Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    How can anyone adequately answer this?  No one (with the possible
    exception of transsexuals) have ever been in both types.  I really
    don't know how men view their bodies, and I don't believe that men
    know how women view their bodies.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    
	"Do women  view their body as being cylcic, while men view their
    body as"

    Should be:

	"Do women  view their bodies as being cyclic, while men view their
    bodies as"


    Sorry!

    
    Then perhaps we women should tell the men how we view our bodies
    and vice versa.  I, for one, am interested in how men view their
    bodies and how other women view theirs. 
    
    I know that I've read in several articles that many women are more 
    critical of their own bodies than men and will see more flaws in 
    themselves that others don't necessarily see; men, on the other
    hand, are said to be less critical of themselves and are often not
    critical enough.
    
    Is this really true?
    
    I don't know about you others, but I'm relatively happy with my own
    body.  There's a few more inches on my thighs than I'd like, but
    I dance and lift weights and am slowly toning them into a more
    preferable shape.
    
    Suffice it to say I won't be asking my parents for any refunds.
    
    Carol  :-)

    Okay, I'll talk...I'll talk...
    
    I've been overweight (not grotesque, mind you, just overweight)
    most of my life.  And once the media started flinging body images
    akin to Twiggy and Brooke Shields and Lynda Carter at me, I got
    pretty confused.  When I was feeling good about myself, I'd look
    in the mirror and see me as beautiful.  When I was feeling down
    on myself (why didn't I stick to that diet?) I'd look in the mirror
    and see something repulsive.  Maybe I hadn't gained or lost an ounce
    between the two, it was just the way I viewed my body.
    
    At one point I had problems with food.  I'd binge and stuff.  So
    I went to an "eating disorders group".  I realized then that I wasn't
    as sick as I'd thought.  There were people out there even more confused
    than I was.  When asked to draw a body outline, full size, with
    magic marker on blank paper, some people came up with the darndest
    things.  Mine was a bit larger than I actually was.  Some people drew
    stick figures.  Some drew head, hands, and feet, and left a blank
    space inbetween.  Some drew grotesquely huge figures.  Some drew
    thin figures with no curves.  All the people in the class were women,
    maximum size of 16, minimum size of 10...an average group.  But
    what I saw when I looked at those pictures, and heard their stories,
    broke my heart.
    
    There is so much bound up in how women should look, according to
    various sources.  Sometimes I think "geez, men can just settle for
    being clean, women have to go and try to be pretty to be accepted".
     But again, that's more of society's brainwashing.  Women have always
    been taught to despise those parts of their body that do not conform
    to society's norm.  It is so hard to overcome the social bias against
    being different (in my case overweight).  When I was in high school,
    several times I was barked at in the streets - and it was frightening.
     At one point in college, I was fairly slim, and I was whistled
    at several times...again it was frightening, because I was not used
    to being considered attractive.  Sometimes I'd just walk around
    wishing no one would notice me at all.  But that was a while ago.
     
    
    I am different now, more grown up.  yes, I am trying to get in shape,
    but not to satisfy some fashion-slave instinct.  I want to look
    better and feel better for me.  I want to prove that intelligence
    an attractiveness aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (a problem
    that some people have - assuming those who are stunningly beautiful
    are truly ditzy underneath).  I may never win any beauty contests,
    but as long as *I* am happy with me, I can live comfortably in whatever
    body I have.
    
    Jody
    

    I view my body as an extension of myself, with the real me being
    my mind.
    
    When I stop to think about it, less now than when I was young, I
    feel bad that I'm not stunningly beautiful but when I see women
    whom I consider to be really homely and/or very obese I find myself
    thanking "whatever gods may be" that I don't look like "that."
    
    I am convinced that because of the brainwashing of men about the
    importance of beauty in a woman, that a truly beautiful woman (say
    a Kim Basinger for example) can get anything in this world she wants
    just because she's beautiful - and as someone else said "men only
    have to be clean".  It pisses me off when I think about it.
    
    I'm glad I'm slim, but I'd like to have a bigger chest (only because
    men like them so much - which also pisses me off).  Being short
    has never bothered me.
    
    I guess I could say I'm at peace with my body.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .6:
    
    Gee, Lorna, you're "pissed off" about everything?  I guess I've
    never really felt that way.  I sure don't like the way the media
    has "spoonfed" us all this untrue stuff about what women's and
    men's bodies are "supposed" to look like.  But I certainly don't
    believe it and I *certainly* don't take it seriously.  *I* TRUELY
    have more important things about which to worry.  I feel sorry for
    people who have been brainwashed by it, *especially* the men who might
    be too taken in by it to see what a wonderful person I am (their loss
    :-) ) underneath.
    
    And I very *rarely* have the reaction to other women that you say
    you do (really obese or "homely" women).  I guess I figure that
    the obese ones would lose weight if they really wanted to and that
    the "homely" ones would play with makeup or have cosmetic surgery,
    teeth straightened, etc., whatever, if they really wanted to do
    that.  I *do* believe that people, one way or another can make
    themselves attractive if they *want* to be, and by "attractive", I
    don't mean the narrow media-model image that hardly any of us can
    be.
    
    I simply don't go around evaluating what women look like, what they
    wear, how they should wear their hair.  That bores me!  I know many
    women (mostly the ditzy kind) do that, though.
    
    This all isn't to say I wouldn't change some things if I could.
    I'd love to have a stronger and hardier body.  And I guess I could
    lift weights or something if I *really* wanted to, but other things
    are more important right now in my life.  But I like what I've got.
    I wish all women would like their bodies, the world would a much more
    accepting place (see previous and next paragraphs).
    
    One thing I've noticed is that the women who are most hung up on
    their own weight are the ones who notice other women's being overweight.
    And I'm not saying every woman who's ever been on a weight-loss diet is
    critical of other women's weight.
    
    	-Ellen

    re .7 you hit the nail right on the head - priorities. I *know*
    I should lose weight, hit the weights more, increase my endurance
    etc... but not right now. Too busy with x and y and z. Sheesh, I
    can't find time for a haircut. Any of you women looking for a shaggy
    short-winded slightly pudgy...;-)
    
    Dana

    Yeah, men only have to be clean.  They can just run it through the
    "car wash" and demand to be understood for who they are as humans
    and not just looked at as mere "success-objects".
    
    Women however CAN'T just car-wash it and expect their inside qualities
    will carry them.  They must be "detailed" every single time because
    many men are obsessed with the details.  Just look at the photos they 
    love to drool over.  All excruciating detail.  Not a ghost of an
    improper shadow.  Not a wisp of a hangnail.  Not a hair of
    imperfection.  The only difference between any of them is mere personal
    preference.  Perfect detail is a MUST and the tie that binds them
    all in many men's minds.                              
    
    And many men are "detail conscious" with real life women too.  They
    admit freely to "watching" women but they are actually "studying"
    their details.  This one's hair, that one's walk, etc.  And while they 
    study *them* they want the woman at their side to be happy and
    comfortable with herself as she is.  She squirms at her comparative
    imperfections and he commiserates with his buddies and wonders why
    women are so damn body conscious!
    
    There was a great article in the Worcester Sunday Telegram a couple of
    months ago about this exact subject.  The male psychology professor
    stated that women had skewed body images and that WE, the women,
    needed to rethink what it means to be a human woman!  This gave me a 
    real laugh.
    
    On tv at the time was a TJ Maxx ad featuring just the torsos of about
    6 young women in bathing suits swaying teasingly to the jingle.
    I am hard-pressed to believe images like this, which are the backbone
    of advertising, are dreamed up and executed by women just so we
    can tormen ourselves.  I don't disagree women have terrible images
    about the ideal female form.  I just get a real laugh when it's
    blamed on US and our "innate vanity".
    
    Yes, I believe women have terrible body images and that doesn't
    surprise me in the least.  We can never be perfect in every detail
    but as long as both men and women are shown what appears to be female
    physical perfection 300+ times a day we will all continue to believe
    it exists.  Male perfection images are increasing, thank heaven,
    and the pressure on men because of it is increasing too.  I don't
    think two wrongs make a right but if men don't believe women feel
    opressed and uncomfortable with male-contrived perfect female images
    to live up to then maybe they will begin to understand it when they
    feel it firsthand.  Maybe they themselves will one day shout "Enough!
    This is just crap designed to sell and no human deserves to be made
    to feel so wretched."  Ah, what a great day that will be.  
    
    Until then, women will continue to knock themselves out trying to find 
    the key to the female physical perfection image men have contrived for 
    themselves and each other and men will continue to be on the lookout
    for it whenever there is a woman or women to look at.
    

    Would I be willing to chuck it all back into the gene pool and take
    my chances on another throw?
    
    Hell, no!

    re .9
    
    From a man's point of view.  I agree that we men have been sold
    on what the ideal famale form is.  Most of us know that it is just
    that - a sales job.  True men are, as a group, are more visually stimulated
    than woman.  At least that's what I've been told by the women in
    my life.  I admit to the study of the female form.  I find women
    (and men) who have what I consider beautiful bodies to please me
    in the way other beautiful sights - sunsets - do.  However, a beautiful
    woman does stimulate me in a unique way.
    
    Re men feeling pressure.  You bet.  As more t.v. ads picture Mr.
    Body beautiful, I feel the presure.  When I hear women discussing
    how good a man looks, I feel pressure.  As age resculptures my body,
    I feel the pressure.
    
    For a man, a woman's looks may be the first attacter, but it's not
    the major determinate for a relationship.
    
    Marty
    

GUCCI::MHILL

>Most of us know that it is just that - a sales job.  

Yes, but you continue to buy.  You don't mind being "sold" all
that much.

>I find women (and men) who have what I consider beautiful bodies to 
>please me in the way other beautiful sights - sunsets - do.  

If you have spent as much time and money on beautiful male bodies and
on images of sunsets that you have on the female form then I will be-
lieve you.  Otherwise, the "appreciation" is obviously not quite the
same.  Sunsets and male bodies are in very low proportion in our media
compared to female bodies.  That too tells me it's not quite the same.

>For a man, a woman's looks may be the first attacter, but it's not
>the major determinate for a relationship.
 
Depends on what you mean by "major determinant".  If you never get attracted
to a woman enough to WANT to get to know her, she doesn't have a chance
at a relationship with you.  Therefore, attractiveness is the PRIME de-
terminant in whether or not you will take the time to SEE if she has what
you want in a relationship.  You see?  If looks are the first screen,
    then they are really THE major determinant.
    

    Several back.
    
      About "homely" women or obese women.  ...they could lose
    weight...have  surgery wear makeup.  To fit who's image of beauty.
    I am obese, medication I took for several years was the direct cause
    of my being over-weight? (Using what chart?).  It is almost impossible
    for me to lose weight at this because of other medication I am taking.
    I don't know what homely means, I refuse to wear makeup or support
    an industry that denegrates women to a perfect image then sells
    them snake oil to achieve it.  Are you not making a judgement? 
    I know many women who are just now striving to understand and accept
    their own bodies.  Some are fat, some obese, some homely base of
    the jundgement that society has made about their bodies.  They have
    internalize a "norm" that does not allow for their bodies and they
    have learned to hate themselves.
    
    The only book I know that addresses this issue in detail is "Fat
    is a Feminist Issue".  Walk softly when making judgement about others,
    they may be judging you.
    
    
    MT
    

    re .12
    
    Guilty.  I'll quit breathing.
    
    Marty

    How we feel about the attractiveness of our bodies is one thing,
    but what about our perceptions of the HEALTH of our bodies?
    
    I know several women (yes, adults) who will not use Tampons because
    they have to touch their genitals to apply them.  I do not understand
    this.  And I do not know any men won't touch their own genitalia
    in non-sexual ways (such as when urinating).  It seems to me many
    women are taught that touching their bodies is Taboo.
    
    I also know many, many women who do not masturbate, who do not know
    how, who think it is wrong (dirty).  I know one man who does not
    masturbate, but I still think it is more taboo for women than for
    men.  I don't understand this.
    
    As far as the "cyclic" nature of women's bodies, I know I am likely
    to discount health problems when they crop up, assuming they are
    simply a by-product of whatever time of the cycle I am in at the
    time.  Symptoms likely to be ignored are: indigestion, nausea,
    headaches, muscle soreness, weird discharges (stupid to ignore these),
    loss of appetite, depression, tension, touchy temper (also known
    as blind fury), and changes in body temperature.
    
    It takes me a lot of time to figure out something is really wrong
    when I have stomach (or mood) problems because my body is ALWAYS
    doing something strange.
    
    Did that answer a few questions?
    
    Lee

    re .13, Maggie:
    
    I think you misunderstood me a little, but that was my fault because
    I didn't explain completely.  The people that I feel comfortable
    are the ones who feel comfortable with themselves.  People who are
    overweight or "homely" (I put the word in quotes in my last reply
    also, because I don't see it that way, I just don't have a better word
    - I could have and maybe should have said, "those who many people
    consider 'homely'") I feel accepting of, if they accept themselves.
    If they want to change, they can and will.  If they *don't* want
    to, and they accept themselves, then *I* will to.  I find it hard
    to accept someone who can't accept him or herself.
    
    If I meet someone who is overweight and is obviously concerned about
    it, but isn't doing much about it except complaining, I am not going
    to feel very accepting or good about that person.  Worse are the
    ones who compare themselves to me and say, "I wish I could be thin
    like you."  Aren't they judging me on my body also?  I'm not a body,
    and I don't want the comparisons thrown at me.  Are they trying
    to make me feel guilty about being thin?
    
    There are many overweight women I've met who are *very* much at
    peace with themselves, and appear to be with their bodies.  I feel
    very accepting and at peace with them.  The saddest is to see a
    woman who is not fat at all, but complains about losing weight all the
    time.  I don't want to waste my time on such a person (unless there's
    something else positive that balances that negative).
    
    	-Ellen

    
    
    	RE:.15
    
    	Yes, Lee, that is a little closer to what I had in mind with
    regards to the base note of this topic.  I've always wondered if
    that was true, in that when most men have a cramp or muscle soreness,
    they look for a definable cause and feel uncomfortable [I know I
    would] if they can't find one, while women will more than likely
    KNOW what it is when it happens.
    
    	Am I being clear, it's hard to relate this...
    
    

    Re Ellen, I said I only feel pissed off when I *think* about how
    much importance the media and society have placed on women being
    beautiful and on large breasts.  I don't think about it all the
    time and the older I get the less I think about it, so it's not as
    though I'm walking around in a state of perpetual outrage about
    it.  Most of the time I'm thinking about other more "important"
    issues.
    
    Re Maggie, I don't think I judge other people by their bodies. 
    I have had overweight friends and my own mother was fat for years.
     Appearance, apart from being clean and neat, was just not a big
    thing for her.  But, I just couldn't be happy with myself if I were
    fat.  What others do is their business as far as I'm concerned.
    
    Re Lee, maybe some people just don't feel like masturbating. 
    
    Lorna
    

    LIGHT DAWNS.....
    
    MT
    

    Mike, maybe then you meant women's "sensitivity to" rather than 
    the "perception of" their bodies?  Big distinction!  You might have
    to start another topic!  :-)
    
    Marty, you don't have to stop breathing.  Just think about this the 
    next time you are eagerly consuming or promoting femaleness like
    anything else that's for sale and on display for your viewing pleasure
    - for men's delightful escape from boring reality.  Remember that in 
    consuming femaleness like a commodity, (defined, graded and weighed), 
    there's a whole class of people you are agreeing constitute that
    "boring reality" and there is no way you can hide that from them or 
    justify it to them and/or expect them to hide themselves from it.  
    Everything has its price.  No, your father's generation didn't have
    to pay it. Their women were too dependent on them to complain.  They
    were grateful their husbands stayed and the bills got paid.
    
    

    
    
    	Actually, what I REALLY mean [dawn breaks over marble head]
    	is women's RELATIONSHIP with their body.
    
    	Now I KNOW i'm going to need another topic...
    
    	Enjoy everyone!
    
    

    Interesting question.
    For a long time, I was in such constant physical pain that I had
    to shut down the mind-body link. [The first time I got a massage,
    I spent several hours wondering what was wrong -- I finally realized 
    that I felt so weird because I wasn't in pain.] As I've learned
    to take better care of my mind and my body, I've become quicker
    at recognizing change in my body (and this awareness in turn has 
    contributed to more healing). 
    
    For example, if I can recognize that my shoulders are getting tight, I
    can breathe deeply and try to let some tension out. I can check out
    other areas too -- Is my neck or jaw getting tight too? While doing
    that, I can think about why I'm tense -- maybe I'm angry. If that's
    true, why? Is there anything I can do about it? Can I let go
    emotionally? If so, perhaps I can, in the process, ease my shoulders a
    bit more. Compare this to several years ago, when I'd skip all this
    up-front stuff and wonder why I was walking around with a migraine
    several days later.
    
    In freeing up, I've not only started feeling pain (rather than its
    absence), but I've also changed how I feel about ME: I've learned
    that my body and mind are truly inseparable (something that sounded
    like total bullshit just a few years ago).
    
    I don't know if this answers your question. I can't speak for other
    women or any men on this...
    
    liz

    re.22
    
    I won't stop breathing.  I would like to add the following comments
    to my previous note.  
    
    I'm an admitted "Woman Watcher".  The female form has and will continue
    to bring me great pleasure.  I am not, as you put it, a consumer
    of femaleness like a commodity.  I admire and respect women and
    honestly try to be aware of my behaviour as it relates to women.
    I want to understand womens' issues and hope I do not promote the
    defined, graded and weighed consumption of femaleness.  I joined
    this file for the purpose of expanding my awareness and exchanging
    experiences.  My expectations are being met.
    
    Cheers, Marty
    

    I agree, the negative reactions that women have to their own bodies is due
    to the requirements placed on them by men.  Women observe the reactions
    of men to various woman and work to more closely match that image
    
    I disagree with the idea that the visual rating of prospective mates
    is brainwashed into men.  It's not programmed, It's hard-wired.
    The only way you can tell if it is one or the other is to somehow
    study a group that does not respond to the media presser that informs
    them who to choose.  There exists such a group...the gay population.
    
    I don't get into the gay community much but when I do one observation
    stands out,  gay men are very visually beautiful people.  (there
    are exceptions to every rule, of course)  I think that this is because
    men, despite being gay, still choose a mate based on looks.
    
    It is interesting to look a gay women too.  Gay women are harder
    to spot than gay men because the contrast is not as great.  From
    those I have known, I don't know any who worked as hard as many
    of the strait women I know to keep the perfect body image.  Most
    are more like my male friends.  They have some concern about their
    bodies but to sweat it too much if an extra pond or two appears.
    It appears that gay woman do not heed the media hype that suitable
    women partners must be beautiful.
    
    The same is true of pornography.  Gay men like to look at pictures
    of other gay men.  Gay women don't seem to be too much into male
    directed photographic pornography.  Gay men may be the only reason
    that female directed photographic pornography stays in business.
    
    The only other conclusion is that gay people are immune to the media.
    I don't believe that gay people are that unique.
    
    As for me, I'm a girl watcher too.  The things that *REALLY* catch
    my heart are not the same as the things that catch my eye.  In fact
    they are things that could not be seen.
    
    					MJC O->

    Re .27
    
    
   >> The things that *REALLY* catch my heart are not the same as the
      things that catch my eye.  In fact  they are things that could
      not be seen.<<
                 
    Well said.  This the point I was trying to make in my earlier note.
                 
    Cheers, Marty

    Re .16
    
    >"I wish I could be thin like you."  Aren't they judging me on my
    body also?
              
    Yes.
    
    >the saddest is to see a woman who is not fat at all, but complains
    about losing weight all the time.
    
    Aren't you judging them on their body also?  
    
    Tanya

I see a couple of issues around body image for women.  One is the matter
of "sex-objectness", an association that seems inevitable when
discussing women's bodies with men. Whether for biological or cultural
reasons, men, more than women, seem to have separated their mating
behavior from their relationship behavior.  (By mating behavior, I mean
sex without any particular kind of long-term bonding.)  Like most other
animals, mating behavior seems to be easily driven by external stimuli
(looks, smells, sounds).  Anyone identifying as a sex object, which
seems to be the case more with those who relate to men (i.e. straight
women and gay men) tends to put a fair amount of effort into giving off
the appropriately attractive cues.  I think lesbians tend to do it less,
as part of a backlash against the dehumanizing aspects of sex-objectness
to which women are subjected in a male-dominated society. 

I don't think sex-objectness is necessarily evil.  It can be part of a
normal urge to enjoy human beauty, and sex itself can just be one way to
have fun in the face of a life that hasn't historically offered much
else for recreation (after all VCRs haven't been around that long...).
Where it does become evil and exploitive is when a human's value as a
sex object is treated as the sum total of that human's value, period.
This happens to women much more than it ever happens to men.  Their
sex-objectness tends to deprive them of humanness, while among gay men
sex-objectness tends to be more playful and not fundamentally
threatening to their humanness. 

There are many people who make fun of women like Andrea Dworkin or Betty
Friedan, women who don't rate very highly on the commonly accepted
sex-object scale, ridiculing their ideas as the product of sex-object
"losers".  Few make similar jokes about men like Henry Kissinger (who
was once voted the most eligible bachelor in America). These women are
essentially being annihilated as human beings, because of their
sex-object status (or lack thereof).  Even high-status sex objects don't
become valuable humans, though -- witness the prejudice against
beautiful women having any brains or skill. This objectification serves
to keep women, in their own minds and in the minds of men, as something
less than fully human. You can't blame women who are sensitive to this 
deprivation for rejecting it very soundly as a criterion for attraction.

When women learn that their value as human beings depends on their value
as sex objects, they measure themselves against the prevailing sex
object ideal and inevitably find themselves lacking. The nature of the
ideal doesn't matter -- just that it is unattainable.  This leads most
women to experience the deep fear that they are intrinsically inadequate. 
Again, the specifics don't matter. Most women, if they list what each
personally views as her physical flaws, would find them undetectable by
another human being besides herself.  What does matter is the prevailing
under-feeling that a woman IS her body, that her body is insufficient,
and that she needs to devote an enormous amount of physical and
emotional energy to compensating for her defects.  It keeps her from
thinking about trivial matters like nuclear proliferation all the time,
that's for sure. 

What purpose does it seem in our society to constantly sow this feeling
of inadequacy in women?  I see this the real insidious part of this
issue, which has its roots, as do so many other of our cultural themes,
in the patriarchal religious tradition.  The hopelessness of conforming
to an ideal body image was not invented by the 20th advertising media. 

Think of one of the major problems faced by the patriarchy: it needs
the labor and reproductive properties of women.  In pre-patriarchal
days, women derived much of their religious and social significance from
that fact that they bore children.  The aspect of deity as mother was
probably the first and most powerful religious idea humanity spawned in
its early days.  A woman's mystique lay in her body, which somehow 
encapsulated the power of creation.  All those neolithic venus
figures testify to a rich celebration of women's most distinctively
maternal body characteristics.  How then, can the patriarchy continue to
use women as mothers (and agricultural and domestic laborers, etc), but
deny them the power and mystique that goes with their bodily functions? 

Religion enters into it here.  A religion that celebrated women's 
special physical functions and her relationship to the earth as a 
food-giver and nurturer is replaced by a religion that posits another 
realm besides that of the earth and the body -- heaven and spirit.  In 
this realm, men are superior, and women, who are creatures of the 
earth and flesh, are inferior.  The male becomes the spiritual 
ideal of humanity, and the female a concession to gross physicality.  

A woman's body becomes a trap, luring the purer spirit of men into the 
entanglements of the flesh.  Her function is necessary because the 
earth and physical life are necessary, but despised.  In the purer 
realm of heaven, she barely exists.  In many religions she cannot 
attain it at all, and if she does, it is without her female-ness.  
What was once the source of her greatest power, has become her 
affliction.

Throughout western Christian history, women who strove for spiritual 
purity were urged to be asexual, to mortify their flesh, and to fast.  
These practices were common among male religious as well, but for 
women, they had a special urgency.  Having "weaker flesh", and being 
more tied to the realm of earth, a woman had to work especially hard 
at detaching herself from her body in order to achieve some spiritual 
transcendence.  A kind of holy anorexia was encouraged among religious 
women.  Extreme fasting will cause amenorrhea (lack of menstruation), 
which was considered a sign that the woman was overcoming the "curse 
of Eve".

Not all women were religious mystics, by any means, but the kind of 
thinking that associated women's bodies with corruption, the baseness 
of earth, and lack of spirituality or access to the higher realms of 
thought was widely prevailing among all classes of society.  The 
notion that reproduction made a woman unfit to think or to be in any 
position of civil, legal, or religious responsibility was quite 
current until the present century.  It is still espoused by many 
Christian churches, who consider the impurity of women's physical 
bodies grounds for barring them from the clergy.

My personal opinion is that modern electronic media have taken the 
cultural place of religion in the West -- providing shared myth and 
promoting common values.  Modern advertisers must not be viewed as an
isolated modern phenomenon, but a part of a continuum. In the tradition
of Aristotle, Augustine, Jerome, and Aquinas, they propagate, then
exploit, women's discomfort with their bodies. 

Although the historical purpose of this propaganda might seem to be only
religious, with little practical application, and the present purpose
mercantile, with a mere profit motivation, the root of both is a deep
ontological fear and hatred of women's bodies.  When women internalize
this fear and hatred, they become divided human beings, at war with
their own bodies.  This war saps vital energy, and alienates them from
the primitive power the patriarchy fears must still be lurking there. 

    re -.1 three cheers for Catherine's thought provoking entry!
    
    also:  suggested reading (or has someone suggested this before?)
    FEMININITY by Susan Brownmuller
    
    -Jody
    

RE: .30

In general, well said!  But, ...

"What purpose does it seem in our society to constantly sow this feeling of
inadequacy in women?" 

I don't think that there is a purpose, as in "motive".  I think it's more
of a side effect.

"... the root of both is a deep ontological fear and hatred of women's bodies."

On whose part *specifically*?  (Me? Nah, can't be... :-})

Jim.

    
    
    re .30
    
    This is great stuff keep it comming.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |	When is your book coming out???? :^)
    
    

     YODA::BARANSKI

    >I don't think that there is a purpose, as in "motive".  I think it's more
    >of a side effect.
     
    A side effect of what?  What were "they" trying to do that just
    happened, by sheer coincidence, to result in a subjugation of
    women to men that has been allowed to continue unchecked for centuries
    and STILL continues even now that women have brought it out in the glaring
    open?  What?
    
    Catherine your note is sterling.  I have always felt that organized
    religion is the invention of men who felt "left out".  They invented
    the concept of supernatural beings and reserved for themselves the 
    exclusive right to communicate with them.  I've always laughed at that.
    
    Your note blows me away.  I've always believed that men were in
    awe of women and their reproductive powers and didn't like it so
    throughout the ages their aim was to devalue that power and along
    with it any "smugness" a woman would dare to feel for possessing it.  
    
    Making women ashamed of it certainly worked.  Telling women that their
    cycles and uteruses were exactly WHY they were unfit for "higher"
    things worked.
    
    We aren't allowed to put a price on our sexuality, (prostitution), or our
    reproductive powers, (surrogate mothering), and there's a very good
    reason for that.  We would drain the world of all its wealth in
    a very short amount of time.  Morality has nothing to do with it.
    The ruling class has always used prostitution, abortion and surrogate
    mothering, still does and always will.
    
    Men are allowed, no, encouraged, no, PRESSURED to put a price on any 
    and everything they have to offer the world and reap the benefits
    thereof.  Women are expected to "give" their qualities away selflessly.
    I think that's because what we have is priceless or at least seriously
    out of the reach of the average man!
    
    How we have been convinced of our worthlessness is easy to understand.
    The threat of pregnancy and child-rearing around any corner, (before
    realiable birth control), kept women in line.  Once we began having
    sex we began having children.  Once we began having children we
    began needing men for basic food and shelter.  Cold and hunger kind
    of keeps anyone on the defensive, eh?  
    
    But women didn't even dare hate the men for this situation - they
    hated their bodies for making them dependent - helpless - "weak".
    We still call "it" the curse.  We still think of women as "unclean".
    
    What kind of world would it be for men if everyone thought women were 
    actually "blessed" once a month with a special power?  What do you
    think ancient man thought when all the women in his tribe "bled
    together when the moon was right" and produced life?  Pretty insig-
    nificant probably. Modern-day sexism is the result of that male
    feeling of insignificance, I'm sure of it.
    
    Once we get out from under this illusion of worthlessness there's
    going to be no turning back.  Maybe you guys really do have something
    to fear there.  The same thing men feared and dispised when they
    decided to invent an "other" world - a spiritual world, make
    themselves king in it and tell women they were to live only in it
    and by its tenets.
    
    We don't need to knuckle under another day.
    
     

    Re .29
    
    >>the saddest is to see a woman who is not fat at all, but complains
    >>about losing weight all the time.
    
    >Aren't you judging them on their body also?

    I think that *they're* the ones judging themselves on their bodies.
    I'm judging them on their companionship and personality (or lack
    thereof) - It's not pleasant to be around someone who is so preoccupied
    with their own body that they're so selfish as to talk about it
    all the da** time!  So, yes, I guess I'm judging them, but it's
    not on their physical bodies!
    
    To Mike M:  you said that women sense that men are judging them
    on their bodies.  I would go one step further and say that women
    sense that *other women* judge them on their bodies.  I've seen
    this at least as much as I see men judging women on their bodies.
    And it's just as devastating.  It's all, of course, as Catherine
    said in her quite excellent note, a result of the kind of society
    and culture we've been handed down.

    	-Ellen

RE: .34

"A side effect of what?  What were "they" trying to do that just happened, by
sheer coincidence, to result in a subjugation of women to men that has been
allowed to continue unchecked for centuries and STILL continues even now that
women have brought it out in the glaring open?"

First off, there *is* no "they", as in conspiracy to subjugate women, just as
there never was a conspiracy to pollute the Earth.  Yet, pollution exists, justs
as the subjugation of women *and* men exists.  Why does it still exist? It's
called social inertia.  You can't change everybody all at once, and there are
still more perpetuating and teaching by example of the wrong attitudes, then
there are of better ones. 

What is subjugation of women a side effect of?  People looking out for number
one, mostly...

"I have always felt that organized religion is the invention of men who felt
"left out".  They invented the concept of supernatural beings and reserved for
themselves the exclusive right to communicate with them."

What is it what was "invented", religion, or the organization of it?  How do you
claim the men who invented this feel left out? Why did they feel left out? If
true, then perhaps the picture you paint is not quite as egalitarian as you
would like to think.

I don't think that 'they' invented the concept of supernatural beings; that
idea goes waaay back...

Who says 'they' reserved the exclusive right to communicate with them?  You? Or
is that just what you want to think of 'them'? 

"We aren't allowed to put a price on our sexuality, (prostitution), or our
reproductive powers, (surrogate mothering), and there's a very good reason for
that.  We would drain the world of all its wealth in a very short amount of
time.  Morality has nothing to do with it."

If 'you' have no 'morality' it may have nothing to do with it; but if 'you'
believe that such things that men *really* want from women are priceless, it has
quite a bit to do with it.  

It sounds to me like you feel that women have something which men would pay so
much money for, so as to pauper themselves, and that you would gage "woman"'s
worth by their wealth, and "man"'s by their poverty.  

Sounds like you feel women are *quite* superior to men.  

Well, I think that wealth is a poor way to gage a person's worth.  And I think
that you can tell quite a bit about a person by how much more money means to
them then other things in life. 

"Men are allowed, no, encouraged, no, PRESSURED to put a price on any and
everything they have to offer the world and reap the benefits thereof."

Pressured???  That does not sound like an advantage for men to me; I'll do
without quite nicely, thank you!  I've quite a few things without price tags. 

"Women are expected to "give" their qualities away selflessly."

I think that everyone should be as selfless.  Let's not drag everyone down to
everyone's lowest common denominator, let's work to improve everyone.

"I think that's because what we have is priceless or at least seriously out of
the reach of the average man!"

Do you think that there is nothing that men have to offer that is as
"priceless"?

"The threat of pregnancy and child-rearing around any corner, kept women in
line." 

I doubt it was to "keep women in line".  It's called prepetuation of the
species...

"Once we began having children we began needing men for basic food and shelter."

Yes, it takes a lot to raise children, more then one parent can easily handle.

"What kind of world would it be for men if everyone thought women were actually
"blessed" once a month with a special power?"

It sounds like a world where men are inferior.  Is that what you want?

Jim.

    Jim,
    
    So, you basically don't agree that man has been oppressor
    of woman throughout history?  
    
    Even in day to day life, you don't see a pattern in the
    way women have to fight for each and every "right" she
    has gained?  Think about it, women weren't allowed 
    to vote not so long ago.  Who was responsible for not 
    allowing?  Women have had to fight for equal pay for
    equal work, and still haven't won that battle yet.  
    Why are female-dominated jobs considered less valuable?
    
    Throughout history, males have forcefully taken womens
    rights AWAY.  Look at what happened to midwifery, and 
    medicine in the past.  Look in the more recent past at
    how women who worked non-traditional jobs were sneered
    at, harrased, or just flat-out denied employment because
    women weren't supposed to do a "man's" job.  Look at all
    the different declarations males have made about women.  
    Women's place is in the home.  A non-virgin is damaged 
    goods.  If a woman is raped it's her own fault.  A woman
    is a man's property.  Married women were not allowed credit
    in their own names.  Women were not allowed to study.  
    
    If you want to learn, there are many books on the subject.  
    
    Is there already a note on feminist writings, specifically on
    patriarchy and pre-patriarchy?  If not, maybe we could start
    up one to share our reading lists.  
    
    This has made me want to get back into my own collection, and
    re-read those I've read, and read those I'd only skimmed before.
    
    Karen (thank you all for the Womens Notes File)

RE: .37

I don't believe that "man" has been bent on oppressing women throughout history.
I don't believe that there was a conspiracy to oppress women, which is what it
sounds like some women believe from what they write.

I've seen a lot of *people*, both men and women struggle for all kinds of
rights... 

"Think about it, women weren't allowed to vote not so long ago.  Who was
responsible for not allowing?"

Think about it, who was responsible for allowing women *to* vote?

"Why are female-dominated jobs considered less valuable?"

Because female dominated jobs tend to be the more 'personal' jobs, nurse, day
care, etc.  These are jobs which *traditionally* were *unpaid*.  People usually
had relatives, friends, etc who could and would do this work.  

The people doing this work were usually personally close to the person that they
were working for.  The people did the work out of love.  A monetary accounting
was not necessary.  

Such jobs need to be done, yet if the 'employer' involved had to pay for it,
they could not afford to pay what the work was worth.

"Throughout history, males have forcefully taken womens rights AWAY."

Darn, I could have sworn that we just said that you could vote, didn't we?? :-/

"Look in the more recent past at how women who worked non-traditional jobs were
sneered at, harrased, or just flat-out denied employment because women weren't
supposed to do a "man's" job."

Sneered at just as much by *women*.  And it does happen that men are denied work
which is traditionally female.

"Look at all the different declarations males have made about women."

Would you like to hear some about men, made by women?

"Married women were not allowed credit in their own names."

'Married men are responsible for their wives debts.'  That does not sound like a
bargain!  You can take it, I don't want it!

Jim.

    back to the topic of perceptions of bodies......
    
    I've heard of a study comparing the eye movements between
    men and women.  Results showed that women tended to scan an
    entire scene and then focus on interesting details, where
    men tended to focus only on specific objects (mostly at eye
    level) and didn't see alot of detail.
    
    my question to throw to the winds:  could our perceptions
    of ourselves mirror how others look at us?  For example,
    women may become concious of their breasts because men
    tend to look at them quite closely (they are at eye level _roughly_)?
                                                            
    sorry I don't have more details to the study. it is now just
    a foggy memory of an interesting idea.
    
    - Lesley                                                           
    

    RE: .39
    
    > women may become conscious of their breasts because men
    > tend to look at them quite closely
    
    One of my all-time favorite comebacks from a (well endowed)
    secretary to her boss went something like this:
    
    He: Gee, ______, I like your new hairdo.
    
    She: Gee, _____, I never thought you looked that high up on me.
    
      Alan 

    Jayne Mansfield, that lovely, voluptuous actress, actually had an
    IQ of 140.  Few people know that.  She longed to play intelligent
    roles, but they often cast her as a blond (sometimes ditzy) sexpot.
    
    I read (I can't remember where, a book about sex symbols I think)
    that when people said they were speaking to her seriously, and that
    they didn't look at her as a sex symbol, she would avert her gaze and
    ask them to tell her what color her eyes were.  Few could.

    so much for making eye contact.
    
    -Jody
    

    Fascinating note Jody.
    
    I don't think I ever notice the color of anyones eyes unless
    they stand out for some reason, such as very blue eyes. 
    
    If I may stray slightly from the topic...though it is related
    Do you accept compliments well?
    
    When my wife and I discussed this, we both realized that our first
    instincts are to disagree somehow, and not in an unpleasant manner,
    but we would "play it down". And for some strange reason, it is
    almost difficult to just say thanks and to accept the compliment.
    

    before I lost some weight (I was once about 200 pounds) I would
    take every compliment with several grains of salt, and think someone
    was trying to get me to do something for them (i.e. buttering me
    up for a favor).
    
    now, I would listen.  I would think about it.  I would thank the
    complimentor.  And I would try and compare the compliment to my
    self-image.  My self-image is way off - I sometimes still look in
    the mirror and see myself as incredibly overweight (anorexics who
    look in the mirror and whine about how grotesquely fat they are
    show this taken to an extreme).  Sometimes hearing something
    from somone else can help me get back in balance.  
    
    And yes, it is much easier to throw off a compliment with a
    self-detracting remark, but that is neither polite to the complimentor,
    or fair to oneself.  It is so hard to get positive, warm-fuzzy strokes
    these days (I'm talking about the verbal kind here), in a hectic
    world where people so often just don't LOOK.  
    
    A pleasant smile is also, in its way, a compliment.  Sometimes I
    am so hung up or angry or tense or stressed out at whatever's gone
    wrong recently, I have to concentrate to unknit those furrowed brows
    and put that smile back on.  
    
    Coming from the people I gladly surround myself with these days,
    insincere compliments are very rare.  I find this comforting.  
    
    -Jody
    

    People who don't fit Holywood's sterotypes for "good looks" are
    often difficult to compliment.  Usually, they don't believe you,
    and take the compliment to be teasing, so it has the opposite of
    intended effect.
    
    Elizabeth

    I'm still trying to determine how best to state this ......
    First, let me say that I appreciate the divergent views thus far
    expressed; I will certainly agree that men (or the world's societies)
    have done much to diminish individual self-worth, especially toward
    the female. I will also agree that various "institutions" developed
    by these societies have wreaked havoc in a like manner - many such
    institutions flying the banner of Religion.
    
    However, as I reflect on Catherine's reply (.30) and others in
    agreement, while I respect her opinion I cannot agree with it. For
    within the context of that opinion, is implied a general "religious"
    view characteristic of Christianity. I can not see such a view as
    Biblically valid - it MAY CERTAINLY be the view of certain "religious"
    organizations or institutions, but if that is true their views are
    NOT Christian, they are psuedo-Christian.
    
    If the truth be known, a Christian perspective downplays physical
    appearance altogether. The emphasis in ANY relationship is first
    one of friendship, and the "shopping list" that anyone may have
    (physical appearance, poise/personality etc) to define whom they
    are "attracted" to is thrown right out the window. The focus is
    instead on righting what's wrong with your own perspective first.
    That is, it's more important to become the "right" person than to
    find the right person - it's more important to edify others and
    develop friendship and the bonds inherent in such, than it is to
    seek out some image.
    
    Woman is NOT some subservient spiritual creature, a lesser variety
    in the mind of God - there is no Biblical justification for that
    view. God sees us equally, without gender distinction regarding
    any and all matters that are spiritual. If one is under the impression
    that something other than that is true, they have been misled by
    the wrongful and insidious teachings of humans (primarily men, I
    admit). But I would implore you to reconsider: Do not confuse Religion
    with true Christianity - do not confuse historical or present
    distortions with God's truth. They are diametrically opposed.
    
    When it comes right down to it, the Biblical perspective is clear:
    When one becomes His (ie, accepting Christ,etc) he/she is seen as
    "perfect" or a "spotless lamb" in the eyes of God. This remains
    true regardless of how we view ourselves, regardless of how we fail
    in our progress as humans.
    
    In appreciation .......                           Marvin

    Marvin,
    
    It seems to me that you have not read Catherine's reply as carefully
    as possible.  She spoke of Christianity in its historical context;
    you chide her by saying (essentially) that what happened throughout
    history was not *real* Christianity.  The people there, at that
    time, doing that history, called it Christianity, and we have no
    better name to give it, and therefore Catherine used that name.
    
    To call it pseudo-Christianity is a cop-out, especially when you
    speak of traits that covered the entire spectrum of Christian thought
    and practice for an entire era.

    If you really want to discuss this topic, you should read Notes 478
    and 642, or enter the RELIGION notefile.
    
    							Ann B.

    P.S.  You did not really mean to write that "true Christianity" and
    "Religion" were opposites, did you?

    Hello once again.
    Ann, thanks for your reply and advice - I will access the topics
    you suggested - and I have already entered other conferences, as
    suggested.
    
    As for the points you have made: I have reread Catherine's reply,
    I still see an indication of present-tense in the structure, not
    just "historical" reference. I suppose we could address semantics
    at this juncture, but that may not be too productive.
    
    I wouldn't say that defining unChristian behavior as psuedo-Christian
    is improper in any fashion - that is exactly what it is, it is a
    deception. If historians, theologians, educators or lay persons
    decide to call it Christianity, they can only refer to a misapplied
    label, not to the principles inherent in the faith. There IS a better
    name for it, psuedo-Christianity just happened to be the most
    appropriate term I could think of at the time.
    
    That leads to my contention that Religion (in it's most comprehensive
    overview) and Christianity are indeed opposites. Christianity stands
    alone among all the world's Religions, and when considering the
    principles that Jesus Christ espoused, even opposes many of the
    traditional church views that are (and have been, as Catherine
    indicated) ingrained in so-called Christian doctrines/practices.
    Not for a moment would I defend the atrocities committed by those
    flying an improper banner, nor would I agree that Christ's view
    of woman even slightly compares to those views.
    
    I apologize for diverting into one person's Christian view in this
    particular topic, but I felt it appropriate not to let a somewhat
    antithesis view go unchallenged. I agree with many of Catherine's
    points - but I felt I should make it clear that Christ's perspective
    has not been faithfully reproduced by those that may claim to be
    His followers.
                                        Marvin

    Yes, Marvin, but that is the point.  Men preferred to ignore the
    teachings of Jesus.  Men preferred to have women subordinate to
    men.  *That* is what we are trying to explore.  Not to deny the
    actuality, not to claim that it ought not have been so, but to
    dig out the roots of "Why".
    
    							Ann B.

    Marvin, I appreciate your pointing out that your comments are "one
    person's Christian view".  I think that's the most helpful way to
    discuss varying religious viewpoints in a notesfile like this one.
    
    At the same time, I feel uncomfortable the assumption which appears
    to underlie your other comments.  What I hear you saying is the
    flavor of Christianity which *you* practice is the true and correct
    one, while other approaches to it are somehow in error.
                                      
       "I wouldn't say that defining unChristian behavior as psuedo-Christian
        is improper in any fashion - that is exactly what it is, it is a
        deception. If historians, theologians, educators or lay persons
        decide to call it Christianity, they can only refer to a misapplied
        label, not to the principles inherent in the faith. "
    
    I absolutely respect your belief that for you the true and correct way
    to practice your faith is a certain way.  No argument there.  But our
    personnel policy states clearly that in public interactions with other
    employees, Digital employees are expected to value others' rights to
    differing belief systems even if they are contradictory to our own. 
    
    	"I felt I should make it clear that Christ's perspective
    	has not been faithfully reproduced by those that may claim to be
    	His followers"
    
    I know that this community includes a number of lay persons who define
    their practice of Christianity somewhat differently than you do. I feel
    that it would be better to let us know that for you the above
    position represents absolute values and very important beliefs
    while avoiding the suggestion that others' belief systems are
    erroneous or misguided in some way, even if you do believe that.
                       
                      
    Respectfully,
    Holly

    re: last few
        
    	Is this conference for discussing religious viewpoints????  If so,
   	I strongly object.  While personal spiritual beliefs enter into 
    	many of our responses, I do not think it is appropriate to debate 
    	the Christianity (or *any*) beliefs in this notesfile.  If it is, 
    	I will gladly begin entering Eastern vs. Western religious beliefs 
    	on any and all topics I deem appropriate.
        
    	Please, there are other conferences for this.  And if religious
    	doctrines are to be discussed, then let me know and I will share
    	my experiences about the narrow-mindedness of organized religion.
    
    						Carla
    

    I don't want to detract from the topic at hand, so let me just add
    a couple of comments and one or two qualifiers so you will be more
    cognizant of my view:
    
    First, Ann - thank you for (.48) your reply, I agree with you.
    
    Holly, thank you for your reply as well (.49) and your concern.
    I certainly did not *mean* to imply that my perspective was *the*
    "true and correct" definition of Christianity - I would never make
    such a claim. Perhaps Jesus was the only One to ever have practiced
    what He preached - if you know what I mean. I understand there are
    divergent "Christian" views, the Christian conference is replete
    with this diversity. My general references in the previous reply
    were aimed toward those historical (past & present) dehumanizing
    actions taken by those "claiming" Christianity as some sort of
    moral justification for their actions. 
    
    I understand philosophical or theological matters are never resolved
    in a forum such as this, and there are at least three sides to every
    story - if I exuded some air of authority, or implied absolute Truth
    in the view I held, I duly apolgize. My view is singular, as is
    everyone's - and I certainly expect it will generate it's fair share
    of dissent from others. I value everyone's beliefs, to be as valid
    for them as mine are for me - I appreciate the spectrum, and I,
    for one, enjoy having my views challenged. If I have shown impropriety
    in any of my statements, I would expect my replies to be extracted
    and thrown into Computer Oblivion. 
    
    Thank you for your admonition.                     Marvin
    

    Carla, I agree that this conference is not for debating or promoting
    religious viewpoints.
    
    On the other hand, women's issues certainly overlap issues of culture,
    history, and religion, and it seems appropriate to me to support
    such discussions.
    
    The way that women view their bodies has certainly been affected
    by a variety of religious teachings, for example.
    
    Holly
    

    I thought this discussion started with a statement about Christianity
    (which we can expand to other established Western religions as well)
    repressing women. The Jewish Viewpoint has been described in another
    note: it can best be described as a benevolent enslavement -- women
    were subordinate to men, but guaranteed good treatment. The Christian
    viewpoint is not a legal one, but spiritual. Certainly, everything
    preached in the Gospels and other books indicates that everyone
    is to be treated well. But I fail to see Michael's point about the
    *real* Christianity. Certainly, his view was not shared by Peter
    and Paul who wrote extremely nasty anti-woman notes. (I think they
    would have been locked out of this notesfile, on the grounds of
    antagonism, had they been alive today!!!)
    
    I would also take exception to his statement that Christianity stands
    alone, etc. and that it is not a religion. These statements smack
    of the "Christmas is for everyone" philosophy, which is obnoxious
    to those who don't happen to share this view.
       
    Great damage has obviously been done by the attitude that evil stems
    from women  and/or that women's bodies are somehow evil or unclean.
    I believe Catholicism is originally to blame for this idea, although
    Judaism, most Christian sects, and many aspects of Western culture
    have not been immune to the invasion of this concept. It has been
    borrowed many times. Why would such a weird notion supercede the
    goddess?
    
    dov
            

    Reply to .53; Dov,
    
    I've got lotsa' theories on that. It has been discussed in another
    topic to a certain point.
    
    I think the problem arose when the race decided to put arms and
    legs on Deity, and conversely genitals were added to complete the
    picture. Had the race not played this mental trick on itself much
    could have been averted, ie. the ancient conflicts between the Goddesses
    and Gods would not have taken place. Further, the conflicts between the
    sexes, which were patterened after the god/dess conflicts ("As above so
    below") might not have been. Still, that doesn't mean other conflict
    would not arise.

    re .53
    
    The victors always write the history books.

    re .55
    
    From what I've seen, it's the losers who write history books (in
    the US). I've never seen such a sorry bunch of garbage :-) (this
    is just from my school days.)
    
    I'm not sure i buy this idea. As Eleanor Roosevelt said (paraphrased
    because I don't have the quote handy) "No one can make you feel
    inferior without your consent." There is a strong drive to be
    dominated. It is easy not to make decisions, and even if the results
    are unpleasant, there is nothing to feel guilty about. If things
    were ever as wonderful for women as _some_ historians/anthropologists
    believe, the loss was as much self-abuse as male-abuse.
    
    dov

The preceding note is so shockingly erosive I'm astonished  no one has
replied to it yet.

The words "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent" can be
empowering words to an individual who looks within themselves for change.
Part of a revelatory experience, it means you can change your self-image.

Let's say you're a child.  Whenever you start to say something at the
supper table, your parents interrupt you and remind you to be quiet.  Whenever
you sibling says something, they listen and compliment.  Your grandparents
visit, and they ask your sibling about what they've done, but they ask you if
you've been good.  Your sibling has a growing savings account, initiated and
maintained by annual gifts of money, set aside for the day your sibling will
go to college.  College is never discussed for you.  If you through ignorance
do something rude, your parents criticize you; if your sibling does the same,
they laugh and comment, "How precocious."  Unfortunately, all of this has been
true for longer than you can remember--certainly it goes back farther than you
could have agreed to behave this way.  And yet, you know you aren't as 
important as your sibling, because everyone you love has always told you so,
in their own ways.  Your sibling knows you're less important, and does all
the things siblings do to remind you.

Benjamin  Franklin  wrote,  

       "...if  indeed  it  be the Design of Providence to extirpate
       these  Savages  in order to make room for Cultivators of the
       Earth, it seems not improbable that Rum may be the appointed
       Means.  It  has  already  annihilated  all  the  Tribes  who
       formerly inhabited the Sea-coast."
       
As a victor, Franklin is able to write a history, and expose the blame on
God's will, or at the very least, this supposed incapacity for alcohol.
No mention of the wars that actually took place, nor the betrayals of trust,
nor the the manipulative exchanges: we can dissolve European blame in 
several barrels of ethanol where it will stay as long as we need to feel
comfortable.  Franklin describes in _The_Autobiography_ several incidents of
using alcohol and the promise of alcohol to coerce or manipulate both 
Native Americans and Europeans...but after all, it was *their* weakness 
cooperating with his wish, and who can be blamed for taking advantage of
an easy situation?

My friends have two dogs.  One of them is Top Dog of the canine half of the
family: she always has the toy, she always manages to get the toy back if the
other dog gets it, she's bigger and steps on him if nothing else works.
Sometimes she growls at us when she has the toy, and weekly, she tries
to see if she can win to be Top Dog of the whole family.

My mother does volunteer work at a big-cat compound.  The lions, tigers, 
leopards, cougars--they know who's the boss: it's the family that raised them.
But when the cubs get too big, they're always trying to see if they can be
boss and at a certain point, the Maynards know they'll lose.  So the cats
move outside to fenced in areas, and daily contact with large sharp claws
is reduced.

From these examples, I'd conclude that the desire to dominate is stronger
than the desire to be dominated.  Otherwise, considering where I live,
I'd have to be speaking Natick.  If you disagree, well, I tell ya, why
don't you just drop by our place--our kitchen floor is in a terrible state,
and after that, I can make a bunch of other decisions for you.
With your implicit cooperation, of course.

    <--(.57)
    
    What a *powerful* response, Lisa!  It quite took my breath away.
    
    						=maggie

    
    Lisa, *that's* why no-one replied. *I* sure couldn't have
    said it as well! Not nearly.
    
    --DE