Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I *HATED* men for a long time, and it has taken a long time for
    me to know I hated men.  I now have more male friends than female,
    and I really like the feeling (could shoot myself for lumping *all*
    men together).  The reason for my past feelings:
    
    	At 4 yrs old I was sexually abused by my step-father, what 4
    	yr old really knows that Daddies don't make them have oral sex
    	withthem, to "prove that you really love me".  My mother had
    	him committed after he made her have oral sex with him in front
    	of my 7 yr old brother, at knife point.  He use to also beat
    	us when he got home from work, just in case we had done anything
    	wrong while he was gone (on 24/off 24 shift).  My mother was
    	not aware of this, she worked too, until 11 yrs ago; we got
    	to talking and I mentioned it, I was 22 at the time.
    
    	At 17 my second stepfather propositioned me, I ran away from
    	home.  I went back a few days later and told my mother what
    	had happened, she confronted the bastard, and he said I had
    	misunderstood him.  She later divorced him, after he propositioned
    	his own sister, and she told my mother.  My mother still apologizes
    	for not believing me!
    
    It took me a long time, as I said; and boy did I have hangups when
    I first got married (got married in part to get out of the house).
    I have since had therapy, and have come to terms with it, and now
    I am kicking myself.  Men are great friends to have, probably some
    of the most sincere friends (of mine) are men.
    
    I realize I am rambling, but....... just to let you know that there
    could be underlying reasons for the way some women reply here, and
    some of them may not even know they are replying as harshly as they
    do.
    
    Mary-Lynn 
   	

I think we see alot of anger towards men because by our very title we
offer understanding towards it.  As a woman's file we promise to
listen, to handhold, to disagree, and to empathize.... and we offer
an area in which to vent your spleen about issues that you could
not safely vent elsewhere.

That's why guys get beaten up so royally here, and the fur flies
occasionally, but it usually gets worked out.  Those that don't get
worked out might get rethought... who knows?

I, for one, sometimes turn evenings with my girlfriends into bitch
sessions about husbands, fathers, managers, or whatever.  They listen,
they help, they offer insight, or they, in turn, do their own
bitching.

And talking about it does much to set aside wrath.

So, I, for one, get alot out of the topics in which an anger is raised
towards something or someone that's unfair.  It sometimes raises my
awareness in the process, for which I'm grateful because I sometimes
adopt a head-in-the-sand approach to life.  I wake up one morning
and realize things have been that way for months or years.

Personally, I have had oodles of problems with the male half.  I was
born into a male-dominated family, have run into some problems with
males at work (not all of which I have caused myself... :*)), and
always seek to resolve things with my husband on a level not always
controlled by gender.

But then again, I am a bit of a headache to handle, very independent
and unruly, and I can get loud (big surprise, yes??), so some men
simply do not LIKE me.... Is okay.. I don't need to be liked by everyone,
just a few.

I'm Maggie's assistant moderator, and as long I have input in the process,
no one will ever catch trouble from me for being angry...!

Bugsy

    Several years ago my wife was in a women's support group at our
    church.  At the time, things were not all that rosy.  I think I
    was currently unemployed, having just received a rather severe setback
    in my career.  Whenever she sought some commiseration and advice
    on how to deal with me, there were a couple of women in the group
    who were always encouraging her to leave me, or take similar drastic
    steps.  Let me assure you that neither she nor I, then or now, feel
    that things were sufficiently bad to warrant such action.  To this
    day I resent and distrust these women for having vented their "anger
    at men" against me in this way.
     

    
    Re .0, sure, I get angry at men!  But, I also love men!
    
    Remember the old saying, "You can't live with them and you can't
    live without them."
    
    Lorna
    

    re .0
    
    Just out of curiosity, about how old are you?  If you're over 25,
    I'm amazed at how good men have been to you and I congratulate you.
    You must be doing something right.  I'd love to know what.
    
    But my guess is that you're less than 3 years out of college and
    have not had enough time to land a couple of kicks.  Or recognize
    them as such.  Or maybe DEC is the only company you've worked for.
    DEC's the best place I've seen so far for equal treatment of women.
    
    I felt the way I do too until I got out of college and saw how things
    really were.  I'm seriously not meaning to sound bitter.  I'm not.
    
    re: expessing anger
    
    It's true that anger may turn some men off of this conference (and
    women also), but maybe that's because men (and some women) are not
    used to seeing angry women.
    
    	-Ellen

    re .0 
    You indeed are lucky to have led such a charmed life. I've not had
    as rough a time as .3 (=> .3, you seem remarkable healthy -- it sounds
    like you've worked hard to get that way).  However, I do come from a 
    longish line of "defective" men. Briefly, my maternal grandfather
    was scary, grouchy and distant -- sort of like the troll who waited
    under the bridge in fairy tales. My maternal grandmother protected
    the children from him. My mother married two alcoholics. My dad
    (her first husband) is a dear man, but was not very nice to my mother.
    (One time he threw a cup at her, immediately felt sorry, and drove
    her to the hospital for stitches).  My stepfather was usually mentally
    abusive and occasionally beat us. Whenever he tried to direct the
    household, my mother would subvert him. She brought me up to think
    that men are ornamental but not very useful creatures. It's taken
    me several tries to find someone who is competent, who feels like 
    an equal, and who isn't a wimp. YES, it's taken me a long time to
    stop feeling enraged. I'm still working on it.  
    
    liz

    re: .0, .7
    What Ellen said about college struck a cord. I came from a loving
    family and always got along fine with males as friends and lovers.
    A year or two after I graduated, a group of women CS graduate students
    at MIT (my alma mater) put out a "blue book" on the sexism they
    had to live with doing their graduate work in the labs. What an
    eye opener that was! I had experienced most of the instances of
    "subtle sexism" outlined, and had never thought twice about it.
    It was the way of the world. My self-image now includes competance,
    as a direct result of questioning all those little signals that
    add up to "you're a female (c***) first, and a member of the community
    second". I'm not saying any of those signals seem vulgar or cruel,
    but that's what they add up to.
    
    There's a lot of injustice, and it takes effort to not get angry,
    and to just work at it.
    	Mez

I can only hope that the events in .3 are not common, thankyou for
contributing your very personal story, many years ago (during my
teens) I had a girlfriend who was a little 'anti'. Some weeks after
we met she confided that she had been raped at the age of 9 and her
father had tried to have sex with her at the age of 15. Until reading
.3 I had forgotten that this can and does happen. I shall certainly
always (from now) remember it when dealing with anti-male feelings
expressed by women. 

Thankyou for reading and I hope understanding,

Dave.

    Many women who have been sexually abused by family members, "friends"
    of the family, or strangers are finally getting the support they
    need to look at these experiences and work through some of the pain
    and anger involved.
    
    A woman by the name of Ellen Bass has written a book of sexual abuse
    accounts by women.  It is called "I Never Told Anyone".  It's painful
    reading, but very useful for anyone who wants to understand the
    problem better.
    
    I just set up a computer system and a data base for a woman named
    Krishnabai who has been given a grant to collect and organize
    information nationwide on resources for abused women and children,
    their families, and even resources for the perpetrators of abuse.
    
    Local sources of information on sexual abuse help include women's
    centers, some therapy clinics, women's newspapers, and many resource
    centers which cater to gay clients.  
    
    On the subject of anger towards men, the people working with sexually
    abused clients feel that there are a very large number of lesbian
    women who have been sexually abused by men who come to the workshops. 
    They are not saying that sexual abuse is causal, but they are noticing
    a very high correlation.  Perhaps for some women the ultimate
    expression of anger towards men is withdrawal from intimate
    relationships with them.  The women with whom I spoke hastened to
    add that there are many lesbian women whose sexual preference has
    nothing to do with abuse, and many women who have been sexually
    abused who want heterosexual relationships, however painful.
    
    Interesting.

RE: .8 >You indeed are lucky to have let such a charmed life

Liz,
My early life was anything but charmed.  My parents had an horrendous
marriage.  They fought like cats and dogs.  My mom gave as good as she
got, though, so I never exactly saw her as a victim.  My father made the
mistake of hitting her once.  I woke up in the middle of the following
night to find that she had managed to tie three of his four limbs (can't
remember which ones) to a four-poster bed and was holding a baseball bat
over him (can you imagine anyone sleeping through being tied up?). 
Needless to say, he never tried it again.  

RE: .7

Ellen,
In answer to your question, I am not green at all.  I am 38.  I have been
married for 16 years.  I have no children.  I never wanted them, so this
was an easy decision for me.  (This might make an interesting discussion--
anyone want to start a topic?)

I have held ALL sorts of jobs.  I've been a meatwrapper (no kidding),
secretary, insurance claims examiner, pre-school teacher.  I've been in
computers since 1978.  I started out doing programming on TOPS-10 (now
you KNOW I'm not lying about my age, don't you!).  I started with DEC
in 1982 working as a project leader for a large COBOL/DBMS contract with
the U.S. Navy.  I switched over to Office in 1985 and I now work for
Internal Software Services supporting ALL-IN-1 etc. on 2 clusters and a 785.
I've had all kinds of bosses and worked with all kinds of people,
DEC and non-DEC, female and male, good and bad.

RE: .4

>...no one will catch trouble from me for being angry

Bugsy,
I am not suggesting that women shouldn't be angry.  So many of us are, and
people don't like to be angry, so there must be reasons for it.  Some of
the reasons are obvious and some are very subtle. I just want to know what
you all think these reasons are.  I also want to know if you think they were
due to early experiences.  If not, then what adult experiences have made
you feel this way?  Who of you are NOT angry and why?    

Also, do you think your anger has been constructive in the sense that you have
confronted its cause(s) and done something about it.  Mary-Lynn (.3) has.

RE: .3
Mary-Lynn, you are a wonder.  You are brave to talk about this and braver to
have surmounted it.  Good luck to you.
    

    
re. 13
    
    Just the way you responded to each note included in this subject
    shows you are a kind and caring person, and I feel a person will
    treat you as you treat them.
    
    Chris
    

{RE .11} - There is a large fraction of lesbian clients in clinics that
 specialize in victims of sexual abuse.  Every such clinic I've seen stat-
  istics for has about 50% lesbian clientelle.

There are many who jump to the conclusion that these women became lesbians
 because of the trauma of the abuse.  My own opinion (based on admittedly
  nonrigorous personal observation) is that these places get lots of lesbian
   clients because those who would build lesbian cultures and community pay
    attention to the women's therapy movement (which these clinics are a
     part of).  In short, the lesbians I know are more likely to have heard
      of the local clinic than the heterosexual women I know.
       <_Jym_>

    I vaguely remember a psychology professor saying that anger as an
    emotion was always consequent to fear as an emotion.  For the anger
    expressed in this note, is the fear so far in the past that it is
    forgotten?  Can any of this anger be dissolved without realistically
    framing the fear/threat that elicited the anger?  I think my suspicion
    is that anger sometimes continues after the basis for the anger
    is past.

I am uncomfortable around angry people (whether people is me or someone
else) regardless of gender.  That does not, however, imply that 
the anger is to be avoided, wished away, or simply put down.  

I am not a rager type, but Lisa is.  She was a "man hater" before we met and
sometimes still is.  But the anger is not something she necessarily enjoys.
It is based on experience.  It is an expression and a result of that set of
experience.  It is not self indulgently conjured up.  It is something we
have to work through, sometimes together and sometimes apart (Of course,
I get angry too, but thats a whole other topic --probably because it's
viewed by "them" as somehow more appropriate for me to get angry).

Like other men noting here, I have also felt "victimized" by other women
pushing "man hating" on Lisa. I have also wondered if the anger is not
directed at causes long ago resolved. 

*HOWEVER*, an excess of zeal or a misdirection does not change the underlying
fact that our society does enough overt and subtle oppression and aggression
to fuel, refuel and refuel again a whole bunch of legitimate anger. Whether
overt or subtle, the anger is the same.  And if the anger is still around
it seems that the causes whether still around or not, still exert an
influence.  (In her drier moments, Lisa suggests we try using the feminine
pronoun as default, go with a female God, and all female leaders for the
next 2000-4000 years just to see what happens.) 

Certainly, one gets back a great deal of whatever one puts out to the
world, (Garbage out, garbage in .  .  .).  On the other hand, Anne Wilson
Schaef (PhD Psychology-- see .6 in the book note for one of her books) says
rage is a part of the healing process a woman (and a man as well) goes through
in coming to terms with this culture and the place we occupy in it. 

To put it more generically, sometimes rage is the only appropriate response
to a world that is mad, bad, and dangerous to know.  

Serenity and Anger, in appropriate amounts

Byron

    This morning I had to call my 8 year old daughters teacher.  It
    seems she is on the verge of being a man hater and I am at a loss
    for what to do for her.  It's direct affect is her father who 
    stands her up alot and doesn't call for weeks and sometimes months
    at a time.  Since most of the noters here are women, and she is
    a future woman, maybe there is some information that can be relayed
    on how to prevent manhaters at an early age.  I am supportive, but
    its impossible to take the *male* role in her life.  My dad is the
    only other male besides her teacher that she is exposed to since 
    I don't date often.  So maybe some personal experiences, or ideas
    etc would help us all see the future cure for us all.  I know there
    is a parents file, but I wanted some ideas from THIS note.  
    
    vivian
    

    re .16
    I think I'm angry because I've been taught that my physical safety
    is not guaranteed, even in my own house. Even though I've not met
    with physical violence in a long time, it's a hard lesson to unlearn.
    
    re .18
    Be kind to your daughter. Tell her that there are jerks in the world,
    and there are also kind people. They come in both sexes, and hardly
    anyone is at either end of the spectrum all the time. Tell your
    daughter that it's ok to be angry sometimes, and help her find healthy
    ways to express and channel that emotion. Talk to your daughter
    about how life can be crummy sometimes and about how not to get
    stuck being miserable. Keep your eyes open to harmful situations
    for her and help her learn to do the same.
    
    Liz
    

    Re. 15
    
    Jym, I feel like you misquoted me.  I didn't mention 50%, and I
    was very clear about saying that the people I had spoken to noticed
    a correlation, but weren't willing to ascribe causality.  
    
    I don't subscribe to the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" theory.
    (Followed by therefore caused by)                           
    I try hard not to fall into the trap of making "obvious" assumptions
    about causality.
    
    In fact, I think we are in agreement :-).
                                             

    
    Re:  .18
    
    	Have you looked into groups where your daughter might have 
    a chance for interaction with other men?  Like PWP, Big Brothers,
    etc.  My daughters never get a phone call from their dad, he 
    never came to visit even when we lived closer to him. Their only
    interaction with him is initiated by them.  We are involved in 
    PWP, different church groups, etc so that they will have interaction
    with men.  I also don't date a lot, but have many male friends and
    this helps teach them to relate to men.  Luckily, they don't seem
    to feel anger toward their dad, but are accepting of the situation
    as that is "just the way he is"!  
    
    	Myra
    

        .20: Don't be absurd, Steven.  Maybe you feel *you* deserve
        it, but "we" don't.  Nobody deserves to have anger directed
        against them by someone who doesn't know them for something
        they had nothing to do with.
        
        Anger, properly controlled, is appropriate towards specific
        people in response to specific events.  It's sometimes
        understandable (and perhaps even excusable) towards abstract
        behavior patterns ("sexism", "racism", whatever)... but
        if someone can't distinguish between "sexism" and "male",
        that person's got serious problems.  Among other things,
        that person is a bigot.
        
        	/dave

    
    Re .24, Steve, you understand!  I think that what you said explains
    the anger I feel toward men as a group, which is totally separate
    from how I feel about individual men.
    
    Lorna
    

        .24, .26: I quietly shake my head in wonder and disappointment
        at such attitudes, but it's not worth the effort of continuing
        the argument.
        
        	/dave

    re .27
    /dave,
    when i was younger, i was often amazed at how my stepfather's temper
    could be set off for seemingly no reason. sometimes, he'd let things 
    simmer and then really go out of control. the large amounts of alcohol
    he consumed probably didn't help either. he was unpredictable, and
    yet i still tried to detect patterns in his behavior (partially
    to avoid future punishment). 
    
    in later years, i've caught myself reacting to those same patterns in 
    other people. sometimes my reactions are justified (i'm pretty good 
    at picking out and avoiding violent men). other times i realize
    that the patterns have no relationship to undesired behavior. this 
    sorting out takes a long time -- some of my own self-protective
    patterns may no longer be appropriate, but are nonetheless
    deep-seated.  i hope that my example helps you understand a little
    better.
    
    liz
    

    re .27, .28
    
    /dave
    I've had the same type of experience described in .28.  I grew up
    with an alcoholic stepfather, and now when encountering people who
    I know have drinking problems, or who have similar behavior patterns,
    I tend to get very defensive.  I may not get angry at them for no
    reason, but I am more *ready* to get angry with them, i.e. I give
    them less room to "make mistakes" before I lose my temper.  And
    this happens in a pretty even distribution among men and women.
    It's the behavior in this case, not the gender, that triggers my
    "anger pattern".
    
    Gloria
    

Anger distorts.  When we get angry (often justifibly initially)
we generally seek to confirm that the person really deserves our
wrath by "sorting for the negatives" (looking for other behaviors 
that prove we're right).  I don't care whether you're a man or 
woman, *people* do this...it's human nature.

The boiling pot of anger can be cooled down when both sides start 
to own their projections.  Men have been conditioned to deny 
being implicated by women's anger, and women have been 
conditioned to internalize guilt.  Talk about vicious circles!
(How extreme can this get?  When a writer makes a claim 
that "All men are rapists."  Some women really believe this.)

A hell of a good RAGING scream from both sides followed by both 
sides taking responsibility for the misunderstanding they've 
contributed is always a good start (assuming an appropriate place 
and time :-)).  Getting the anger out is an important first step, 
and women are justified in doing this.  And men have their 
justifications as well.

But as a man, I have anger toward men as well, and need to face 
up to how much I contribute to the problems *both* sexes share.

/chuck

    Some of the recent books on Adult Children of Alcoholics (Janet
    Woititz' book is a good one) have been very helpful to people.  The
    constellation of behaviors and tendencies identified as common to
    many "Adult Children" help people who grew up in such homes identify
    aspects of their personalities which may not be faults or flaws,
    as much as conditioned survival reflexes which are no longer doing
    them any good.
    
    Many of the ideas in the ACOA books are applicable to families where
    violence or sexual abuse was the problem, as opposed to alcohol.  In
    our facility the Employee Assistance Program person had some excellent
    handouts about ACOA people and how they often function as in the
    workplace.  If I get some time, maybe I will type in some of the
    information.

    I would be very interested in reading these, if you find the time
    to type them - as I am an ACOA.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Angeline

(First installment of information on ACOA's)

Adult Children of Alcoholics in the Work Place

by Thomas D. Francek and Claudia Black

TEAM WORK

-perfectionism

-difficutly listening, particularly when they have a need to be in charge

-inability to follow directions; the tendency to go off on their own with
 a great desire for autonomy.  Or follow directions rigidly with no room 
 for imperfection.

-difficulty delegating; they show little flexibility--a great deal of 
 rigidity in behavior and thinking

On the other hand, they may have:

-difficulty making decisions except in crisis situations

-difficulty initiating projects

-difficulty setting limits; askew sense of boundaries

-often don't see options - no gray or middle gournd;
 sense of perceptions are very narrow;

(re. previous three items:
Because of life long need to avoid scrutiny through imperfection -- yet 
never able to achieve with alcoholic--)

CONTROL
	either they have a strong need to be in control or there is no
	willingness to take any control

EMPATHIC SKILLS
	often are very limited, rigid and have no flexibility, or too 
	empathic and no decisions are made

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

SUPERVISION

	As a supervisor:

	- difficulty tolerating imperfections.  Their rigidity and narrow
	  perceptions made them good trainers, however lacking in empathic
	  skills, they have great difficulty in the application and 
	  practice of what is being taught.

	- difficulty seeing the act of negotiating

	- difficulty giving criticism usually from their need for approval

	As an employee:

	- difficulty accepting criticism from supervisors; usually takes
	  criticism personally as statement about self - as total 
	  rejection.  They can become inappropriately angry for the
	  situation, or overly hurt which could be escalated into rage
	  or a powerless stance moving them into an immobilized state, 
	  they may take this as a great defeat and will not want to try and 
	  thus become depressed.

	- quite intolerant of imperfections in their supervisors

	- difficulty taking or following directions, their movement is
	  generally towards autonomy.

CRISIS HANDLERS
Most likely from their experiences in handling alcoholic crisis during 
childhood.

	- May not be technically qualified, but are able to take actions 
	  when a crisis presents itself.

	- Are more often given a great deal of responsibility and as a 
	  result are coupled with the fear of failure and success at 
	  the same time.

Individuals at the work site often may present one fo the following 
problems:

	- Workaholism
	- Eating disorders ( overeating, bulemia, anorexia)
	- Alcoholic
	- Marry an alcoholic
	- Parenting problems (i.e., chemical dependent child)
	- Battering and incest
	- Sickness-frequent
	- Depression

        .28: Of course, I can understand that anger at some situations
        can be deeply ingrained.  I know that nobody's perfect, and that
        it can be hard to conquer the anger even in situations where it's
        obviously inappropriate. I can understand how a child who
        learned anger for a violent alcoholic father might have
        difficulty in later life avoiding the application of that anger
        towards "men"... to a young child, a father usually is the
        *definition* of "men". 
        
        But I seemed to be hearing from you, and from Steven, that this
        generic anger at "men" was somehow justifiable and even proper.
        *That's* what I object to.  That's absurd and utterly wrong. I
        do not deserve the anger any person may have learned against her
        father, merely because I am of the same sex. 
        
        	/dave

    
    Re .34, /dave, generic anger towards men is not anger towards *you*!
    
    Lorna
    

        .35: Of course it is.  I happen to be a man.  It's not directed
        specifically or *only* at me, but that's beside the point. Anger
        directed at "men" includes me.  Or are you saying women who are
        angry at "men" are angry at every man *except* me?  That's
        nice of you to say, but I doubt that it's true... :-)
        
        If you're angry only at men who have given you specific reason
        to be angry at them, that has nothing to do with the generic
        topic of "anger at men".  Or if it does, it's not much of
        a topic: everyone's angry at *someone* once in a while, and
        some of the recipients of the anger are bound to be men.
        
        Oh yes, Lorna... if what you meant was simply to reassure
        me that it wasn't a personal attack against me, then I should
        point out that I realize that.  I wasn't taking it personally,
        and I'm not arguing from a personal perspective.  I'm objecting
        to the concept that it's valid to be angry at an arbitrary
        *class* of people ("men", "women", whatever).  Whether the
        specific people involved are you, me, Liz, Steven, or whatever
        is irrelevant.
        
        	/dave

    Lorna (re: .34), "generic" anger means anger toward all members
    of a class, i.e., all men in this case. Your note implies that this
    anger does not extend to Dave. I presume there are other men that
    you do not feel angry toward. (I certainly hope so.)
    
    However, if your anger is generic, then, by definition, you must
    feel angry toward EVERY new man you meet. In other words, you start
    off the relationship (be it business, social, or whatever) by being
    angry. 
    
    Is this what you really mean? Is this how you really feel?
    
    -bs

    Oh heck, it's a matter of labels again.  Maybe we should be more specific
    when we say we're angry at men.  We're angry at "those men"; those who've
    made decisions that effect women's lives without regard to how women feel;
    those who've seen discrimination and just shrugged and said that's the
    way it is; those who are violent towards women; etc.

    You're right to be upset, /dave.  I get upset when someone says they
    know how to get women mad by bringing up a sexist topic.  Yes they're
    lumping all women together, so we shouldn't lump all men together.  But
    how do you refer to "them" as a collective group?  I say things like
    politicians are only concerned with power and money.  That's not true
    either.  But I think that referring to all men was appropriate to this
    topic, because that anger spilled over towards all men.  And then we
    started subtracting the ones we know aren't part of the problem.

    So maybe we should try to limit the word we use for collective groups to
    "those men", "those pro-lifers", "those politicians".  But that tends to
    diffuse the message we're trying to get across and won't make the person
    in the total group stop and think about whether they're one of "those".

    ...Karen
    (one of "those women" who sometimes lumps all men with "those men")

RE: .-1

You're right Karen.  I really hate people who generalize.  And they all do.

:-)
Don.

    
    Re .37, I'm not personally angry at any man I know for the history
    of women's inequality.  For example, my ex-brother-in-law once said
    to me, "I don't mind if my wife goes to work as long as she has
    dinner waiting for me at night."  If he had been *my* husband he
    would have been in for a sad surprise, but otherwise, he's a really
    nice person whose company I like.  I'm not *angry* at him, although
    I do feel he has a few dumb ideas.
    
    I would be surprised if there is any man who knows me personally
    (not thru notes only!) who considers me to be "angry at men."  On
    the contrary, I bet I have some male friends who would be quite
    surprised to read some of the views I've put in this file.  (Things
    like, "I never knew you felt like *that*!)
    
    I feel angry toward a faceless, nameless, group which includes some
    men, down through the course of time who have not done a heck of
    a lot to share the power and wealth of the world with women.  I
    also feel angry at a nameless, faceless group of men that a lot
    of my women friends have told me about since I was about 12 - men
    that have hurt them, dissapointed them, made them cry.  I've listened
    to friends stories and I've read books and articles - and I've felt
    very, very angry at times.  I've felt strong feelings of injustice
    and helplessness.
    
    A close, platonic male friend, (an engineer at DEC), once had to
    do jury duty in Boston.  He told me, "It almost makes me ashamed
    to be a man to sit there and have to listen to all the horrible,
    violent things men do to women and each other."  Hardly any of the
    crimes had been committed by women.
    
    That's the type of thing I consider to be generic anger, but it
    doesn't translate into me acting angry and nasty towards the men
    I deal with in my life.
    
    Lorna
    

    It's very interesting, but for me generic "anger toward men" has
    a flip side which is "positive feeling toward women".   Let me just
    stop a moment to define my terms.   When I say "anger toward men"
    I really mean a hostile feeling toward 'those men'.   You know,
    the ones who just can't understand why women can't get ahead--after
    all, it only takes hard work, the ones who assume that math is
    something men can do (or have a better chance at doing)--just look
    at history or even today, these men proclaim, or, the politicians
    who refer to me as a 'little lady' or some such derogatory term.
    See?
    
    Now the positive feeling toward women comes out pretty much whenever
    I see a woman in a business suit walking down the street or hear
    about a woman engineer who gave a great presentation.   In the first
    case, women in business is pretty recent.   I can remember my mom
    telling me about how the business women have changed traveling.
    If twenty years ago, a woman traveled alone, hotel clerks would
    look at her in askance.   In the second case, woman engineers giving
    presentations is just plain *rare*.
    
    I have digressed a bit, but my point is that generic anger toward
    men (and for me generic positive feeling toward women), is simply
    a reaction to the inequality I see.    It, *in no wise*, means that
    I cannot differentiate between my male friends and 'those men' who
    descriminate against me or that I cannot see the difference between
    a bad female manager and 'those women' who are my role models.
    
    Tamar
    

Equality is not just a male/female issue. My goal (now though this was
not always the case i.e before I came to peace with my second class status.) 
is for both sexes to realize that these strict role models and gender based 
assumptions (made by both sexes) are harmful.

Yes, men really are the top dogs in this society, and yes it does make
me angry that I do not receive equal pay for equal work, and that
success is more difficult because of the XX chromosome, but I do not
direct that anger towards men, I direct it toward society, made up
by BOTH men and woman. As a child the person who most suppressed me
was my mother. My father on the other hand believed I could do anything
that I put my mind to... ( now I realize that my mother was merely being
realistic ;-)). The point of this is that although as a woman I get the
worst end of the deal by far, men lose out too, there are expected to be
strong, to solve all the problems ect... 

I have no control over the society as a whole, what I do have control
over is my attitudes, and I try to treat both sexes equally and myself
behave as if I as least believe this to be true.

Now, the thing that still gets my blood pressure up is those men who
do not realize the extent of the problem. It pervades every
aspect of our lives. It is something that it is impossible to ignore,
and impossible to avoid. It really takes an effort of will not to
succumb to the constant drone of "woman aren't good at (fill in the blank)
or it's not feminine to... or (worst of all) the "there, there dear" syndrome
of not being taken seriously... 
    

This issue was recently discussed in the USENET group soc.women. A useful
distinction was introduced between being angry at men and being angry at
patriarchy, which is (thumbnail definition) the system responsible for
perpetuating men's unfair advantage over women.

Since men are the main beneficiaries of patriarchy, and also do the most to
support and perpetuate it, it's difficult to be angry at patriarchy without
being angry at men. But it is a good distinction to keep in mind, since
there are some women (e.g. Phyllis Schlafly) who work a lot harder for the
clampdown than most men, and many men who are working to change it.

Don.

        Now we're getting somewhere... people finally are admitting
        that their anger is towards particular *behavior patterns*,
        not towards *men*.  Thankyou, Lorna.  In case you haven't
        noticed, I share much of your anger towards those same behavior
        patterns.  It's nice of you to let me be on your side instead
        of trying to categorize me as "the enemy".  <insert slightly
        sarcastic but well intentioned smiley face>
        
        	/dave

    Reply to .43 and .44;
    
    It seems our emotions don't use words until we force them out of
    our mouths.  We use images, icons and symbols.  Patriarchy has had
    much time to work it's way into our psyches, especially as symbols
    representing bad things.
    
    The generic anger is probably one that is directed toward a symbol or
    image of men, unfair men that oppressed people, especially women. The
    lesson I have learned and am still learning is how to cope with that
    "bad" symbol (of whatever) on a personal level in my psyche. 
    
    Perhaps when womem feel anger toward men and visa-versa we are really
    struggling with an inner lack of our own.  I can imagine that a
    woman will feel very intimidated when sexual harrasment raises it
    ugly head.  Still, if that woman knows how to handle that encounter
    and has the strength to do so she will ultimately be better off.
    I think this is where the lack is.  Women were not taught how to
    handle those difficult encounters in life.
    
    With the various programs that exist today women are helping women and
    that is how it should be for now.  Seeing as how the rules are set up
    to place women at a disadvantage in todays world women understand
    womens problems best.  The law, customs and social settings will not
    change till women change them.  Men can help and lend great assistance
    but women must do the work themselves. 
    
    Perhaps the generic anger is brought about via the fear of
    helplessness. Again we are dealing with the symbol of the woman
    handcuffed to the laundry hamper, to the stove, to the bedpost. 
    Perhaps in changing that self image into something more positive
    women can "heal themselves" where no amount of male instigated
    assistance would.
    
    I don't think any woman is helpless.  I've been punched in the nose
    before by a girlfriend.  It didn't bring blood but it sure shocked me! 
    
    Ladies, develop your own power.  In learning how to handle our
    single-sexed system you can indeed change it to suit your needs better.
                                                                           
    I deeply suspect that most of you have already learned how to transform
    anger into constructive activity.  Still many women and men haven't
    learned that trick.
                 
      Mikie
                                  

                   It's almost impossible for me to relate
               to the concept of "anger towards men" -- the
               reason is because I "identify" almost equally
               with both men and women.
    
                   I "identify" with people who have had lives
               and/or experiences most similar with the ones
               that I've had.  For example, I have a Bachelor
               of Arts in Philosophy -- nearly all of the people
               I've met "out in the world" who were Philosophy
               majors have been men.  My work experience includes
               being a Broadcast TV camera operator, a Broadcast
               TV video engineer, a chip-level troubleshooter of
               8-layer TTL circuit boards in a manufacturing
               environment, a Field Service Engineer and now a
               Support Engineer -- most of the people I've known
               during all these jobs have been men (outnumbering
               the women by a substantial margin.)
    
                   I'm a parent -- I "identify" with both men and
               women who have children.  I'm a breadwinner (and have
               been one throughout my whole adult life, including
               while I was married since I made twice the income that
               my husband made) -- I "identify" with both male and
               female breadwinners.
    
                   What *DOES* make me very angry is prejudice (which
               I equate with sexism.)  The idea that someone could
               meet or know 5, 10 or even 100 persons of one group
               and decide that they can form valid conclusions about
               the millions/billions of other members of that group
               based on the small sample they've been exposed to --
               what it amounts to is a cop-out (a convenient but
               totally invalid way of proving prejudicial beliefs.)
    
                   In my life, I've done quite a bit of picking and
               choosing among experiences that are shared mostly by
               women and experiences that are shared mostly by men.
               The end result is a unique "ME" that has not felt the
               need to conform to any set of rules based on what sex
               I am.  It angers me terribly when someone makes gross
               generalizations about women or men (because I like to
               think that *all* of us are capable of being OURSELVES
               without the necessity of falling into sexual stereo-
               types.)
    
                   Therefore, because of the fact that I tend to see
               people as individuals (and not persons of one sex or
               the other, unless I'm looking at them as possible
               sexual_partners/SO's) I *very much* tend NOT to
               generalize my anger against prejudice/sexism into
               "anger towards men."
    
                                                      Suzanne...

    re: -1
    
    Nice, but society unfortunately DOES generalize and that's why blacks, 
    women, and any other group targeted by white males for inferior status, 
    are angry.
    
    Of all the slang terms for the oppressed groups, did you ever wonder
    why there is NO nasty, slang term for "white male"  OK, I'll concede
    to "honky" but even that doesn't have the underlying inflammatory
    nastiness of the others - did you smile just a bit when you just
    read that word?  Would you if I typed some of the "others"? 
    
    And as far as some noters taking exception to the use of "men" meaning
    anger at ALL men, consider this:
    
    All men are NOT oppressors of women, but all oppressors of women,
    (excpet Phyllis Schafly :-)), ARE men.
    
    Our contemporaries, (specifically our peers at Digital), are the
    most enlightened and caring group of men in centuries but our
    contemporaries are NOT the ones running our world.  The last generation
    complete with all its theories on woman's "place" are the people
    who are FOR THE MOST PART the ones giving us jobs, raises, loans
    and upon whom we are ALL dependant for our livelihood.  The next
    generation will grow under US and for them it will be far more likely
    that high level appointments will be based simply on who is best
    qualified for the job rather than genital-type!

    Re: .48
    
>    All men are NOT oppressors of women, but all oppressors of women,
>    (excpet Phyllis Schafly :-)), ARE men.

    I strongly disagree with the statement that "all oppressors of women
    are men".  I am told that this is discussed elsewhere in this
    conference (I have only recently returned to reading it), but my
    experience has been that the most blatant oppression of women has
    been by other women, of which Phyllis Schlafly is only one of the
    most vocal.  I find this very hard to understand - I've looked for
    the other note on this topic and can't find it - can someone provide
    a pointer?  If not, perhaps a new note could be started.
    
    					Steve

         RE: .48
    
                One thing I disagree with -- not *ALL* oppressors
            of women are men.  Women, unfortunately, oppress other
            women at times.
    
                Immediately before I joined DEC, when I was first
            separated from my ex, I took a temporary job that was
            definitely a "WOMAN'S" job -- the people who oppressed
            me were other women on my level.  I was SEVERELY dis-
            criminated against by them for being "the new person"
            (I took their abuse whenever I had to ask questions or
            faltered a bit on some unfamiliar task.)  When I had
            my vacation scheduled, one woman even told me that she
            was considering "pulling rank" on me and having *MY*
            vacation cancelled because she had decided *SHE* wanted
            to take hers instead.
    
                Quite a few times, I almost stopped them and asked,
            "Just who the h*ll do you think you're talking to???"
            (but then I remembered "my place" in a traditionally
            female job.)
    
                Thank God it only lasted a few months.  Then I was
            with DEC (back in a non-traditional job where I felt I
            "belonged" and where I was treated with respect by the
            male and female engineers I worked with.)
    
                All I can think about those women who oppressed
            "the new person" is that they were so used to being
            treated that way themselves (by who, I'm not sure) that
            they JUMPED on the chance to dish it out to some new
            victim.  Who's fault is that?  It's the fault of persons
            who committed SEXISM against them (maybe *they* received
            the same treatment from the women who got there before
            *they* did.)
    
                Whoever started it -- whoever keeps it going -- I don't
            think that anger against a group is going to help.  I think
            that (in its own way) it is just as sexist as what has been
            done to us:  It's a way of making generalizations against
            a group (based on the prejudices we choose to have rather
            than the potential or behavior of people as individuals.)
    
                I've chosen NOT to blame men in general (I don't like
            to see generalizations made about either sex -- I think
            it's wrong no matter which sex receives the generalizations
            or the sexual stereotypes.)
    
                If we react to sexism by becoming sexist ourselves,
            then we are no better than those who have committed sexism
            against us (whoever they may be.)
    
                                                        Suzanne...

    If women DO oppress other women, the reasoning still goes back to
    males, i.e. mothers telling their daughters NOT to try so hard to win
    all the time.  The mother of course doesn't simply want her daughter
    to be a failure, but wants her to avoid being ostracized by men
    which would then lead to a lonely life for a sharp-witted little
    girl!
    
    Phyllis Schlafly truly believes that women are too stupid to even
    know what they want!  She feels legislation is necessary, (No
    guaranteed equal rights), to protect us from foolishly abandoning the 
    men of the world because that's where our only true happiness lies!
    
    I doubt many women actively push this on other women.  "Oppression"
    of the type you are referring to is basically "warning" - women
    telling other women that "the world", (the world of men), would
    not approve.
    
    My grandmother actually said "The boys won't like you if..." and
    I said "So what?"  I found out FAST "so what" but the point is that
    she wasn't being "oppressive" but was warning me of the consequences.
    
    Perhaps if we were never "warned", (see my topic #155 "Your first
    sexist experience), we may have just barged into the schools simply
    EXPECTING to be treated fully equally - ALL of us - and any who
    stood in our way be damned!  That IS, after all, how men feel when
    selecting and pursuing their chosen path!  But by then reticence and 
    self-doubt has already been instilled and reinforcement continues
    every day of our lives thereafter.

         RE: .51
    
                 Maybe we (as individuals) have our own way of
             reacting to the world around us.
    
                 I was my parents' youngest and last child (my
             Mother called me "the little doll.")  I wore cute
             little dresses every day of my life and was heavily
             rewarded by the 4 "big" people in my family to be
             totally passive and to do everything that everyone
             told me to do.  My only toys were dolls and tea
             sets (I never asked for or wanted anything else.)
    
                 When the time came and I realized I was going 
             to have to support myself and my newborn son, I
             barged into the technical world full force (the men
             I worked with on my first technical job remember me
             as this serious, fiercely determined young woman who
             WOULD NOT BE DENIED A TECHNICAL CAREER!)  And I
             haven't been denied a thing since (in the way of my
             career!)  I took a temporary setback while I got
             myself out of a bad marriage, but the rest has been
             a rise upward nearly all the way.
    
                 Who trained me to be that way?  I just CHOSE to
             be that way myself.  I had the determination to set
             aside the entire life I'd lived in "cute little
             dresses and dolls" to become the person I wanted to
             be (and refused to let anyone stop me.)
    
                 It *did* help that my Mother always preached to
             me that *all* people needed an education (even cute
             little girls with tea sets.)  But she didn't tell me
             how to achieve the things I wanted -- I figured it
             out for myself because I wanted it (I chose it.)
    
                 I'm not saying that we haven't been discriminated
             against (and taught to be less than what we're capable
             of being.)  I'm saying that we already *HAVE* the power
             to be what we want to be (if we want it badly enough!)
    
                 If we want sexism to end, we should set the example
             and refrain from doing it ourselves.
    
                                                     Suzanne...

    re .48

    I have *definitely* experienced sexism from women.  And it makes
    me a *lot* angrier than sexism from men!  My mother, aunt, and ex-best
    friend from high school all believe that abortion is wrong under
    all circumstances.  That's anti-woman (even if *they* think it's
    "pro-life").  And my sister who is close to my age who prefers to
    be called a "girl" rather than a woman. (We've had some heated
    discussions over it.)  And any woman who says assinine things like
    "I'm not a feminist, but I believe in equal pay for women..." or
    "I believe women and men are equal, but we don't need an ERA" gets
    my number one enemy award.  Those things are, of course, bad enough
    coming from a man.  But coming from women?!  That makes me *really*
    angry!.
    
    	-Ellen

>           If women DO oppress other women, the reasoning still goes back to
>   males, i.e. mothers telling their daughters NOT to try so hard to win
>   all the time.  The mother of course doesn't simply want her daughter

        A *warning* is "if you want to show how competant you are,
        and be independent, I'll support you, but I want you to be
        aware that a lot of people will make it difficult for you".
        
        Being part of the force trying to make it difficult isn't
        a warning... it's oppression.  Why is it excusable for a
        woman to do the same thing to you that you're angry at "men"
        for?  Simply because you refuse to step out of your "us,
        friend", "them, enemy" mindset, and you've defined "woman"
        as "friend"?
        
        	/dave

         RE: .53
    
                What is your definition of "feminist" (such that
            it would bother you if someone said that she was NOT
            a feminist but believed in equal pay, etc.)?
    
                I've spent my whole adult life being a "pioneer"
            in one way or another (being "first woman this" and
            "first woman that" more times than I can remember.)
            
                There's nothing I dislike MORE in the world than
            sexism (against females *OR* males) -- and I refuse to
            see males as "the enemy" -- so therefore, I don't think
            of myself as a "feminist" (but rather an "equalitist"
            or whatever you want to call it.)  I'm PRO-WOMEN, PRO-MEN,
            PRO-CHILDREN -- PRO-HUMAN!
    
         RE: in general
    
                 Maybe that means I'm a feminist by someone's defini-
            tion (but I would rather see us all JOIN TOGETHER AS ONE
            rather than cast blame.)  I don't think (for myelf) that
            considering men as "the enemy" is a step towards that
            goal.  
    
                We have to stop seeing ourselves as "separate and
            different."  If we can't do that, then how are we helping
            to STOP SEXISM (which gets its impetus by seeing us as
            "separate and different"?)
    
                                                       Suzanne...

    re -.1
    
    My own definition of "feminist" - a person who loves women.
    
    	Ellen

         RE: .56
    
                 OK.  I just wanted to point out that someone
            who says "I'm not a feminist" does not necessarily
            mean that she (or he) is ANTI-women.
    
                 As often as I've gotten upset over sexist
            (anti-women) remarks in NOTES, I feel I'm certainly
            one who loves women.  I just think I love men every
            bit as much (so I'm PRO-EVERYBODY!)  :-)
    
                 If you look at many of the people who make
            the most sexist remarks against women, nearly all
            of them say "I love women" (and make their sexist
            statements ANYWAY!)
    
                 So I'm ANTI-SEXIST (which by my standards is
            more important.)  I just include all humans in the
            class against which I hope all sexism will cease.

                                                 Suzanne....

           P.S.   By the way, I'm also PRO-CHOICE and was
           PRO-ERA.
    
           I just don't think that one should have to choose
           between being PRO-WOMEN and PRO-MEN.  The only way
           we can ever hope to work side-by-side as equals is
           to accept men (as we would like men to accept us):
           for our worth as individuals.
    
                                                  Suzanne...

    re -1
    
    Being a feminist doesn't mean you hate men, ya know.  Being
    feminist/pro-women doesn't mean you're anti-men or not pro-men.
    You make it sound like "feminist" is a dirty word or something!
    I don't know if they intend it this way, but I always get the feeling
    when a woman says "I'm for equality blahblahblah, but I'm not a
    feminist" that she's doing it to win male approval.

    Unfortunately, I think a lot of people equate the word "feminist"
    with extremism and radical people.  As with any cause, there are
    radicals and extremists.    

    	-Ellen

    RE: .54
    
    > A *warning* is "if you want to show how competant you are,
      and be independent, I'll support you, but I want you to be
      aware that a lot of people will make it difficult for you".
    
    I agree.  That's what they said.  That's why I call them warnings!
    My mother and grandmother loved my intelligence and my spunk - I KNEW 
    they were proud of me.  They still talk about the time I fought
    back against my two older brothers who LUVVED to harrass the new
    baby SISTER, (said like you had a mouthfull of liver!), and I hauled
    off and socked one of them but good!  But amusement aside, they
    "warned" me whenever the situation warranted, that the rest of the
    world would NOT appreciate whatever type of behavior I was exhibiting
    at the time.  You learn the world is NOT a kind place to little
    girls!
    
    > Being part of the force trying to make it difficult isn't a
    warning...
    
    I doubt they felt they were part of the force trying to make it
    difficult.  Don't forget women were taught powerLESSness and were
    taught to doubt themselves and their capabilities AND to fear and
    revere and defer to men.  Women of past generations did not feel they 
    COULD change things and were pretty much resigned to the status quo.  
    Seeing spunk in a young girl made them, I am sure, shake their heads 
    and exchange knowing smiles.
    
    And lets even regard the few women who ARE actually "anti-woman"
    sexists.  First off, one noter suggested they may be doing it to
    win male favor.  I agree.  I recall feeling the same way in my teens;
    saying I preferred men to women because women were this or that.
    I wanted to show the guys that I was on their side and if they hated
    "girls" well then I would TOO!  (I shudder to think!)
    
    But the real point is that sexist women can't do us as much harm
    as sexist men.  I didn't say they could do us NO harm, just that
    men can do more since they control the gold pile!
    
    Missus Schlafly, (what's her husbands first name?), is about the
    only sexist woman who could do us all serious damage.  I'd include
    Anita Bryant in that, but she slandered gay men and because she
    slandered MEN she's fallen out of favor with the media and hence
    with the nation.  Schlafly is still flying high because she's only
    proposing bondage for women!

>    I agree.  That's what they said.  That's why I call them warnings!
        
        That's nice... but it wasn't the impression I got from your
        earlier
        
>   If women DO oppress other women, the reasoning still goes back to
>   males, i.e. mothers telling their daughters NOT to try so hard to win
>   all the time.  The mother of course doesn't simply want her daughter
        
        You skipped some explanation which might have made your point
        clearer.  Many older women *do* oppress their daughters in
        exactly the same way any sexist man might, by telling them
        (whether patiently and "for their own good", or angrily)
        that what they have done or wish to do is "unfeminine" and
        "wrong", etc.  That's a far cry from warning them that the action
        is *right*, but will be unpopular among many low-class jerks
        of either sex... and allowing the child to make her own
        decision. 
        
        
        As for the meaning of feminist... well, the word has become
        associated with unpleasant extremists, regardless of the
        merits of the organizations which adapted the word in the
        first place.
        
        Unfortunately, as Humpty Dumpty would be glad to tell you,
        words usually mean what the speaker intends them to mean...
        no more, no less.  For society to function smoothly, we must
        usually assume words mean what "common usage" prefers them
        to mean.  "Elevator" began as a registered trademark for
        Otis... but slipped into common usage as a generic: the public
        determined that the word meant something other than what
        Otis intended.
        
        In general, "Feminist" seems to imply at least a bit of
        extremism to "the public", and there's probably no hope of
        ever removing that stigma.
        
        Unfortunately, the radical religious right has been working
        very hard to stigmatize "Humanist", too.  With any luck,
        they won't succeed, and for the moment it's more or less
        safe in most circles, but given time, who knows?
        
        That's another problem with labels... they can be twisted
        if the opposition tries hard enough.
        
        As for me... I like people.  Not *all* people... but I try
        hard to dislike people only as specific individuals, not
        as faceless categories.  I really don't care what label anyone
        might want to put on that, and therefore it matters not if
        such label have its meaning changed over time.
        
        	/dave  

    I just went to my American Heritage Dictionary (the version I got
    for my office from DEC) and it gives this definition:
    
    feminism - advocacy of the political, social, and economic equality
    of men and women.
    
    So, I'd like to know who of you in this conference don't agree with
    this philosophy of feminism?

    	-Ellen

    Parts of this discussion made me think of Dworkin's book on Woman
    Hating.  
    
    Her thesis (or one of them) is that woman hating has been practiced
    primarily by mothers and other close family members on daughters,
    with the objective of making her marriageable, and therefore maximizing
    her chances of survival.
    
    Some of the practices she details include Chinese foot binding and
    clitoridectomies.  In most cases the practices horrify us today--
    especially the ones that maim the woman in some way.  
    
    But at the same time we hear stories about women in this culture
    being carefully taught by their mothers not to push back, not to
    appear too smart, not to appear independent, etc.
    
    What interests me most is that the macro objective is being pleasing
    enough to be paired with an acceptable man--the desires of the men
    maintain the norms.  But it is the women who enforce the practices,
    or are responsible for training the daughter to accept her lot.
    It's no wonder that women who have been trained in this way learn
    to glorify the one whom they are being trained to please, and to
    hate the ones doing the training--and themselves by extension. 
    And then, in many cases, turn around and train their daughters in
    a similar way.
    
    I think that our generation of women in this class and in this culture
    have the economic independence and the education to break such a
    cycle, if we can only see it.
    
    
    Holly
    

    re .64
    
    I thought I was a humanist too.  Does this mean I can't be feminist
    also?
    
    	-Ellen

{RE .21} - You're right, we do agree.  I'm sorry if it seemed I was misquoting
 you; that wasn't my intention.  I was just trying to provide a hypothesis for
  the correlation, to help explain why a cause-and-effect relationship isn't
   the only explanation for it.

{RE .26} - I know you clarified this later, but I think it's important to take
 a look at what you wrote, replacing "men" with "blacks," and seeing how it
  comes across.  I think that would best illustrate the problems with making
   such general statements.
    <_Jym_>

>    All men are NOT oppressors of women, but all oppressors of women,
>    (excpet Phyllis Schafly :-)), ARE men.
    
I think this idea has a lot of truth to it. I think that it's a consequence
of women being denied power. Very few get to be presidents, popes, prime
ministers, senators, or CEO's of Fortune 500 multinational corporations, so
they don't have the opportunity to practice oppression. But as Ellen G. and
others have pointed out many women beleive in male supremacy and work to
promote it as hard as they can.

Don.

    yes i am angry! i cant help it. twice bitten,twice shy...
    
    i find the more i get hurt,the more i mistrust,and the more bitter
    i become.i hate to admit that,but it is true.
    it really is a shame that i have to hide my feelings and my tthoughts
    from men more and more.seems the ones i find cannot not deall with
    an emotionally honest woman. mothre never told me about this...
    
    					kelly

    I agree with the idea that being denied power is a reason for anger.
    Another is fact of life that I see is that women's ideas and emotions
    and their actions and achievements are constantly and consistently
    being discredited.  All the NEW feminist ideas have been around
    for a great many years.  It seems the books keep getting lost!