entire country. While the new COKE did well in these cities the
	total usage went down and they were forced to bring out "COCA-COLA
	CLASSIC". 
	    What went wrong was they picked the wrong cities. Most of the
	food industry spends millions, through several organizations, to
	find "Test Cities" that represent the general population. Providence
	R.I. is one, or at least was five years ago.


P.S.	I don't believe that an unscientific survey in NOTES would result
	in a meaningful conclusion.

    re .85 What would make a survey in Notes unscientific? Just because
    the sample is small and self limited doesn't mean that a survey
    of the group can't be 'scientific' - i.e. methodical, and requiring
    study and method? and tho it would not say anything about women
    and men in the general population it would say a lot about those who access
    notes, which is a valid subset of the population to look at (as
    long as you know what the bias is).
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie
    	Whats makes the "NOTES" survey unscientific is
    
    1.	You don't know who you are adressing, (% female, age groups,
    married?, active notes reader, active notes writer, ...)
    
    2.	How many people will know of the survey. What is the percent
    of response. ( among the figures to calculate margin of error)
    
    3.  Why do people respond to this survey. And to those who didn't
    	respond, why didn't they. These assumptions must be made before
    	the survey to justify the margin of error in order to verify
    	the validity of the survey/study and perform conclusions.
    
    4.  What is the time frame of the survey, when is it performed and
    	how long. How is the survey taken (NOTES, VAX_MAIL,...), Who
    	is to take the survey.
    
    5.	What is a valid answer. What effect should invalid answers play
    	in the conclusion. Remember that words like "SOMETIMES","PERHAPS",
    	and "THAT DEPENDS" are not yes or no answers.
    
    
    	This are why most surveys are not accurate. Most surveyers don't
    	know how to plan a survey, and don't take the time to learn.
    
    	Please refer back to my unscientific fictitious survey of
    	Republican Senators to determine that Judge Bork would be 
    	confirmed.
    
    
                                                                        
    

re: 87

A survey in Notes would suffer from the same problem that the Hite
book exhibits: the participants are self-selected.  In this situation,
there is no way to confidently extrapolate from the survey group to
a wider population.

Martin.

    	RE:  .82
    
    	There is no hidden agenda here, George Bushee.  I just happen
    	to believe that there is a valid message in Hite's report
    	(although I don't think that anyone can prove one way or 
    	another the numbers of women who have experienced the sorts
    	of things that her survey points out.)
    
    	To me, the message is about the ways that women are treated
    	in our culture (and the difficulties that women and men have
    	when trying to communicate.)
    
    	I don't get upset when people say Hite is "all wet" -- I merely
    	address the arguments as they come along (and disagree with
    	the ones that I feel are invalid.)  No big deal.
    
    							Suzanne...

RE: .80

"I think that Hite has hit on something that has a degree of truth in it"

SH is at least an order of magnitude away from the truth.  And I don't think
that I needed SH to "hit on it", and clue me in on it.  I don't believe "The
fact that relationships are in trouble".  I don't believe that relationships now
are any worse in general, then they ever were.  We ***are*** expecting a lot
more from our relationships these days.  And I didn't need SH to tell me that
the problem is (probably) lack of communication. 

Jim.

        RE .91,
        
        My feelings exactly.
        
        Andy.

RE: .91

> SH is at least an order of magnitude away from the truth.

Could you please quantify this a bit more precisely, if possible giving
your sample size and the percentage who responded and some assurance
that the sample was indeed random.  Of course I am being facetious but
the point is that I do not see how you can be so dogmatic in your claims
that Hites results are so off-base when the group of people with whom you
have come into contact and from which you have formed your opinions is most
likely a far worse sample than Hites.


> And I don't think that I needed SH to "hit on it", and clue me in on it.

Nobody has ever claimed that you were not aware of any problems before
Hite enlightened everyone.  If you did not benefit at all from her findings
that does not mean that they are universally irrelevant.


> I don't believe "The fact that relationships are in trouble".

Everyone thinks that some relationships are in trouble. Nobody believes
that all are in trouble.  Hite might think more, you might think less. In
the end what difference does it make?  Some are in trouble and if the
analyses in the book help those relationships then I think it was a
worthwhile effort.

> I don't believe that relationships now are any worse in general, then
> they ever were.

I have only read about a third of the book but I have not seen anything which
would imply that relationships are getting any worse.  If anything I would
say that they are improving.  She does indicate that women are more likely
to leave now but I think that is because they are more independent and free
to do so not because relationships are deteriorating.

> We ***are*** expecting a lot more from our relationships these days.

Probably true and possibly one of the problems.


> And I didn't need SH to tell me that the problem is (probably) lack of
> communication. 

Communication is one of the main problems, but it is not the only thing
addressed in the report.  There are a lot of other aspects such as openness,
emotional support, etc. (I don't have the book with me or else I would list
off a few more)

End of RE: .91

My own personal feeling is that while most of the numbers in the Hite report
give an exaggerated view of the general state of relationships mainly for the
reasons stated in passed notes, I think that in another sense they also
understate some of the problems.  From my observation (which admittedly is
also a poor sample) most relationships have at least some vestige of the
problems described even though the relationships are considered to be quite
successful and the problems have not become acute enough to cause great 
dissatisfaction. These people, had they been surveyed by Hite would not
have specified this as a problem, but there is no question that the relation-
ship would be ameliorated by eliminating the offensive behaviour.

I think couples who both consider their relationship to be satisfactory can
still benefit from the report because it draws attention to a number of
issues which otherwise might go unnoticed or be difficult for one person
to verbalize.

Maybe I will write some more when I finish reading the report.

John

    	RE:   .93
    
    	Thanks, John, for your impressions of the Hite report.  I can't
    	tell you how encouraging it is to see a male person read the
    	book without being sidetracked by the "blame" and "methodology"
    	ratholes.  (No offense meant to anyone.)
    
    	You seem to be seeing precisely the same thing that I've seen
    	all along (although I have not read the book yet myself.)
    
    	Like you, I agree that there is a problem with the "numbers."
    	I don't see why her message should be any less valid whether
    	it applies to 95% or 45% (or anything in between.)  The people
    	she surveyed were REAL PEOPLE with REAL PROBLEMS (and neither
    	the people NOR the problems are rare in our culture.)  Whatever
    	anyone wants to think about Hite, the women who answered her
    	survey have spoken about problems that hit home to other people
    	(and there is some value to looking at the issues and trying
    	to understand them.)
    
    	If I were going to get married next week, I'd be far more
    	encouraged if my future husband was at least willing to take
    	a *look* at the message (keeping an open mind about relationships
    	and how we could make ours better) rather than damn it (sight-
    	unseen) for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with
    	whether or not the message might possibly be something that
    	could help *BOTH OF US*.
    
    	Like Hite, herself, and you, I see the message as a positive
    	one (as hope for the future.)  I don't care about the blame
    	or about anything that has happened in the past.  What I see
    	is that our culture appears to be recognizing how women's
    	roles have changed (and relationships have the potential to
    	reflect those changes in very positive ways for all of us!!!)
    	I find that extremely encouraging and exciting!
    
    	Thanks again for your thoughts!!!!!
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    I caught the tail-end of a story on the radio this morning - something
    about a talk show that S. Hite was supposed to be on, and it (or
    she) was cancelled, or something.  Seems Ms. Hite became quite
    upset, grabbed some guy
    (who was involved with the show?) by the throat, then punched him in 
    the nose!
    
    Anybody have any more juicy details?
    
    Lynne  

================================================================================
Note 507.94                     A New Hite Report                       94 of 94
AKOV04::WILLIAMS                                      6 lines  28-OCT-1987 11:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mailing a questionaire to all responders to WOMANNOTES might result
    in a summary which can be said to be a statistically valid reflection
    of the opinions of people in DEC who respond to WOMANNOTES.  A rather
    limited view of people but a valid study.
    
    Douglas

	Ok folks, While none of doubt that there is, at least sometimes,
	a serious problem between marriage partners, the question that
	is being asked by the sociology experts is "did MS HITE 'create'
	her figures?". 
	
	First, there was an ABC/WASHINGTON poll whose results were almost
	exactly the opposite the HITE report. the Hite report states that 
	>90% of the women were not satisfied with their marriage and the ABC
	poll stated that 83% were satisfied.

	Second, as I was going through the different cable stations (we
	currently have about 6 dozen stations, I came across a NY station
	at the tail end of a conversation with a sociologist from either
	NYU or NYC. She mentioned study after study where the figures
	were in complete disagreement with the Hite report. When the 
	the sociologist asked Ms. Hite if her dept could get a copy of
	the "Intermediate data" she said that Ms HITE would not make the
	data available. The station mentioned at this point that they
	had been unable to contact Ms. Hite but when the same question 
	was asked by ABC she had stated that she "would not give her
	hard work to the male dominated society that just want to discredit
	her because she is a woman".

	I don't want to sound like I am also getting on her case, but 
	why can't someone just state a problem without having to 'GET'
	figures to backup the existence of a problem. Even if the ABC
	poll is correct, which I am not sure if that is an accurate
	figure, then if 17% of the women are not satisfied then we as
	a society must ask why. Instead Ms Hite has us spending time
	and TV airtime wondering what the problem is because her number
	don't make sense.

	                                             

    re. .97 - "...if 17% of the women are not satisfied then we as a
    society must ask why."
    
    I don't agree with this statement at all.  If certain women are
    not satisfied, THEY should be asking themselves and their partners
    WHY.  I don't think it's any of society's business, or society's
    problem.
    
    Of course, if the number is more like 90% of women are REALLY
    dissatisfied, abused, etc., in their relationships, then it is more
    likely that it is a societal problem.  But I have a hard time believing
    a number like that.
    
    I wonder how Ms. Hite's (or anyone's) figures compare when studying
    other facets of their subjects lives - for instance, how many of
    those who were dissatisfied with their relationships were also
    dissatisfied with their jobs, their family situations, life in general,
    etc....
    
    Lynne
    

    RE.98
    	I did not mean that we should directly seek and assist these
    women (and men) that aren't satisfied but rather we as a socity
    should determine if a problem exist, how bad it is, and make available
    the "PROPER" resources available so they may try to better their
    life. 
    	For years as a society we ignored the true scope of rape and
    there was little a woman could do but keep quiet. Now, because
    much of the male half will admit there is a problem, there is a
    trend, be ever so slow, to reducing the problem. 
                                          
    

RE: .94

"I don't see why her message should be any less valid whether it applies to 95%
or 45%"

The point *of* surveys and reports *is* to put a quantitative number on the
facts.  If SH say 95% of X do Z, and reality is more like 45%, then this report
is worse then useless, it's misleading. 

Heard on the radio that according to SH, 75% of women cheat on their partners...
Buuulldogies! Imagine that?!?  Nah... it's probably more like 7.5%.

Jim.

    I have not read all of Shere Hite's latest book, but the parts that
    I have read clearly indicated to me that people were having serious
    problems in their relationships.
    
    I was really struck by the numbers she reported; they indicate that
    there is something terribly wrong with how people are being brought
    into our society, and I was wondering what immediate steps might
    be taken. Is it even possible.
    
    There have been various arguments about her sampling techniques,
    and I have been reserving judgement. However, recently, ABC News
    and the Washington Post surveyed 1505 men and women last week about
    these same topics. I believe these kinds of numbers typically mean
    about a 3% standard deviation for the results.
    
    The numbers from the more recent poll contrast a great deal with
    those from Ms. Hite. For instance, she reported that 84% of the
    women were unhappy with their men, and that 70% of the women married
    5 years or more have had an affair. The ABC News/Washington post
    poll had 97% rating their romantic relationships as good or excellent
    and only 7% of the women had had an extramarital affair.
    
    I agree that there are most people would benefit by talking
    to their partners more often and dealing more directly with those
    issues that are bothering them. However, my personal sense of urgency
    about attacking the situation at a societal level has certainly
    been lessened.
    
    At this point, I probably be more open to the messages in the rest
    of the book, if Ms. Hite had not printed any numbers at all.

    	RE:  .100
    
    	Well, I have to agree with you there.  Hite's message is
    	entirely wasted on someone like you.  :-}  
    
    	At any rate, I thought that what Hite *really* said was
    	that 70% of *the women married over 5 years who DO have
    	affairs do so for emotional reasons*.  (That is *NOT* the
    	same thing as saying that 70% of the women married over
    	5 years have affairs.)
    
    						    Suzanne....

    M Berry, are you planning on staying in this file or are you
    just sniping? If it is the former, I would encourage you to read
    all of a note before replying, and try to understand where the 
    writers are coming from. If it is the later, I would politely
    ask you to go to soapbox where the style of writing you have
    exhibited is more welcome.
    
    Bonnie

(Moved by moderator)

================================================================================
RHODES::QUIROGA                                      34 lines   4-APR-1988 11:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    I took a day off last week, and watched the Ophra Winfrey (I think
    that is the last name) show. In it there was a male-only audience,
    and only two women, Ophra and Shere Hite. I must admit I was surprised
    by the willingness of Mrs. Hite to explain her last book in front
    of many men.
    
    The sad part was that nobody in the audience LISTENED to what she
    was saying, and nobody asked her what the message of her book was.
    Rather, the men in the audience decided to attack her methods for
    compiling the information of her latest poll, and so on.
    
    I haven't read the book, I'll probably never read it, I have so
    many books to read between school and work. But it was definetely
    sad to see a bunch of men try to down play the importance of this
    woman's work. I am expressing the way I felt throughout the program,
    seeing men putting words in Mrs. Hite's mouth, and never giving
    her a fair chance to explain the message that she wanted to get
    across, not only to men, but to women as well.
    
    I think she only wants people to be aware of the fact that there
    is a problem out there, in which a lot of women are not treated
    as human beings. She is not saying that men are to blame, she never
    said it, but the men in the audience sure felt she only wanted to
    destroy every single men on the face of the earth. And it wasn't
    her fault, since nobody in the audience LISTENED to what she had
    to say.                                 
    
    
    ART.
                    
    
    
    

    
    Why WAS the audience all male?  That sounds really wierd, almost
    like a setup.

    Obviously not the same show I saw.  The one I saw was pretty good.
    A couple of men got outa hand and she put them back REAL quick like.
    Tough woman, I'll give her that.
    
    Set up?  You got that right.  It appeared as though the producers
    went out and got ALL the closedminded, egotistical,arogant,assholes
    they could find and sent them in with her.
    
    She had alot to say, and so did the others on the panel, males also.
    
    When you write something so controversial you're bound to get a
    little heat for it.  
    
    BTW: I am neither "bashing" nor endorsing her.  Just typing in thoughts.

    
    	Maybe the producers had Ms. Hite on a second time because
    	of letters from male readers?  I did see her on the Ophfry
    	(Just how do you spell her name?) show a couple of months
    	back and outside of maybe two or three, the whole show was
    	female.
    

    re: .110
    
    does sound like a  setup, eh ?
    
    Although I haven;t the references to quote, there's been some
    negative publicity on the validity of her findings ... not because
    she's a women writer, but because her methods are questionable.
    
    Other books (based on pseudo-scientific studies) include (but are
    not  restricted to: The G_Spot, Biorythms, The Meese Commission of
    pornography in America, etc).
    
    Question: If the scientific methodology of obtaining data is invalid,
    then of what use are  conclusions based on that data ?
    
    Just some points to consider.
    RWE
    
    
    

    Well, of *course* they can't say: "This book is no good because
    it's written by a woman"!  
    
    I am reminded of _Wuthering_Heights_, published to critical acclaim
    when the author was Bell.  When the author turned out to be a
    Bronte daughter, it was then criticized as "monstrous".  [From,
    _How_To_Suppress_Women's_Writing_, J. Russ, U.Tex. Press.]
    
    Of course, nothing like that would ever happen now.  In these
    enlightened times, Judy Chicago's work is criticized as "too female"
    on NPR, while a sculpture by a man of a raped, murdered woman is praised 
    as "inviting" in the New York Times.

| Well, of *course* they can't say: "This book is no good because
| it's written by a woman"!  

Do I detect just a touch of sarcasm here????

 Please be careful. It is and has been true that certain work by women
has been ridiculed or disregarded 'just because' that work has been done by 
a woman. But it is very dangerous to assume that, if a book/thesis/exhibit by
a woman IS being ridiculed, then the ONLY reason is sexual prejudice.

 In the specific case of the "New" Hite Report, it appears that her survey
sample was too small to warrant the assumptions that she has made. Therefore
her conclusions are being disputed.  No, not because "she's telling men what
they don't want to hear", but more because "she has no firm basis for the 
conclusions she is making".

 By all means, feel free to hold up Ms Hite's report for examination. But please
be prepared to examine it critically if you are going to claim that it is a
conclusive document.  Otherwise, all you have is propaganda.

				Nigel