Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Many thanks to Karen Sullivan for this topic!

    From the Boston Globe, 11 June, p. 17
    
    At a charity banquet last Wednesday night, [State] house speaker
    George Keverian "told the crowd that is concept of the ideal woman
    is 'a nymphomaniac who owns a chain of pizza parlors'. It was one
    of the more polite lines he uttered during the evening."

I got this as a humorous article from a friend.  I thought it was very
interesting.  Note the part about the "housewife".
							Carol
************************************

	Reprinted without permission from the Economist

Marketmen on the Tokyo Stock Exchange suffering from stress
should not be difficult to spot.  They are the ones wielding
cloth baseball bats, beating them against the exchange's new
(but bug-ridden) computer system.  These Computer Bashers,
which appeared on the market in March and cost Y1,800 ($14)
apiece, are part of a fad in Japan -- toys to relieve stress at
work.

Others newly on the market are 45 cm-high dolls which whimper
and plead -- "I'm sorry" or "Please don't beat me" -- when
scolded loudly.  Any abuse will do.  They come in three models
-- the company president, the housewife and the traffic
policewoman.  If, at Y8,000 each, they seem a bit expensive,
then try, at Y4,000, an American import, the Revenger.  This box
of tricks makes all the noise and flashes of a machine gun or an
exploding rocket shell.  More like the soundtrack of "Platoon"
or "Full Metal Jacket" than something designed to relieve
stress, 10,000 of these have been sold in Japan since February.

Even more bizzare is a toy cockroach which, when hit with a
plastic hammer (included in the price of Y3,650), scuttles about
emitting a dying scream.  They come supplied with a mask on
which to draw a human face.  How much longer before brokers
start scrawling on it images of the Tokyo Stock Exchange's
president, Mr Michio Takeuchi?  Or some of those gaijin
newcomers, to make room for whom the troublesome new computer
trading system was installed?

    In my login.com I've had this harmless little thought generator
    called "COOKIE"  todays login thought was "A guy has to get fresh
    once in a while so a girl doesn't lose her confidence."  ARRRGH!

    re .5: >>		-< in VMS ! >-
    
    There isn't any cookie program shipped as part of VMS, lest anyone 
    get the wrong idea.

    Is it sexist or more broadly, a truism? Are rutting buck deer sexist
    or are they supposed to behave that way?  In otherwords, where is
    your line drawn between sexism and the nature of sexual creatures,
    whatever their orientation? Mine is towards the opposite btw.
    

    The covers  of  "Bicycle Guide" for the last couple of months have
    had  pictures  of  women  who  were successful bicycle racers. One
    of them was wearing an evening gown, the other had her hair spread
    neatly around her, looking like a model. If she tried to ride like
    that,  she'd  never  see  the road. When they have pictures of men
    they're in the middle of a race. So I guess it's Ok for a woman to
    win  bicycle  races,  as long as she is photogenic afterwards. The
    men  can  look  sweaty  and  determined, the women must be smiling
    sweetly.

--David

    	Well, Bicycle Guide probably does this because, otherwise,
    	it's not much of a magazine, especially compared to
    	Bicycling. 8-)>
    
    	Scott

    Similarly: we used to get "Runner's World" at our house. The cover
    always showed a woman; sometimes there was a man, but there was never a
    man without a woman. The really odd part was that there frequently
    seemed to be a glimpse of some underclothing. That couldn't have been a
    mistake, but it's pretty unusual. 

    					-- hs

    Re: .11
    
    We noticed that about Runner's World, too.  It was always easy to
    tell whether the woman wore a bra -- you could either see the bra
    or you could see the outline of the nipple.  For over a year.
    Strange. 
        
    And all the camera shots were between pelvis and breast height.
    
    --bonnie 

    I was discussing appointments to a (private) school board
    committee dealing with the schools bus. The person I was
    talking to suggested that a man should chair that committee
    this year. Somewhat surprised, I asked why. The answer was
    that this year 'technical' and 'money' decisions would be
    made and that men were better able to handle things like that.
    The other person in the group agreed with that opinion.
    
    Now what do I do? I was going to appoint one of those two women
    to chair the committee. I let them know that that was not an
    opinion I could buy but if they don't think they can do it can
    they?
    				Alfred

    re: 14.5 and 14.6
    
    (This seems a more appropriate topic for this remark).  In addition to
    living in a patriarchal society, the Smurfs have only two female
    characters -- one "fully grown" and one (fairly new) juvenile.  Since
    smurfs reproduce by stork delivery, they have no need for sexual
    differentiation 8^).  They do, interestingly enough, have one very
    effiminate male character.

    <--(.13)
    
    Kinda gives you a hint how pervasive sexism is, doesn't it!?! 
    
    						=maggie

    RE: .15 Yes it does. It still shocks me every time though. IN
    this case I told the woman that since I would not accept that
    kind of silliness from my 10 year old son I certainly wasn't
    going to accept it from grown women. I think they were as
    surprised by my attitude as I was of theirs. I hate to think
    of what they are teaching their kids about roles for the future.
    
    			Alfred

I brought a crockpot of veg/pea stew to work for a group lunch, and a woman
says, "I didn't know you could cook, Jim!"

What does she think, I'm a Breatharian?

Jim.

    There is a cooking show on cable that my daughter and I watch called
    Whats new in the kitchen.  we watch this program and count how many
    times the host calls women "girls" and refers to everything he shows
    as only for use by women and how pleased "our men will be".  
    Pj thinks he's a jerk and likes to tell others about this mcp and
    how she would never buy anything he had to sell..
    
    she's only 9.  good job kid....
    
    vivian

    Early last year, my manager sent me to a customer site to upgrade
    an ULTRIX operating system.  I was sent for several reasons: 1)
    There were no other specialists available and 2) none of the men
    in the department wanted to deal with this (male) person because
    he was verbally abusive.  Naturally, I was thrilled for this terrific
    opportunity ;-), and arriving at the customer site, did my best
    to be "professionally pleasant" to a difficult customer.  His reply
    to my introduction? "They sent YOU? A Woman? You're the EXPERT?"
    Oh, how I adore the patriarchical attitude of so many Utah men.
    Utah, the state motto could be, " A woman's place is under a man's
    thumb!"

NEW YORK, NY.  The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a national effort
to insure that fathers have no say in abortion.  Recent cases in NY, IN and UT
asserted a father's right to prevent an abortion.  In all three cases the women
ignored the court orders and had abortions.

Dawn Johnson, of the ACLU's NY office, traveled to IN recently too represent as
IN woman who wanted an abortion.  The court issued an order forbidding the
abortion because of the father's objection.  One week later the woman had the
abortion.  Johnson said, "The woman - in consultation with her doctor - has the
sole right to decide whether to have an abortion." 

In another case a NY dentist brought suit when he discovered that his wife had
an abortion without even consulting him.  Howard Simon, Director of the ACLU's
Detroit branch objects to a father even having a right to bring these matters to
court.  Simon said, "The US Supreme Court has already settled this question."

In UT, appeals court justices last month prohibited another woman's abortion,
but she had the abortion a few hours before coming to court.  The case arose
under a state law requiring pregnant women to notify their husbands before an
abortion. 

ONTARIO, The Divsional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario, in a startling
decision, placed the interests of the government in "providing for an
expeditious and final adoption," before the rights of unwed fathers and their
children.  Calling unwed fathers "casual fornicators," the court asserts a
theory of biological superiority by declaring that "mothers, of physical
necessity, show responsibility" to children.  Under this biological theory,
mothers are free to put children up for adoption even when they withhold the
knowledge of paternity from a father.

Pulling no punches, the court declared that "a male person who by an act of
casual sexual intercourse impregnates a woman and demonstrates no sense of
responsibility for the natural consequences for the act of sexual intercourse"
should not be considered to be a "parent" under the law. 

The court conceded the possibility that a "casual fornicator" might not be told
about a pregnancy despite his best efforts to find out if he is to be a father,
but concluded that even if the statute violates an equality right, it does so
within "reasonable limits." 

    
    	RE: last few
    
    	 Yeah, but don't you know it is US men that are always try to
    	take away a womans rights. This is after all protecting the
    	rights of the woman. So what if some man may have to pay for
    	18+ years, what should give him the right to have any say?
    
    	Just leave!!!

    re: .22
    
    Excuse me while I barf . . . 
    
    --bonnie

    a judge has threatened to jail an attorney if she doesn't start
    using her husband's surname in court!
    
    [she, pragmatist that she is, says she will refrain from taking
    action against him until _after_ the case she is arguing has been
    decided.  but she continues to use her own name...]

< Note 13.27 by CIVIC::JOHNSTON "I _earned_ that touch of grey!" >
                      -< heard on the news this morning >-

<    a judge has threatened to jail an attorney if she doesn't start
<    using her husband's surname in court!
    
Oh pleezze don't stop there... I just have to know whatever kind of reason
the judge could possibly have to do this???? liesl

    
    
    P.S.  This judge was appointed by Richard Nixon.
    
    

    
    	RE: Judge Teitelbaum
    
    	 I heard on the ABC news this morning that Judge Teitelbaum
    	has issued an public apology to Ms. Wolvovitz and said she 
    	"IS" in her right to use what ever name she chooses and will
    	address her as Ms. Wolvovitz.  Guess he saw the light!!

    
    	More likely, he saw the end to his sitting as a Federal Judge!
    
    	Positive though, that he figured it out so quickly.  Time was
    	that a judge like this would have stuck to *his* guns about
    	something like this.
    
    	S

    I read that in yesterday's paper, too.  At my house, the verdict
    on the judge was "senility"; that's probablky more polite than the
    real reason.

    Still can't believe the item I'm about to enter here -- had to pass
    it on, and this topic seems as good as any:
    
    My wife went shopping for and picked out a new car this past Friday.
    Everything went very smoothly. After she and the salesperson agreed on
    the terms of the deal, my wife commented on how courteous and
    non-pressuring the staff at this dealer was, and how they were unlike
    the staffs of a few other car dealers she was advised to avoid. 
    
    The salesperson's response stunned her, and stunned me when my wife
    told me about it:
    
    	"You want to hear a good one?  I had a woman in here earlier
    	today who said that she went to two other dealers who refused to 
    	talk specifics with her until she came back with her husband!"
    
    GIVE ME A BREAK!!!  This is 1988, not the Dark Ages!!!
              
    
    Paul

    RE: .36
    
    Something similar (reversed genders, though) happened to me when I
    bought my last two cars.
    
    I picked out the model I wanted, left a deposit with the business
    manager of the dealership, and told the salesman that I'd pick up
    the new car two days later.
    
    The salesman asked me, "Aren't you going to bring your wife down
    to see what you picked out"? 
    
    I replied, "Shit, no. It's my car, I'm paying for it, and I don't need 
    her permission. I'm a big boy now. My mother even lets me cross the
    street by myself".
    
      Alan

    re: .36
    
    That reminds me of another place I worked...
    
    I was working as a telemarketer for an aluminum siding company in
    Newton.  My job was to call people and convince them to make an
    appointment to allow a *real* salesperson to come over to their houses 
    for a few hours to sell the product.  Apparantly, the idea in selling
    aluminum siding is that you get people to agree on the spot (when
    then salesman visits) to buy several thousands of dollars worth
    of siding, because if you give them time to think the decision over,
    they usually will change their minds. 
    
    After setting up an appointment with a woman, I sent a message to
    my boss saying "Appt scheduled with *Mrs.* such-and-such...".  He
    asked if I had made sure that her husband would be there...I had
    not, and he reprimanded me.  Apparantly, this man felt it was a
    waste of time to send a salesman somewhere for two hours to see
    a married woman without her husband, because then they wouldn't
    be able to make the sale right away, because her husband wouldn't be
    there to approve the decision!  And since, as I mentioned, they
    almost always lose the sale if they give people time to think about
    it (or time for a woman to wait for her husband to come home to
    approve the decision) I was told *never* to make an appointment
    with a married woman without her husband planning on being there.
    
    Okay, says I, because I wanted to keep the job.  But to make it
    even, I also refused to make appointments with married men if their
    wives weren't going to be there!   
    
    I didn't last very long in that job.
    
    Diana
      !

        re: sales
    
    I believe that when you sign a contract in your home rather than
    in a salesroom, you have 3 days to "cool off" and change your
    mind.  Insisting that the spouse is present when the contract is
    signed makes it less likely that the contract will be revoked.
    
    When in a salesroom, a lone prospect will often say "Gee, I want
    to discuss this with my spouse."  Ensuring that both parties are
    present during presentation and negotiation elimanates many false
    starts.
    
    It is preferable that salespeople apply these standards equally
    to men and women; however, _the market decides_.  Sales techniques
    don't cause sexism, they reflect it.  These occurrences just
    indicate that we've still got a long way to go.
    
    
    	bruce
    

    I am pregnant and recently went for an ultrasound.  While I was
    waiting (and waiting and...), I listened to the other people being
    "checked in."  Most of them had had minor accidents and were waiting
    for X-rays.  Each one was asked about insurance, who was the policy
    holder, marital status, religion, etc.
                      
    When they called me, they checked my name, address and phone number,
    then said "Is your husband employed?"  Well, I was NOT in a good
    mood anyway and this made me SO mad.  First of all, how does she
    even know if I _have_ a husband...                
                                                      
    Me:		Why?                                  
    Her:	Does that mean he's not?              
    Me:		Are you going to ask if _I'm_ employed?
    Her:	No, that's not on the form.           
    Me:		Well, if you want to know if I have insurance, why don't
    		you just ask that?  I do--through my job and I am the 
    		policy holder.  Here's the number...Just send the bill 
    		directly to this address (my HMO)...
    	(she copied that information)                                  
    Her:	Now, I have to know where your husband is employed,    
    		or I'll have to write in that he's not.                
                                                      
    I gave in and gave her the name of the company my husband works
    for.   Yesterday a bill arrived in the mail, sent to "Mr. Warren"
    (I never told her his first name) at our home address and it said
    "insurance information unavailable."   GRRRRRRRRRR 
                          
                             
                          
                          

About a year ago, I had a repair man come into my home in order to fix my
something-or-other.  After several minutes in the basement, he emerged with
a frown on his face.  

He - That's quite a job you have down there.  It'll be expensive, and I don't 
     really have the time to do it.  

Me - That being the case, could you explain how the work should be done?

He - Sure!  When will your husband be home?

Me - (I was unmarried at the time) Could you explain to _me_ how the work
     should be done.

He - I could, but I'd rather tell the guy that's going to do the work.

Me - How about if I'm the "guy" that's going to do the work.

He - Oh, lady, you don't want to do _that_.

Me - (I'm really getting amused by now)  And why not?

He - It's an awful dirty job!

Me - Ya wanna see dirt?  I'll show you my bedroom closet!

He looked at me blankly for a moment.  He then explained how the work should
be done.  I can just hear him now - "...and do you know what she said to me
next?!?!"

(snicker)
 
Marion       

    Re .40, a similar thing happened to me when I was pregnant - *15
    years ago* - guess some things haven't changed much *sigh*.  In
    fact, I was paying for the pregnancy because I had Blue Cross Blue
    Shield where I worked at the time.  My ex-husband had not worked
    at his job long enough for his insurance to cover a pregnancy. 
    So, I had given the hospital and the doctor all the information
    about my employer, my insurance, his employer, his insurance, and
    stated that MY insurance would cover everything.  About two months
    after our daughter was born we received a threatening phone call
    from the hospital saying that they were going to sue us if we didn't
    pay the hospital bill.  I was astonished and upset and told them
    that I had Blue Cross and that I was covered and it should be paid.
     They triumphantly told me that NO, I was not covered.  I said,
    It can't be?  and they said, Oh, yes!  There is no Robert St.Hilaire
    with Blue Cross/Blue Shield.  I was furious!!!!  Then, we had to
    clear up the matter, explaining that *I* was the one with the job
    and the insurance policy.  When, they submitted the bill under my
    name they were promptly paid.  Apparently, in 1974 it had never
    occurred to the billing department of Hahnemann Hospital in Worcester,
    Mass., that some married women actually hold jobs and do have insurance
    policies.  That was 14 years ago.  I would have hoped that the medical
    profession would have realized that there are other working women
    besides nurses by now, but apparently not!!!
    
    Re .38, aluminum siding salesmen, have you ever seen the movie "Tin
    Men" with Richard Dreyfuss and Danny DeVito?  Very good movie, and
    funny, about aluminum siding salesmen and the tricks they pulled.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .39
    
    Yes, I know it is a reflection, rather than a cause. But it really
    pissed me off.  And you should have seen me trying to explain to
    Mrs.  So-and-so that I had to cancel her appointment beccause her
    husband wouldn't be there.  She was saying to me "I am my own woman,
    I can make my own choices...I *don't* need a man there to approve
    my choices."  Of course, I *would* get a feminist. :-)  So there
    I was saying "No, ma'am, I'm sorry, but we are not allowed to send
    a salesperson over unless your husband is there."  And gritting
    my teeth.  I *know* that woman was thinking to herself that I was
    sexist and unreasonable.  What a thorougly unpleasent situation.
    
    Diana
      ! 

    RE .36
    
    I went looking for a used car two years ago and boy did I come back
    furious!  I had never been called honey and dear so many times in
    one day and on top of it all almost every single salesman asked
    if my daddy, yes daddy, would be coming in to look at the puchase
    that he planned to make for me.  First, I was making the purchase
    and second my "daddy" wasn't to be found at the time.
    
    At the start I was upset because my x-boyfriend who knew as much
    about cars as I did wanted to come with me to help so that I 
    wouldn't be taken by a bad deal.  Then it continued to get worse.
    The worst incedent was at Duddie ford in Worcester.  I road my bike
    there since I had no car and when I walked up to the door the two
    salesmen were just staring at me.  I told them what I was looking
    for in a car and the price range I could afford and asked if there
    was anything that was available.  Well, one of the salesmen led
    me out across the parking lot and as we were walking he asked me
    to hold is hand.  Do you believe it!?  He had made a bet with the
    other salesman he said when I was on my way in.  I said I didn't
    think it would be a good idea and that I was just interested in
    looking at car.  Well, he practically was begging me to hold his
    hand and proceeded to ask me for a date.  I finally said at this
    point that I came here to look at used cars and was insulted by
    his attitude and turned around and left as fast as I could!
    This was all in a matter of about 3 minutes.
    
    I was so upset after that day and all my x-boyfriend did when I
    told him was ask me what I wearing when I went looking and decided
    that since I was wearing shorts, so that I could ride my bike
    comfortably, I had asked for a hassle.
    
    Aargh!!!!
    
    However, when I told my girlfriend and her boyfriend they were both
    sooooo maddd and couldn't believe that my boyfriend didn't have
    more sympathy.  The next day they both came with me to help me look
    and I ended up buying a car.
    
    

    A couple of nights ago, I took my Mom, daughter, Aunt and Uncle
    out to dinner.  when the waitress brought the check, she gave the
    check to my uncle.  I asked her how she knew HE was paying for the
    check and not one of the women at the table.  Very loudly she said,
    "I'm not a feminist, I feel the man is always the boss."
    I told her it was too bad, because I was paying.  One of the guy
    at the other table said "I wouldn't leave a tip, either"  The waitress
    was astounded.  
    
    vivian

    Some of these previous anecdotes may also have to do with "legalese"
    issues (not entirely unsexist in themselves).
    
    In areas relating to home repairs/improvements or equity loans,
    for example, a married couple in Massachusetts almost always own the 
    house under what's known as "Joint Tenants By The Entirety". Thus,
    both partners must execute any documents relating to the sale, mort-
    gaging (an equity loan) or "leasehold improvements".
    
    In Massachusetts, historically, (still may be on the Statute books),
    the Law held that a man was always responsible for his wife's debts,
    even if he did not give his consent for her incurring them. 
    
    I remember in the "good old days" when the Legal Notices section
    of the newspaper was filled with paragraphs containing statements
    like: "I, Mr. X, will hereby no longer be responsible for charges
    made by my wife, Mrs. X". This notice had to run for a certain 
    period of time, in order for Mr. X to not be legally obligated
    to pay for Mrs. X's buying sprees, during their period of estrange-
    ment, prior to their divorce.
    
    A subset of this was that a man was always responsible for his wife's 
    medical care. This is probably why the hospital in one of the previous
    replies was so insistent on obtaining the husband's signature/consent
    for his wife's confinement.
    
      Alan 

    Re: .46
    
>    In Massachusetts, historically, (still may be on the Statute books),
>    the Law held that a man was always responsible for his wife's debts,
>    even if he did not give his consent for her incurring them. 

    This is STILL on the books in New Hampshire, and is enforced.  While
    I was married, if I went to register our cars, I had to prove that
    my wife had paid her resident's tax.  If she registered the cars,
    she didn't have to show I had paid mine.
    
    Note also the various flyers one gets for timeshare resorts
    that say you will be given a prize if you sit through the sales
    pitch.  Among the requirements is often found the stipulation
    "If married, both husband and wife must attend".
    
    When I bought my latest car, the saleswoman asked me if I was going
    to check it out with my wife.  I was separated at the time and was
    not wearing a wedding ring, so her question astonished me.
    
    				Steve

    [this was back in 1975, but...]
    
    My husband was out of town when I went into labour.  The hospital
    checked me in as _Miss_ Johnston [yes, I use my husband's name, I
    like it better than my father's].  Hence, my daughter's birth
    certificate had her listed as illegitimate.  [a matter of miniscule
    importance to me, but appalling to my mother-in-law and mother].
    
      Ann
    
    [In any event I do not believe there IS such a thing as an
    illegitimate child -- if labels and judgements MUST be, then apply
    them to the parents.  But that's a whole 'nother discussion]

    
       In regards to buying a car - Last February I decided that it
    was time to buy another car. (My old one was very ill. I could never
    count on being able to make it to work.) Anyway, I had heard many
    horror stories about women shopping for cars and being taken advantage
    of, so I asked a male friend of mine to go with me. (He had worked
    as a car salesman for about 6 months after we graduated, so I figured
    he would be able to spot any tricks.) He gladly agreed.
                                          
       Well, we encountered various attitudes in the salesmen. As soon
    as we walked in to the dealer, I made it clear that *I* wanted a car.
    *I* was the one choosing it and *I* was the one paying for it. I mean,
    I was explicit with these things! Some of the salesmen had no problem
    with this. But some of them insisted on talking to Ken instead of
    to me. The Nissan salesman was the worst. He looked only at Ken
    when he talked, asked him all of the questions (each of which *I*
    answered), asked him if he was buying the car for himself to use
    as well as for me, (each time he spoke *I* answered and I kept telling
    him *I* was buying the car - some people are just thick!), and,
    to top it all off, when it came time for a test drive, he handed
    the keys to Ken! Ken made a big show of giving the keys to me before
    we left the showroom. When we came back, I handed the keys to the
    salesman and he asked Ken how he liked it! Unbelievable! Needless 
    to say, I didn't buy a Nissan!
    
    Another thought - this one about who pays in restaurants. My mother
    has been working for many years. She was the sole support for my
    sister and I for most of our growing-up years. I remember many things
    she has said to me over the years, but there are two which stand
    out in my mind more than the rest. First, she told me never to count
    on being supported by a man. That is, don't grow up with the attitude
    that all I have to do is "catch a husband" and I'll be taken care
    of for the rest of my life. (She said this very soon after she and
    my father were divorced and she had to go to work to support us.)
    Could be why I am an engineer!
    
    The other thing I remember (I knew I'd get around to this! ;-) )
    was when she was working in Sales. She, of course, often had to
    take customers out to lunch or dinner. The waitress always gave
    the check to the man at the table. My mom would reach over to pick
    it up, put her credit card with it and hand it to the waitress.
    The waitress would then hand it to the man to be signed! Unbelievable!
    I learned, though...when I was a waitress, I always tried to set
    the check as close to the middle as I could!
         
    Sorry I got so longwinded!
    
    -Amy.                     

    When I bought my car 2 yrs. ago I brought my ex-boyfriend with me
    so I didn't encounter any "trouble".  But, one thing I do recall.
    When I took the car for the test drive the salesman asked me if
    I had driven a standard before.  I said, "Yes, I drive one now."
     After I had been driving for a few minutes the salesman turned
    to my boyfriend in the backseat and said, "She does pretty good
    driving a standard doesn't she?"  I really can't imagine him making
    the same comment about a 36 yr. old man driving a standard!
    
    Also, last summer while living in New Hampshire I had to take one
    of my cats to the vet.  Since I had never been there before I had
    to fill out information for their files.  After I handed the woman
    my form she asked, "And what's your husband's name?"  I was really
    surprised to have her ask me that at a *vet's*!  I said, "I'm not
    married."  She responded by saying in a very sympathetic tone, "Oh,
    I'm SORRY!!!!"  I really couldn't believe the conversation but decided
    to take it as a joke, laughed, and said, "Oh, don't be!  I'm not!"
     She gave me a weird look and laughed kind of uneasily.  I thought
    there were enough single people around by now so that receptionist,
    salesmen, etc., wouldn't just automatically think that everybody
    who looks over 25 - and not too odd looking :-) - must be married.
    
    Lorna
    

    	RE: -1
    
    	It's possible she said she was sorry for assuming you were
    	married.
    
    	Scott

Hospitals and car dealerships have got to be two of the worst places for
sexism.  I agree that insurance companies are not so hot either.  When Evan was
born, only 4 months ago, I was listed as married in the hospital records, and
the insurance company records also show that Shellie and I are married. 
However, neither Evan nor I are currently listed under Shellie's insurance,
only under my own.  The hospital bills were submitted to John Hancock (my
insurance) and most were paid, but JH did not pay one of the bills because they
said that they had to know Shellie's insurance company first, even though I had
specifically said that there was no coverage from any other insurance!  I
called and read them the riot act and we just got a letter yesterday saying
that they had paid. 
                         Carol

The car notes are pretty good, but the line about 'she drives a standard pretty
good' reminds me of quite a few women that I know who *refuse* to learn to drive
a standard, and say that they *can't*!

I can't imagine it...

JMB 

    
    
    Car salespersons change their attitude rather quickly when I
    reply to their 'usual' question, "Can you drive a standard?"
    with "Yes, my last car was a Toyota LandCruiser, and before that
    I owned a Fiat Spyder."  I refuse to be intimidated by those
    who are (supposedly) offering ME customer service.
    
    (I also refused to answer the question "Are you two married?"  I
     countered with, "Why are you asking?")
    
                        Deb
    
    

    	I was just at the dentist and answered the question "Are you
    	married?", with, "I am not covered under any other insurance
    	policy".  If that's what they really want to know, that is 
    	what they should ask.
    		Linda

    	We needed another car. My neighbor bought a new Saab 9000,
    	and sold me his old 900. My wife learned on a stick, but that
    	was back in the late 60s, and we hadn't had a stick since.
    
    	One morning, just as we're heading home from <mumble>, she
    	walks out to find me in the passenger seat.
    
    	"What are you doing over there?"
    
    	"I thought you could drive home."
    
    	Anyway, must be like riding a bike. She was somewhat nervous,
    	but never missed a shift. Even made it up the hill to our
    	condo.
    
    	Since then she's even taken it to Burlington, VT by herself.
    
    	Yes, even a woman can drive a stick 8-)>
    
    	Scott

"If you didn't want to support the kids, you should have never of screwed around
in the first place!...."

By saying that you are up holding the attitude that a man is good for nothing
more then his paycheck.

JMB

    
    re:.58
    interestingly, since there is no context for the quote in question,
    there is no indication of the gender of either the speaker or the 
    listener within the quote itself. taken as it is (i.e. out of context)
    one might strongly suggest that the advice is appropriate for members
    of both sexes.
    

    I was talking to a fellow employee about an after work get together.
    
    I asked him if he was bringing his spouse.
    
    He asked me "Are rug rats allowed?"  (referring to his child).
    
    I replied that I didn't think anyone was bringing their children.
    To that he replied "Then I'm not bringing my wife. I don't feel
    like getting a babysitter."
    
    YUCK!

I don't see the sexism.  If his wife were to come also, then the couple would
need a babysitter unless their child were also allowed to join in the fun. If
the value of the gathering was insufficient to cover the hassle of getting a
babysitter, then I can understand the response.  Also, I have to add, my
wife was asked whether she was bringing me to a gathering organised at her
place of work; she asked the same question, and gave the equivalent response
("I won't bring Nigel; it's not worth the effort of getting our babysitter")

					Nigel

    re .62
    
    I guess some people wouldn't see this as sexism...but...If I were home
    all day with my child and my husband's work was giving a "thank you"
    dinner for the employees and their spouses and my husband didn't even give
    me the courtesy to ask me if I wanted to come because "HE" didn't
    "FEEL" like getting a baby sitter I would be pretty PO'd!  FULL
    TIME BABYSITTERS NEED NIGHTS OUT/OFF TOO!
    
    Thats exactly what he did!  And out of 10 employees - seven which
    have children - he was the only one that didn't bring a spouse -
    so I concluded that most people thought this dinner important enough
    to bring their spouse.
    
    (no flames intended to anyone - this is just one of my  hot buttons)

    Re .63, I agree with you.  Not only would I be upset about not getting
    to go because *he* didn't want to get a babysitter, but I would
    wonder about his true motives in not wanting me there!
    
    Lorna
    

    ....ever notice than when hubby takes care of the kids, he's
    "babysitting", and when mom does it, it's just "life"?
    
    --DE
    

    re .65 
    
    ...or ever notice that when hubby stays home to take care of the kids
    while wifey dear goes to school everyone says, "oh they have it so
    difficult" or "poor kid"?

>>>     ...or ever notice that when hubby stays home to take care of the kids
>>> while wifey dear goes to school everyone says, "oh they have it so
>>> difficult" or "poor kid"?

    I have exactly this reaction when I hear of Dad's *not* helping out
    with the kid at all or letting Mom do most of the work.  Except
    in this case "they" becomes "she."  Afterall, it must be a better
    family environment if both parents can occasionally escape to do
    something: see a movie, go shopping etc. without having to worry
    about little Sally or Johnny.

    I am in the process of interviewing for a position with Sematech
    as a Digital employee.
    
    I was told the next step in the process is a trip for me and "my
    wife" to the area to see if the living conditions were ok. 
    
    The recruiter (female) said before she told me this-" I can't
    believe this but that is what is written on the sheet."
    

    <--(.69)
    
    That should be a hint about what life in Texas is like.
    
    						=maggie
    						(who's been there)

    re.69,.70
    
    If you live in Texas, Austin is certainly the place to aim for.
    
    [*every* personnel manager I interviewed with in San Antonio, Houston,
    Dallas & Fort Worth asked me about my child-bearing plans.  only
    one asked in Austin]
    
    		Ann  [who was all over the Lone Star State for 13 years]

    I am a native Texan exiled in the north!
    
    Funny- I started my business career in Texas and never had any problems
    but it was in a different business.
    
    How recent was your experience re the childrearing plans? (Which
    is illegal to ask by the way)
    

    re.72 and when the questions were asked.
    
     First time - May 16, 1974 [I was not married at the time]
    		  San Antonio, TX
    
     Last time - July 1980 [I was married at the time]
    		 Addison, TX [Dallas suburb]
    
    The persons asking the question about my child-bearing plans were
    both men and women; were from small and large corporations;  the
    only commonality they really had was being in or near major Texas
    cities.
    
    Yes, I know/did know that such a question is an illegal one. [In
    the absence of witnesses it is frequently difficult to prove that
    the question has been asked]  Yes, my consistent response was, "That
    is not a question you can ask."
    
    No, I do not believe that Texas is a vast wasteland as regards women's
    rights; but I do see real differences regionally.  Until my native
    Texan husband decided that HE wanted to move north, my entire career
    was in Texas.
    
      Ann
    

    Do you know the kind of graffiti which are hand-traced on the back
    of dirty trucks? I saw this one in NH today:
    
    
    
    
                    Do you want to fool around?
    
    
    
    
                           Ladys only!
    
    

	A friend of mine went to a Digital function where families were
	invited. She had not brought her daughter because she prefered a
	night out alone. During the evening a fellow team member whose's
	wife was busy with their other child brought his youngest over and
	placed her in my friend's lap. His comment "Here, you know how to
	deal with kids better than me". Needles to say, my friend declined
	the privilege. liesl

    The comments about hospitals touch a raw nerve with me.

    I recently changed doctors.  At my initial visit, the receptionist
    was asking for lots of information, the usual stuff.  When she
    asked for my husband's name and employer, I explained that I (my
    insurance) would be responsible for paying.  She said fine, but
    that they would like to have a way to reach my husband at work, in
    case of emergency.  That made sense to me. 

    After the appointment, I picked up the bill and noticed that it
    was addressed to my husband.  When I asked why, the receptionist
    (a different one) explained that they always address bills to "the
    head of the household."  I tried to be reasonable.  I did not
    comment on the "head of household" remark, I just explained that I
    expect to be billed for procedures performed on my body and that
    my insurance company has never heard of my husband.  Her response:
    "What's wrong?  Are you separated?" 
    
    I finally told her that if she would address the bill to me that I
    would pay it immediately, but that if she addressed it to anyone
    else it would never be paid.  That worked. She can think what she
    will about the state of my marriage. 

    More recently, I went to the hospital for an ultrasound.  (We are
    excitedly awaiting the birth of our first child.)  I gave the
    hospital the same information I gave the doctor's office.  A week
    later, my husband received a bill for the ultrasound.  After
    discussing it with him (it's his mail and our child, after all), I
    returned the bill unpayed with a note explaining that I will
    submit it to my insurance company as soon as the bill is addressed
    to me.  That was just last week.  I haven't had a response. 

    I do hope we straighten it out soon.  I wouldn't want it to drag
    out to the delivery time; I won't be interested in arguing about
    bills when I want to be admitted.  But we have 4 months to go.

						    Tina    

RE: 'babysitting'

It may just be that the man knew his wife's opinion of DEC functions were
sufficiently low enough that it wasn't necessary to ask.

JMB who would have been glad to have kids and SO accompany him to DECParties.

    Another medical frustration.

    My husband and I used to go to the same dentist. Once my insurance
    company and I both paid the dentist for cleaning my teeth.  The
    dentist was prompt about sending a refund - to my husband. 

    On another occasion, our secretary hurried to find me in a
    meeting in a conference room.  She explained that my husband's
    doctor was on the phone.  That frightened me.  Well, it was the
    dentist's receptionist calling to tell me that my husband had a
    cavity.  I was so relieved and so angry.  I asked why they called
    and got me out of a meeting for that. She explained that she
    wanted me to make an appointment for fixing the cavity.  I told
    her that I don't know my husband's daily schedule and that she
    should call him.  She said, "But I don't want to disturb him at
    work." 

    My husband arranged his own appointment.  When he went in, the
    dentist said to him, "What happened?  Was your wife having a bad
    day?"  I was surprised but glad that the dentist knew I had been
    angry.  I don't let anger show easily.  I'm sure I didn't raise my
    voice or use sarcasm.  The dentist's remark did nothing but make
    me angrier.

    We never went back.  I am very glad to have a husband who is
    supportive of my boycotts in situations like this.  I didn't ask
    him to stop going.  I just told him that I was going to find a new
    dentist.  I think we can avoid some problems by having different
    dentists. 

							Tina

    Sexism is alive and well and living in the soap operas!
    
    Let me set the scene for you...On General Hospital, Duke is a member
    of "The Mob" who is trying to clean up the "Family's" activities.
    His latest attack is on the prostitution rings run by "the Family".
    He figures that he can get these women out of prostitution by offering
    them other alternatives.
    
    When asked  exactly what kinds of jobs he would set them up with,
    he replied,
    
    	"...clothing boutiques, beauty parlors. I don't know. What do
    women *do* to make a living?"
                      
    My roommate (a female engineer, like me) and I just looked at each
    other. We couldn't _believe_ that he really said that. I realize that 
    this is "just a tv show" and it's far from realistic in many aspects. 
    Still, I can't help thinking about all of the young children who watch 
    these shows because their mothers have them on. What a role model.
    
    (My mother never allowed me to watch soaps when I was young.)
    
    -Amy.

    Phone: RING! RING! RING!
    Me: Hello?
    Phone: May I speak to the Head of the Household?
    Me: You are speaking to her...
    Phone: blahblahblah....aluminum siding.... blahblahblah
    Me: Thank you for calling, but I am not interested in aluminum
        siding; I just painted the house.
    Phone: Well, may I speak to *your husband*?
    Me: He's not interested either...goodbye!  <click>

    	About two months ago I received an investment brochure from
    American Express which was addressed to Ms F. D. Williams.  The
    accompanying letter was written with the assumption the card member,
    me, was a woman.  I am F. D. Williams, a male.
    
    	I wrote a nasty letter to American Express asking why they assumed
    I was female.  The response, from V.P. so-and-so appologized for
    the mix-up and asked me to call her which I did.  During our telephone
    conversation she told me American Express often assumes a person
    who just uses initials is a woman since many woman do this to hide
    the fact they are woman.
    
    Douglas

    I went into our local store for boots and other miscl work gear.
    I asked for steel-toed workboots.  The clerk told me they (the famous
    "they") didn't make them for me because small women don't do any
    hard work.  If blacksmithing isn't hard work than I don't know what
    is.
    				Dondi

    re: sexism on soaps affecting kids
    
    It is interesting that you should mention this.  A lot of people
    underestimate the effect media can have on childrens perceptions.
    I was raised in a very feminist household, but...
    
    I remember distinctly when I was 5 or 6 my mother told me we were
    going to to doctor and "she will take a look at you".  She?!?!
    I says "But Mommy, women can't be doctors!"  To this day I remember
    the look on her face as her jaw dropped to the floor.  She looked
    like she wanted to punch someone, but couldn't figure out who! 
    I was promptly set straight, of course... :-)
    
    Diana
      !

    Re .81:
    
    That's a good one; makes up for all the "Mr. E. Rust" letters I get. It
    also reminds me of those who assume that a woman using "Ms." is
    single... surely, they think, a *married* woman would be proud to
    indicate that fact, so it's only the bitter, liberated spinsters
    who use "Ms."! (Yes, I've heard women say, "I don't use 'Ms.' -
    I'm married.")
    
    What puzzles me is why AmEx and all the other mass-mailers go to
    so much trouble and expense to "personalize" their junk mail when
    they're selling stuff that is not gender-specific. (On the other
    hand, I imagine their customer relations people would get complaints
    about the form of address no matter *what* they did.)

    -b

    Did you ever notice how........
    
    SOmeone/something is always male when it is bad/evil?
    Someone/something is almost always female when it is good/beautiful?
    
    Ex. When someone in this conference (male/female) writes something
    bad/good.
    "Isn't "she" a beauty?"
    
    BAd guys...but not bad girls?  (ie. movies and tv)
    and I am not talking about the soaps, those people are all bad....
    :-)
    
    When a man buys a 44 mag. its an "extention of his manliness".
    When a woman buys a 44mag.... DAMN!  She IS a tough on huh??
    
    Women can wear mens clothes INCLUDING UNDIES but catch a man in
    womens undies.....
    
    IF ONE MORE PERSON TELLS ME THAT MY DAUGHTER IS GONNA BE A LADY
    KILLER........
    So, I think that a girl (only 'cause she is a young girl of only
    4 months) should be allowed to wear sweats with little cars on the
    front just as much as a boy....see above.
    
    SO my son has a doll....WANNA MAKE SOMETHING OF IT!?? (At my size,
    especially with my extention, one would be so foolish)
    
    SO WHAT!  I like to watch "MY little Pony" witn my SON...see above..
    
    This has puzzled me for sometime....Maybe another topic?......nahhh
    
    Men almost always have bad experiences with female DR's?  (personally)
    women almost always have bad experiences with male DR's? (Melissa)
    
    The point I am trying to make is that no matter where you look you
    can ALMOST ALWAYS find sexism...BOTH WAYS...  
    
    What do we prove, really, by writing it here??  If someone says
    something sexist to me...I say something foul (typical male right)
    back...If someone says something sexist toward Melissa....WATCH
    OUT!
    
    Sexism is in the eyes of the looker.......sometimes.....:-)
    
    my two worthless male c's, take em or leave em...

Re: Note 13.68

>    the lack of changing tables in men's rest rooms is
>    sexism in that it limits those fathers who wish to be fully

What?!  Women's rooms have changing tables in them!?  I'm jealous!

Actually, this wasn't a problem for me.  We kept a clean changing pad and some
baggies with twist-ties (to hold the dirty, cloth diaper) in the diaper bag and
just changed diapers on the floor if necessary.  In particular, I remember the
Chinese exhibit in the Boston Museum of Science -- once you left the exhibit,
you could't get back in.  There were also no bathrooms accessable from within
the exhibit.  Merle was a little embarrassed, I think, but nobody complained
and the museum didn't notice or didn't mind, because the Ramesses exhibit is
the same way.  (Here's your warning!)

	- Aron_who_will_be_hundreds_of_notes_behind_until_after_code_freeze...

    
    This is one of those things that was always there, but it just
    really jumped out at me last night while I was reading a report
    about the financial situation of women and children.
    
    I kept seeing the phrase "Female-Headed Household,"  and it struck
    me that what that phrase really means is -no adult male present-
    in household.  I mean, you never hear about a female-headed household
    where there is a man, right?  So the only way a woman can be considered
    the head of the household is if there's no man there...  and if
    there is a man there, do they call it a male-headed household?
    No, they usually just call it a family.
    
    Justine

    RE:  .88  PSYCHE::SULLIVAN
    
    
    Is that true?  I'm not sure, but I believe (perhaps wrongly) that
    I am a "Female-Head of Household".  I was married a short while
    ago.  I have owned my own home for years, and so has my husband.
    We have a commuter marriage, where both of us are the head of our
    own households.  Does this apply?
    
    Marion

I would think it wasn't as bad as it sounds...

For instance a woman might be female head of household for a number of reasons:
disabled spouse, adult male children living with her, etc...

The other circumstances I would react to it more as a 'reverse sexism', implying
that females deserve special treatment.

Then again, you said the article was "about the financial situation of women"
which might explain the emphasis.

JMB

    I had an interesting time this afternoon. My mother fell and broke
    her arm this morning, and in the afternoon, I brought her to a doctor
    to have a cast put on (before you ask, yes, she went to the hospital
    right after the accident).
    
    At any rate, while at the doctor's, I listened while the receptionist
    helped my mother fill out the form, mostly because of the comments
    made here previously about sexist attitudes in these situations.
    
    I almost died laughing (and silently cheered my mother) when she
    responded to "Do you work?" with "Not outside the home", and figured
    that the receptionist probably marked off "No". My mother has, on
    many occasions, mentioned how irritated she gets at the idea that
    she doesn't "work" simply because she doesn't draw a salary.
    
    Interestingly enough, when the "Husband's name?" question came up,
    the receptionist didn't insist on getting his name, even though
    my mother said she was widowed. I figured that they'd still want
    to send the bill to "Mrs. Robert Boyajian".
    
    Afterwards, I told her about the discussion about these points here,
    and we had a good laugh talking about the parochial attitudes on
    the part of the medical and insurance professions.
    
    --- jerry

    	As an aside. I tell my female "Head of Household" friends to
    be extremely wary of checking off boxes requiring that information.
    Usually their phone numbers and addresses are also available within
    two inches. What does it say:
                Female-Living alone-works
    		What can Happen:
    		Robbery-physical attack- crank calls
    
    It's one thing on a tax form....anything else, forget it.
    
    Ken

    Sexism is alive and well and Living In......
    
    The DIGITAL Software Publications Style Guide!
    
    "If you must use personal pronouns in a manual, use "he" to mean
    "he or she" and "him" to mean "him or her."  A statement of policy
    in the preface or introduction is desirable. For example:
    
    Throughout this manual, "he" is used to refer to both men and women.
    This practice is for convenience and readability."
    
    
    This is one of the rules that *I* never adhere too.
    
    kmw
    
    

    The Disney Channel on cable TV touts itself as a haven of good moral
    values and "family entertainment".  Yet, while watching some of
    the cartoons on the Disney Channel with my son, I started to notice
    something.  In many of the older cartoons they show, female characters,
    if present at all, are almost universally portrayed in a bad light.
    
    One example was "Goofy's Holiday", which is a series of dream segments
    tied together by the reality of Goofy being ordered to clean the
    rugs by his abusive wife (Goofy is married?!).  In another, the
    story revolved around a male bumblebee who had to rescue his girlfriend
    bee from the wrath of Donald Duck.  At the end of the cartoon, the
    bee is shown with a beard, obviously meant to portray him many years
    in the future, and he is talking about "his missus".  Donald (also
    with beard) comes along, inviting the bee to join him for some sort
    of celebration.  The bee declines at first, but then is subjected
    to a torrent of thrown objects and verbal abuse by "the missus".
    Bee and Donald then take off together.
    
    I know that these cartoons were made in the 1940s and 1950s, but
    I shudder to think what kind of values they present to children.
    I've been trying to figure out how to deal with this, or perhaps
    just to be a good example myself and not worry about it.
    
    					Steve

    re .50
    
    Another restaurant/check annecdote:
    
    If two women are in a restaurant...which one will the waitress/waiter
    give the check to?  In general, I have found that the check goes
    to the one that either looks older or is older!

    Most of the notes from .93 on have been moved to the "sexism and
    language" note, number 112. We now return you to our regularly
    scheduled discussion, "sexism is alive and well..."
    
    Liz Augustine
    comoderator

    I am an avid pool shooter.  Upon aquainting a local bar, I proceeded
    to run the table (WIN) 5 games in a row.  All were played against
    young, white males.  As I was leaving, a comment was made, "Hey,
    you shoot good pool for a girl".  My departing comment was, "Yo,
    you shoot terrible pool for boys."

    Found inside a fortune cookie at the Mayling (a Chinese restaurant
    in Maynard):
    
    		A man's best possession is a sympathetic wife.
    
    Would it do any good to complain to the management?
    
    Dale

Found in another conference. Maybe forty or fifty of the area women
should apply 'en masse' and create a stir.
    
    Dana
    
==============================================================================               
    
    
                <<< BEING::BLKHOL$DUA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 375.36            Gun Club Directory/A place to shoot              36 of 39
MOSAIC::LEISTNER                                     24 lines  17-AUG-1988 17:55
                          -< No (fill in ) Allowed ! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I was a member of Framingham Sportsmen's club when I lived in
    Marlboro.  It is an excellent club as far as pistol goes.  I cant
    comment on anything else because that was all that I participated
    in.  I took the NRA firearem safety class there.  Excellent!  The
    atmosphere was for shooters not drinkers...
      Anyway, I moved to Maynard, which is about an hour away frmo FSA.
    Too far.  So I was all excited when I found out that Maynard Rod
    and Gun club was just down the street from me.  I went down there
    to check out the facilities and enquire about membership.  Well,
    one of the guys in the office looked at me and said "We dont take
    women members - dont you have a husband? He can join and you can
    be a family member"  I dont know how many of you have been victims
    of descrimination so maybe you dont know how that made me feel.
    He could have said "We dont accept Niggers", and I would have at
    least legal grounds to stand on.  But I dont.  The US Constitution
    doesnt give me equal rights.
      Now, I can understand men wanting to have their own club to just
    be with the guys - but there are women at MRGC most of the time.
      So, to the men out there who want women in their club as members,
    please try to bring this issue up in club meetings.  And for those
    of you who dont, just take a minute a think about someone turning
    you away because of your race or religion or gender.
    
    Caryn. ( I luv my .357 )

    In an ad that I heard on the radio, a 9 year old boy lists all the 
    things he'll be getting at a large store's back-to-school sale.
    Some of the items on this long list are:  a personal computer, a 
    vacuum cleaner and an entertainment center.   When the boy is asked
    about the items, he states that the vacuum cleaner isn't for him
    -- it's for his girlfriend.
    

    re.114
    
    I heard that too!  That store's ads always drive me batty anyway! But
    that was it!  My husband turned to me and said - "A mite bit sexist
    huh?"  I guess.  I am writing to the radio station today to tell them
    that they are my favorite radio station but enough is enough - I don't
    want to listen to that crap anymore - I'm wiping them out of my
    pre-programmed dial!
    
    Suzanne
    

    I haven't heard this ad -- what's the station?
    
    --bonnie

    WXLO - 104.5 Worcester, MA.  The ad is for LIZER (sp?) SUPER STORES!

    Well, it may be hard to completely avoid the ad, because it's on
    a lot of stations...I have heard it on at least three: WAAF, WBCN,
    and another that I don't remember (WZOU? WCGY?) 
    
    Anyway, I heard it too, and it made my stomach churn.  But I wouldn't
    boycott the station, I'd boycott the store (Lizer sound in Worcester)
    
    Diana
      !

    If you're going to boycott, the store is called LEISER sound and
    it's in Shrewsbury, off route 9, next to Spag's.  
    
    I went in there once, and their salespeople are incredibly pushy...they
    all stride up with that knowing look and say, "Can I HELP you?".
     After just so much pushing, I helped myself to the exit.
    
    -Jody
    

This review is a bit disjointed but I thought it was worth entering
    here.
    
From:	ERIS::CALLAS "Ooop thair, thair's uh boll uv foi-ah  23-Aug-1988 1645" 23-AUG-1988 16:58
To:	FOLKSTAR::
Subj:	feminine MISTAKE

From:	DECWRL::"P350OJ01@VB.CC.CMU.EDU"  "23-Aug-88 1617 GMT" 23 August, '88 4:25 pm
To:	subgenius@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
CC:	
Subj:	feminine MISTAKE

this is from 'IN THESE TIMES'. it's a review of a recent book by DOKTOR
toni grant, ' beING a WOman: fullfilling your feminity and finDING lOVE',
by susan DOUGlas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FEMININE MISTAKE.
boy, have i been a dunce. i misguidedly thought that the reason i'd been
out of sorts as a woman the past seven years was because things like the
justice dept.'s assault on affirmative action, the increased feminization
of poverty and the incessant attack on reproductive freedom to name just a
few causes of female depression.
Yes, i'll admit it: i've been kinda moody since JAN.20, 1981, and i tended
to blame my irratibility on others, particularly a few jowly, privileged,
PINK-cheeked white men in WASHINGTON. I was even known to use the word
PATRIARCHY now and then. but now that i've read the best selling 'beING a
WOman' by DOKTOR toni grant, a "pioneer in media psychology" who hosts
a call-in show for the lovelorn, i realize just how misplaced my anger
has been.
my analysis of the female condition under REAGANISM has been all wrong.
i've been so busy looking at silly things like social structure and economic
practices that i failed to identify the real enemy. toni grant, PH.D opened
my eyes to the truth: the real reason i;ve been unhappy in the 80's is because
i've been duped and lied to by FEMINISTS.
"in her incendiary new book", proclaimed a full-paged add in the new york
times book review, "DOKTOR toni grant explodes the myth of 'liberation.'"
the WOMEN's movement brought us nothing but misery and e women have only
ourselves to blame. it is FEMINISM that is singlehandedly responsible
for female "stress, anxiety, depression, compulsion, addiction and exhaustion."
THE AMAZON BUNGLE: while women may have deluded themselves into thinking they
cared about equal pay for equal worth, or incresed educational and occupational
opportunities, DOKTOR toni grant knows better. actually, we don't give a hoot 
about these things; we desire only to be "taken, transported, ravished, swept
away, carried over the threshold of love in the arms of a valiant hero." while
reading this i felt the spark of recognition, for, secretly, this is how i
REALLY feel whenever i see SYLVESTER STALONE, OLIVER NORTH or HUGH HEFNER.
the problem for women today isn't that some men in power are TROGLODYTES, it's
that women have become what DOKTOR toni call "AMAZONS". FEMINISM has turned us
into overeducated, uptight, promiscuous, male-bashing shrews incapable and 
undeserving of love. the AMAZON travels in packs. whenever she encounters a
man her tendency is to "draw her sword and go straight for the jugular and
castrate wherever she senses WEAKNESS." such behaviour is generally unpopular,
and it is grant's mission to help us get in touch with our softer nature and
"embrace or lost feminity." for FEMINISM, argues DOKTOR toni, "cripples female
power." REAL power comes from eyelash fluttering, tongue biting and toilet
scrubbing.
quoting two knowledgeble AUTHORITIES on contemporary american women, carl
JUNG and sigmund FREUD, grant notes that "women do not know themselves."
but grant knows that, first and foremost, women are "passionately concerned
about LOVE." a REAL woman is "psychologically pre-conscious" and operates in
"a natural intuitive fashion, utilizing her feelings as opposed to her 
intellect. she doesn't think analytically or strategicaly about what she does
at all. she just IS."
MAN-nifest DESTINY: in one of the many pathbreaking ideas in the book, grant
puts forward the revolutionary new concept that "biology IS destiny." this
means  that ALL women are genetically programmed to be passive, submissive
and deferential to men. the WOMEN's movement denied this IRREFUTABLE fact,
and "the more extreme elements of the FEMINIST and SEXUAL revolutions" 
propagated what grant calls "the big LIES of liberation."
one such LIE maintained that "a woman's attractiveness to men would increase
with her achievements." PREPOSTEROUS, exclaims grant. "the contemporary woman
did not anticipate that being overeducated might hamper her ability to RELATE
to men...research statistics that the higher a woman's education, the less
apt she is to MARRY." this hit HOME. first, i realized that as an educator i 
was doing  a cruel disservice to the women students i encouraged to attend
graduate and professional shools.
SECONDLY, i knew DOKTOR toni was talking about my very own MARRIAGE and that
i better share my concerns with my husBAND. "i'm so glad you brought this 
up," he exclaimed with relief. "you know, i just hate it when we sit around,
have a few beers and talk about politics or the media or education. when we
go back and forth about ideas, it's so, well...castrating. couldn't you take
up needlpoint and talk about the thred, or just smile and listen and never
say annything? our relationship would be so much better that way."
the other BIG LIES of libaration, such as the myth that men and women are
fundamentally the same, the myth of one's unrealized potential and the myth
that "DOING is better than BEING", have made today's woman "and imitation man
at WAR with actual men." these AMAZONS "deserted their men and their children
or rejected the entire notion of MARRIAGE and FAMILY; they "went to ORGIES" and
"participated in ODD sexual arrangements" (a stage of the WOMEN's movement that
i, unfortunately, missed out on). today's WOMEN "fix their own cars and leaky
faucets, travel ALONE, pay their OWN bills and wield their OWN credit cards."
that's me, all right. just YESTERDAY i rebuilt the ENGINE BLOCK.
men hate these independent, self-suficient types. in another pathbreaking
passage, DOKTOR grant astutely observes that "boys will be boys; there is no
getting away from it." just as all WOMEN are alike, so are all men. what guides
men, in everything they do, is CASTRATION anxiety. because of this "men need
to be right, and smart women know this and let them." men "do resist 
domesticity; they are hunters by nature and their natural instinst is to run 
free.' in another shimmering analogy, grant reminds us that "a fish, like a
man, wants to swim free. he has a natural attraction to the bait but an
aversion to the hook."
SWEET SURRENDER: all this is, of course, "rooted in gender biology: men
physically go 'downward'; that is, they penetrate women. moreover, it has
to do with man's biological NEED for dominance and CONTROL." women have to
surrender to male willfulness and, sometimes, this is a tad fustrating. DOKTOR
grant recommends DEEP BREATHING as "enormously helpful in the SURRENDER 
process." those women resistant to this SURRENder process are explicitly to
"respiratory illness (blocking of the BREATHING passeges)." and for years i
thought i had hay FEVER! now, by just saying "YES MASTER, whatever YOU say,"
several times a day, i can throw out those decongestants forever. 
grant cites THE TAMING OF THE SHREW as a primer for how women SHOULD be
trained and SUBDUED. if a man points to the sun and insists it is the moon,
the smart WOMAN, the WOMAN with REAL power, smiles and agrees.
this book saved my marriage and CHANGED my life. i now realize that the 
WOMAN "makes of breaks the harmony of a home," that the WOMAN is "the glue
of an enduring relationship." successful relationships between sexes are
ENTIRELY the WOMAN's resposability - men are too TIRED and overWORKED to
have to do this sort of THING. i have come to see that i "take a SECRET
PLESURE in dominance by men" for i have learned "what every sadomasochistic
aficionado will know: SUBMISSION can be downright RELAXING."
so i'm going to stop bitching. no more yelling at images of ED MEESE or
ORIN HATCH on tv. there's no SEXISM out these; just HUFFY, deluded, 
unFEMININE women who don't know how to keep their lips zipped. my needlepoint
is on the way, and tonight i'm going to wash my hasBAND's feet with my hair.
then i'll start on those BREATHING exercises.
------------------------------------------------------------
it also says at the end of the article that SUSAN is selling her HUGE 
collection of CRAFTSMAN power tools cheep.
frater luXNoir
 
 
========================================================================
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	id AA26074; Tue, 23 Aug 88 13:25:39 PDT
Received: from VB.CC.CMU.EDU (TCP 20000576422) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 23 Aug 88 16:17:34 EDT

Then there are some articles which are sooo slanted as to be devoid of any
usefull information.

JMB

    Yeah, satire and humor are devoid of any useful information and
    have no value.
    
    I guess I'll go home and throw away all my Nicolle Hollander "Silvia"
    cartoon books and then hang myself with some panty hose that are
    just ruined because they have a run in them...
    
    But before I end it all, I will leave you with a common, everyday
    scenario from the life of Silvia...
    
    Silvia is sitting in front of her TV (as she frequently does) smoking
    cigarettes, drinking beer and probably eating a twinkie...
    
    The voice on the TV says, "being a woman is more a state of mind
    than a state of being..."
    
    And Silvia (who frequently talks back to the TV) says, "Yeah, without
    constant awareness we may turn into a can of tuna..."   
    
    

    Don't just stop listening to the radio station[s] or patronizing the
    store, write letters to them and tell them why you're pissed off. 
    
    No one will care (or notice!) if a dozen people stop listening to a
    radio station, or a few people never go to a certain store. On the other
    hand, I'll bet they stand up at attention if they get just 10 letters
    about an offensive ad.
    
    					-- hs 

    While sitting at the desk of an engineer to make a phone
    call, I glanced up at the list of internal phone numbers.
    It was alphabetically ordered, last names first...except for
    the names of four women, who had only first names listed, no
    last name.  (They were listed separately at the top of the
    form.)  I asked.  "Oh, they're the secretaries for the
    engineering groups."  Why no last name?  "Well, I guess
    because everyone calls them by their first names, if I say
    'Nancy' everyone knows who I mean." 

    Grrrrr.

    -- Linda

    This isn't exactly sexism I suppose, but it sort of falls into the
    same category.  It happened  years ago.
    
    I worked in a brand new plant that manufactured polyester staple
    -- big bales of artificial cotton.  The plant was brand new, high-tech
    all the way -- no expense had been spared building it.
    
    When the plant was just about a year old, one of the women who worked
    out on the plant floor happened to be in the Administration building
    where most all the white collar workers resided.  She noticed that
    the women's bathrooms in the Admin building all had a sign on the
    door that read "Ladies", while the women's bathrooms out on the
    plant floor had signs on the door that read "Women."
    
    Needless to say, a very large ruckus occurred, and management had
    the "Ladies" signs changed to "Women" posthaste.
    
    							Pat

       	Speaking of names (and using different conventions for persons
    	of different sexes...)
    
    	In my note 88.219 (where I talked about doing a television show
    	in 1976 where 2 out of the 5 camera operators were women, making
    	the producers and directors highly nervous) -- I forgot to mention
    	one incident I found quite amusing.
    
    	When I went to the master control room (after the production
    	had been successfully completed and we were all feeling great
    	about it,) I noticed that the individual monitors for each camera
    	had been labeled with the names of the camera operators (so
    	that the directors could call the person by name if they needed
    	to, and so that they would, in general, know who was doing what
    	sort of camera work during the show.)  It was meant as a handy
    	reference.
    
    	When I read the names, I had to laugh because the 3 men were
    	all listed by their first names only, and the 2 women were listed
    	by their LAST NAMES ONLY!  (We figured that the people who wrote
    	the names thought it would make the directors less nervous about
    	having women on camera during a major production if they didn't
    	see feminine names staring at them from over the monitors during
    	the critical parts of the show.)  It read something like "George,
    	Fred, Steve, Conlon and Hanson."
    
    	The other woman on camera and I thought it was hilarious! :)

    RE: First-Names-For-Women
    
    It is still common for talk-show hosts to refer to a male Dr. 
    (*especially* doctors) as "Dr. <lastname>", and to a female
    Dr. as "Nancy" <or whatever>.
    
    --DE
    

   
    I hope not!  I haven't noticed that practice, other than Dr. Ruth
    of course, which I believe is her preference.
    
    -Tracy
    

    RE: 130
    
    It's still *Dr.* Ruth...not just Ruth.
    
    Dr. Brothers is an exception...probably because she is a well-known
    TV personality and a professional-TV-psychologist.
    
    Besides which, I said it was *common*, not that it *always* happened.
    
    --DE
    

    re: .124
    
    >It was alphabetically ordered, last names first...except for
    >the names of four women, who had only first names listed, no
    >last name.  (They were listed separately at the top of the
    >form.)  I asked.  "Oh, they're the secretaries for the
    >engineering groups."  Why no last name?  "Well, I guess
    >because everyone calls them by their first names, if I say
    >'Nancy' everyone knows who I mean." 
    
    I hate to say this, but until I became a Technician, I had no last
    name.  As Message Center, I was "Jonathan", but now I am "Jonathan
    Ludgate".  
    

    From today's Nashua (NH) Telegraph...
    
    Remarks anger Tamposi allies
    Humphrey: Mom should stay home
    
    Sparks flew Wednesday as allies of Betty Tamposi defended her in
    the face of contentions by U.S. Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R - NH) that 
    she should be staying at home with her two young children instead 
    of running for Congress.
    
    About 20 state Republican political figures staged a press conference
    on Tamposi's behalf, criticizing Humphrey and former state Supreme
    Court Judge Charles Douglas, whom Humphrey is supporting against
    Tamposi in the 2nd Congressional District race.
    
    The pro-Tamposi group called on Douglas to disassociate himself
    from Humphrey's remarks.  The press conference was capped by a brief
    shouting match between Tamposi Campaign Steering Committee Chairman
    Clark Dumont and Douglas' wife, Lorenca.
    
    Tamposi and her husband, Ted Goodlander, president of Cab-Tek Corp.
    in Nashua, have two children, ages 4 and 1.  Both children are cared
    for during the day by a nanny.
    
    Humphrey said it was impossible for a young mother to work the 12-to-14
    hour days of a member of Congress and still be an effective parent.
    
    "What this is is a case of putting political ambition ahead of the
    welfare of one's infant.  Were the (younger) child older, that would
    be one thing.  But as one voter, that would be disturbing to me,"
    Humphrey said.
    
    Tamposi responded, saying that all four current members of New
    Hampshire's congressional delegation are fathers - Humphrey himself
    has a 3-year-old son.
    
    "They've managed to do well as parents and I am confident I can
    do just as good a job in Congress," Tamposi said.

    Two unrelated items from the September 12 "Newsweek"...
    
    On pages 8-9 is a "My Turn" guest editorial by Angela Ward titled
    "A Femnist Mystique", in which she laments that the noble position
    of homemaker gets no respect.  She concludes:
    
    	"Working mothers are an important part of the modern American
    	labor force.  I'm not trying to demean them, nor am I claiming
    	that my way is better.  All I'm asking for is acknowledgement
    	that people like me exist.  I may 'just be a housewife' but
    	working with my family has dignity and value.  Isn't it time
    	we understood that all women can't and shouldn't live the
    	same way?"
    
    Newsweek then adds the biographical note "Ward, 25, was an
    editorial assistant at the Longview Morning Journal in Texas."
    
    "Was"?  How about recognizing what she IS?  Wasn't anyone paying
    attention?
    
    Also, on page 19, the "Perspectives" page, is this quote:
    
    	"We want what is best for the kids, not the daddies."
    	  Marge Chisholm, consultant on a new California
    	  state bill curbing joint custody awards after a divorce

    I noticed the line at the end of the Angela Ward editorial also,
    Steve, and  thought it came over like a slap in the face. Actually
    I'd thought of starting a note in this file with the quote you
    used.
    
    Bonnie

    In the Boston Globe this morning...
    
    "A penitent Sen. Gordon J. Humphrey ....yesterday apologized to
    GOP congressional candidate Betty Tamposi and said that his statements
    .....were 'unjustified and just plain stupid'."

    Last week during a conversation a male friend was telling me about
    a friend of his whose husband had recently left her for somebody
    else.  The couple had 3 children, 2 girls and a boy.  My friend
    said, "One of the things she told me really brought a tear to my
    eye.  She said after her husband moved out she went up to her three
    year old son and said, 'Now, you have to be the man of the family.
     You have to take care of us now.' Isn't that sad?"  I said, "No,
    it isn't sad!  It's sickening!  It makes me want to throw up!  Why
    should a 35 yr. old woman with a masters degree need a man to take
    care of her so bad that she says that to a 3 year old boy in this
    day and age?"
    
    He was very upset with my view, but I was disgusted to hear that
    people are still saying this type of thing.
    
    Lorna
    

    I've moved Notes .140 and following to a new string, #172. If you'd
    like to comment on Note 13.140, feel free to continue the discussion
    in the new topic. 
    
    Thanks
    Liz Augustine
    comoderator

Back about the first_name/last_name discussion:

When I was a junior in high school I was one of 2 young women in the entire 
school to take a class in electronics.  The teacher referred to all of the boys
in the class by their last name and to the girls by their first name.  The
guys were not real pleased to have us in the class in the first place, and
when the teacher did role call or called our names at any time it just further
emphasized our "difference".  The guys grumbled over stupid stuff like how
when one of the females had no cleanup responsibilities for the day then we
were called "Queen for the Day" instead of the "traditional" "King for the Day".
They thought that we were the teacher's pets because we were female.

          Carol

    Re: .142
    
    >-< obligations first, 'choice' second >-
    
    Why is it the woman's obligation to stay home and care for children?
    History?  Tradition?  The whole point of studying history is to
    understand the past and avoid its mistakes.  The point of studying
    history is not cultural stagnation.

    I've been watching the Olympics on NBC, and have been appalled at
    the attitudes of some of the commentators towards female competitors (and
    even other commentators).  What I have noticed is that the most
    frequent remark one of these men make about female contestants is
    that they are "attractive", and I've heard about "what an attractive
    team they are" (this may have been the women's basketball team).
    I certainly didn't hear them calling the males "handsome".
    
    Also, I was watching gymnastics and Mary Lou Retton is a commentator
    along with two men.  At one point the three of them were standing
    together (the men towering over Mary Lou), while she was remarking
    on some of the contestants.  The men were putting their hands on
    her shoulders and even patting her head!  Yes, Mary Lou is young,
    but in no way should she be treated like a child!
    
    At least I've not heard any similar comments about the marathoners
    - yet.
    
    					Steve

    THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, Steve - I wondered if anyone
    *else* had noticed that!
    
    In addition, *every* "major" commentator is male! There are
    female "color" analysts, but that's all. This is absolutely ridiculous!
    There have got to be female commentators who can do just as well
    if not better - Dick Enberg! Geez! The man doesn't know a straddle
    from a split, and he's the commentator!! Bart Conner does a *fantastic*
    job - let him be the commentator, and have Mary Lou do the "color"!
    
    Bryant Gumble insists on calling volleyball games "sets"... com'on
    NBC - get some people who know the lingo, preferably female ones!
    
    --DE
    

    I've moved several notes about the Olympics to a new string, #204.
    
    liz

    Oooh, I am steaming this morning. I heard the most incredible
    commercial on the radio this morning. Are we *really* living in
    the 80's? Things like this make me wonder...
    
    It was an ad for Comgas. The guy started off by saying:
    
    "Remember that ad a few years back that started off 'How do you
    spell relief?' Well, here's another one for you...How do you spell
    comfort? G-A-S--H-E-A-T! That's right, gas heat."
    
    blah...blah...blah...It's cleaner...blah...blah...
    
    (so far, so good, right?)
    
    "And it will make your wife happy, too! Mary says the curtains and
    drapes are cleaner. And that makes her happy!"
    
    blah...blah...blah...
    
    "And when your wife is happy, _you_ are happy!"
    
    So give Comgas a call...
    
    (Had I been a little more awake this morning, I would have screamed!
    As it was, I had a long unintelligible conversation with the radio.
    This was, I think, WXLO out of Worcester, MA, by the way)
    
    -Amy.
    

    re .148
    I've heard that ad, too - I *have* ComGas service.  Oh, well, I
    like gas heat (cheaper than electric and cleaner than oil) and I
    prefer my gas stove also, regardless of the inane ads.
    
    I suppose I could use a "wife", too - as my friend Maria, who is
    single, used to say.  She is foreign-born, and what she meant was
    more like that she could use a HOUSEHOLD STAFF - you know, someone
    to take those dirty drapes that your non-gas heat covered with dust
    (I remember the immense mess when my parents' oil furnace burned
    through its firewall and poured soot all through the house - I had
    shut off the vent in my room, so my stuff was mostly OK, but all
    the drapes had to be cleaned several times, and we eventually had
    to replace most of the wallpaper since the stuff proved very hard
    to remove) to the dry cleaner, buy the groceries, get the car fixed,
    etc.  In a lot of other countries, it is pretty standard for
    professional working people (not just "wealthy" people by our
    standards) to have one or two servants to take up some of the household
    chores.  I don't think that Maria meant that a *woman* should necessarily
    be doing them, though; more that *she* had enough to do already.

|    blah...blah...blah...
|    
|    "And when your wife is happy, _you_ are happy!"
|    
|    So give Comgas a call...
|    

So, do what they say, give Comgas a call. Tell them how offensive you find 
their ad, and who nkows, things may change!


				Nigel    

    re .148,.149:
    
    {I'm sorry, I know this is a tangent, but this little tidbit was
    just revealed to me so I would like to share it with everyone}
    
    I think that regardless of what fires the furnace; oil, gas, electric,
    coal, or wood, its cleanliness is determined by how the heat is 
    *delivered*, i.e. steam, forced hot water, forced hot air, or electric 
    baseboards. Forced hot air is *the* cleanest because it is the only
    one with a filter to collect all the dust in the air.         
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    P.S. as long as you keep the filters clean, of course.

    Someone was interviewing the head of NASA last night and asked
    why there were "no rookies or women" on board.
    He replied there were no untrained personell and that there weren't
    any qualified women.
    My beefs-Christia was trained. She went through the whole training
    program for a mission specialist. 
    No qualified women-hogwash!
    

    re: .152
    
    Perhaps he meant that at the time that they decided who went on
    this mission, there weren't any qualified women available. Period.
    Not "Women are inherently unqualified for such things."
    
    -Amy.
    

    Since I couldn't think of a better place to put this...
    
    My husband is in a wheelchair from a stroke.  He has a speech
    disability from the stroke also.  This summer, while he was attending
    college, he made efforts to make friends with some of the people
    in his class.  It seems that none of the men in his classes would
    have anything to do with him, and avoided him "like the plague".
    It was women who extended him friendship and made efforts to understand
    what he was saying.  I was saddened to think how often it is that
    women have to be the first person to "go the extra mile" when it
    comes to communications.
    
    Barb

    I've started a new topic, #219, for discussing the latest shuttle
    flight. The first two comments, .152 and .153, appear in both this
    string and the new one. All other comments have been moved to the
    new one.
    
    Liz Augustine
    comoderator

    Overheard in a bar...
    
    Group talking about a new commuter convenience - a restaurant/bar
    type deal at the train station...
    
      "...people can have their wives drop them off..."
    
    

    ...the Catholic Church.
    
    I know this has been beaten to death all over the place, but I thought
    I'd mention it here because the Pope has just released the definitive
    statement of the place of women in the Church and the meaning of
    the terms "masculine" and "feminine". He goes out of his way to
    assure all that neither is "superior" but that there is a definite
    difference.
    
    Now, it is fine to say there is a difference between "masculine"
    and "feminine", why have two words if they are the same, but the
    point is that the Church expects women to be feminine and men to
    be masculine, and so defines the roles each sex is to play.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re:  .101 -- Disney.  
    
    I've only just started reading this note; that's why I didn't respond
    earlier.  Disney's cartoons may not be as sexist now as in previous 
    decades, but have you been to one of their ice shows lately?  I don't 
    seem to notice sexism as much now that my children are grown, but last 
    winter's show was something.  All the female roles were 'cute' and 
    'helpless' or 'evil.'  The male roles were all 'protectors'.  Some of 
    this can be explained away by the fact that most fairy tales were
    written that way, but liberties have been taken to update other
    aspects of their productions -- why no heroines?
     

    re:159
    
    Robin Tyler does a wonderful satire on Disney on her album, equating
    some of the fairy tale stories with exposing children to pornography...
    
    Like:  the prince arrives on horseback to find sleeping beauty,
    he thinks she's dead, but he kisses her (there's a word for that
    where I come from)...you get the drift.
    
    Get her album, it is fabuous!
    

    A female friend and I were talking about little "nothing" gifts
    that we had picked up for our husbands, when an elderly "lady" (and
    I use the term loosly) said "You two are foolish!  They should be
    buying YOU the gifts!"  When we explained (don't ask why) that both
    of our hubs were not working at the time, she royally flamed us
    for "supporting those lazy bums"!  Neither of us held back in flaming
    her up one side and down the other!
    
    K.C.

    re: .160
    
    Yeah, and what about living with (fer crissakes) seven (not
    one, but *seven* dwarfs).  I've heard of kinky, but this. . .!?!
    
    re: .161
    
    In the immortal words of Elder & Kurtzman,  hoo ha!  Would that
    I could have been a fly on the wall.
    
    S.
    
    P.S.  Moderators:  I plead guilty to charges of non-relevence; pls.
    feel free to deep six this one. . .

Several of my "favorite" sexist ads;

WISK - have you ever seen the woman get ring-around-the-collar and her
husband doing the laundry?

ACE hardware store - "ACE is the place with the helpful hardware MAN"

Taken from the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph classifieds a year or
so ago:

"UNUSUAL JOB for women who like good pay & flexible hours.  Work part time
at home for a fantasy phone service.  Must have good voice & imagination &
be over 21 yrs old."

<"UNUSUAL JOB for women who like good pay & flexible hours.  Work part time
<at home for a fantasy phone service.  Must have good voice & imagination &
<be over 21 yrs old."

Geez Liz, I didn't know the CSC ran ads like this. :*) liesl

    The fantasy being that your questions will actually be answered?
    
    Jim ;^) (who used to answer customer queries which were often
             incomprehensible)

Actually, the ad ran when I was at the CSC and we "women" thought we
should apply via a conference call!

Liz

Re:
>ACE hardware store - "ACE is the place with the helpful hardware MAN"
 
   Actually, several times I've seen an ACE commercial where John
  Madden is assisted by a female employee. They changed the words
  to the jingle, but I don't remember whether they changed "man"
  to "woman" or "person". At least they're trying.

  But are they trying to be less sexist, or just to expand their
  market for hardware? :-)

One other place I thought of is on the bottle of Curel lotion it says
something to the effect of "Most women agree, Curel ends dry skin".

Seems to me they're turning their backs on a whole other market!

           <<< WORDS::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FRIENDS.NOTE;1 >>>
                     -< Welcome to our Family of Friends >-
================================================================================
Note 18.13                   Son Of Quote Of The Day                    13 of 17
NEXUS::M_MACKEY "The Lady is a Child"                 9 lines  10-OCT-1988 14:29
                   -< One of my favorites  ...  ;^)        >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Sure, God created 
                     Man before Woman
                         but then,
                     You always make a
                       Rough Draft
                        Before the
                     FINAL MASTERPIECE
    
    Mary Beth

    Reports of  Bess  Meyerson's  trial  inevitably  refer to her as a
    "former Miss America" or "the first Jewish Miss America" and never
    as  the former head of the Consumer Protection agency in New York,
    and  only  later mention that she was head of the Cultural Affairs
    office  of  New  York. Makes you wonder which accomplishment means
    more in this society.

--David

    A recent TV Guide (or was it People?) had an article on the Miss
    America pageant.  A lot of participants have gone on to become
    successful in a number of fields (usually not show biz, though).
    One woman, who was a state attorney or something, said something
    like, "No matter what I accomplish, my obituary will still say 'a
    former Miss Delaware.'"

    re: .171
    
         I think that reports refer to former beauty crowns before or
    excluding other accomplishments achieved by a woman because they
    are more important and interesting to the majority of Americans.
    
    ASP

    ...the sticklets gum radio commercial.  A woman's voice:
    
    "I was standing in the checkout line next to the most perfect man;
    6'2", dark wavy hair, and a 4th year med-school textbook under his
    arm.  I said to myself, do *not* let this one get away...I turned
    to him and said, <gum advertising>,...I had a ring by Christmas!"
    
    OK, now we *know* that dark wavy hair on someone 6'2" is "perfect";
    that a woman must "capture" a mate with inanity; and that every
    woman's goal, is of course, a ring.  Thanks, Sticklets, those things
    just never seemed so obvious before.
    
    DougO

    Budweiser commercials.
    
    One where a man unrolls a beach towel and three beautiful girls
    in bathing suits (decorated like the Bud logo) are lying on it.
    
    Another where two men are walking in the desert. One pulls out a
    briefcase that inflates into an olympic size swimming pool with
    (of course) a beautiful girl in a bathing suit and roller skates
    to serve them two ice cold Buds.
    
    {BTW, I used the word "girl(s)" consciously, as that is want they
    were clearly intended to be}
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I had an 'interesting' experience at a workshop on 'DEC culture'
    for relative new hires (been with the company 9 weeks up to 14 months).
    
    On the first day we broke into small work groups for an exercise.
    It ended up I was the only women in the group which had six men.
    Although I was not sitting anywhere near the flip-chart on which
    we were to put our presentation, 4 of the men looked at men and
    said, "so, you can take the notes."  
    
    And with the biggest smile I could flash I said, "this committee
    of one vetos that idea."
    
    And they said, "no, you will take the notes."  And I guess they
    thought that the issue was settled.
    
    At the end of the discussion when it came time to put something
    on the flip chart, the same four of them looked at me and said,
    "so, did you take notes?"
    
    I said, "no."
    
    The four of them got visably hostile and then one of the men got
    up and put some stuff on the flip-charts off the notes that another
    man had taken.  One man continued to exhibit overt hostility toward
    me for the remainder of the training session.  The only two men
    in the group who did not feel that I was an automatic
    sectretary-equivalent because I had t*ts and was wearing a skirt
    were the two men from personnel.
    
    It's amazing how angry the boys will get when the girls don't say,
    "YES SIR/MASTER!"  I was slightly pissed, but felt absolutely wonderful
    about holding my ground and watching them get all bent out of shape.
    

    re: .176
    
    Alright!!  I'm still laughing, especially at the thought that
    those guys were just starting out. . .i.e. just at the edge
    of running into big time trouble. . .
    
    As we used to say down Texas way, "Whup it on 'em, Mama - they
    ain't hardly even gonna know what hit 'em!"
    
    Steve
    

    I just heard a radio advertisement this morning for Air Portugal.
    A man's voice asked a throaty, sexy, seductive woman's voice something
    about a banking account.  She went on and on about Portugal being
    such a great place and implied romance (with her) until she convinced
    him that Air Portugal was the way to go to Portuagal.  He said that
    his wife would love it.  Instantly her voice changed to cold bank
    business like and she brusquely barked "Next".  Where upon another
    man asked another question about bank accounts and her voice assumed
    the siren-like quality as she talked about Air Portugal.
    
    Sigh.  No wonder people think that women only have one thing on
    their minds.
    
    Dondi

    re .176
    
    GOOD for you, you stood your ground.
    
    As for me, I am an Instructor, and if given the chance, I like to
    do the flip chart, or whatever, because I can stress my viewpoint,
    and let the others sort of slide.  This technique works well for
    me, as after the first one, they want to do the others to get
    equal time for their ideas.  In other words, if you Write, you
    present the topic, your way.
    
    Dave

    Overheard discussion of the recent promotion of a woman-
    
   " Well, the only reason she got the job is that they had to have
    a female" "Yeah-she doesn't have enough experience"
    
    The woman under discusion has more credentials and experience
    than the man she is replacing!
    

    A woman was hired as a machinist (a very capable machinist) and
    everyone said it's because she was a woman.  Previously, the shop
    was a 100-MAN shop and now she is the first woman.  What they forgot
    to think about was, prior to her employment, you had to be a man
    to get the job.

    I think you're getting confused by the phrasing, Mike.  The point being
    that the men complaining didn't acknowledge that one of the unspoken
    job requirements up til then pretty clearly was male sex membership,
    whereas until a similar history can be compiled we won't know whether
    she "got it because she's a woman" or simply got it because she was no
    longer required to be a man. 
    
    						=maggie

Re: 184

Mike

Why do you assume that simply because *one* woman was hired
that it is now a requirement that *only* women are hired?

-- Charles

    Please, everyone, go back and reread .181.
    
    When only men were hired, noone said anything.
    
    When a *qualified* woman was hired, the men said "It's only because
    she's a woman."
    
    This isn't reverse sexism -- it's all part of the original sexism:
    the assumption that no woman could ever really be qualified, and
    that if a woman is hired, the only possible explanation is that it
    is *because* she is a woman (ignoring years of evidence that in
    fact, being a woman is almost a guaranteed way *not* to get hired
    for this job).
    
    	-Neil

    I think you can go farther, Bob:  Nobody complained about sexism
    until a [psychologically] threatening incident occured which
    could be *called* sexism against them.
    
    							Ann B.

    Mike,
    
    Charles was referring, as he specified, to your entry .184,
    not to your entry .182.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S. to Everyone:  "Criteria" is plural; "criterion" is singular.
    And while I'm on this hot button:  "Media" is plural, and "medium"
    is singular.  E.g., The phrase "the news media" should refer to
    something in addition to television -- like radio, ior newspapers.

    re: .188  
    
    Good point, same one I was trying to make,
    I guess the words "appeared to be" should go before "sexism"
    instead of just before "working against them"
    
    Bob

    re: .190 (media/medium)
    
    And, in reference to news, "mediocre" also usually obtains. . .
    
    Steve
    

    re: .190
    
    Not to mention that if you're referring to only only one medium,
    you should simply name it -- TV news, big-city newspapers, WCGY,
    whatever -- rather than trying to sound important by referring to
    a news medium, which is just a fancy term for someone who gets
    stock-market quotes on her crystal ball . . . :) :)
    
    --bonnie 

    I have seen situations where a qualified woman was hired and *was*
    hired *because* she was a woman.  In this light I have seen men
    of higher qualifications rejected in favor of the woman because
    it was felt that the 'quota' of women in a particular organization
    was too low and would arouse suspition of sexisim, though none was
    occuring.
    
    There is no difference in this than in hireing men because they
    are men.  Both directions are improper and incorrect.
    
    I agree that women should not be concerned as to weather or not
    they are going to get the job based on their sex -- (The 'this is
    mens work' attitude).  Likewise I feel the men should not be concerned
    as to weather or not they are going to get the job based on their
    sex -- (The 'we *need* to hire more women' attitude).  Either case
    is sexual discrimination and should be halted.
    
    jim
    

    Re: .195
    
    I submit that the topic has been rigorously discussed elsewhere.

    ref. to my note .181
    
    I'm happy to see at least someone out there interpretated the point
    I was making about sexism.
    
    When the woman was hired, remarks were made, by the men already
    working, that it's because she was a woman....
    
    The point is, a hidden qualification prior to her hiring, was,
    obviously, because there were all men working, that the person be
    a man.  By the way, that woman was me, and I did have the chance
    to sit down with some of the men and made the statement about the
    qualifications prior to my being hired, was to be male.  A little
    piece of the ice cube melted.  They had never looked at it in such
    a way and said that my hiring had enlightened them somewhat.  
    
    I'm sure that qualified woman are a little more welcome to work
    with the men at the particular job shop.

I just saw something strange, which left me feeling uncomfortable(!!).

 Late at night, I was "clicking": round the cable TV stations and came 
across MTV. There was a Michael Jackson video on, showing an attractive
young woman in a "clingy" dress being harrassed in an alley by Michael 
Jackson. apparently, she was spurning his advances, and he was singing to
her to make her change her mind. What upset me a little was that MJ had with
him a "gang" (his backup dancers and singers really) who were running
interference for him.  Every time the woman tried to escape the alley, one
or other of the gang would "herd her" back towards the still-singing Michael.

 I had to go deal with my (at that time) sick kid before the video ended (so
I don't know if she finally kicked him in the groin, or evaded the "gang), but
it strikes me that I didn't like the messages upon which this video was based.

				Nigel

    Sexism is alive and well on 60 Minutes. Did any one else catch the
    report about small town bankers? Well they had a bankers convention
    in a tropical location (can't remember which one) and 60 Minutes
    followed them. As they left the airport it was explained to the
    viewer that "the bankers and their wives" were arriving. Good grief,
    couldn't they have the brains to at least (th very least) say and 
    their spouses.
    
    To add insult to injury they later remark that the wives went off
    to the boutiqes to get their hair done and then shopping while the 
    men went to the convention. Ack! 
    
    Even if by some remote chance there were 100% male bankers
    (which I doubt) there was no excuse for a news leader like CBS/60
    Minutes to encourage such sexist stereotypes.

    Gail

    
    
    So write to 60 Minutes.
    
    

>    So write to 60 Minutes.
    
How? How do you all consumer-advocate types know how to do this stuff?
	Mez    

Re:  .201

>>    So write to 60 Minutes.

>How? How do you all consumer-advocate types know how to do this stuff?

I believe 60 Minutes usually includes its address for its "Letters to the
Editor" segment at the beginning of the segment.  (At least, they used to.)

					--Q (Dick Wagman)

    
    You can write to them at CBS in NYC.  If they are still airing letters
    from viewers, I believe they announce their address at the end of
    the segment.  Also you can call your CBS affiliate (ch. 7 for metro-Boston)
    and ask for the 60 Minutes address or write to the 60 Minutes in
    care of the affiliate. 
    
    am
    

    
   Sorry, Dick, didn't see your reply.

    
    am

	There are books which list the addresses of businesses. The
	listings generally include the names of the officers of the
	company. Most libraries will have a copy. Simply explain at
	the reference desk what you need to do, and the librarian
	can direct you to a book which will help.

	re Bankers story:

	Maybe 60 Minutes was right. Are you sure that there were no females
	among that group of bankers? Maybe the spouses were all women
	and they all did have their hair done etc. After all, this *is*
	CBS news were talking about, and we all know how they are sticklers
	for accuracy. 	:-)

	Seriously, I try hard to avoid sexist language in what I write
	(don't always succeed, but I try), but if I am writing about a
	real situation, and I know that all involved were of a particular
	gender, then I have no problems with using words appropriate to
	that gender.

						Tom_K

The latest Sports Illustrated ad campaign really annoys me. They
totally ignore sports-loving women. 

They're on my list of letters to write.

    re:.205
    
    It's really immaterial whether or not it's a fact that all of
    the bankers in question were male (and married? Maybe some of
    those "wives" were really just SO's?). By using the phrase
    "bankers and their wives", CBS is just reinforcing, if only
    subconsciously, the idea that bankers (in general) are always
    male, and that women can only be "bankers' wives".
    
    --- jerry

    re: .206
    
    Me too! I have been tossing around the idea for a long time of
    purchasing a subscription of Sports Illustrated for myself. (I haven't
    yet due only to lack of free time...) 
    
    I wonder if I ordered a subscription using only my first initial
    and last name ... if it would come addressed to Mr. A. Asbury?
    Maybe I'll try that...
    
    -Amy.
    

    
    
    I should have thought their annual "swimsuit issue" would have given
    you at least a clue as to the outlook and panderings of the SI
    publishers.

    As an ex-jock-phys-ed-teacher, Sports Illustrated is definitely
    at the top of my Fecal Roster. Believe me, I tried to like it.
    I tried to find women athletes in it. And that (%^ swimsuit
    issue ices the cake! 
    
    I wouldn't subscribe to it, even to get the intellectually stimulating
    video tape they offer.
    
    --DE
    

    While we're on the subject of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue
    (Where's that Chippendale Calendar when you need it?)   :^)
    
    
    Why does Cable Television have a PLAYBOY Channel and no PLAYGIRL
    Channel?                                                   
    
    Curious .......
    Susan

>    Why does Cable Television have a PLAYBOY Channel and no PLAYGIRL
>    Channel?                                                   

My guess: nobody started one.
	Mez

    re .211  
    
    There is little demand for a Playgirl channel. It's potential target
    audience is quiet limited. The usual thinking is that
    women are not as interested/obsessed as men are about the human
    anatomy. 
    
    Either way I think the novelty wears off fast...
    
    Gail

    RE: .213
    
    A nit - there is little human anatomy on the Playboy channel.
    The important stuff....*you* know....<blush>
    
    There's lots of vigorous motion, squinty eyes, open mouths,
    and the most gawd-awful voice-over panting and moaning you
    ever heard.
    
    Disclaimer: There is more female exposed *flesh*, as it were, 
    (of course), but little ...er..."nitty-gritty" of anyone's.
    
    What might one want to see on The Playgirl Channel? Hmmmm...this
    gives me an idea...
    
    --DE
    

    
    RE: .214
    
    Exposure of errrr .... "aroused" male genitalia gets you an X rating
    and cannot, apparently, be shown on even cable TV.  It's much harder to
    see female genitalia, so fewer frames where mostly the woman's body is
    showing get cut out.  They also zoom and pan to remove the man from the
    frame if necessary.  The only things they have to cut completely are
    those extreme lower-body closeups (male) pornographers are so fond of.
    
    
    							-- Mikey

    RE: .217
    
    Then it must be the cable channels policing themselves as they perceive
    community standards.  Why get ridden out on a rail if you can avoid
    offending people in the first place?  There aren't any "community
    standards" in NYC! 8^)
    
    							-- Mikey

    Actually I read that the Playboy channel is changing their programming
    and toning things down also. I guess the novelty finally wore off
    (yawn). Like anything else, nudity for nudity's sake gets boring
    real fast (as does filthy comedy for the same reasons).
    
    Eric

	If the programming originates at the local cable office,
	and just goes through their wires there is less reason for
	the FCC to be involved. If the programming is distributed
	via satellite, then radio transmission is involved, and
	While I'm guessing, it seems plausible that the FCC's regulations 
	of what can be sent via radio are more stringent than for what 
	can be sent over a private wire.


							Tom_K

    Apparently European porno flicks are much more willing to indulge
    in full frontal male nudity.  Then again, from what I've heard,
    Europeans are more comfortable with nudity.

    re: .221
    
    "Then again, from what I've heard. . ."
                                                           
    My experiences say you heard right.  Like f'rinstance the time
    I, a couple of service buddies, our German girlfriends9, and two
    German couples who were friends sneaked into the town swimming
    pool.  We Americans had no bathing suits, but our 'rad (Amer. 
    nickname for Germans; from "kamerade" (sp?) meaning "friend")
    buddies said, "Don't worry, man. . ."  So o.k. I guess that
    means were gonna take off shoes & socks and dangle our feet
    over the edge.
    
    Right.
    
    We get in and the next thing you know, in front of this *lighted*
    pool, these 'rads start taking off clothes left and right. . .
    and they don't have any bathing suits either. . .  I've seen
    few things that gave lie more effectively to the "macho, American
    image".
    
    For there we were, three rough, tough American G.I.s (M.P.s no
    less!), faces reddening by the second, stammering, shuffling our
    feet, trying desparately to think of something "cool" to do
    while keeping our pants on, and being laughed at by our 'rad
    friends.  
    
    Uh, y'know, like, we never seed no nekkid peeple b'fore, y'know. . .
    
    Oh yeah. . .there's some real, live, ultra-self-confident 
    macho alright. . .
    
    Steve
    
    9 Well, that's what they *were* at the time.  Admittedly, this 
    experience and the invention of dandruff were nearly contemporary.
    And anyway, back then we were "boyfriends" and, in that epoch, that
    was o.k. too.

    I bought a watch at the jewelry counter at Sears over the weekend
    and charged it on my charge card.  The saleswoman, my husband and I 
    started to have a conversation on signing the back of the credit card,
    and how the salespeople are supposed to check the signature on the
    card to be sure it matches the person's signature on the charge
    slip.  She informed me that she usually checked because a lot of
    times "they were using their husband's or father's card, and she
    had to be sure it was OK, and that they had signed the card."  I
    guess wives and daughters can't have their very own cards, and husbands
    must never use their wives' charge cards.
    
    Reminded me of the time in Zayre's where I was charging something,
    and before the cashier had even taken my card, she informed me that
    I couldn't charge anything because they had a new policy that wouldn't
    allow a wife to charge on her husband's card -- it had to have the
    wife's name on it.  So she assumed 1) I was married, 2) it was my
    husband's card (we don't have any joint credit cards), and 3) that
    I couldn't possibly have my very own charge card.
    
    And all this from other women!
    
    Cathy

    Interesting.  I was charging something yesterday and the clerk told
    me to sign my card.  I said I wouldn't but would show my driver's
    license (which she accepted).  I believe it was Dear Abby or Ann
    Landers where there was a discussion that if you sign your card
    and it is stolen, the theif can easily match your signature.
    
    This gave me a "good excuse" to continue my lazy habit of not signing
    the cards - never could get the ballpoint ink to stay on anyway!
    
    Excuse the digression...
    
    Nancy

    RE: 225
    
    But if you don't sign your card they can sign it and when the sales
    person checks the signature it will match perfectly.  Lose - Lose
    situation I guess.

    
    One reason for signing your credit card is because if you lose it
    without you signature and some one else finds it and they sign it,
    when the sales associate checks for signatures they will then match.
    I never look at the name on the front, just the signature on the
    card and the signature on the sales slip.
    It is especially important at this time of year with so much increased
    activity on so many credit cards. Usually at Jordan Marsh, if the
    is sudden increased activity on a credit card the main credit dept.
    will interupt at the point of sale and ask for I.D. this is for
    your protection.

    
    .....Toys-backward-R-Us commercials.
    
    There are 2 commercials currently running for "the season". Each
    one shows a child telling about a dream in a TbRU store. 
    
    The little girl dreams she fills up (something like) 15 carts
    shopping in the store. The little boy dreams he is the MANAGER
    of the store.
    
    Argh.
    
    --DE
    

    re: .226 - .228
    
    Good points... I'll give it some more thought!  Now if I could just
    get the ink to stick on those slick surfaces....
    
    Nancy

    
    	I was walking behind a group of women between builings at my
    site. A middle aged man opened the door to the other building, and
    the women enter single file. As I entered, the man LETS GO OF THE
    DOOR in my face.
    
    I am 6 feet tall and weigh well over 200 lbs. I'm sure he saw me. 
    Maybe his arm was tired ;-)
    
    Guy Novello                     
    

    	RE:  .232
    
    	A courtesy can't be called a courtesy if it is an obligation.
    	When did anyone become obligated to hold doors open for
    	anyone else?
    
    	It sounds to me as if you think that one of the goals of
    	equality between the sexes should be:
    
    		Men are no longer encouraged to open doors for
    		women, but women sure as HELL better always
    		open doors for men.
    
    	If men are not called sexist for NOT opening doors for
    	women, then women should not be called sexist for NOT
    	opening doors for men (unless maybe a person is looking
    	for some reason to use that word against women.) Hm?
    
    	Oh, wait!  Were you trying to say that women were being
    	sexist against other WOMEN by holding doors open for them?
    
    	Interesting new twist, if so.  :-)

    
    	   I hold the door open for everyone.  I don't discriminate
    	based on sex.  This seems to bother a lot of guys who just
    	can not pass through a door without touching the handle,
    	even when the door is being held.  I find that quite amusing.
    
    	   Women don't seem to mind my holding the door for them...
    	they don't treat it as sexist behavior... especially when
    	they see me standing there while a few guys file through.
    
    	   I see it as an act of common courtesy (a misnomer, actually,
    	since courtesy is anything BUT common these days).  My own feeling
    	is that by showing people a little courtesy, I subconciously
    	encourage similar activity from them in the future.  If I've 
    	got my timetables correct, everybody will be holding the doors
    	open for everybody else by 2021 (sometime around July 4th). ;^)
    
    	- Greg

Happened to me again today. The guy is using his keycard, so I stand by the
door, swing is wide open, step back, look at him, he steps _way_ back and makes
a surprised noise, and does not move through the door.

I give up, give him what I hope was a puzzled grin, and go through the door
myself.

	Mez

    
    re: .199
    
    FWIW:  "60 Minutes" apologized about the banker story, and admitted
           that there were "a few" women among the bankers.  Sounds
    	   as though they received quite a few letters about that story.
    
    SLL

    Re: .233
    
    >A courtesy can't be called a courtesy if it is an obligation.
    
    Yes, but can courtesy in general be considered a social obligation?
    
    >When did anyone become obligated to hold doors open for anyone else?
    
    Well, letting it shut in someone's face *is* pretty rude.

    	RE:  .239
    
    	Chelsea, you seemed to have missed the point I was trying to
    	make.  The author I addressed was trying to make a case for
    	WOMEN being sexist by not opening doors for men (or for
    	opening doors for women only.)
    
    	Again, I'm not sure if the author was saying that those women
    	were being sexist against men or women (and he hasn't been
    	back to elaborate.)
    
    	My own views on the old "holding the door open" rathole 
    	consist of the following:
    
    	    1)  I hold doors open for others whenever I find the
    		opportunity to do so (for both men and women.)
    	    
    	    2)  If someone else holds the door open for me (man
    		or woman,) I give a sincere "Thank you" to show
    		my honest appreciation for the courtesy.
    
    	The question I raised was:  How can it be considered sexist
    	for women NOT to hold the door for men while it is *not*
    	considered sexist for men NOT to hold the door for women.

    There is, I think, a difference between "not holding a door open
    for someone" and "releasing an open door in someone's face".  I
    believe the incident cited was of a woman holding a door open for 
    group of women, and then (unexpectedly) releasing it in the face 
    of the man who was following them.
    
    As with many of the cases cited in previous notes in this topic,
    whether this was overt sexism or simple boorishness is an open
    question...
    
    	-Neil

    Re: .240
    
    >The question I raised was:  How can it be considered sexist for
    >women NOT to hold the door for men while it is *not* considered
    >sexist for men NOT to hold the door for women.
    
    In this case, the woman held the door for women but not for a man.
    Why?  It could be that she was holding it for her friends but didn't
    want to hold it for a non-friend.  In that case, it wouldn't be
    sexist.  However, if she was willing to hold the door only for women,
    that would be sexist in the basic meaning of the word -- discriminating
    or distinguishing on the basis of gender.  If a man held the door
    only for men but not for women, I would consider that sexist.
    
    So I missed your point because I reduced the situation to a different,
    not quite so simplified problem.

    	RE:  .241
    
    	Please explain your justification for using the phrase
    	"overt sexism" for people who do not hold the door open 
    	for someone else?  (Hopefully you mean that both sexes
    	are being overtly sexist when they fail to hold the door
    	for the opposite sex, and are not just talking about women.)
    
    	It could be considered a "lack of overt courtesy,"
    	but "overt sexism?"  I don't see how.
    
    	Aside from that, the original author made a generalized
    	statement about women (along the lines of "sexism in the
    	Sisterhood abounds,") so it would seem that women in
    	general were being called sexist for not making as many
    	overt displays of door-opening behavior as men apparently
    	do.
    
    	Again, what is the justification for calling non-door-
    	opening behavior "overt sexism?"
    
    	On the subject of letting a door slam in someone's face,
    	it could be unintentionable (or simple rudeness.)  Or,
    	it could be lack of attention on the part of the person
    	whose face meets the door.
    
    	Myself, I never *expect* people to open or hold the door
    	for me (until/unless they make it obvious that they intend
    	to do just that.)  Unless it is quite obvious that someone
    	is holding the door for me, I *always* reach for it myself
    	(as if I am reaching to catch the door before it shuts.)
    	If a door is coming at me, I reach out and stop it with
    	my hand before it comes near my face.  If I'm not sure
    	whether the person intends to keep it open or not, I
    	keep my face out of the line of fire by not assuming
    	that I'll be free to walk on through.

    	If someone offers me the courtesy of holding the door
    	open for me, I say, "Thank you."  If I thought it was
    	a social obligation for that person to do it for me,
    	why would I bother thanking them?

    	They aren't obligated, so I don't expect it (and I'm
    	not mad at all when they don't do it.)  However, I
    	do it (but I don't expect any thanks for my trouble.)
    	Thanking someone is another courtesy that I choose
    	to give others freely but don't think of it as a
    	right either (so I'm not mad if someone doesn't thank
    	me.)
    
    	Where exactly does sexism fit into this part of the
    	issue?

	RE:  .242
    
    	>In this case, the woman held the door for women but not for a man.
    	>Why?  It could be that she was holding it for her friends but didn't
    	>want to hold it for a non-friend.  In that case, it wouldn't be
    	>sexist.  However, if she was willing to hold the door only for women,
    	>that would be sexist in the basic meaning of the word -- discriminating
    	>or distinguishing on the basis of gender.  If a man held the door
    	>only for men but not for women, I would consider that sexist.
    
    	So how do you *determine* what this woman's inner motivation
    	was without knowing her?  Perhaps the woman in Arpad's example
    	was motivated by your non-sexist scenerio.  Even if she repeats
    	this same behavior every day and he sees it, how does he know
    	that she wasn't choosing her behavior for your suggested non-
    	sexist reason?
    
    	He called her (and women in general) sexist without even KNOWING
    	(or caring?) why she did what she did.
    
    	(Before we jump into another rathole about intentions versus
    	perceptions, etc., I'd like to point out that there still hasn't
    	been any real justification for why NOT opening a door is an
    	inherently sexist act.  In this case, the person's motivation,
    	as you've pointed out, counts for everything.)
    
    	Also, I'd like to point out that *refraining* from an action
    	that acknowledges a stranger in public is NOT the same thing
    	as *committing* some action that overtly acknowledges a stranger 
    	in a way that makes the stranger uncomfortable.
    
    	So, again I ask, how can one assume that a person is being
    	sexist when withholding an overt courtesy from a stranger?

>    	Please explain your justification for using the phrase
>    	"overt sexism" for people who do not hold the door open 
>    	for someone else?  (Hopefully you mean that both sexes
    
    If someone holds doors open for some people, but not for others,
    solely on the basis of their sex then that is sexism.  If the action
    is committed in public, with no attempt at dissimulation, then it is
    overt.
    
    I omitted, of course, the most likely explanation:  someone is going
    through a door with a group of friends (who happen to be all of the
    same sex), holds the door for them, and then releases it, not even
    noticing that someone else (who happens to be of the other sex) is
    following them.
    
    	-Neil

	RE:  .245
    
    	>If someone holds doors open for some people, but not for others,
    	>solely on the basis of their sex then that is sexism.  If the action
    	>is committed in public, with no attempt at dissimulation, then it is
    	>overt.
    
    	If a man smiles at other men (and never at women) for some
    	reason (perhaps because he is married and worries about giving
    	the wrong impression to some women who might be interested in
    	seeing him socially,) is that sexism?  Does every person in
    	public have the right to receive a smile from someone who
    	occasionally smiles at some people?  Do you consider the
    	exchange of public friendliness to be in the same realm
    	as equal opportunities in employment?
    
    	In my opinion, people can form their own parameters for
    	engaging in optional (non-harassing, non-threatening) behavior
    	any way they like.  I don't have a problem at all with a
    	man who only opens doors for other men.  I just don't agree
    	that any man should be obligated to open a door for me
    	simply because I happen to be a woman (and he happens to
    	open doors for other men.)  I don't think any particular
    	man *owes* me an optional public courtesy simply because
    	he offers them to some other people sometimes.
    
    	I guess we just disagree on this particular issue.
    
    	>I omitted, of course, the most likely explanation:  someone is going
    	>through a door with a group of friends (who happen to be all of the
    	>same sex), holds the door for them, and then releases it, not even
    	>noticing that someone else (who happens to be of the other sex) is
    	>following them.
    
    	I agree -- this *is* the most likely explanation.
    
    	If I saw a man holding doors open for other men, but then refrain
    	from holding the door open for a woman, I would assume that
    	it was an unintentional slight (or that perhaps there was some
    	valid reason for the man's action that was not immediately
    	obvious to the observer.)
    
    	Again, courtesies are nice (and admirable,) but I don't think
    	anyone should be obligated to offer them (and I certainly don't
    	demand such courtesies every time I step out the door.)  Nor
    	would I ever condemn someone (or call the person a name like
    	'sexist') for failing to offer optional nice gestures.

    	So I guess we disagree on this one.  Oh well.  :-)

Heard this morning on WROR:

A reporter (a woman, actually) was doing a story on elder care.
Right before I turned off the radio I heard this gem:
"John Smith was working at the nursing home as a male nurse."

I wonder if when another nurse calls in sick, do they ask him
to work that day and fill in as a "female nurse"?

    	RE:  .248
    
    	Well, it's just as I suspected.  He has no justification
    	for assuming that the woman in question was being sexist
    	(other than his own prejudice about women.)
    
    	Let's face it -- there are certain purely social situations
    	where men and women perform specific behaviors based on
    	gender.  For example, some men only date women.  Is that
    	being sexist?  
    
    	There are any number of reasons why a woman might choose to 
    	open doors for women and not for men (including being sensitive
    	to the fact that not all men are *comfortable* with the
    	idea of having doors opened for them by women.)
    
    	If a woman happens to be convinced that opening a door for
    	a man would make him uncomfortable, then she is committing
    	an act of *courtesy* (and not sexism) if she takes the
    	course of action that will cause the man the least amount
    	of discomfort.
    
    	Once again, despite the author of .248's claim to simplicity,
    	social behavior is never quite that simple (unless one wishes
    	to MAKE it so by deciding to use labels like "sexism" to
    	slander those who choose to withhold small acts of courtesy
    	for reasons known only to them.)
    
    	Of course, understanding takes a lot more effort than just
    	assuming and condemning without any thought at all.

    
    	RE: 249
    
    	You're groping and I don't really understand why.
    	As explained by the noter, that particular situation
    	smacks of sexism and/or abject discourtesy. 
    
    	Is this a hot button for you?
    
    						regards,
    
    							Hank
    	

    Re: .244
    
    >He called her (and women in general) sexist without even KNOWING
    >(or caring?) why she did what she did.
    
    I noticed and I can't say I liked it.  However, I was sure that
    someone else would take it up with him.  And since it is possible,
    though not proven, that she was being sexist, his position is not
    entirely assailable.  If you're an idealist, his conclusions are
    annoying, to say the least; if you're a cynic, his conclusions are
    entirely reasonable.  Depends on whether you feel like giving everyone
    the benefit of the doubt.
                                         
    >I'd like to point out that there still hasn't been any real
    >justification for why NOT opening a door is an inherently sexist
    >act.
    
    Obviously, opening, closing and holding doors in a vacuum, as it
    were, is not sexist because there is no gender associated with that
    simple act.  The sexism arises in the determination of which people
    you will open the door for.
    
    >So, again I ask, how can one assume that a person is being sexist
    >when withholding an overt courtesy from a stranger?
    
    With the greatest ease in the world.  Which is not to say that it
    ought to be done, but everyone has their own degree of charity when
    viewing the actions of others.
    
    Re: .248
    
    >For example, some men date only women.
    
    Yes, that's sexist.  Not in the perjorative sense, but in the basic
    definition of the word.  These men distinguish between genders and
    react differently to people based on gender.  Women do it, too,
    and it's entirely ethical.  This is the reason why the battle is
    not for equality, but equivalence.  Men and women are not equal
    but they should be treated equivalently.

    Re: .250
    
    Well, actually she's not groping.  This whole argument is full of
    speculation, so her alternative interpretations are no less solid
    than any other explanation offerred.

    
    RE: .252 by ::Chelsea
    
    Yeah, I see your point. Thanks, Hank

   > These men distinguish between genders and
   > react differently to people based on gender.  Women do it, too,
   > and it's entirely ethical.  This is the reason why the battle is
   > not for equality, but equivalence.  Men and women are not equal
   > but they should be treated equivalently.
    
    Well put, Ms. Chelsea, especially the concluding sentence. 
    
    Mark                

    Could we perhaps solve this problem by using revolving doors?

    
    My vote is boorishness.  Maybe not in this particular case ( I *think*
    you had to *be* there to know for sure) but something happened to
    me this afternoon which made me EXTREMELY irate.
    
    My job often requires me to carry boxes from one building to another.
    And since I work second shift the doors lock at 17:00 after which
    you need to use your key-card.
    
    This afternoon for the SECOND time a person (not the same one) has
    come out of the door and let it close while I walk up the path with
    my arms full.  I think that the fact that both times it has been
    a woman has nothing to do with it.  I just think that we have reached
    a time where people neglect to do little things for each other that
    *could* make the world a really great place to live.  And in truth
    it's not so little when your arms are full of boxes!!
    
    
    AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
    
    Luis

    As it would appear that a major manifestation of sexism is center
    in the arch of a doorway, I suggest multiple doorways ("male",
    "female", "others"), similar to having "normal" beaches and
    "textile-free" beaches. People can thus make their own choice of
    battle fields -:).
    

    
    re: 257
    
    That's the most sane reply I've heard to 232 yet! Thanks for the
    laugh!
    
    Roberta
          

    RE: .257
    
    "With Packages" (electric doors)  "Without Packages" (pull the handle)
    
    "Male Chauvinist"          "Female Chauvinist"        "Mixed"
    
    
    RE: last few, and in general
    
    Sometimes I think we (women, feminists,.??..) are being told, "OK,
    honey, if you want your share of female CEO's, you have to take
    half the door-slammers, half the door-holders, and half the
    axe-murderers."  Sheesh. 
    
    --DE
    

How about
	Polite			Impolite

simple, non-sexist, sufficient.

    RE: .260
    
    Oh Martin, what Monty Python could do with *that*! I'm laughing
    just picturing it!!
    
    Better yet, picture them as Shopping Mall doors during the
    next week or so.
    
    Hee-hee-hee (ho ho ho?)
    
    --DE
    

	In this instance I wasn't as polite as I *could* have been but
    I wasn't as rude as I *wanted* to be:
    
    	Last night the phone rings, I answer it:
                                               
    Me: 		Hello?
    
    Young woman:        May I speak to the man of the house?
    
    Me: 		(Struggling to not be *too* nasty) There's no such 
    			creature here.  If you want to talk to the one in 
    			charge of the money, you can talk to me.
    
    Young woman:        (Sounding *very* surprised) Oh!  Is this a place
    			of business?
    
    Me:			(All patience gone, but still talking in a pleasant
    			tone of voice.)  No, it's not.
                                            
    At this point I decide that discretion is the better part of valor
    and hang up before I get really nasty.
    
    A minute later the phone rings again:
    
    Same Young Woman:	I'm from so-and-so marketing and we're conducting
    			a survey on energy and blah-blah.  Answering
    			our questions in no way obligates you,
			blah-blah-blah...   Do you have a few minutes
			to answer some questions?
                        
    Me: 		(In a very sweet tone of voice)  Well, since
   			I'm not the man of the house, I doubt I have
		    	anything to say that you would want to hear.
                                                                   
    			Good-bye!
    
	When Gary came home, I told him about the call.
    
    Me: 		She says "May I speak to the man of the house?"
    	
    Gary:		Oh, no!
    
    Me:			I tell him what I said and her question about
    			the place of business.
    
    Gary: 		(Covering his eyes in dismay)  Oh my God!  She
    			just dug herself deeper!   
                        
    	As an aside, Gary's been known to answer the "may I speak to
    the Man of the House?" question by putting me on the phone.  :-)

    tlh
    

In a very recent Digital This Week, it announced Digital's
    toy drive, and told employees to bring in unwrapped toys
    so they (the toys) could be sorted by gender prior to
    being given to needy children.
    

    re: .263 (Perlman)
    
    	Oddly enough, that seems to be standard policy among toy
    	drives such as this.  I suppose it's considered sinful to
    	give a girl a football and a boy a Barbie... still, the 
    	kids seem to mind much less than the adults.  Is this just
    	another way society reinforces the sex roles?  Probably.
    
    	   I wonder what the kids would choose in the absence of
    	societal prssures...
    
    	- Greg

    This isn't realy sexist. Little kids can be very hurt by
    a gift that they regard as inappropriate. We can be as gender
    neutral as we wish as adults. However, little kids aren't
    that sophisticated. If they have been brought up in traditional
    roles, then an inapproriate gift would be devistating. A little
    girl who really wanted a doll or a boy who wanted a ball would
    feel cheated if they got the opposite gift. I recall my oldest
    son who sent away for an elephant and got back a baby doll. He
    wasn't sexist, he just wanted an elephant! Let us not be so
    PC that we give children gifts that are not gifts.
    
    Bonnie

    Politicaly correct...
    
    according to what ever group you are dealing with..
    
    this can cover a wide range of standards, from wearing
    only natural clothes, to not eating meat, to how
    you educate your children...
    
    In the context where I used it, I meant that we should not
    be so concerned with sexism that we insist on giving dolls
    to boys and trucks to girls if they don't want them.
    
    Perhaps we could label the gifts in some other fashion than
    boy/girl? i.e. science toy, vechicle toy, action figure toy,
    doll type toy, puzzle type toy, art type toy, etc...and let
    the kids pick the type of toy that they like.. or would that
    be too complicated?
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    My 12 year old just asked for a basketball for christmas.
    
    I think I'll get her one.
    
    
    I'm surprised no one has publicly belched about those ridiculous
    LA Gear commercials...
    

    Yes, I decided to be a good do-bee here one year, and help divide
    up and wrap the toys. I was so disgusted at the gender focus on
    dividing the toys that I've never volunteered again. Nor will I
    ever.
    
    I don't think kids have that much of an issue with gender preference
    vis-a-vis "inappropriate" toys. Hell, if I were a kid a got a make-up
    kit instead of a baseball bat, I'd've been bu%%$h:t! So let's lighten
    up on this and let the "non-conformist" kids get a kick out of it!
    
    "Inappropriate" depends on the kid, not the gender.
    
    --DE
    

    re: .266 (Bonnie)
    
    	   I think you overlooked the qualifier in my question,
    	that being, "in the absence of societal pressure."
    
    	   I saw a show on this subject once, and it stated that
    	in the absence of pre-defined role models for toy usage,
    	male children often picked up the dolls, and females 
    	often went for erector sets and such like.  The point
    	behind my question is this; What are we trying to teach
    	our kids about their sex roles by segregating the toys
    	we offer them (as a whole, not specifically related to
    	TFT-typr programs)?
    
    	   Kids do a lot of learning with their toys... perhaps
    	more than most people know.  If we force the boys to play
    	with G.I. Joe dolls and the girls with Barbies, can we really
    	be so shocked that the boys grow into aggressive bullies and
    	the girls into aspiring fashion models?  It's what they've
    	known all their life... what else should we expect from them?
    
    	   If you want to radically destroy the sex-roles the best
    	place to start will be the toy market.  Get rid of the traditional
    	dolls and war-toys... put in more FP Camcorders, Speak-N-Spells,
    	and computers with game software.  Wait one generation (maybe two),
    	and I can guarantee you will see a difference.
    
    	   Of course, this idea hasn't a chance of working as long as there
    	is a demand for war-toys and dress-up-dolls, and there will always
    	be a demand for these as long as there are wars and beauty
    	pagaents.
    
    	- Greg

    Greg,
    
    That is why I think that labeling toys as to what they are
    in general rather than just boy or girl would be a good
    idea. All I was objecting to was the idea that we should
    arbitrarily give a random boy a doll or a random girl a truck
    just to be nonsexist.
    
    Bonnie

    A recent Arlo and Janis:
    
    Arlo:  [shouting to Gene]
    	   "Gene, come over here and pick up your dolls!"
    
    Gene:  [running and screaming]
    	   "Dad!"
    
    Gene:  [picking things up]
    	   "They aren't dolls!  They're action figures!"
    
    Janis: [scolding Arlo]
    	   "Sometimes you can be so cruel."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    When are they coming out with GI Jo dolls ... ? 

    
    
    Greg that's a pretty good viewpoint. however, I think there's
    a little more to it than that.  The toys we dole out to kids
    these days just *reinforce* the male sexist idealology thats
    been hammered into them from the time they were six months
    old.  I think wars and beauty pageants eminate from the
    same thinking as Barbie and GI Joe not that one begets the other.
    
    re -1>  Thats GI Jill! 
            
    re -Bonnie  That's a great idea except that all the children might
        prefer, say, artsy toys and you end up (hopefully) with a pile
        of action figures that nobody wants.
    
    me - Talk about sexist !! - The very concept of "action figures"
         for boys says that girls are limited (or should be limited)
         when it comes to action.
    
         BTW if Barbie was 5'6" her bust would be 39" (FACT)
    
         Don't you want to kick Madison Avenue (or wherever this 
         garbage comes from) right were there brains are!!!!
    
    
    Luis

    Luis,
    
    Actually action figures was a euphamism coined by the toy
    manufacturers so that parents would buy dolls for boys.
    
    Bonnie

    Actually, I've compared the 1957 Barbie and the 1987 Barbie, and
    the 1987 Barbie, however unrealistic she is, is nowhere near as
    unrealistic as the 1957 one (figure-wise).
    
    And as for a female GI Joe, there is a character on one of those
    war-shows (GI Joe or something VERY similar) named Raven, and they
    sell action figures based on her, and there's even a Raven pinball
    game.  She looks a lot like Barbie, though - when you take away
    the machine gun and all....
    
    -Jody
    

    Geez, I'd kind of like "Peace Activist Jo/e"....little down
    vest, little hiking boots, teeny little sleeping bag for camp-out
    demonstrations, a selection of picket signs (some sold separately,
    in little bubble-packs).....cantcha just *see* it????
    
    --DE
    

    
    	   How about some Real Life action figures...
    
    		- Couch Potatoe Joe
    		- Welfare Willie
    		- Peter Procrastinator
    
    	   With these toys the manufacturers could save bundles,
    	because no real 'action' is required.
    
    	- Greg
    

    
    re .275>  Action Figure = euphamism for doll for boys
    
              Bonnie this only shows how this sickness (sexism) has
              pervaded our society.  I mean does the name *make* it
              any different than what it actually is.  So what's 
              wrong with boys playing with dolls?  IMO they more than
              likely help children of both genders conceptualize roles
              established by the adult world.  I'm even willing to
              speculate that its these behavioral patterns, that, when
              missed (by not playing with dolls) may lead to the lack
              of ability to communicate emotions that in turn plays
              its part in the current divorce rates.  Not that playing
              with dolls is the answer but I don't think it could hurt.
              As I said last week I played with dolls - the paper cut
              outs from McCall's magazine ( and there wasn't such a
              thing as paper cut-out action figures!!) - with the little
              girl upstairs (she was about 5 and I was about 3 or 4).
              Not only did I play with them but I looked forward to
              the next issue to see the new ones!
    
    re .277>  D E - Great!!!!  And we could match him up with a Patty
              Hearst doll.  Accessories not included: SLA sweatshirt,
              tie-dye head band, and torn 'n tattered jeans.

    Luis,
    
    I agree with you in re the sexism in relation to boys and
    dolls. But it suspect that it is unlikely that dolls and
    boys have been generally accepted in almost any society 
    at any time in the past. Boys had toy soldiers, girls had
    dolls.
    
    The advantage of the action figures is that they don't have
    to be used as 'war' toys. I will bet that there were a lot
    of boys like my older sons who just made up stories and played
    games with the figures that had nothing to do with war.
    
    When I was about 6 I had a set of jointed dolls like today's
    action figures. They were meant for doll houses and were about
    the same size as today's action figures. I spent hours making
    up stories with them...just like Peter and Michael did with
    the action figures.
    
    The advantage of not calling the little things 'dolls' is that
    boys who are sensitive to peer pressurcan exersize their
    imagination using people shaped figures without name calling.
    
    Bonnie

    Does anyone remember a toy that came out called something like
    "My Buddy".  It was a doll for boys, not an action figure.
    Apparently they did not sweep the market.
    	Linda

    When asked what he wanted to Christmas, my 17-yr-old son told his
    friend, "a blonde."  The friend gave me a blonde Barbi doll!
    
    I remember trying to provide dolls for my boys when they were
    young (and "impressionable") but they weren't interested! Stuffed
    animals, yes; dolls, no.  
    
    So this Barbi is probably his first "real(?)" doll.
    
    Nancy
     

    Don't know how to modify my note but it _should_ read, "the friend
    gave HIM (not me!) a blonde Barbi doll!" in .282!

    My son got a "My Buddy" doll two or three years ago....from a relative
    who thought he'd enjoy having a 'friend'. Forget it. My Buddy turned
    out to be the dud gift. My son was only three or so and he carried
    this doll around for a day and that was it.
    
    As an aside to above. 
    
    While riding to the Mall with my 13 and 9 year old daughters and
    my 6 year old son, the radio was tuned into WHDH in Boston. The
    topic of conversation with Upton Bell was:
    
    Is it more enjoyable to view sports on TV with "the guys" or with
    a female companion?
    
    Let me tell you that the topic created a hell of fervor in my car
    let alone at the telephone lines at WHDH. One caller got my daughter
    beserk when he said that women shouldn't be allowed in the room.
    He then proceeded to say that if it weren't for babies, they'd be
    useless. Upton Bell tried to dissuade this guy but he was un-moveable.
    What surprised (and somewhat pleased) me was my oldest daughter's
    reaction. For the first time I saw a truly adult and feminist reaction
    from "my little girl". She actually sceamed "Male Chauvanist Pig,
    Neanderthal!!" We then went into a lengthy discussion about the
    type of person who would say those types of things and hopefully
    he wasn't a teacher, policeman, judge, etc. I also told her that
    hitting my dashboard would only hurt her allowance, not the caller
    to WHDH.
    
    Ken

    
    RE: boys and dolls
    
    I wonder if little boys would take more readily to playing with dolls
    if their fathers played with them.  Practicing changing a baby doll,
    feeding it--nurturing activities.  (I'd also wonder if a small boy with
    a new brother or sister and a father who's very involved in caring for
    the baby would be more interested in playing with dolls).
    
    It makes a little more sense than tossing a football at a toddler.
    
    							-- Mikey

    Mike,
    
    That is an interesting point that you raise. My (now 19 year old)
    son got very interested in a baby doll at age 3 after we adopted
    his next younger brother. Both my husband and I actively cared for
    the new baby, infact Don stayed home with Peter 2 days a week while
    I went to work. Your idea makes sense in terms of what happened
    with us.
    
    Bonnie

    This gem was sent to me by a friend who commented:
    
    > I told the guy who sent it to me that I didn't find it to be very 
    > entertaining.  Interesting, coming on the day after the Stonecenter 
    > report was mailed to our group... 
    > 
    > ... chance[s] are more people read the barf stuff than read the
    > Stoncecenter report! 
     
    If you'd like to discuss this "essay", _please_ start a new note!
    
    Liz
    
    
    ---------------------------------
 
                 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES ARE LIKE WOMEN
			 by: Daniel J. Salomon
	Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
		  Waterloo, Ontario, Canada  N2L 3G1
 
     There  are so many programming languages available that it can be
very  difficult  to get to know them all well enough to pick the right
one  for  you.   On  the  other  hand most men know what kind of woman
appeals  to  them.   So  here is a handy guide for many of the popular
programming  languages that describes what kind of women they would be
if programming languages were women.
 
 Assembler - A  female  track  star  who  holds  all  the  world speed
	     records.   She  is  hard  and  bumpy,  and so is not that
	     pleasant to embrace.  She can cook up any meal, but needs
	     a  complete and detailed recipe.  She is not beautiful or
	     educated,  and  speaks  in monosyllables like "MOV, JUMP,
	     INC".   She has a fierce and violent temper that make her
	     the choice of last resort.
 
   FORTRAN - Your  grey-haired  grandmother.   People  make fun of her
	     just  because  she  is  old,  but if you take the time to
	     listen,  you  can learn from her experiences and her mis-
	     takes.   During her lifetime she has acquired many useful
	     skills  in sewing and cooking (subroutine libraries) that
	     no  younger  women can match, so be thankful she is still
	     around.   She  has  a  notoriously  bad  temper  and when
	     angered  will  start yelling and throwing dishes.  It was
	     mostly  her  bad  temper  that  made  grandad  search for
	     another wife.
 
     COBOL - A  plump  secretary.  She talks far too much, and most of
	     what  she  says  can be ignored.  She works hard and long
	     hours, but can't handle really complicated jobs.  She has
	     a  short and unpredictable temper, so no one really likes
	     working  with her.  She can cook meals for a huge family,
	     but only knows bland recipes.
 
     BASIC - The  horny  divorcee that lives next door.  Her specialty
	     is seducing young boys and it seems she is always readily
	     available  for  them.   She  teaches  them  many  amazing
	     things, or at least they seem amazing because it is their
	     first  experience.   She  is  not that young herself, but
	     because  she  was  their  first  lover  the  boys  always
	     remember  her  fondly.  Her cooking and sewing skills are
	     mediocre, but largely irrelevant, its the frolicking that
	     the boys like.
 
	     The  opinion  that  adults  have of Mrs. BASIC is varied.
	     Shockingly,  some  fathers  actually  introduce their own
	     sons  to  this  immoral  woman!   But  generally the more
	     righteous  adults  try  to  correct  the badly influenced
	     young  men by introducing them to well behaved women like
	     Miss Pascal.
 
      PL/I - A bordello madam.  She wears silk dresses, diamonds, furs
	     and  red high heels.  At one time she seemed very attrac-
	     tive,  but  now  she  just  seems  overweight  and tacky.
	     Tastes change.
 
         C - A  lady executive.  An avid jogger, very healthy, and not
	     too  talkative.   Is an good cook if you like spicy food.
	     Unless you double check everything you say (through LINT)
	     you  can unleash her fierce temper.  Her daughter C++ is
	     still  quite  young  and  prone to tantrums, but it seems
	     that  she  will grow up into a fine young woman of milder
	     temper and more sophisticated character.
 
  ALGOL 60 - Your  fathers  wartime  sweetheart,  petite, well propor-
	     tioned, and sweet tempered.  She disappeared mysteriously
	     during  the  war,  but  your  dad  still  talks about her
	     shapely form and their steamy romance.  He never actually
	     tasted  much of her cooking, but they did exchange simple
	     recipes by mail.
 
    Pascal - A  grammar school teacher, and Algol 60's younger sister.
	     Like  her  sister  she is petite and attractive, but very
	     bossy.   She  is  a  good  cook  but  only  if the recipe
	     requires no more than one pot (module).
 
 Modula II - A  high-school  teacher and Pascal's daughter.  Very much
	     like  her  mother,  but she has learned to cook with more
	     than one pot.
 
  ALGOL 68 - Algol  60's  niece.   A high-society woman, well educated
	     and  terse.   Few  men  can fully understand her when she
	     talks, and her former lovers still discuss her mysterious
	     personality.   She  is very choosy about her romances and
	     won't  take  just  any man as her lover.  She hasn't been
	     seen  lately,  and  rumor  has it that she died in a fall
	     from an ivory tower.
 
      LISP - She  is  an  aging  beatnik, who lives in a rural commune
	     with  her  hippie  cousins SMALLTALK and FORTH.  Many men
	     (mostly college students) who have visited the farmhouse,
	     enthusiastically  praise  the natural food, and perpetual
	     love-ins  that  take  place  there.  Others criticize the
	     long  cooking  times,  and  the  abnormal sexual postures
	     (prefix  and  postfix).  Although these women seldom have
	     full-time jobs, when they do work, their employers praise
	     them  for  their  imagination,  but usually not for their
	     efficiency.
 
       APL - A fancy caterer specializing in Greek food.  She can cook
	     delicious  meals  for rows and rows of tables with dozens
	     of  people at each table.  She doesn't talk much, as that
	     would just slow her work down.  Few people can understand
	     her  recipes,  since  they are in a foreign language, and
	     are all recorded in mirror writing.
 
      LOGO - A  grade-school  art  teacher.   She  is just the kind of
	     teacher  that  you wish you had when you were young.  She
	     is  shapely and patient, but not an interesting conversa-
	     tionalist.   She can cook up delicious kiddie snacks, but
	     not full-course meals.
 
LUCID & PROLOG -
	     These  clever teenagers show a new kind of cooking skill.
	     They  can  cook-up fine meals without the use of recipes,
	     working  solely  from  a  description of the desired meal
	     (declarative  cooking).   Many men are fascinated by this
	     and have already proposed marriage.  Others complain that
	     the  girls  work very slowly, and that often the descrip-
	     tion  of  the meal must be just as long as a recipe would
	     be.   It is hard to predict what these girls will be like
	     when they are fully mature.
 
       Ada - A  WAC  colonel built like an amazon.  She is always set-
	     ting  strict rules, but if you follow them, she keeps her
	     temper.   She  is  quite  talkative, always spouting army
	     regulations,  and using obscure military talk.  You gotta
	     love her though, because the army says so.
 
 [*> May a deranged midget on a pogo stick take refuge in your sister's hoop skirt. <*]
 
------- End of Forwarded Message
 

           
    
    Incredible, Liz. Just incredible.
    
    Roberta

    
    re -.287>   Now *that's* sexism.  Note that 80% of the activities
                that *correlated* to programming languages were sex
                and cooking.
    
                I don't thing this garbage is even worth commenting
                on.

    
    re -.287>   

	 maybe I just have a problem called "Sense of Humor" but I
	 thought it was funny....

	 lighten up and enjoy it...it was supposed to be humorous..

	 

Boston Globe, Dec 29, 1988, from the Associated Press:

"Rare twin hippopotamuses born on Christmas morning are doing well but
still have not been named because keepers have not been able to determine
their sex, a Memphis Zoo spokesman said yesterday."

    
    
    re: .290 -- Oh my goodness, I must have left my sense of humor
                on the bus!
    
    		Sharon

    
    If I thought it were funny, I could probably forgive the sexism.
    I've heard sexist jokes that I had to admit were clever or funny.
    But I just thought it was stupid. 
    
    Roberta

    RE: .292...RE:.290
    
    Well, then, you're obviously one of those STRIDENT, radical,
    seperatist, man-hating, feminist, picky girls with no sense of humor
    with which this file seems to be rife. 
    
    Hey, lighten up. It's only your life.
    

    Re: last few
    
    The Dave Barry notes file (HYDRA::DAVE_BARRY -- well worth exploring)
    once tried to ban all "Gee, that wasn't really up to par" "Well,
    *I* thought it was great" discussions on the grounds that they didn't
    contribute anything to the conference.  It didn't last, of course,
    but the moderators' hearts were in the right place.

    
    re .290>  Ethnic humor is supposed to be funny too.  But under
              close scrutiny it is only demeaning at best.  Im a 
              male and rubbish like this offends my inteligence.
    
    
    re .294>   Com' on.....  it's  *NOT* funny.
    
               Well then you're obviously one of those blatant,
               overbearing, obnoxious, chauvanistic, pig-headed
               junveniles with no intellect which this file is
               trying to enlighten our work force about.
    
               Hey smarten up.  It's only (funny) in *your* mind.

    I first saw this "Programming languages as if they were women" piece
    about a year ago, and didn't find it terribly funny then either. 
    In part it was because my opinions of the qualities of the various
    languages listed didn't agree with the author's, and in part because,
    in my semi-enlightened state, I felt it was just reinforcing old
    stereotypes about women.
    
    				Steve

    re: .292
    
    Hey Sharon...!!!
    
    About that sense of humor of yours that you left on the bus...
    
    Was that on a bus that you were *driving*...?
    
    Just checking.
    
    Laura
    

    Hey folks, could we leave this string to its original purpose and
    move the commentary elsewhere?  Thanks.
    
    						=maggie

    My VAXstation was capitalized recently.  I got a letter today:
    
    Dear Sir,
    
         Enclosed please find your Capitalization Request ....

    My son and myself were in a car accident early this month.  We were
    both taken to a local hospital for treatment.  I was conscience and
    answered their questions.  
    
    Yesterday, I received the bill for myself, addressed to me and had
    me listed as the responsible party.  My son's bill was addressed to
    my husband! and had his name as the responsible party!  I was floored.
    Our health insurance is in my name, I pay for it (DEC provided), I
    signed my son's release papers and they still put Dennis as the 
    responsible party!  
    
    I called the hospital, Patient Accounts, and had a bit of fun.  They 
    first claimed they do it because the policy is in the husband's name,
    I said WRONG! I told her that my husband wouldn't know a health insurance 
    policy if he ate it for dinner.  There was more explaination thrown out
    and such.  The bottom line was, 'if you want this bill paid, you will
    have to send one that isn't so sexist!'  They said they'll send it
    right out......
    
    
    Anna
    
    

    According to the Kiplinger Tax Letter that I just received, the
    IRS is still having a hard time with women who do not change their
    names when they get married.  According to the Letter:
    
    " Wives who retain their maiden names are giving the government
    fits.  Their self-employment income may not have been recorded
    correctly due to a Service mixup.  The IRS has been using their
    husbands' last names when sending wives' annual earnings reports
    to the Social Security Administration.  This means income may not
    be credited to their accounts.  Self-employes who use their maiden
    names should verify earnings records.  You can order the form used
    to check your earnings record by telephoning 1-800-937-2000."
    
    I guess the IRS has decided it doesn't matter what name you put
    on the tax return, they will just change it to the husband's name
    anyhow.  How nice of them to make that decision.
    
    If any of you might be affected by this neat quirk of the IRS' 
    or if you know of anyone who might be, you might want to pass this
    tidbit along so that the earnings can be checked.  

A shoe store (The Shoe Barn?) in Dracut is advertising LA Gear
sneakers. They are giving away a free pair of slouch socks with every
pair of womans/girls sneakers and a free basketball with every pair of
mens/boys sneakers. UGH!

Time to write another letter.

    re -1
     
    Perhaps this is because women's sneakers do not cost as much as
    men's sneakers, hence the need to give away a premium commensurate
    with the cost of the sneakers. How would you feel if they gave away
    two pairs of sox with each pair of men's sneakers, and one pair
    with each pair of women's sneakers?
    
    -E

   When Rick & I went in for new running shoes last month, to get the
    proper comfort and fit I paid $64.95, he paid $59.95 -- at outlet
    prices no less!
    
    My court-shoes tend to cost $15-20 than his do though.
    
      Ann

    I usually have to buy men's sneakers anyhow; women's ones do not
    usually come in my size (I'd have trouble wlaking if I had size 5 feet
    under my 6'-tall body...I wear size 10 1/2 to 11, depending on the
    shoes, usually, though my winter boots are size 12 and had to be
    specially ordered).  I wonder if they would give me a basketball?
    
    /Charlotte

    Yesterday I picked up my car from the garage.  I mentioned to 
    the station owner that I was thinking of buying a new car
    in a couple of months.  He asked me what car I was thinking of
    buying and I mentioned possibly the Pontiac Grand Am and he said
    to me that car was a good "Woman's car not to big and not to small".
    
    Kathi
    
  

I don't know why notes still thinks it's being written. It _looks_ done.
Recovered by mod:

================================================================================
Note 13.308        Sexism Is Alive And Well And Living In....         308 of 309
RUTLND::SAISI                                         0 lines  25-JAN-1989 09:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Does anyone else find the commercials for Nightingales, airing
    tonight, bothersome?   They were predominately featured during
    the superbowl.
    	Linda

    
    re .305>  Good point that perhaps the woman's footwear may not 
              neccessarily cost as much as men's and that this may
              reflect in the corresponding gift.  But then why don't
              either the men get two pairs of socks (like you
              mentioned) or the woman get a cheeper basketball or some
              other _sports_ oriented item even if it was just a 
              basketball T-shirt?
    
    Luis  who would like a new basketball.  Where is this store?

    Of course, this brings up the question about why the hell women's
    sneakers should cost any more or less then men's sneakers.
    
    --- jerry

    There are several reasons why women's sneakers tend to cost less
    than men's sneakers. For one thing, generally speaking, women tend
    to buy more pairs of sneakers on issues related to color and style.
    Men tend to buy fewer pairs of sneakers, but often hold them longer.
    Men, on average, are larger, thus sneakers must be built to withstand
    the stress of larger animals than women's sneakers. 
    
    My daughters will go through probably three pairs of sneakers to
    my one, and I probably wear my sneakers more often than they wear
    theirs. I buy well constructed basketball sneakers. They buy
    inexpensive but stylish general purpose sneakers. The sneakers that
    they buy do not have the kind of support that mine do. They are
    made of cheaper materials, and they use less material since they
    are smaller.
    
    I think this just about covers why women's sneakers _tend_ to be
    less expensive than men's. A woman can certainly buy expensive
    sneakers, but they have many more options when it comes to cheap
    sneaks.
    
    The Doctah

    re.313
    
    While what you say is obviously true in a generic discussion of
    athletic shoe costs broken down by gender; the fact remains that
    a specific brand was giving gender based premiums.
    
    LAGear is not not cheap [I have this on the best authority, experience]
    
    LAGear pricing is so comparable as to be almost identical whether
    the shoe was built for a man or a woman [same authority, same shopping
    trip]
    
    I believe that having a choice of premiums when one made a purchase
    would have been a better strategy rather than making broad assumptions.
    
    I bought mine as all-purpose shoes before this lovely promotion. I
    already have a basketball that I don't use and I don't need socks just
    at present.  What I really need is shoe laces...I have cats and cats
    are a primary cause of shoe-lace blow-outs.  Had this promotion run
    before I went shopping, I probably would have looked more seriously at
    other shoes, but I like what I got so I'll continue to wear them.
    
    <sigh>
    
       Ann 
    
   

    I certainly agree that similarly priced sneakers should result in
    similarly valuable bonus gifts. I also think it makes sense to allow
    a choice of premiums. I see that basketballs are more likely to
    be chosen by women than <whatever> socks by men, but that shouldn't
    matter to the consumer.
    
    The Doctah

    I asked my daugter what would she rather have, a pair sloch sox
    or a baskettball. She said the sox. I think the store said to itself
    "What would a female want?  What would a male want?"  They want
    to make a sale so they looked at whats popular. 
     If you went into a store to buy coffee and got a free coffee pot
    if you were a male and a free teapot if you were female, that would
    be sexium.
    
    Ben

    
    RE: .316
    
    A non-sexist sale would offer either a basketball or slouch socks or
    men's socks of equivalent value to whomever purchased whatever kind of
    shoes, regardless of the purchaser's sex.
    
    							-- Mikey

I just started a job in a male dominated group - I am the only woman.
I've run into something that I just don't know how to handle - the
men swearing in meetings. 

The focus here is on what happens after they swear, the meeting screeches to a
halt and every male eye in the room looks at me. Then comes the killer - "oh
I'm sorry miss".

I'm confused because I've certainly heard these 4 letter words before and I've
even had occasion to use them (outside the office). When they apologize 
they isolate me, they treat me different. I don't go for swearing in meetings
because I think it sounds barbaric - it's not because I'm a lily white little
female.

My first reaction didn't go well, I blushed (I hate that!). By the
second time I had a look of indifference and didn't return any looks. But
I wanted to scream "What did you guys do before I came along! Fart, Spit, and
swear!" but two wrongs don't make a right.

They seem to be waiting for me to accept the apology or something - has
anyone run into this out there?

Thanks,
Sandy

    
    
    I've gone through similar things. Maybe you could just say, "What
    are you sorry for?" and look puzzled. 
    
    Roberta
    

    
    Today is both [British?] National No-Smoking Day, and of course
    International Women's Day.
    
    A BBC radio announcer this morning greeted this fact with the
    observation:
    
    	"Please don't light a fag [britspeak for a cigarette], but you
    	could always try an International Woman"
    
    I nearly ran the car off the road...
    
    /. Ian .\

    My wife and I have been getting some bids for gutter work at our
    house. I was upstairs when a contractor came to the door, so we
    could discuss the project. My wife answered and he asked for "the
    man of the house". Unfortunately, she didn't mention this to me
    until after he left. Though his price was in the ballpark of two
    other contractors, guess who got IMMEDIATELY scratched off the list.
                                                                        
    Eric

    When ever someone says a swear in a meeting and then apologizes to me
    for saying it I just say "Why are you apologizing, it's not like I
    never heard that word before."  It usually works, everyone laughs, and
    I don't feel so uneasy for being singled out.
    
    

    In re swearing in the meetings. In a valuing differences work shop
    I was in a man mentioned that he always appologises for swearing
    when women are around. I mentioned that this makes me feel awkward
    and uncomfortable in meetings. The group discussed this and the
    solution they came up with was for the woman involved to make some
    kind of statement to the effect that she was not offended by occasional
    swearing and not to disrupt the flow of the meeting to appolgise
    to her.
    
    Bonnie

    Did you ever stop to think why it should be the *woman* who has
    to do something to make the *man* feel comfortable re: swearing?
    Swearing doesn't bother me at all (most of it, anyway) and I
    wish it were as *acceptable* for a woman as for a man -- OR 
    *equally unacceptable* for both in a business setting.  The point is, for a
    man to swear and then to apologize sets women apart!
    
    Whether you're put ON or UNDER a pedestal, it's still de-humanizing!
    Nancy

    When a male swears in front of me and then says "Pardon my French",
    I always say "I am not offended by swearing; I _AM_ offended by
    the phrase 'Pardon my French'!"
    
    Also, how about that ol' standby "What I won't say in mixed company."?
    GGRRRRRRRRRRR.
    
    K.C.

    Sexism is alive and well in "Dog World" magazine.  To quote the 
    beginning of an article in this month's issue...
    
    "One of the truly great people in modern dogdom is also one of its
    lovliest, for she is a woman.  She is a director of the American 
    Kennel Club...
    .
    .
    .
    ...and she has maintained the beautiful figure which made her the
    queen of the Olympic women."
    
    Really relevant to an article in a dog magazine, eh?
    
    Karen.

I found this in the March 14th edition of the Vogon News. It was in the
"Miscellany" section which is clearly intended to be humorous.  I wrote to
the editor asking that he apologize to his readers.

>>	In Waterville Maine (USA), there is a restaurant named "The Silent
>>	Woman". Their sign is a headless woman (dressed in the manner of
>>	the colonial period).

    re :329
    
    As I recall, it's not a headless woman. It's one of those old
    fashioned dress makers dummies. ( I think there called "forms"
    or something like that. It's just a torso without the head).
    Nothing sexist about that, since male dummies are pretty silent
    too.
     
    (Of course, I could be wrong, as it's been a long time since I've
    been to Maine)
    
    Dee

    I gather that what was objected to was the idea that it is
    FUNNY to render a woman silent by cutting off her head.  Xor
    that there is wit in the picture because such an image, however
    crudely rendered, is the *only* way to demonstrate a woman
    incapable of speech, with the implication that any living woman
    is a chattering woman.
    
    I understand (I think), although I would not ever have bothered
    to complain about it.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  The symbol must also be understood in its historical context:
    Unless a hundred or so years ago, a husband was allowed to "chastize"
    his wife to death.

Recent commercial.

Yuppie woman is working late on big project at home.  Yuppie husband
comes home from work and sees that she is too busy to cook dinner.
Husband volunteers to go for take out at restaurant X. 

Learn to cook, pal!  ;-)

    Recently received a mail invitation to subscribe to "Workbench,"
    a woodworking magazine.  It was addressed to MR. Karen Godin (I
    presume 'cause only men (?) are supposed to do woodworking).
    
    At least in the U.S., I'd have thought the first name would have
    been a clue.
    
    K.

    re. -.335
    
    John, I agree completely.  (In fact, I have a brother named Lynn
    who has received invitations to join the WACs and the WAVEs, after
    he puts his prom gown away, that is.)
    
    But I also have uum years of experience in direct mail, and when
    in doubt, the sensitive mail house omits the title.  After all,
    if the mailing had come to Karen Godin, I'd still have received it, 
    and wouldn't have had reason for entering this response.  Additional
    years as a secretary have taught me to be VERY careful in addressing
    letters to people I don't know.  I even occasionally play my own
    game of "getting even" by ASSUMING a non-gender-specific name belongs
    to a woman and addressing the individual as Ms. or Madam. ;^)
    
    K.

    Sears still have a dishwasher model name "Lady Kenmore" -- and they
    are silly enough to feature it in one of the tv appliance ads (the
    one which uses the song "Our House").

    Re: .329 and others (The Silent Woman)
    
    Having eaten at "The Silent Woman" in Waterville a few times (though
    not in the past ten years), I can assure you that the name does NOT
    refer to a mannequin! 
    
    The decor theme is supposed to be reminiscent of the late 1700s
    or early 1800s.  The Silent Woman is a woman, perhaps a milkmaid, I
    think, who simply has no head.  There is a little poem they have
    that goes something like:
    
    		A Silent Woman?
    		How can that be?
    		Gentle traveller, do not scoff
    		<something I forget> is she
    		And mute because her head is off!
    
    I find the whole thing rather offensive myself.  The restaurant itself
    is rather famous in Maine, if not for its food (definitely not!) then
    for its electric sign that blinds travellers heading north on
    Interstate 95.  Nowadays all you'll find there is tourists - the
    locals know better.
    
    			Steve (former Mainiac)

    The Silent Woman in Waterville, ME changed to The Weathervane a
    couple of years ago.  The sign is no more.  
    
    Gary_who_lives_14_miles_from_said_resturant.
    

    Re: .341
    
    Shows you how much attention I've been paying as I've driven through
    Waterville the past couple of years...  Glad to hear it!
    
    			Steve

From RISKS-digest.
 
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 17:32:44 pst
From: Doug Claar <dclaar%hpda@hp-sde.sde.hp.com>
Subject: Hackers, cartoons, and computers
 
Recently, while watching my kids watch Saturday cartoons, I noticed a "Computer
Minute" public service type add from the network. In it, the father, who was
portrayed as clueless, was trying to organize his towering stack of papers. His
son, Hacker, tried to tell dad all about Data Base Management Systems. Why,
even sister had her (girl stuff) on the computer, and gee, mom had her
recipies. Hacker had his (boy stuff) on it as well. Having only seen one, I
don't know for certain, but given the girl's name (which I don't remember, but
wasn't computer-oriented), and the son's name, it seemed to perpetuate the
young male as the hacker stereotype.
 
Relationship to risks? Well, I've seen discussions on the term "hacker," and on
comics and computing.
 
Doug Claar, HP Computer Systems Division
UUCP: mcvax!decvax!hplabs!hpda!dclaar -or- ucbvax!hpda!dclaar

"TO:     ALL FIELD PERSONNEL                   
                                              
FROM:   KEN OLSEN, JACK SHIELDS, DAVE GRAINGER
                                              
 ...

With the efficiencies that should come from these improvements, 
we think that selling will be much more efficient, and we should
get a lot more orders per man.  However, we want to remind  ..."

    [Excerpted from a Newsweek item on the 1989 Alaskan Iditarod race,
    won this year by Joe Runyan, after Susan Butcher had won the previous
    three years]:
    
    ... Men in Nome celebrated with a banner that read, IDITAROD '89 -
    THE YEAR MEN ARE BACK ON TOP.
    
    [To be honest, I find this amusing and clever, having seen the applause
    in this conference over a T-shirt (I think) that had said something
    like "Alaska - where men are men and women win the Iditarod".  Maybe
    one of these years people will stop viewing this as a battle between
    men and women.]
    
    				Steve

 Speaking about the Iditarod- this year, the first words I heard about the end
of the race were that Susan Butcher had lost- not that whatever_his_name_is had
won. It seemed very sexist to me at the time.

 The doctah

    Susan Butcher came in second...
    
    -Jody
    

    um, doctah,
    
    just maybe they mentioned Susan had lost because she had come in
    first the previous three years? I've heard similar statements 
    about races where all the participants were male.
    
    Bonnie

    The dogs were probably both males and females.
    	:-)

    Chili's restaurant ads....
    
    Has anyone else been offended by the "male humor" of the ads?
    Let me summarize:  Man sits down at table with two male friends,
    Male friends ask how often he gets to go out now that he is married,
    He states something to the effect of "whenever she lets me."  They
    then ask him how *her* cooking is.  He then says that this (Chili's)
    IS his first meal.
    
    GAG!  Why couldn't it be 3 women at a table with the married woman
    saying her husband is a lousy cook/ or good cook for that matter???

    i got a piece of junk mail yesterday that was addressed to 
    "Mr. Liz Augustine". i realize there are ambiguous names, and
    i even once knew a woman named jeffrey (her parents were so 
    focused on that name that when she turned out to be a girl, 
    they gave her the name anyways). but "Mr. Liz"? i imagine 
    they'd at least have a "checking program" to catch common men's
    and women's names like that. *sigh*...
    
    liz (the title is "Ms." if you insist!) augustine

         Omigod....check your DECUS circulars..."Mr. Mel"
         is giving a symposium on DECwindows in Atlanta .
         As we speak...I am preparing my opening remarks...
         [Evil is a part of my makeup...{grin}]
         
         ---
         
         AND...AARRGGGHHH...the latest Marketing piece to
         cross my desk on DECwindows has some lovely pictures
         of real people posing around the apparatus...
         
         ONLY...
         
         Every picture that shows a USER/DATA ENTRY/SECRETARY
         is a woman...and [you guessed it!] every picture
         that depicts an engineer or a management type...
         male....the ladies are all prim and proper, cute
         little bow blouses tied neatly under their cute little
         chins; the men are draped sensously around windows
         with collars open and shirt sleeves rolled back...
         
         'scuse me, I think I'm gonna vomit....
         
         "Mel"inda
                                                           

    ...[on] Johnny Walker Red Label Scotch Billboards in San Jose.
    
    Seen from behind:  model in swimsuit, gorgeous build, awesome tan,
    head turned so we see the profile, cut at mid-thigh, single message
    on the billboard:  And my scotch is Johnny Walker Red.
    
    I think its a simpler advertising appeal responding to Dewar's ads 
    which give a capsule personality profile of the "not so ordinary" 
    person who drinks Dewar's.  Advertising steps backwards into the 
    past, although it may be harder for some folks to tell because...
    
    the model is male.  Shivers, and shades of a long-since-deleted 
    Eagle satire (109.63) (mailed upon request).
    
    DougO

    I read the comics in the Boston Globe this morning at a friend's
    house (not something I usually see).
    
    I was amazed...all the protagonists today were either little boys
    or cats.  The only portrayals of women were as battleaxe teacher,
    overworked mom, or stuffy middle aged wife.  One strip did feature
    a little girl watching a little boy be a protagonist.
    
    Is this typical?  My friend (an ardent feminist and member of this
    file) said that she was used to the strips in the comics section of the
    Globe, and hadn't really noticed how out of balance it was. 
    
    If that's typical, I think we're back to 1959.  
    

    Reg: .351
    
    I'm glad that somebody else was bothered by that Chili's ad. I had
    the same 3 women talking about lousy cooking from husband image
    too. 
    
    Tin (Whose husband is a better cook than I am any time of the day)

    Here at Parker Street - PKO3 - there's some sort of quasi-official
    Weights Watcher's classes/sessions for employees.
    
    Coming back from the cafeteria today, I noticed that there was a
    sign tacked on the Ladies' Room door. There was no correspnding
    sign on the Men's Room.
    
    This must mean, of course, that there are no overweight men. :-)
    
      Alan
    
    

    
>    Coming back from the cafeteria today, I noticed that there was a
>    sign tacked on the Ladies' Room door. There was no correspnding
>    sign on the Men's Room.
    
That bother's me, too.  When one is labeled the "Mens" room and the
other is labeled the "Ladies" room.  I figure if we are going to be
sexist/oppressive by applying behavior judgments to gender, we might
as well be consistent: Ladies and Gentlemen.  But I prefer Men and
Women.  Men and Wimmin might be interesting!  ;-) 


							--Ger

    re:.358
    
    Or "Pointers" and "Setters". :-)
    
    --- jerry

    re .359 Y'all wanna turn the whole danged place into a redneck bar ?

    "So barmaid, bring a pitcher....."

    Re: .358
    
    Ger, the terms "Men's and Ladies'" were my own creations, not those
    of DEC's PKO3 Plant Engineering.
    
    Here, to distinguish who goes where, we have those silly "universal"
    pictorial symbols defining male and females (which, come to think
    of it are themselves sexist: why do the graphics always assume that
    women only wear dresses and men only wear pants?)
    
    I think we should just paint the damn doors pink and blue and be
    done with this foolishness. :-) :-)                     
    
      Alan

    Re .358 (Ger)
    How about myn and wymyn?
    
    Elizabeth

    re: .358
    
    Didn't you ever read "The Women's Room" by Marilyn French?  The
    cover of the paperback shows "Ladies" marked out and "Women's"
    written in as a substitute.
    
    (EXCELLENT book, BTW)
    
    Nancy
    

I always pictured a cartoon in the New Yorker, showing a towel rack in a
(presumably) yuppie bathroom with two towels, labeled  HS and HRS ...

    Re:  .357
    
    I'm the Weight Watchers coordinator in WRO facilites and find it
    easier to put the poster's on the refrigerator door or entrance
    to the break room/lunch room (and I use the term lunch room loosely
    since all we have is a room with a microwave and some soda and junk
    food machines).
    
    I think I'd be embarassed trying to put the poster's on the bathroom
    doors, especially the men's; I get this flash of me trying to tape
    the poster on the door just as someone opens the door to come out.
    Ooops...
    
    Jan

    I wrote the White House a couple of months ago, expressing my feelings
    about abortion in general and the upcoming Supreme Court case in
    particular.  The letter wasn't particularly a good one; it didn't say
    anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before -- but I wanted
    to feel that I had done all I could to make a difference.  I signed the
    letter Patricia M. Resende.  On the envelope I used one of those little
    stick-um thingies for the return address that Steve and I keep around
    the house:  it said Steve and Pat Resende, and our street address.
    That's the only place Steve's name appeared; the letter was from me,
    not from both of us. 

    Friday I received a reply, which I've typed into this note.  The
    envelope was addressed to Mrs. Steve Resende, as was the letter. 

    I am madder than a wet hen for a number of reasons.  First of all, I am
    Pat Resende, not Mrs. Steve Resende.  I AM A PERSON, not an extension
    of my husband!  Second, note the tone of the letter.  I was
    figuratively patted on the head and treated as if I surely wouldn't
    have written such a letter had I known what President Bush's position
    is on abortion.  The reply assumes that I was not aware that the
    president is anti-choice!  I resent being treated like a sixth-grade
    child! 

    My next step is to write the White House again, along with my local
    Republican Party and the National Republican Party.  The jist of the
    next letter will be to inform them that they have lost a life-long
    Republican, and that George Bush will never get another vote from me.
    I will also write a letter to the Democrats, telling them that I've
    left the Republican Party and begging them to please run somebody next
    time with an IQ greater than 4, so I'll have somebody to vote for.  I
    am sooooooooo frustrated!!!!! 

    Here's what I got from the White House: 

    
    Dear Mrs. Resende:

    Thank you for your letter to President Bush regarding the question of
    abortion, one of the most difficult issues of our time. 

    While the President supports a human life amendment to the United
    States Constitution, he would do so with language allowing exceptions
    to be made for the life of the mother, rape, and incest.  He also
    opposes the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions except when the
    life of the mother is threatened.  In addition, the President supports
    adoption as an alternative to abortion. 

    The President has come to this position after years of sober
    reflection. However, he realizes that thoughtful people strongly differ
    on this very complicated and personal issue, and he appreciates your
    taking the time to share with him your thoughts on this matter. 

					Sincerely, 



					Shirley M. Green 
					Special Assistant to the President
						for Presidential Messages
						and Correspondence 

    Mrs. Steve Resende
    716 Foxmoor Court
    Highland Village, TX  75067 

    Enclosure: 1/23/89 Remarks by the President 


    
    
				THE WHITE HOUSE
			Office of the Press Secretary
    ________________________________________________________________________________
    For
    immediate
    release
    January 23, 1989 

			  REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
		IN TELEPHONE CALL TO ROE VERSUS WADE RALLY

			      The Oval Office

12:05 P.M. EST

    THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  This is George
    Bush in the Oval Office.  And before you begin your march today, on
    this first Monday of my presidency, I wanted to take just a few brief
    moments to restate my firm support of our cause and to share with you
    my deep personal concern about our American tragedy of abortion on
    demand. 

    We are concerned about abortion because it deals with the lives of two
    human beings, mother and child.  I know there are people of goodwill
    who disagree, but after years of sober and serious reflection on the
    issue, this is what I think.  I think the Supreme Court's decision in
    Roe versus Wade was wrong and should be overturned.  I think American
    needs a human life amendment.  And I think when it comes to abortion
    there's a better way -- the way of adoption, the way of life. 

    I know that this morning several of your leaders had a meeting in the
    White House with Vice President Quayle.  I know, too, that you and
    hundreds of thousands with you across the country have raised a voice
    of moral gravity about abortion, a voice of principle, a voice of
    faith, a full voice that properly asserts and affirms the basic dignity
    of human life.  I'm confident that more and more Americans every year
    -- every day -- are hearing your message and taking it to heart. 

    And, ladies and gentlemen, and yes, young people as well, I promise you
    that the President hears you now and stands with you in a cause that
    must be won. 

    God bless you all and God bless life. 

    					END		     12:07 P.M. EST    

Still a long way to go, no matter *who* believes the descrimination is a 
thing of the past. 

~robin


[reprinted w/o permission from the Greenville News Sun Apr 16, 1989]

                South's top S&L's run by White Men
   -One percent of directors are minority, regional study finds-


Durham(AP)- The leaders of the South's largest savings and loan 
associations are an "exclusive club limited almost entirely to white men," 
the Institute for Southern Studies said in a report released Saturday.
 "Race and sex - not income  or ability - generally determine who makes 
policy decisions at S&L's, who takes the good jobs, and who gets loans," 
the report said.
 Of the 1,270 directors of the 10 largest savings and loans in the 13 state 
region, all but 12 are white, the report said. Nine are black and three are 
Hispanic.
 There are no minorities on the board of directors of any of the 10 largest
S&L's in North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia
and Kentucky. Georgia, Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, and Louisiana have 
one each; Florida has three and Virginia has four, the non-profit institute 
said.
 In South Carolina, the lone black thrift director sits on the board of 
Standard Federal Savings and Loan Association in Columbia.
 White men hold 1,219 or 96.9% of the seats. Women hold 42 seats, or 3.3% 
of the total, the report said.
 Thad Woodward, president of the North Carolina League of Savings 
Institutions, took issue with the institutes findings, calling the data 
"somewhat garbled and somewhat out of date. I can assure the originators of 
this report, who have never come to see me, or any member institutions 
of which I am aware....we continue our locked-in-granite policy, which is 
we are eager to always find the best qualified people to serve in these 
positions, no matter race, sex, color, or creed," Woodward said.
 The analysis of the S&L's 1988-1989 boards of directors was included in a 
reporton the S&L crisis published this week in the institutes quarterly 
journal, Southern Exposure.
 "Without changes at the top, we can't realistically expect changes in 
behavior at the neighborhood level - in lending and employment practices," 
said Merideth Emmett, executive director of the institute.

    From today's Boston Globe:
    
    New York - "Enraged by jealousy, Dong Lu Chen smashed his wife's skull.
    He was tried and convicted - and placed on five years' probation by a 
    judge who agreed with defense srguments that his guilt was mitigated by
    his traditional Chinese values."

    From today's Boston Globe:
    
    Texas - An article about a high school valedictorian in Houston who has
    one child and is pregnant with another has been vetoed for the school
    newspaper, but school officials said the student will not be barred
    from speaking at graduation.  Chester Smith, principal of Jack Yates
    High School, said he refused to approve the story about Carrie Mae
    Dixon, 17, because it was too personal.  
    
    The article, written by a student reporter, is titled "Against All Odds: 
    Student becomes valedictorian despite motherhood".  It documents Dixon's 
    personal life and scholastic achievements.  Dixon is a straight A student 
    who carries a full load of honor classes, including physics, calculus and
    economics.  After graduation, she plans to study chemical engineering
    at the University of Houston.  She has two scholarships.  She has been
    shuffled among relatives since her mother died and her step-father
    deserted her and eight siblings.  
    
    Since she has no one to baby-sit her 18 month old daughter while she
    studies two to five hours a night, she said she keeps the child
    occupied with paper and pencil.  "She writes while I write," she said.
    Dixon said she doubted that she would be allowed to give the
    valedictory address June 10 because of her pregnancy.
                                                  

>>>  This started out as a reply to note 210 on Gun Protection
>>>  and ends out here as yet another example of sexism at work

Angela Griffith (.0) {are you still out there?}
and all others planning on applying for a license to carry:
    
The following is a description of what I had to go through just
to receive the *application* for a license.  Do NOT make the mistake
I made (read below) and let yourself get sucked into a debate with the
officer in charge of handing out the applications.  They are required
to give you an application.  Tell her or him you will discuss the 
application with the police chief after it is completed.

******************************************************************************

            <<< ALIEN::BLKHOL$DUA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 2371.0            Justifying "permit to carry" in MA             35 replies
SYSENG::BITTLE                                       80 lines  12-APR-1989 23:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will soon be turning in my application to obtain a "License to 
Carry Firearms" in a town near Maynard, MA, and am looking for 
advice on justifying obtaining a license for the purpose of 
"protection of life and property".  In other words, a permit to
carry.

Background info :

While at the local police station getting an FID, I also ask for
an application for a license to carry firearms for the purpose of
protection of life and property.  The officer in charge of FIDs
(not the chief) proceeds to put me through the third degree concerning 
how I could possibly have a good enough reason for getting such a license.  

My reasons : 

1.  (a general one I thought would help)
     I am a single female (age 23) who frequently (2-3 times a week) 
     travels alone at night between the suburbs and the Boston area.

his counter : "so I should issue a license to every lady that commutes
               to Boston?  We would have an armed camp here!"

2.   (more specifically...)
     I am enrolled in and will continue to enroll in job *required* 
     *night* courses at universities in the Boston area (currently enrolled
     in Boston Univ course; planning on taking a night course from
     Northeastern next semester.)  
     
his counter : "How do you know those universities allow guns on their
               campuses?  They all have rules against it.

3.   Once a week I attend a non-profit organizational meeting in 
     Cambridge between 7:30 - 10pm.  The closest parking available is
     near a playground with some basketball courts.  I've observed
     the people in this playground at night.  They are not children
     nor are they what I would describe as day-care provider types.

his counter : "If you think these meetings put you at substantial
               risk, you should not attend them."


I realize I was wasting my time and should just get the application
and talk with the chief of police about the matter later.

The officer asks me :  "Have you ever been attacked?"

This was what I *hadn't* planned on bringing up as a justification for
obtaining the permit...

I said yes.  He asked where.  I said North Carolina (while in college
there).  He asked if I could provide a copy of the police report, and I
said yes.  {although I don't think that report is any of their business;
also, I read in this notesfile that these applications are part of the
public record}

Now for the real kicker : 

He says : "That doesn't count - This is Massachusetts, not North
           Carolina."

I was shocked, disgusted, and speechless.


The final word from the officer : 
-------------------------------

"I know what the police chief is looking for {when he issues the
 permits to carry} and you haven't hit it."


My question to you : 
------------------

Any guesses as to what the police chief is looking for?

Has anyone out there ever gone to court to obtain a license to carry?

						
						nancy b.

-------------------------------------------------------
>>>>  The text below was entered as a Post Script  <<<<
-------------------------------------------------------

Last week a man went into the same police station I did for
an FID and pistol permit application.  No questions were
asked other than standard FID-required questions.  He was in
and out in 5 minutes.

                                   mad and getting madder,

{oops!  I meant to say...}         peace, love, and granola,
                                   nancy b.

    I graduated from WPI, so I get their regular publication called
    "The Wire" which gives news on the school and tells what everyone
    is doing now.  I was reading through the news on people when I noticed
    that anytime 2 grads got married who had graduated in different
    years, they put the woman's name under her class year with a "see
    John Doe, class of 19xx".  I'm sure they have probably always put
    the wedding announcements under the man's name, but this is the
    first time that they also list the woman under her class with the
    reference, so it became more noticeable.  Now, there are lots of other 
    ways they could have decided where to put the announcment, like under 
    the year of whoever graduated first or under the person whose last
    name comes first alphabetically, but they chose to always put the 
    announcement under the man's name.  I guess that shows who they
    think rates first.

    WPI is not along in that practice. My alumni directory from the Univ.
    of R.I. did the same thing.
    
    Eric

    CLASS OF 1980
    
    ...                   
    ABBOTT, Mary married Peter Williams  
    ADAMS, Alex married Louise Johnson
    BARROWS, Lisa married John Doe (class of 79)
    BROWN....                      
                                   
                                   
    CLASS OF 1979                  
    
    ...
    DAVIS, Catherine married Robert Smith
    DOE, John married Lisa Barrows (class of 80)
    DOWNING...
    
    
    
       
                 
             
 

    I attended a wonderful music festival this weekend.  My 14 year-old
    daughter sang in a chorus of 150.  There was also an orchestra,
    and a band.
    
    So what is my beef?  None with the kids.  But I was depressed to
    notice the 'demographics' in the band.  Out of about 20 flutes there
    were 0 boys.  Ditto for the clarinets, including alto and bass.
    And the oboes.  There was a pretty even mixture in the saxophones,
    trombones and French horns.  But only three female trumpeters out
    of 15.  And 0 female baritones, tubas, or percussion.  (There WAS
    a girl playing the bells). 
    
    Of course, guess what my son plays in his junior high band?  You've
    got it, the drums.  (Although this may be partly because I was a
    drummer.)  And for a while, my daughter played the flute, although
    as with me, she would have tried trumpet except for her braces.
    But are those reasons, or excuses?
    
    The sterotypes reach so deep.  How can we broaden the opportunity
    for our young people?  I guess this doesn't qualify as 'nasty' or
    maybe not even as sexism, except as the result of the unconscious
    sexism that permeates our society.
    
    Lyn
           

The following article comes from pg 17, Guns & Women, April, '89.

          "NJ State Senate President Insults Women"
           ---------------------------------------

The Legislative Bureau of Seton Hall University hosted a panel discus-
sion on March 3 entitled "Gun Control: A Loaded Forum for Russo in New
Jersey."   The title should have read "A Loaded Forum for Russo in New
Jersey."

The Moderator,  Steve Adubato  Jr., was clearly not an impartial host.
The forum  was supposed  to focus  on medical,  legislative, constitu-
tional, recreational  and law enforcement issues.  It never got beyond
providing a  platform for  Russo, who is sponsor of a bill calling for
"strictly limiting the availability of handguns by establishing prohi-
bitions on their sale, possession, and importation."

Although members  of the  panel included  such pro-gun notables as the
NRA's Richard  Gardiner and  criminologist Gary  Kleck, no issues were
allowed to be fairly discussed.

Col. Clinton  Pagon, Superintendent NJ State Police, took the route of
sensationalism.   Never bothering to check the chamber, he whipped out
a silenced  MAC-10, waving it at the audience in an attempt to intimi-
date and  confuse  the  unknowledgeable  in  attendance.    (Full-auto
weapons are virtually impossible to possess in New Jersey.)

Russo was repeatedly given the platform to digress at length.  Pro-gun
panelists who  tried to  present facts  and figures  were  cut  short,
rarely allowed to finish a statement.  Questions from the floor had to
be written  on cards  and pass  a screening  process.   Pro-gun points
never reached the panel.

Upon leaving  the conference,  [the author]  seized a chance to pose a
question to  Senator Russo,  asking, "Why  do you want to leave me de-
fenseless?"

His sarcastic  response as  he brushed  her aside, "Because I want you
raped, pillaged,  and robbed."  The exchange continued, before several
stunned onlookers:

woman: "May I quote you?"

Russo:  "You asked a stupid question."

woman: "What is so stupid about being a wife, mother, and
        businesswoman and wanting to protect myself?"

Russo aide: "Don't pay any attention to her; she's on hormones.  She
             thinks she's a man and wants to fire a gun."

    Sounds less like sexism and more like insanity to me.  How very
    bizzare!!
    
    Dondi

    That man does not deserve to be re-elected.
    
    Mary

    What is advertised?
    
    In a recent advertisement for Ban de xxxx suntan lotion the words
    begin To the women of St. Tropez.....  The picture is of a beautiful,
    tanned reclining woman in a black bikini, hair pulled back and in
    front of her in a similar pose, tanned and beautiful in a black
    bikini also is a 4 or 5 year old girl!
    
    Women!  It is not cute that a girl of 4 or 5 is being portrayed
    as an adult sex object!
    
    I find myself feeling angry - this is 1989!  I am switching to 
    another brand.  I don't wish to finance a company that currently
    uses the concept of a 4 or 5 year old child as sex object to
    sell their product!

>    I find myself feeling angry - this is 1989!  I am switching to 
>    another brand.  I don't wish to finance a company that currently
>    uses the concept of a 4 or 5 year old child as sex object to
>    sell their product!

  I agree whole-heartedly.  May I make a small suggestion here?
  Write to the company and let them know your feelings.  And maybe
  even write a letter to the company that makes the brand you
  switch TO and let them know that you appreciate their method
  of advertising and that is why you have switched to their product.
  I don't know any other way that we can personally let these
  companies know that their method of advertising products is
  unacceptable - but if they hear from enough of us, maybe they
  will take notice.

  Debess

    re: .376
    
    Sen. Russo's comments can, do doubt, be attributed to testosterone
    poisoning...
    

    Actually, I believe that Sen. Russo's problem has been diagnosed as
    lackabis brainabis, a degenerative disease that affects politicians
    after the election. ;^)
    
    The Doctah

    
    re .379: are you possibly over-reacting?
    
    Sight-unseen I have the following thoughts:- 
    
    1) the image of a woman and her daughter on the beach. The message 
    (aimed at mothers) that the product is strong enough for the strong 
    sun at St. Tropez, yet gentle enough for a child's skin.
    
    2) it is natural to see women and children in bikinis on a beach.
    They aren't sex objects in this context. (Actually from my experience
    of St. Tropez the odd thing here is the wearing of both parts of
    the bikini - especially by a child.) Now had the woman and child
    been posed with a car in an attempt to sell the car, then *that*
    would have been using the child as a sex object.
    
    3) the message is unlikely to be targetted at children (of any age)
    for they don't typically buy sun-tan preparations - but their parents
    do. In this case the message addressed to "women" is natural.
                                    
    4) I would hazard a guess that this message might be a direct
    translation of a European ad. (Similar use of American ads in Europe
    has been known to back fire - I recall the case of the absurd dancing
    housewife in the Shake-n-vac ad).
                                             
    /. Ian .\
                                   
           
    

    My ire was aroused by the initial note re. the sun lotion
    advertisement. I'm totally against exploiting children to satisfy
    adult urges.  Then I saw the TV commercial version of the ad last
    night -- and even in my predisposed state of anger, couldn't find
    anything sexual or provocative about it.  It looked to me like Ian
    (-.384) has assessed it correctly, a mother protecting both her
    own and her daughter's skin from the damaging rays of the sun. Would
    the negative reaction have been as strong if the child had been
    a boy?
    
    Sorry, I can't support a boycot of this particular product on the
    basis of that commercial.
          
    Karen

    If the photo were of a child who was doing something childlike and
    if they child was dressed in a gaily printed children's bikini,
    if that child had the expression on it's face that is clearly that
    of a child,  I would say that yes, the advertisement was aimed at
    mothers and children. 
    
    It was however, written to The *women* of St. Tropez..... and 
    pictured as two people similarly posed, dressed in identical
    (adult style) black bikinis, with identical hairdos and they
    both had makeup on.  How many times do you go to the beach and
    see a 4 or 5 year old girl looking like a woman.  Most of the
    children I see in reality are running around in pastel print
    bathing suits splashing and playing and laughing, very seldom
    are they posing!
    
    A little girl is not a mini woman.

    re .386
    
    Many times little girls like to play grown up, dressing like mommy
    and playing a "woman" on the beach is not a big deal. Reminds me
    of the softlight ligtbulb commercial when mother and daughter, dressed
    alike, are possing for a portrait, so sexism there, is that just
    because they have more clothes on? 
    
    Gail

    re several but will use Gail's .387 to start it off.
    
>   Many times little girls like to play grown up, dressing like mommy
>   and playing a "woman" on the beach is not a big deal.
    
    I guess no big deal, but I have to wonder.
    
    Little girls want to play grown up, maybe like mommy. That's not too
    bad but then as they get older there seems to be a very strong pressure
    to look sexually mature. This includes wearing cloths that accentuate
    and/or exaggerate body parts like hips, breasts, etc. There is use
    of make-up that *disguises* the girl's youth.
    
    After a certain age a woman is pressured into looking younger. She
    now has all the make-up, clothing and dietary and exercise rigor
    to mask, hide, or slow down many signs of further maturing.
    
    In other words there is an ideal age, maybe somewhere between 18
    and 24. This is less than 10 percent of a female human's lifetime
    and not much more than 10 percent of an woman's adult life.
    
    It could be said that this is ageism and I am sure it is, but I think
    this applies more to the female sex than the male.
    
    In the case of dressing up the 4 or 5 year-old girl the same as
    the woman with the same make-up, I believe this is indeed sexual
    exploitation. I do not think it is intended to turn on males to
    this child but an attempt to put further pressure for younger and
    younger children to feel compelled to dress to fit the sexual stereotype
    of Madison Avenue.
    
    Les

     I saw the ad last night, and I don't think it's anything to get 
    heated up about at all.
    
    I seem to be getting mixed signals. On the one hand, girls and women
    should not be used to sell products based on their sexuality or implied
    sexuality. On the other hand, if a girl wants to dress to be sexy at
    whatever age, we cannot judge her or say anything about it because it's
    her choice and her mother's choice. What's going on here? If they can
    do it and not be judged about it, why can't they simply show this on TV
    and use it to sell products? Are we really the repressed?
    
    The Doctah

I suggest that the discussion of age/sex/women belongs in a new note, if it
continues.
	Mez

    My major objection to the ad would be that it suggests that it's good
    to go out and get a dark tan, with or without the aid of a suntan
    lotion. Promoting significant sun exposure to young children is
    especially objectionable, since it sets them on the early road to skin
    cancer.

    But I don't suppose you'd except a suntan lotion company to support
    this view...

    
    I would have no objection to this being moved to a new note, but
    in the meantime...
    
    1) *very few* models, including small children are photographed
    without makeup. However if it was visible then the photographer,
    or the make-up artist, or both, failed to do their jobs properly (in
    my professional opinion).
    
    2) My wife was looking for a new swimsuit in several catalogues
    yesterday. Of the four looked at only one had pretty floral
    kiddy-bikinis. They *all* had childrens suits that were a perfect
    match for the adult suits. I presume it is fashionable this year.
    
    3) A recent TV show on holidays in France, showed a number of children
    on beaches (perhaps 2 or 3 dozen) enjoying themselves on the beach
    and in the sea. Most were topless, and about 45% were naked. Boys and
    girls alike. I didn't see any in floral kiddy-bikinis, though I
    do recollect seeing one in a one-piece skirted swimsuit...
             
    4) Nearly all the adult women shown in this show were also topless.
    This is rapidly becoming the norm, if not quite mandatory on
    Mediterranean beaches. Without seeing parents and children side
    by side I'd hazard a guess that the girls swimsuits nearly all matched
    the parents.
                          
    5) As an aside, my local public swimming baths has a sign that says
    that "girls over 11" must wear swimsuit tops at all times. Apparently 
    even the local council don't think 4 year olds need to wear a bra...
    
    And finally I agree that it isn't desirable to encourage anybody
    to get a deep suntan, but that isn't the point at issue here.
    
    /. Ian .\
    

To me, this ad is indeed offensive, starting with the use of the word
"women" to refer to both the adult woman and the four-year-old girl. But
hey, kiddie porn is getting bigger all the time these days; and since - as
noted elsewhere in this file - the gap between women's magazines and porn
magazines is getting smaller all the time, we probably shouldn't be surprised. 

Also, while it may be common for female children to wear bikinis, they
are not usually black; but the one in this ad is. The girl is a little copy
of the mother, in her black bikini, her gold earrings, her smug expression.
To me the message is, Start turning those females into sex objects as soon
as possible; make them little consumers, just like their moms; good for
business, y'know! 

Finally, it may be worth pointing out that the positioning of the two
figures in the ad is itself sexually suggestive, the more so in that the
girl obscures the bottom part of the woman's bikini, who therefore appears
to be wearing nothing at all down there. Now we know that those ad
photographers never do anything without a reason. So let's think hard here
for a moment. What *could* the reason be, do you suppose? 

Using sex to sell products? You're darn right they are. More accurately, 
they're using women and girls to sell products. May the manufacturers and
the publishers all get skin cancer. The bad kind. 

Dorian

    The ad offends me also.  I feel it's using children in a sexual manner
    to sell !sun tan lotion!....  Years ago when Jodie Foster was a babe
    and they had a puppy nipping at her bathing suit bottom so show of her
    sun burn, now that seemed okay.  She wasn't in a sexual pose trying 
    to be as suggestive as a women can be.  
    
    One question I have, is that ad shown in Europe?  Isn't that where you
    are from Ian?  Topless beaches for anyone other than young children
    is not the norm in the US.  Plus, I don't really appreciate seeing 
    3-4 year old naked at the beach; I've seen too many of them peeing in
    the water or right on the beach too make sure my son stays clothed.
    
    Anna
    
    

    re .390 (Mez)
    
>   I suggest that the discussion of age/sex/women belongs in a new note,
>   if it continues.
    
    I started a new note: Cosmetics, Fashions, and the Exploitation
    of Women (Note 607).
    
    Les

    I found the pose to be suggestive too.  I'm not buying the stuff
    anymore.
    
    Mary

    Where Lt. Commander Uhura's big moment is a fan dance. How
    degrading. I felt embarrassed for Nichelle Nichols.
    
    I also noticed that the distaff members of Star Fleet are back
    to wearing dresses. At least they're knee length rather than up
    to the ass.
    
    --- jerry

    I recently needed something to read and picked up an issue of Savvy.
    In it, there was an article about Georgette Mosbacher, CEO of a
    skin-care and makeup company.  She is also married to Secretary
    of Commerce Robert Mosbacher.
    
    The article is called "Oh, Oh Georgette" and is written by a Robert
    Buchanan.  The subtitle is: "Mrs. Robert Mosbacher is the toast
    of Washington and the talk of New York.  What more could a CEO want?"
                                                                
    If I may quote...                                           


    ************************************************************************
                                                                    
    "When Georgette Mosbacher bought LaPrairie...industry insiders whispered
    that the 42-year-old Houston socialite had paid too much in her zeal
    for an exclusive name...Well, so what?  It was moments like this--the
    testing of a prototype for a new foundation makeup--that made it
    worthwhile.  It was fun to be in business, fun to be a real CEO.
    It sure beat licking envelopes for the winter ballet benefit.
                                                                
    "Such is the world of the Working Rich, where women shop for the
    jobs that will look good on them.  It's no longer enough to dress
    up and go out at night; to be chic today is to be a workaholic;
    Ivana (Mrs. Donald Trump) runs New York's famed Plaza Hotel.  Carolyne
    (Mrs. Henry Kravis) Roehm makes evening gowns.  Claudia (Mrs. Ron
    Perelman) Cohen chats about the wonderful synergy of it all on her
    gossip reports for ABC-TV.  But Georgette (Mrs. Secretary of Commerce
    Robert) Mosbacher is in a different class.  Bright, bold and nervy,
    she trumped the whole lot of her gal-pals when she bought LaPrairie,
    without one cent of her husband's $200 million fortune...
                        
    "...her much-photographed decolletage annoys rival D.C. grandes
    dames...            
                        
    "Judging from the number of interviews she's granted recently,
    Mosbacher loves the attention.  But today, in low heels and a beige
    Chanel suit, she's playing the ingenue.  There's a wounded tone
    in her voice as she complains, 'I get asked questions about being
    a socialite and I wonder why they don't ask men CEOs that question.
    I know several CEOs in this city that don't miss a party and nobody
    thinks a thing of it,' she pouts.  'I don't think it's fair.'
                        
    "Ah, the sexist world!  Mosbacher seems to cite it frequently as
    if she were just another member of the downtrodden sisterhood...
    
    "(When her father died), that left a parental unit consisting of
    Georgette's mother...and _her_ mother...Raised by women to conquer
    men, Georgette went forth and made her fortune the old-fashioned
    way: by marrying it...
    
    "...(Georgette) undertook a husband-hunting safari, as society
    columnists would have it, to Houston.  It was a good time to meet
    prosperous men in Texas, just a year before the onset of the oil
    slump.  Not that it mattered in the end; the wildcatter she targeted
    and, after a stagey walkout, succeeded in snagging, had the kind
    of wealth that was immune to regional depression."
    
    *******************************************************************
                      
    He lets up on the editorializing as he describes her work history, 
    the history of LaPrairie, the competitive environment of the make-up
    market, the risky marketing approach Mosbacher is taking...all of
    which make it quite apparent that this is hardly a jobette she
    picked up on a whim to be chic.
              
    What the heck does a woman in business have to do to be taken
    seriously?  Apparently being CEO of a multi-million dollar company
    isn't enough.  And this is in a magazine written FOR working women!    
    
    grrrrrrrr
    
    -Tracy
    
    
    
                                                                
                                           
                                           
                                           

    If I were she, I'd have halted the printing of the article when
    I reviewed it (I assume if they write something about someone in
    any big way, that someone has the "power of veto" over the article,
    in whole or in part.....).  Or I'd have demanded some big changes.
    Or I'd have gotten my PR people to handle it.  And them.  In no
    uncertain terms.  What utter hooey.
    
    Then again, she may not care about the phraseology, she may crave
    the exposure.  Or she may actually buy into all that rot.
    
    -Jody
    

    I agree: what a bunch of malarkey!
    
    Even if most of the "facts" are true (such as that she acquired her
    fortune by marrying it) the "isn't this cute" attitude is pretty ugly.
    There might just be a handful of very wealthy people (men and women
    both) in the world who are really like that description, maybe,
    probably no one you are I will ever meet!
    
    /Charlotte

    
    How disgusting. If, as he said, she went into business without
    a penny of her husband's money, how is it she acquired her fortune
    by marrying it?
    
    And I love the way he sticks in a whoie paragraph about rich women
    taking jobs just to be socialable, and then adds, "oh, by the way,
    she's not one of them."
    
    And the use words like "pout". Men don't "pout", do they?
    
    I can't believe this sort of thing still goes on. The author sounds
    like a really sick misogynist.
                                
    Roberta
                                             

    Jody,
         
    If she were smart, she would grant the interview on the condition
    that she (or her P.R. person) got final approval.  But it's also 
    likely she didn't (don't think of it until you get burned!).  Or
    that her P.R. person was as blind to the insulting nature of the
    wording used as the author and the editors.
          
    -Tracy

This really isn't sexism...is 'ageism' a word?

I am trying to make arrangements to rent a car for a quick trip to 
Raleigh, NC, in October.  So far I've called two different car rental
companies.  Both times I was asked how old I was, and both companies
said I have to be 25 years old or over to rent a car!  They asked,
"Isn't someone older traveling with you?"

Well pardon me for thinking that since I have been over 21 for a good
2 years now that I can function as a completely legal and fully 
participating human being !!!

How can they get away with that !?!
						miffed!
						nancy b. 

    Nancy, I think you're doing them a disservice.  It is true that just
    about all car rental companies require renters to be over 25 (or else
    to put up a substantial cash deposit).  I imagine it relates to
    their insurance policies (which discriminate by age AND sex AND
    marital status).
    
    However, their question to you was, in my view, not a denigration of
    your ability to travel on your own but rather an attempt to find a way
    to do business with you.  They may have thought that you might be
    travelling with someone older in whose name the reservation could
    be made.  Given their rules, it seems reasonable to me.
    
    
    				Steve

    According to  a  memo posted as note 850.0 in HUMAN::DIGITAL, Avis
    and  National both have agreeements with Digital to give employees
    the  company  rate.  It  says  that  the age requirement is 21 for
    personal use with National and 18 with Avis. You might try calling
    one  of them. For Avis the corporate ID is A126200 For National it
    is 5202000 You may need those numbers to get the lower rate. These
    rates include collision damage waiver.    

    The memo is originally from Cindy Marini, in U.S. Purchasing.

--David

re: .405 (Steve Lionel)

This probably does relate to :

>    their insurance policies (which discriminate by age AND sex AND
>    marital status).
    
but I think instead of totally denying those under 25 it would be more
reasonable to rent but charge more to make up for the higher insurance
premium.

>   However, their question to you was, in my view, not a denigration of
>   your ability to travel on your own but rather an attempt to find a way
>   to do business with you.  

Steve, you are probably right with regards to the first place I called 
(Hertz).  With the second (Superior?), I'm not so sure.

>  Given their rules, it seems reasonable to me.
    
I was surprised by these 'rules' because I've rented cars before with
no problem at airports.
    

re: .406 (an Eagle)

>                      -< A_Problem_1_Outgrows_In_Time... >-

This_must_be_easy_for_Eagles_to_say_when_they_just_fly_from_
AERIE_to_AERIE_instead_of_renting_a_car_like_the_rest_of_us. :-).


re: .407 (David Wittenburg)

Thanks, David !!

There's an AVIS in Maynard I'll walk to tomorrow during lunch.  Also,
I think a National just replaced a gas station right across from the 
Mill.

And thanks for providing the corporate ID #'s.

			                        No-More-Miffed :-),
                                                nancy b.     
 

    Re .407 (David)
    
    I don't think that the Digital corporate rate for Avis includes a
    Collision Damage Waiver.  What normally happens is that Digital
    self-insures its employees for business-related car-rentals - If you
    smash up a rental car on DEC business, Digital pays the bill.  I doubt
    that Digital would cover you for an accident on a private rental.  When
    renting from Avis I always get the Digital discount (you don't even
    have to quote the number - just say you want the Dec corporate rate -
    it sometimes helps to have your badge handy, though), but I always buy
    CDW as well.

    Re .409
    
    Quoting from the memo (Marini, 27-Jun-1989):
    
    "Under the Avis and National agreements, Collision Damage Waiver is
    provided free and should be declined for both business and personal
    rentals at all locations.  Digital employees should also decline
    Personal Accident Insurance on business rentals because the Company
    provides adequate medical converage.  However, Personal Accident
    Insurance may be considered on personal rentals."

    Yesterday while traveling I read the sports section in USA today.
    They had an article comparing Stefi Graf and Chris Everetts hair styles
    - both of whom wear French Braids.  The article went on with the
    instructions for French Braiding.  It discussed how it keeps their hair
    from flowing in their eyes but most importantly how Chris' S.O. likes
    her hair that way.
    
    What the heck does this have to do with women's tennis?
    
    Suzanne

    I've just checked with personnel (who checked with Corporate Risk
    Management, no less - I always wondered what they did there!), and
    apparently Digital does self-insure rental cars, so the memo posted in
    DIGITAL isn't quite correct.  CDW _isn't_ included in the corporate
    rate.  However, Risk Management assures me that it is company policy
    for Digital to provide coverage for both business *and personal* car
    rental under the Avis and National agreements, so I guess in future
    I'll have to decide whether it's worth $11.95 per day to avoid having
    to find out how to get reimbursement from DEC.
    
    Not that I'm particularly accident-prone! :-)
    
    John

    re .411

    On the other hand, what does USA Today got to do with news? That sounds
    about as relevant to sports as their front page stories have to do with
    national news...

    ...Atlanta, unfortunately.  I heard some advertising a few weeks
    back for a new car wash downtown, with ONLY female attendants
    wearing shorts, halters and bathing suits.  BLEAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!
    
    theresa.

    Your personal car insurance probably already includes coverage for
    rental cars. Check the policy - there will be something on replacement
    cars, temporary cars, etc. 
    
    Bruce 

    RE: .414, unfortunately, there are two issues with things like that
    carwash (or other such establishments). First, they need patrons, which
    they probably will have no problem finding. But more importantly, they
    need workers who are WILLING to dress that way. As long as both of
    those exist, such businesses will exist, regardless of how tasteless
    they are.
    
    Eric

    re .399, I think this article is an example classism, more than
    or maybe as well as sexism.  I also think the writing style is quite
    funny.  It sounds like making fun of the very rich to me, and I
    think the rich can afford to have us make fun of them once in awhile.
     I'd be curious to know what she pays her secretaries and other
    office help.  I wonder if they can afford to rent studio apartments
    and keep up payments on a car loan at the same time.
    
    This woman, as the author says, is *not* one of the "downtrodden
    sisterhood."  This is a woman who was born into a wealthy family,
    and who apparently, still made her first priority in life to be
    the acquisition of an even richer husband.  Afterall, she became
    a CEO after she married a multi-millionaire, not before.  I'm a
    secretary today, but if I married a multi-millionaire, I, too, could
    purchase my own cosmetics company.  If you have enough money you
    can buy anything you want for yourself in this country, even a position
    as the head of a company, even if you're a woman or a minority.
     I would hardly consider her to be an example of an average American
    woman struggling to overcome sexism.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re. Lorna
    
    actually Georgette married wealth. she was not born to it. having had
    her father dump on the family and watched her mother struggle,
    Georgette determined to secure her financial future by way of strategic
    marriages to wealthy men -- a plan of action which she has executed with
    faultless dexterity. none of her divorces have had a severe impact on
    her cash-flow.
    
    i would have to agree that she is not particularly down-trodden.
    
    on the other-hand, there is a sexism working in the article. she is
    portrayed as a cute hobbyist in corporate America. while she may have
    taken a big short-cut to acquiring LaPrairie, she _has_ turned it
    around and _is_ a shrewd business woman.
    
    she is not a woman i admire, but she's not dandelion fluff
    
      Ann

    
               <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 705.0                          Speak Up!                         No replies
GEMVAX::ROSS                                         26 lines  18-JUL-1989 16:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead of the usual plain white appointment reminder card I always
    received from my dentist, I just received one with a very sexual,
    sexist picture on the front.
    
    I was quite disturbed by the card, so after the dentist finished
    and got all the sharp tools out of my mouth I told him that the
    card is sexist and offensive to women.
    
    His reaction -- lots of laughter.  Instead of asking me to explain
    why the card is sexist/offensive, which is the reaction I expected,
    he said that he WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREES with me.  Someone on his staff
    (a woman) ordered and mailed the cards without his knowledge.  He
    assured me that I'll never receive one again.  I told him that not
    enough, that he shouldn't mail them to ANYONE again.  He agreed.
    
    Moral -- It's important to speak up.  If you don't, things won't
    change.  Many people need their consciousness raised.
    
    
    Another incident -- this time with a restaurant.  Outside their
    restaurant they had a sign that said "Businessman's Luncheon Special."
     I wrote them a letter in which I explained that working women also
    go to lunch and that working women often take clients to lunch.
     They changed their sign so it says "Luncheon Special."
    
    

    Overheard, this past weekend, at an ice cream place in York, Maine:

    Woman, age about 45ish (mother/grandmother?) to little girl, age
    5ish, who was racing about and yelling, "I *told* you! Stop doing 
    that!  It's not lady-like!  Only boys act like that!"
    
    I couldn't believe my ears!  I said to my boyfriend, "WHAT did that
    woman say?!"  He laughed and said, "I was hoping you heard that."  

    Lorna
    

What could be better objects to render for the purpose of demonstrating 
the latest multi-mega pixel, mega plane, graphics system that Digital 
has to offer but... yea...you guessed it! -- Kathy Ireland & Co -- 

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue's near nude and suggestively posed
models in full color; high resolution; almost better than life, consi-
dering all the nifty manipulations you can do with the image files!

Not just one or two - 36 different photos.  With file names like
SIMAR86.RGB, SIOCT87.RGB, etc., I assume they came from some Sports
Illustrated Swimsuit Issue calendars.  

"but nancy, it's art, not exploitation!"...amazing all the new faces one
sees in the lab who've developed a sudden interest in modern art.

I would like to have a word or two with the person(s) in
(this is an assumption -->) Palo Alto responsible for this.
                                                               nancy b.

    Nancy, you're not alone.  Many others, including myself, have
    complained that these images are not only inappropriate because
    of the reasons you state, but also because they are violating 
    copyrights.  I shudder to think that these images are being shown to
    customers in an attempt to show off the graphics capabilities of
    our systems.  Instead they show the insensitivity and poor
    judgement of those who produce and display the images.
    
    					Steve

> I shudder to think that these images are being shown to
>    customers in an attempt to show off the graphics capabilities of
>    our systems.  Instead they show the insensitivity and poor
>    judgement of those who produce and display the images.

 And they sell.

    There is a topic in Womannotes-v1 called "Cheryl Tiegs - Where's
    Redford", which also discusses the use of sexy pictures in demo's.
     It's topic 181.
    
    -Jody
    

	My Dad  mailed me  Larry  Guest's  sports  column  from  the
	Orlando Sentinel,  which mostly  concerned the  formation of
	the dance  team/cheerleader  group  for  the  NBA's  Orlando
	Magic, to  be called  the Magic  Girls.    Excerpts  of  the
	article follow:


	"I have it on good authority that the local NBA team's Magic
	Girls plan  to open  the approaching  season with  a special
	tribute to  Jerry Jones, controversial new owner of the Dal-
	las Cowboys.   As  I understand,  the routine will open with
	the Girls  going into  the formation  of a  pig [as in, male
	chauvinist pig],  switching the  outline to depict the south
	half of  a horse  and close with a stirring finale featuring
	that famous one-fingered salute.

	That's not really true, but what is true is the big news out
	of Big D, where Jones has assaulted the sensibilities of the
	most famous  sports dance/cheerleader group around, the Dal-
	las Cowboys  Cheerleaders.  Jones ordered skimpier uniforms,
	wants a  relaxation of  the rule forbidding fraternizing be-
	tween players and cheerleaders and proposed the girls appear
	in beer commercials.  When the leader of the group balked at
	the measures,  Jones, in  his warm  and embraceable  nature,
	told her she could accept the changes or take a hike.

	She chose  the latter,  along with 13 other insulted members
	of the troupe.

	The story exploded in Dallas on Friday, introducing Jones to
	an even  lower villainous  level he  probably didn't realize
	existed.   Already the  scourge of  Texas after dumping leg-
	endary coach  Tom Landry,  Jones is discovering the anger of
	mere football  fans is  tapioca pudding  compared  with  the
	wrath of the so-called *fairer sex*.  It's not often you can
	anger women  on both  sides of the feminist issue, but Jones
	has proved with this move to be a man of special talent.
	.
	.
	.
	[I enjoyed  the columnist's last paragraph, where he reveals
	he's also made a faux pas or two in his career....]
	.
	.
	.
	Ol' Dummy  here can  somewhat relate  to  Jerry  Jones'  new
	dilemma.   There have been a couple of times when I've care-
	lessly ventured  into feminist  territory and came away with
	membership in  the Loyal  Order of  the Oinks, inflaming the
	female-persons and  their claws.   I'm scheduled to have the
	stitches removed in early 1992."

 		                                            nancy b.

During a recent trip to San Francisco (and other parts of "Nothern" California)
my boyfriend and I were wandering around SF's "red light" district.  I'd
never really been in an adult bookstore (ever noticed that "books" are 
probably their smallest inventory item?) or seen a peepshow or a video booth.
(Peepshow: go into a booth, drop a quarter in a slot, and a window slides
back revealing women in various states of undress, dancing behind the
window. Video booth: go into a booth, select one of six or eight videos
described in the listing, and watch a short amount (3 minutes?) for a 
quarter.)  So my oyfriend thought I should broaden my horizons and check
some of these things out.

We went into one place that mostly sold, rented and showed videos.  We looked
around at the videos for a while, then my SO went to the register to buy 
tokens for the video booths.  He said he would sell some for my boyriend
to see the movie, but I wasn't allowed in there.  "What??" we both say in
unison.  He explained that I wasn't even supposed to be in the store at
all, that it was store policy that women weren't allowed to watch the
movies, and in fact, a *state* *law*!!

We demanded his managers phone number and address, which he gave us grudgeingly.
He was obviously scared that we were going to harass the manager who would
then give him a hard time.  But he stuck to his guns and refused to let me
in, talking about how I wouldn't want to go in there anyway - "Some pretty
disgusting stuff happens in those booths, miss."

Now I was all fired up - before I was mildly curious - now I wanted to go
into one of those booths just to make a point.  So we went to 3 other stores.
The other ones *did* allow women (so much for "state law") but only with
ID.  Mind you, the sign said they reserved the right to check anyone's
ID, to make sure you were over age.  But at each place, the guy at the
desk told us outright that women have to show ID's, no matter if it is
clear that they are over age or not.  "Store policy".  having left my ID
in the car, I never did get into a video booth.

Anyone know what's going on here?  These places seemed genuinely scared of
the law here - not asingle one of them would let me in.  What do they think
they are protecting me from?

D! (who doesn't expect any support from staunch feminists since anti-pornography
    is currently politically correct in feminist circles.)

    I've tried to look through all the replys in this note but I havn't
    run accross what I think is the worst...Banks! Except for a few
    that are like "Womans National Bank" or something women have no
    representation the management of Banks in this country. (really
    that probably means the whole world because the US is probably the
    most liberal in this area) 
    
    As a kid I remember asking why the H*()! the bank in Somers was
    only open from 9:00 to 2:00 and was told that thats because they
    have "mothers" work while their children are in school. Later I
    realized that meant "thats when the cheap excellant labor was
    available."  
    
    Banks have women as tellers almost exclusivly. They never get promoted
    into the executive suites. I've had alot of dealings with the
    management in the DP departments and the real power is white men
    and if there are women around it appears that its because they are
    a better value than a comparable man would be and they treat them
    like it also.
    
    Now the economist in me says that low pay allows an entry point
    for people entering the job market but the banking community seems
    to have turned the disparity of career women's salery into a way
    of life.
    
    Fred Mudgett

    In this  morning's Boston Globe Ellen Goodman gives out her annual
    sexsim awards.  All of them belong in this string.

--David

    I've moved the porn discussion to 755, not 775.
    
    (I wish I could say I was practicing successive approximation, but I've
    actually got it right this time (thanks to Jody and DougO)).
    
    							=m

    My wife, Joy, is one of several volunteers to be honored by New
    Hampshire Governor Judd Gregg during a dinner cruise on Lake
    Winnipesaukee in September.

    However, she's not sure she can attend. She doesn't have the right
    clothes. The letter from the Governor stipulates that "Dress for
    the cruise will be jacket and tie."

    Bruce

    RE: .433
    
    I think she should borrow a jacket and tie from you and go
    properly dressed, fer cryin' out loud.
    
    --DE
    

re -.1

hehehe, I agree what a hoot that would be :-)

Jenna    

    It's nice of you to suggest she borrow a tie and jacket from me.
    
    But -- I'm having enough problems coming up with a tie and jacket
    for me!                           

    Bruce

	I have lots of, well, let's say "interesting" ties.  I mostly wear
them to unit meetings and I tend to win the "ugly tie contest" pretty much
every meeting.

	Wanna borrow a couple?

							--D

    Actually, that would be a *great* idea -- if she was to go on
    this thing wearing a jacket and tie. If anyone looks askance,
    she can rub it in about what the invitation stipulated.
    
    --- jerry

    Of course, you could always take the radical approach. . .I can
    just see it now as you both show up for the cruise, resplendent
    in your jackets and ties. . .and nothing else. . .
    
    Steve (usually HANDY::MALLETT)

>    in your jackets and ties. . .and nothing else. . .

    I once saw a woman do this at a party (Hallowe'en?
    Christmas?)  She borrowed or rented a tux, with a jacket long
    enough in front to cover everything she wanted covered, wore
    a ruffly shirt under it, and fishnet stockings and heels.  No
    slacks.

    Although this seems like border-line dress for a woman,
    somehow I suspect a man dressing this way wouldn't be
    tolerated nearly so well... ;) 

    -- Linda

    These are all fine recommendations. However, I would need a looong
    tie  :-} .                       
                                    
    Be that as it may, so as not to distract from the honor of the occasion,
    I will wear what is recommeded. 
    
    Bruce

No, Bruce.  If your wife is wearing a jacket and tie,
you should wear a simple calf-length black dress with 
a single strand of pearls.

M.

    Since it's summer and you'll be on a boat, white would also be
    acceptable.  Sandals or pumps with medium heels, not too high.  
    
    --bonnie

    I'll be the hit of the evening. And the governor will kiss me on
    both cheeks.
    
    Brucie Babe
    

    This reminds me of a column in the Houston Post recently.  The column
    is called "Men" and gives -guess who's?- viewpoint.  Sometimes the guy
    borders on enlightened, other times, ...
    
    I did enjoy one point he brought up.  The one about a men's aftershave,
    Brut, I think.  The woman is home (of course) and her husband is
    evidently at work (of course).  She goes over to his closet, and puts
    on his shirt, then his tie, and his hat.  The phone rings, and she
    says, "Honey, I was just thinking of you..."
    
    
    Can you see this in *reverse*?  Not anytime soon...
    
    
    

Item for sale in the Pine Craft Gift Shop, Kankamagus Highway, Conway, NH 
-- a small pine wooden plaque with the following words of wisdom
inscribed on it: 

	"Four things a woman should know:
	How to look like a girl,
	Act like a lady,
	Think like a man,
	And work like a dog."

	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*

I wrote a letter to the proprietors telling them how objectionable I found
this to be and that, because of it, I did not buy the $15 pine box I
otherwise would have. 

Dorian

    We have  seen a person describe an emotion, and a lot of people of
    the  opposite sex deny that emotion. We have also seen a note that
    was  true  in  its essence that has been nitpicked to death over a
    detail.  We  have  earlier  beaten  to  death  the idea that these
    behaviours  are unacceptable when men do them to women. This week,
    women have done them to men.  That is equally unacceptable.

The Particulars:

    Steve L. said that he was disturbed by what nancy b.'s note seemed
    to  say. That's his emotion. Many people weren't disturbed, but we
    should not deny his feelings.

    Gregg said  that there was an *informal* group that flamed men who
    didn't  toe  the party line. That's clearly true. Many people have
    been  flamed  for  not being politically correct on some issue. He
    didn't  say  it  was  organized,  and I don't think the flaming is
    organized.  (That's  the  detail we've seen nitpicked.) Nobody has
    addressed  his  statement  that a group of women flame men who are
    not PC.  That's a real issue.

    I'm rather  annoyed  at both the noise level in the last few days,
    and  the  obvious  sexism in women to flaming men in a way that is
    not acceptable when men do it to women.

--David

                     <*** Moderator Response ***>
   
   If anyone wants to take issue with David's characterisation here,
   please take it to the processing topic!
   
   						=maggie

    I found this in the Colorado Springs Gazzette, 
    an interview with a fundamentalist pastor explaining *HIS*
    interpretation of operation rescues philosophy....
    ( I am not entering this for the pros or cons of or, just for the idiot
    reasoning of this one man in a leadaership position)
    
    "women will have to learn to give up their rights to their bodies and
    choice just like men have had to give up their rights to govern this
    country when they gave women the vote"
    
    

    Re: .450
    
    It's hard to say which figures more strongly in that statement:  sexism
    or stupidity.

    re:.451
    
    I know just what you mean. On the other hand, for me, the former
    implies the latter.
    
    --- jerry

RE: .450, .451 .452

Unfortunately it is not stupidity or sexism in many cases with those 
fundamentilists they truly believe this stuff.
Like Pat Robertson's statement that the way to "save America" was to "kill all 
the communists, atheists and homosexuals".  He gives bible references for 
those beliefs.
Recently I was in a discussion with a person who meant a great deal to me,
she quoted a bible verse about a subject we were discussing and I said it was 
not relevant. She quoted another bible line about/to me
"if a non-believer cause a person to stumble on their journey to find God
better they(the disbeliever) have a millstone fastened around their neck and
they be thrown into the deepest ocean".

in other words because I was a "doubter" i deserved some sort of death-penalty
this from a person that I thought cared for me.
(and please don't anyone start that old saw about things out of context
I hear people use quotes to "justify" all sorts of meyhem death-to-the-infidel
etc. then when called on it say "oh that was out of context it is only
an alliteration")

    Alive and well on the back of a car in front of me yesterday:
    
    	Life's a b*tch
    
	And then you marry one
    

    
    	Oh, geez..  Two things have made me more aware of sexism lately.
    One, we recently had a Sexual Discrimination course here at our office,
    headed by Personnel.  Two, reading this conference.  
    
    	It's really everywhere.  IT'S SICK.  And it is so widely accepted,
    it astounds me.  
    
    	Over the weekend, I came across this in the paper.  It's too much.
    I already knew I was going to vote for Richards, having met Mattox when
    in college.  Plus, I just like her--she's managed the state treasury
    well.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    	The Houston Chronicle, Sunday, Aug. 27.  (reprinted w/out permission)
    
    
    MATTOX, RICHARDS TRADE INSULTS AT CONVENTION
    
    	by Clay Robison
        Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
    
    AUSTIN - Attorney General Jim Mattox accused Treasurer Ann Richards of
    speaking too long in a political appearance Satuday and suggested her
    alleged long-windedness had something to do with her gender.
    
    Without mentioning each other by name, the two gubernatorial contenders
    traded insults in separate appearances before the Mexican-American
    Democrats of Texas convention.
    
    Richards implied that Mattox would be a "bully" in the governor's office,
    while Mattox suggested Richards would do little more than cut ribbons
    and deliver "pretty" speeches.  Richards is the only announced
    candidate for the 1990 Democratic  gubernatorial nomination, but Mattox
    is expected to formally enter the race within a few weeks.
    
    "I don't want to infringe on your time," Mattox told the group.  Then,
    grinning, he added, "We don't want to have women go first any more
    because they have a tendency to take too much time."
    
    Mattox said the race is "not where we're deciding whether you're going
    to have a man for the governor of Texas, or whether we're going to have
    a woman for the governor of Texas."
    
    Mattox said Texans had to decide between a "speech-giving,
    ribbon-cutting governor in the form that we've had in the past" or a
    governor who is "going to be tough enough and strong enough to step out
    and to take on the Goliaths of this world and really make a
    difference."
    
    Richards, who gained national attention by delivering the keynote
    address at last summer's Democratic National Convention and didn't
    speak much longer than Mattox Saturday, said minorities and women still
    had to fight for equal opportunities in Texas.
    
    "I'm not trying to run anybody out of this race.  I'm not trying to buy
    this race," she said, in apparent references to Mattox, who is leading
    Richards in fund raising and who recently suggested that he had scared
    Lt.Gov. Bill Hobby and former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros out of
    gubernatorial campaigns.
    
    "I'm not trying to suggest that we can bullyour way out of our
    problems," Richards added.
    
    
    
    

    Most of  the  big  boat  regattas  I've sailed in have male-female
    ratios  of  about  9-1.  The boat I sail on is always a bit better
    than  that,  since the owners are a couple, and we usually have at
    least  one  other woman on board (we sail with 8 or 9 people), but
    we've never had more than half women. In planning watches for this
    weekend's  race,  two women were repeatedly reffered to as "girls"
    by two of the guys.  I thought they knew better.

--David

    Anyone seen the recent Jordache jeans commercial?
    
    woman bending over to pick up (skates? jacket? ???) with only
    a bikini top covering her very well-endowed chest...then the
    ad shows her -- essentially from the hips up --- walking toward
    the camera.  fades to Jordache logo...
    
    could'a fooled me...i thought it was gonna be suntan lotion ad
    or somesuch...hardly even saw the jeans!!
    
    sheesh!
    
    deb
    

     Yes- I noticed that add before. I thought they were selling breasts or
    something.
    
    The Doctah

    
         My sister just returned from Bogota, Columbia, on a business
         trip.  
    
         She and another woman on her project team were made to leave
         due to the tumultuous and dangerous political climate, in 
         addition to the risk of personal safety of Americans.
    
         She wanted to stay and complete the project.  The men on the
         project team are permitted to stay.
    
         Sounds to me like another case of "save the women and children."
    
    							nancy b.

            re: .460 (VENICE::SKELLY)

            > While I'm on the subject, has anyone noticed the rather
            > frequent occurance of ads that show semi-naked men playing
            > with infants?

            Yes, I have noticed that as well!

            There's a poster for sale in the Harvard Coop in Cambridge
            entitled "L'Enfant", which shows a handsome, naked from the
            waist-up, man holding a naked infant in a reclining
            position.  I thought it well-presented; the photographer
            captured much love and warmth.  I also thought it erotic.
            Have never bought a skin-poster before, but came very close
            that time...  Couldn't remember the last time I saw a skin
            poster that was erotic while also stressing love, warmth,
            and compassion.

            > What are they supposed to mean?

            I wondered that when I contemplated why that poster caught
            my eye... Perhaps these ads and posters are capitalizing on
            a perceived or actual existence of fathers accepting and
            enjoying their role as nurturer and care-giver...

                                                             nancy b.

    	When my son and I were in Paris, there was a statue at the Louvre
    	that really caught my eye (so much so that I spent an enormous
    	amount of time trying to get a good picture of it, which can be a
    	real trick in an environment where they don't allow camera lights
    	at all.)
    
    	The statue was hundreds of years old, as I recall, and featured
    	an exceptionally muscular naked man cradling a naked infant in his
    	arms (and smiling broadly into the infant's face with more love
    	than I'd ever seen portrayed in a statue of a man before.)
    
    	My son was a baby at the time, so it kinda rang a bell with me (to
    	see the kind of love a parent feels for a baby or a child portrayed
    	in a statue,) but what really impressed me was to see a statue of 
    	this huge muscular man just **completely and totally engrossed** in an
    	interaction with a tiny infant.
    
    	It wasn't that I didn't think men got that involved in communicating
    	with their own newborns or anything.  I just couldn't remember ever
    	having seen it *portrayed* in that particular way before.
    
    	At any rate, I did get a fairly decent photo of it, and it's in my
    	Europe albums (along with the zillions of photos of my own baby in
    	and around all the great sights we saw in Europe.)
    
    	Although the man in the statue is fully naked (and, um, anatomically
    	correct, as they say :-)) -- it seems *sensual*, but not *sexual*,
    	if you know what I mean.
    
    	Babies *are* people that are request and offer an exceptional amount
    	of touching, so they are "sensual" in a similar sense that cats are
    	sensual.  Touching and visible skin can be sensual without being
    	sexual, right?
    
    	Perhaps our culture is so inundated with *sexual* images that it's
    	hard to separate sexual from sensual images sometimes.
    
    	By the way, I believe there is a poster of John Elway (Denver Broncos
    	quarterback) where he is wearing slacks but no shirt while carrying 
    	one of his babies.  I've only seen it once, but it's a pretty picture, 
    	as I recall.  

           <<< Note 13.462 by SYSENG::BITTLE "the learning years" >>>
                                 -< L'enfant >-

>            There's a poster for sale in the Harvard Coop in Cambridge
>            entitled "L'Enfant", which shows a handsome, naked from the
>            waist-up, man holding a naked infant in a reclining
>            position.  I thought it well-presented; the photographer
>            captured much love and warmth.  I also thought it erotic.

From your description, it sounds like the same picture they used in a Kodak
ad a few years ago.  I saw the picture in a magazine, of this man looking
at his baby, and fell in love.  Who knows why?  But I had the picture of him
up on the wall next to my bed for years, right there next to Patrice 
Donnely and The Soloflex guy.  (You know, the "no pain, no gain" guy - but 
I got bored of him sooner than the Baby Guy.)  :-)  So he was in good 
company!  (Does anyone else remember Patrice Donnolley, the heroine of 
"Personal Best"?  I got a picture of her of the cover of "Women'S Sports".
Worshipped her for years.)

D!

    I don't remember Patrice Donnely in particular, but I had Gayle
    Oleinkava, the Canadian Olympian, posted above my desk for years.
    That woman has muscles on muscles -- powerful, graceful, and very
    feminine.  Or maybe it's female.
    
    Anyway, I wish I could look like that.  
    
    --bonnie

    um, could we take this to someplace other than the 'sexism is alive
    and well' note, if people want to continue the conversation..
    
    huh, please?
    
    Bonnie

    Doesn't this string belong in the next topic ?

   I have a couple more bank stories to add to the long list.  I'm not sure 
which made me more furious.  My husband and I have a joint account, both of our 
names are on the checks.


personal affront:

Bank #1:  Small bank (the only bank in town) where I grew up.  I sent a check
(signed by me) for contribution to *my* grandmother's memorial fund that is 
donated to the high school library that is named for *my* father.  I added 
a little note that I signed with my maiden name.  The receipt was sent to 

			   RICHARD MINER

(Whoever sent the note probably knows me, but does not know Richard!)


financial "power" affront

Bank #2:  from a large, powerful bank chain in a metropolitan area.  My husband
 has been "gleefully unemployed" since we moved to Massachusetts.  I wrote a 
letter to the bank explaining why I thought our credit card limit should be 
raised; I included a copy of *my* pay stubb and filled out the form without 
mentioning Richard at all.  I signed both the application form and the letter.
The reply was addressed to

			Mr. Richard Miner   

The letter said

"Dear Sir    We are delighted to raise your credit rating based on the inform-
ation you have given us . . .  blah blah blah."  -- they didn't even send it 
to Barbara and Richard, the way our account is listed (and the way the bills
come!).


   What makes me really want to cry is that chances are these letters are 
processed and mailed by women.


Barbara, who feel invisible

    
    I guess it's kind of ironic that I received this letter the same day
    I registered in this notesfile....
    
    I'm the controller for a college radio station in the Boston area.  I
    received a letter from a technical equipment company that was addressed
    "Attn: Lisa Galloway (sic)"
    
    How did it start off?
    
    "Dear Sir:"
    
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Lisa

    Re: .469
    
    Yup, same thing happened to me when I bought a car recently.
    The dealer sent a thank-you letter addressed to Mr. Susan Leavitt;
    I assumed it was just a slip of the finger, but the salutation on
    the letter was the same.  Guess they just find it difficult to
    believe a female might actually buy a car on her very own....
    

    I think the salutation thing is completely overrated.  Mrs, Miss,
    Ms, Mr.
    
    I taught grade school in an Indian village for a year.  These students
    had never had a male teacher previously and had been taught to call
    the teacher "Miss".  I don't remember if I made any effort to correct
    them, but it sure wasn't much and didn't last long.  The class material
    and their enthusiasm was more important than distracting them by
    objections that "Miss" means an unmarried female and shouldn't be
    used for me.  They meant no disrespect.  In fact they meant to be
    respectful, and did show me considerable respect.  Actually, the
    other teacher overheard it one day and she came in, interrupting my 
    class, to correct them.  
    
    I have also gotten letters addressed to Ms... One was last week.
    I don't recall what it was other than that it was something which
    probably would be sent mostly to women, and I wondered how they got
    my name.  It really isn't a big deal.  And the error does happen each 
    way.  So I wont ask if you've ever heard of a woman named...
    
    Bud

    Having a name like Dale, I expect these things to happen.  I went
    for a series of job interviews some time ago, with the same person,
    meeting his secretary each time.  I missed out on the job, and the
    thanks but we'll remember you letter arrived addressed to Mr, They
    still have a small piece of my mind... (^;          
                                                           
    I never use a salutation, and if somebody asks, I just tell them
    to put down whatever.  I really loathe being referred to as Mrs,
    Miss or Ms.  I'm Dale, nothing more, nothing less.  But, lookout
    if you've spoken to me, or know I'm a woman and still refer to me
    as Mr.  There are people in this building still sizzling..
    
    ...dale
        

    
    
    Pity they all don't read minds...
    
    How the hell are people supposed to know what the 
    politically correct title-of-the-day is?

    >How the hell are people supposed to know what the 
    >politically correct title-of-the-day is?
    
    
    I agree with Dale, I don't use one for myself, don't address friends
    with one, basically don't think they are needed. Unfortunately I have to
    use them at work addressing the outside world. But when in doubt of
    gender I use " Dear M. Lastname"
    
    But this belongs in another note...
    
    Gail

This came from a mailing list I'm on, so I'm not sure in what context
    he said it...but it is fairly telling...
    
    
"I listen to the feminists and all these radical gals -- most of them
are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but
they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the
bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they
need. Most of these feminists need a man to tell them what time of day
it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all
men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men -- that's their
problem."
 
	-Rev. Jerry Falwell
 

 Jody-

 Consider the source.

 The Doctah

    
    AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    
    There.
    
    I feel better.
    
    

    
    And just think of all those fine values being taught at Liberty
    University.
    
    Can you say College in a Vacuum?
    
    LisA

From today's Ann Landers column...

Dear Ann Landers:

I doubt this letter will ever get into print because it proves that you have
been giving the wrong advice.

For as long as I can remember, you have been telling women they are liberated,
to stand up for their rights and not put up with any man's garbage.  Many 
women have taken you seriously and ended up without a man.

Why do you think one out of two marriages in this country fails?  I'll 
tell you, i'ts because women are too bossy.  IN countries where the man is
boss, couples get married once and they stay married for 50 years.  Nature
has made men "macho" and macho men don't like women who push them around.

The men in this country are finally waking up.  The trend is to pass over
American women and send away for brieds from other countries.  These foriegn
women are gentle and sweet, and they know their place.  They were trained to
wait on men and so as they are told.

Times have changed, Ann.  You are 15 years behind in your advice. Open your
eyes and you will see single, available women everywhere you go.  They are
a dime a dozen at dances, nightclubs, parties, on cruises, in stores,
restaurants, etc., etc., all looking for men.

So instead of talking liberation, you'd better change your tune and tell
American women to be sweet and pleasant and to know their places or they will
end up single.
						MACHO IN CALIFORNIA

[to which Ann replies...]

There are worse things than ending up single. One that comes to mind is
being married to a case of arrested development like you.

Those "sweet and gentle" young girls from foreign lands who "know their
place" are almost always so desperately poor that marriage to anyone in the
United States assures them of a better life than they have.

You can be sure that men who marry mail-order brides have been turned down 
more times than an Amry blanket. So get your checkbook out, buster, and 
don't forget to ask for a photo. It's the way to go when you can't
compete on a level playing field.

[I have trouble beliving that this guy isn't just having fun jerking
Ann's chain. While I am sure there are men who really feel this way, the
letter is so full of cliche's that it can't be for real.  I mean, I have
never even heard themost chauvanistic of men use the phrase "Know her
place".]

    D! you've led a sheltered life :-)
    
    guys like that do really exist.
    
    Bonnie

>    D! you've led a sheltered life :-)
>    
>    guys like that do really exist.
 
I didn't say I didn't think they existed. I know they do. I said I was
incredulous that that *particular* letter was from one of those men, because
the tone and phrasing was so stereotypical that it almost seems like a 
parody of the "macho" stereotype.  I doubt that a genuine macho-twit could
have fit the stereotype so well if he had tried!  Sort of like if there
had been a letter from a radical feminist saying "All men are evil.
We should find a way to reproduce without them and kill them all.  Women
are the true rulers of the universe and divine."  Sure, there may be
rad-fems who feel this way, but I doubt they would write a letter in just
that way.

On the other hand, stereotypes do originate somewhere, so I guess some
people somewhere must fit it.

At any rate, I thought it was disgusting.

(I meant to cut out a letter to the editor in the Globe about a month ago
that said basically the same thing, and that it was "God's will".  That
one sounded a lot more realistic [ie; I think the guy believed what he was
writing] and for that reason was a lot scarier.)

D!

    FWIW,  I saw that same article this morning, and I clipped it and it's 
    at my desk right now.  I also first thought it was a joke, but then I
    thought about it, because there are more people around who believe this
    than one might think.  Maybe not here is Mass., but in the deep South
    it's probably more common.
    
    I still think it's joke, but at the same time it's kind of scary.
    
    Lisa

    re: the God's will article
    
    I'm not sure if this is the article you're thinking of, but it is a
    letter to the editor that I clipped from the Boston Globe and hung
    outside my office.
    
    BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT
    
    If every man and woman who didn't want to have a baby, would keep his
    or her pants on, there would be no need for Fred Niemann to worry about
    abortion (Letter to the Editor, Aug. 11).
    
    Also, there would be no such thing as an "unwanted pregnancy".
    
    Women, worthy of being called women, should rejoice at becoming
    pregnant.  A woman's body was created different from a man's solely for
    the purpose of bringing new life into the world and nuturing it until
    the child is able to take care of itself.
    
    When modern women realize the purpose of their existence, life in this 
    world might return to a normal.
    
    Women have a role in this life; they cannot expect to take over the
    man's role.  My mother was always home!  God bless her!
    
    XXXXXXX XXXXXXX
    Norwood (name deleted by me)
    
    
    And I just thought of somewhere that one can read all sorts of
    ultra-conservative "literature".  The Manchester Union Leader, in NH.
    What is truly scary about this newspaper is that as of 2-3 years ago
    (I'm not sure if it's still the case) this was the ONLY newspaper that
    was distributed throughout the entire state.  All the other newspapers
    were local.
    
    Lisa

Thanks, Lisa.

Just wondering, why did you delete the name? (Since it was public in the
Globe anyway).

D!

    RE: .484
    
    I *love* the way he says a woman's body was created "different than
    a man's" -- as if the Male Body is the Human Standard. "OK, Dr. Grontz,
    we've got the Basic Body correct. Now we have to modify it to
    accomodate birthing. Igor, the Toolkit!"
    
    Egad.
    
    --DE
    

    I received an irate phone call _LATE_ last night from the husband of a
    friend.
    
    I took a very dear friend 'out' this past weekend to try to cheer her
    up [the husband is not the source of her depression, btw].  We had a
    lovely lunch and wandered around Tower Records and the MFA and window
    shopped on Newbury Street [oh yeah, we were in Boston]. Just a couple
    of women doing stuff with no real goal in mind other than the
    proverbial 'nice day.'
    
    On a whim, and because it was there, we went in and did some serious
    lingerie shopping -- something that rarely fails to cheer _me_ up so it
    was worth a shot -- and I convinced her that she really is worth a lot
    more than a silk and lace camisole and tap pants, but what the heck
    they'd do for a start.
    
    The problem? The midnight phone call?
    
    The husband ["and I thought we were really friends, Annie..."] is now
    convinced that I'm aiding and abetting this woman in some sort of dress
    for amourous success endeavour.
    
    The inferrence here is that women wear pretty/soft underwear for men. 
    Never for themselves. Period.
    
    ARRRGH!!!
    
    [Am I the only one who thinks that the skin it spends the most time next
    to is attached to is the person for whom it was purchased?]

>    The inferrence here is that women wear pretty/soft underwear for men. 
>    Never for themselves. Period.

	 I wear clothes for ME...and ME only....period.  Lingerie
	 included.
    
>    [Am I the only one who thinks that the skin it spends the most time next
>    to is attached to is the person for whom it was purchased?]

	 No you aren't the only one....and if I was in your place, I
	 would have made it very clear to him......at midnight, that
	 he was a little off.

	 kath

>    The husband ["and I thought we were really friends, Annie..."] is now
>    convinced that I'm aiding and abetting this woman in some sort of dress
>    for amourous success endeavour.

 What, did he think that she was out for some extra-curricular activities?
If the amourous activities were going to be with him, what's his problem?

>    The inferrence here is that women wear pretty/soft underwear for men. 
>    Never for themselves. Period.

 Well, I certainly hope this isn't the case. Otherwise my teenagers have some
explaining to do. :-) <== don't miss the smiley face

 the Doctah

>    The inferrence here is that women wear pretty/soft underwear for men. 
>    Never for themselves. Period.

Nope.  I wear it because it looks/feels nice and makes me feel pretty/sexy.
Course it doesn't hurt that he likes it too, and if he didn't, the "pretty/
sexy" feeling probably would fade pretty quick.

I mean, silk against the skin feels *sooo* luxurious!  (I have been thinking
about hinting to my SO that the silk thigh-length robe at Victoria's
Secret would be a simply *wonderful* Christmas gift.  "That's royal blue
in size medium, honey...")

D!

    I love wearing new and sexy underwear... it makes me feel good just
    for me. (Esp since I've lost a lot of weight and have to buy new
    stuff). It also makes me feel extra special around other people,
    even if they'll never know.
    
    :-)
    
    Bonnie

 My wife likes her silk nighty because it's lined with cotton and is warm even
when it's cold out. And the baby likes the silky feeling on her face when she's 
tired.

 The Doctah

    Re: .492
    
    Doctah... I discovered that sort of nighty last year when my dad
    bought me two of them.. this year, I've gotten one that looks like a
    mans shirt...  its my favorite now...
    
    Its the neatest feeling - I think a good advertising ad would be
    "Flannel for her warmth, silk for him" :-)
    
    G

    I think I know that fabric.
    
    						Ann B.

    re:.486
    
    Well, in a sense, the clown is right. The structure of a woman's
    body *is* optimized for being a baby machine, whereas I don't see
    that a man's body is designed to be optimal for any specific purpose.
    
    The real point, however, is "So what?" Just because it's designed
    that way doesn't mean it *has* to be used for that, and only that,
    purpose.
    
    One of the "side effects" of our superior intelligence is that we
    can overcome the physical limitations of our bodies and do things
    that we weren't optimally designed to do, like swim underwater for
    extended periods of time, or climb sheer cliff faces, or fly. All
    this by using our intelligence to create tools to help us overcome
    these limitations.
    
    And if our intelligence can help us do what we aren't designed to
    do, why can't it be used to not do the things we *are* designed
    to do?
    
    --- jerry

    RE: .495
    
    Yes, Jerry, he's right. It's a fact that women's bodies accomodate
    birthing. The problem I have with his statement of the facts (never
    mind the rest of the garbage he spewed) is the totally andocentric
    view. That man's body was created, right? And then woman's was
    modified, somehow. (Sure, we can add air conditioning, but it'll *cost*
    ya.)
    
    It's that "everything comes from the male" view that spawned (pun
    intended)  the "Adam was a Rough Draft" saying. 
    
    Gimme a break. Your DNA does it *for* ya. You don't start out with 
    a male body, which undergoes massive changes to come out female! This
    guy is obviously working with a picture of God in the Garden playing
    with Cosmic Plasticine  - taking a rib from Adam, and all that...
    ptooey.
    
    BTW - great point about using our intelligence and abilities to make
    decisions about what we do and so forth.
    
    --DE
    

    BTW, the author of that lovely letter to the editor was Bertrand
    Shannon, for those inquiring minds that need to know.
    
    Lisa

    in re previous esp .496
    
    actually embryologically all fetuses look female and are structured
    as female (gonads high in the abdomen, folds in the groin area)
    untill aprox 4 mos embryological development..
    
    so one might as easily say that the female is the basic plan
    and the male is a variation on the theme..
    
    also there are examples of animals that are all female and 
    survive (some insects and a species of lizard) but none that
    are all male and continute to reproduce.
    
    Bonnie

    
    re: .480
    
    	I think that was written by a guy in my group who claims the
    	exact same thing.
    
    	Carla
    

    I'm not entirely sure this is the most appropriate place for
    this...I'll move it if indicated.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    From the "Managing" column in the EE Times, in which the CEO of Intel,
    Andrew Grove, responds to readers questions:

    Q.  Two years ago my wife took a job in a field new to her and has
    enjoyed tremendous success.  I have been thrilled by her success and
    the pleasure it has given her.
    	However, I have been bothered by the fact that her company ignores
    and excludes me--her spouse. For instance, the company consistently
    addresses communications to my wife as well as other female employees
    as "Ms." rather than "Mrs." even though they know she is married.
    	More importantly, she has been awarded a trip to company
    headquarters because of her outstanding productivity.  While this trip
    was described as a reward, it was also billed as a business trip, and
    spouses were to be left home.  Yet the trip included social activities,
    like a cocktail party and a dinner.
    	As an excluded spouse, I was both angered and hurt.  I am not
    really familiar with the standards of corporate life and I would like
    to know if this is in line with normal practice.

    A.	[Yes it's normal.  If spouses were invited, it would no longer be a
    business trip]
    	When it comes to how to properly address communications to women, I
    have to admit to being as confused as the next person.

    
    
    Maggie, when I read that, except for the Ms. part, I kinda feel for the
    man. It seems that he has this image of corporate jet-setting and it
    isn't happening. Fact is, it seems that the company itself is obviously
    NOT practicing any noticeable sexism, and should be applauded. Tell me
    they're on solid financial ground and don't have a wage and/or hiring
    freeze, and I might send my...
    
    

...on BCN and, worse, their listening (or at least calling) audience.

On the BCN morning show this morning ("The Big Mattress") they were discussing
the 'fact' that Cher always seems to be dating rock stars.  (Specifically,
she is currently pregnant with one of Bon Jovi's musicians' baby.)  (They
actually only mentioned three 'Rock Stars', so I am not sure where they get
this from, but then I have never been one ot follow celebrities lives, so
I sure dunno.)

Anyway, the Big Mattress Question of the Day was "Is Cher a slut, or is she
just a hopeless romantic."  

And every man who called in, each and every one of them (rough guess at 15)
that they played on the air said "She's a slut".  (Every woman, about 4 of
them, said "She's not a slut" but didn't choose the "romantic" option.  One
woman said something like "Cher is a mature woman with the right to choose
her lovers however she wishes, and she has the success and the money to be
able to do what she wants." which is basically what *I* would have said.
I was in my car or I would have called.)

I was *burning* the whole way to work.

D! (an honorary Macho Slut, complete with button to prove it!)

>                       -<  Is Cher a virgin or a whore? >-



         It all goes back to the saying, "If a man 'sleeps around',
         he's macho, and if a woman 'sleeps around', she's a slut."



	 I find it infinitely amusing when I'm called a slut......I
	 didn't use to, but now I just attribute it to jealousy
	 (because it's usually WOMEN that call other women sluts.)


	 kath

    
    re .503:
    
>	 I find it infinitely amusing when I'm called a slut......I
>	 didn't use to, but now I just attribute it to jealousy
>	 (because it's usually WOMEN that call other women sluts.)
    
    Oh really?  D! told us it was just the *opposite* on BCN, Kath.
    Read it again from .502:


>Anyway, the Big Mattress Question of the Day was "Is Cher a slut, or is she
>just a hopeless romantic."  

>And every man who called in, each and every one of them (rough guess at 15)
>that they played on the air said "She's a slut".  (Every woman, about 4 of
>them, said "She's not a slut" but didn't choose the "romantic" option. 
    
    Care to back up *your* assertion?
    
    
    

       <<< Note 13.504 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice" >>>

>>And every man who called in, each and every one of them (rough guess at 15)
>>that they played on the air said "She's a slut".  (Every woman, about 4 of
>>them, said "She's not a slut" but didn't choose the "romantic" option. 
    
>    Care to back up *your* assertion?
 
Was this to Kath, or to me?  If it was to me, I wasn't making any assertion,
I was just relaying what I heard on the radio (and I am sure some other
people heard it.)

If it was to Kath, I'll make an assertion *now* that I think she is right,
in general I have heard more women use the term than men.  Because of hte
"joking" tone of the question on BCN, and because of the famousness/
attractiveness of the person in question (I, for one, find Cher attractive)
the BCN matter doesn't provide a good sample.  I think in this case most
of the guys thought it would be "amusing" to publically insult a woman
they couldn't get in a million years.  

Cher's case isn't what is traditionally called slutiness.  Certainly
serial monogamy (which is basically what the were saying she was doing,
listin goff her lovers like that) is not frowned upon, generally.  I think
the term "slut" is *usually* applied to mean the woman is indiscriminate
in her tastes, sleeps with many men for short periods of time, etc.
And when it is used that way, whether accurate or not, in my experience
it is more often women using it than men.

Granted, it could be that men have avoided using the term around me
for fear (justified) that I would find it offensive.

D!

    re - GUGEL - "you got it backwards"
    
    Nah.  I'd venture a guess that Kathy was expressing her own opinions
    and talking about her own experiences.  She DID write (emphasis mine)
    "*I* find it infinitely amusing when *I'm* called a slut".  When this
    got back to her, the source of the accusation was more than likely of 
    the female gender.
    
    Right or wrong, Kath?
    
    As for my own experiences, the majority of my female acquaintances have
    called Cher (and other provocatively dressed women) a slut.  The majority 
    of my male aquaintances just wiggled their eyebrows and sighed deeply.
    
    So what?
    
    Carol

>       <<< Note 13.504 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice" >>>
    
>    Oh really?  D! told us it was just the *opposite* on BCN, Kath.
>    Read it again from .502:

         I read it...I know what it said....(it said that the women
         were saying she wasn't.
	 
>>And every man who called in, each and every one of them (rough guess at 15)
>>that they played on the air said "She's a slut".  (Every woman, about 4 of
>>them, said "She's not a slut" but didn't choose the "romantic" option. 

	 She's not a slut.........but didn't choose the other option.
	 (And only 4 women.......)
	     
>    Care to back up *your* assertion?

	 I know something must be wrong with me because I keep reading
	 sarcasm into almost everything that is written to me in this
	 conference.

	 Anyway......actually, my note would have been much clearer if
	 I had stated it "it's more oft than not that women are the
	 ones that call me a slut and not men."

	 Because I really have no right to generalize about all women.


         Anyway.......if I had a penny for the number of times I've
         had women be nice to me to my face, and say wonderful things
         while talking about men, then watched them turn around and
         spread around what kind of slut I am....I would be RICH!!!!
	 
         I don't believe I've ever heard from a man that I was
         slut...but from women?  Quite often, in actuality.  In fact,
         even from people in this notesfile, I know of at least two
         instances that it has happened since I've been with Digital
	 (2 years).

	 It used to bother me...it no longer does.  	    
    

	 In other words...my personal experience contradicts the
	 survey on BCN.  And I've also found that people say one thing
	 in public and the total opposite in private when they think
	 someone else isn't listening.


	 kath    

    re .505:
    
    No, the question was to Kath, but thanks for supplying more data.
    
    re .508:
    
    Thanks for the answer about your previous reply - it seemed to
    contradict D!'s previous reply, and I don't know anything about
    this area because I have no experience with either 1) being
    called a "slut", or 2) calling someone else a "slut".
    
    

    
    re .509:
    
>    Thanks for the answer about your previous reply - it seemed to
>    contradict D!'s previous reply, and I don't know anything about
>    this area because I have no experience with either 1) being
>    called a "slut", or 2) calling someone else a "slut".


	 It did contradict the ideas expressed by the survey.... ;-)


	 As for being called a slut....I think I've decided it's a
	 hazard of being outgoing and dressing 'sexy'...............   


	 kath

    
    Cher really bugs me and so does Madonna, Jody Watley, Paula Abdul, and
    any of the other female artist who wear very revealing clothes and get
    all made up.
    
    I wouldn't call them a slut in their personal lives, but I just don't
    like the image they promote, especially Madonna.  People look at them
    and say "Wow, they are attractive" and the attractiveness get linked
    with the lack of clothes and the make up and the big hair.
    
    One of the most attractive artists to me is Sinead O'Connor.  She has
    her head shaved completely bald, and just wears junky clothes.  But her
    face is really beautiful and she has a very powerful voice.  Its very
    natural type of beauty and you don't need the right clothes or big
    hair or a good make up man.  It's much less phony.
    
    I think that Cher should stick to films because she really does have
    acting talent, and often her roles don't require her to be all made 
    up. I don't really find anything distinguished about her music. MHO.
    
    And as a final comment, yes women are very prone to calling other
    people sluts, and I think that the men who called her slut probably did
    so because of her provacative public image.   
    
    Lisa
    My .02
    

    Do we have a comparable word in English that conveys the same meaning
    about men? Just wondering...

    My grandmother used to use the term "rounder", meaning basically a
    man who was totally non-selective sexually.  Connotation seemed to
    indicate that said person had no self-respect, was unfit for polite
    society (whatever that is), and thought with his gonads.  I never
    heard anyone else use this term.
    
    I believe "randy" means something similar in Britain?

    Could any further discussion please be moved to some other string?
    Thanks.
    
    						=maggie

The WBCN morning show can be very offensive.  Last year they were running a 
"joke" where they would say something like "AIDS prevention tip number 7" and 
give a "tip".  The tip I heard was "Before you attack her, wrap your wacker".

I should have written a letter but I didn't.  

-- Nisha

   
Now I know some things are sacred, but...on Christmas Eve I was watching
the Muppet Christmas Eve Special on TV, and enjoying it immensely, and I got 
to thinking about the muppets, and Sesame Street, how both my kids learned
their alphabet and numbers from that wonderful show, and about all the
lovable furry Sesame Street creatures, and suddenly something dawned on me
about those lovable furry creatures: 

They're all boys.

At least all the main ones are, or at least I think they are, or used to
be. I know I've seen girl muppets in some of the secondary skits, but
they're not among the "first string" muppets; and then of course there's
Miss Piggy, but she's not actually on Sesame Street; and there are also
Maria and Susan and maybe some other human women, but they're not muppets. 

As I recall, the "first-string" muppets include:

Kermit

Cookie Monster

Grover

The Count

Big Bird

Mr. Snuffleupagus

Bert

Ernie

Oscar 

Biff

Sully

Telly Monster


Have I missed something? Did I leave anybody out? Am I wrong, or *are*
they all male? (Or -- in some cases -- if evidence is lacking that they're 
one sex or the other, do we just *assume* they're male?) 

I guess what I'm wondering is, when you get a group of highly creative and
talented artists together and ask them to express, with humor and
affection, the various foibles and idiosyncrasies of humankind -- childlike
innocence, perennial grouchiness, compulsive number-obsession, hankering
for sweets, etc. etc. -- in the form of lovable furry creatures to whom
children will readily relate, what does it mean when each and every one of
those creatures is made male? Could it be that we consider human beings
*male by default*, so implicitly that we all just take this for granted,
never even questioning it? Do we all accept so readily that the Human Norm
is Male, and that the Female is forever the Other? 

What if, for example, instead of (or in addition to) Bert and Ernie, Sesame
Street featured a pair of roommates called Beth and Annie, Beth the
practical joker, Annie the literal-minded keeper of pigeons? Or if Big Bird
had a large imaginary friend named Susie Snuffleupagus? Is there any
inherent reason why such characters wouldn't work? 

Don't get me wrong. I love Sesame Street. I think it's probably the best 
show on TV. I only wish Jim Hensen (sp?) had created it with both eyes 
open instead of only half of them open. It could have been that much 
better...

Dorian

    
    	I've never realized this before, but you're right, Dorian.  The
    	only female Muppet character I can even think of is the blonde,
    	long-haired singer whose name I can't remember at the moment.
    
    	Carla
    

    ...and the "ideal woman", Miss Piggy, of course!
    
    - who only thinks about appearance
    - who dotes on Kermit, who hates her
    - who is self-centered and bitchy 

re: .517 (Dorian Kottler)

>  and suddenly something dawned on me about those lovable furry creatures: 

>  They're all boys.

Wow, Dorian, thanks for enlightening me as to why, when I worked at Disney
World in high school as a character (a.k.a., a member of the Zoo Crew)
that both adults and children *always* assumed there was a male inside the
costume !  Characters are not allowed to speak, so there was nothing I
could do to have them realize that there was a female inside.  I could 
understand it when I was "Doc" (a dwarf) or "Tweedle-Dee", but less when
I was the Easter Bunny.  A female friend I worked with who had a more 
asexual role (a fox) was also referred to as "him".

> Do we all accept so readily that the Human Norm is Male, and that the 
> Female is forever the Other? 

Yep.  Or that the Female is the Exception to the Norm.  First example that
comes to mind is how women are treated by the medical research community.

							nancy b.

    First, an aside. Jim Hensen did not "create" Sesame Street, and hasn't
    been part of it for MANY years. The MUPPET stuff he has done since is
    commercial television, not associated with the Children's Television
    Workshop.
    
    But the basic point about the muppet characters on S.S. seems right, at
    least regarding the original characters. One the other hand, it seems
    to me they do a good job with the humans. That is, there seems to be
    little if any sex stereotyping among the kids, and the women have jobs
    and talents fully comparable to the men's. As to the perceived maleness
    of the androgonous muppet characters, I can't now remember if they
    (some) are given male voices. On the other hand the shy turtle is
    voiceless, and I think is called Shelly, yet seems quite male to me;
    maybe this is my (our) own unconscious default.
    
    Other things on S.S. have baffled me. For example, they used to have a
    "mad scientist" character and set of sketches that reinforced all the
    most negative/mindless popular stereotypes and prejudices about
    scientists and engineers, thus undercutting what CTW was trying to do
    in some other shows, like 3-2-1-Contact. I don't think I've seen these
    for awhile; maybe they reached the same conclusion as me.
    
    Finally, my (non-)perception of possible sex-bias in the muppet
    characters has doubtless been shaped by the fact that I have watched it
    almost exclusively with two boys. I'll have to think of this question
    when I watch (and listen) next time.

Well, they're not ALL boys.  There's Prairie Dawn, who most often ends up
being the only intelligent and rational character in the situations she
participates in.  Another is Rodeo Rosie, though she doesn't appear too often.

I do agree that there seems to be an imbalance.  When the Muppet Babies
cartoon series was spun off from the dream sequence in "The Muppets Take
Manhattan", they had to invent Skeeter, Scooter's sister, to keep the
cast from being all male except for Piggy.

Do keep in mind, though, that as far as Sesame Street is concerned, it's
CTW that really determines the cast, not Henson.  And the show itself does
appear to try to combat sexism in its scripts and themes, though I agree
the cast could stand a bit of a change.  The newest character, Preston
Rabbit, is also male.

				Steve

    I always thought Big Bird was female. (If s/he is, than another female
    puppet (Miss Piggy is the oher) is portrayed as a simpleton.)
    
    Maybe that says something more about my own perceptions than anything
    else!
    
    Bruce

    re .521 -
    
    It's hard to think of them as androgynous if they have male names
    -- Bert, Ernie, Oscar, Grover, Mr. Snuff.  ...

Re: .523

Big Bird is often referred to as male in the show.

And please note, everyone, that the ONLY Muppet character that appears both
on Sesame Street and in the other Henson Muppet productions is Kermit.
Miss Piggy doesn't count and neither does Janice (the singer).

			Steve

In addition to Prairie Dawn and the "cowgirl", there is also Snuffy's mother,
grandmother, and sister Alice.  I, too, have noticed the lack of female
muppets. 

I like Sesame Street a LOT.  However, it bothers me when they sing:
"One of these kids is doing his own thing" when the kid doing "his" own
thing is a girl.  They also refer to ants and bees as male.  Get it right,
Sesame Street folks!

          Carol

    The original characters (who I think were Grover, Cookie, Ernie, Bert,
    Oscar and big Bird) may not have been intentionally-male-hey-let's
    leave-out-the-females.  I think they had only 2 men designing and
    working and voicing for the muppets, so maybe that precluded a female
    until the creation of The Muppet Show....?
    
    -Jody
    

    Good point, Jody.  Jim Henson and Frank Oz did almost all the
    characters except for Big Bird and Oscar who are both portrayed by
    Carol Spinney (a man).
    
    			Steve

       In addition to the female muppets mentioned there are Meryl Sheep,
    the cow and Grungetta.  I'd certainly hadn't thought about the lack of
    leading female muppets before, but they could use some more lead female
    muppets.  Thanks for opening my eyes.
    
    Tony

	Last night I taped a special on ESPN called "Unstoppable Women of 
	Sports".  I expected to see profiles of female athletes who have
	excelled in their sport (like the swimmer Janet Evans, or Jackie
	Joyner-Kersee, or Florence Griffith Joyner, or high jumper Louise
	Ritter, etc...), or perhaps women who have overcome obstacles in
	order to participate in sports.  Real athletes.

	Instead, it was more like a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue in
	motion.  Lots of beach scenes showing the female "athlete" with 
	large breasts in a skimpy bikini bouncing around or lifting weights
	in very revealing exercise-wear and perfect make-up.  They finally
	showed the name of the "athlete" on the right side of the screen at
	the *end* of the profile while she posed seductively on the left.
	At the beginning of the profile, one "athlete" appeared lying on 
	her back in the sand.  As the water washed over her body, she turned
	over (camera zoomed on her breasts) and started talking about how 
	she's resolved femininity with weight-lifting (and I thought she had
	wimpy biceps for a weight-lifter).  No mention was ever made of her
	accomplishments (if any).  	

	How dare they show that program with the title "Unstoppable Women
	of Sports" !!?!!  

	Throwing a pillow at the TV was somewhat cathartic.  

	Writing a letter would be more effective.  
	Heck, I'm already sending one nastygram to "Computer Shopper" 
	magazine about this month's cover; might as well make it 2 nastygrams.  
	Does anyone know the address of ESPN?

								nancy b.

    re .527, 528 - 
    
    Since Frank Oz also does Miss Piggy, it's hard to see the relevance
    of the sex of the muppet to the sex of the muppeteer!
    
    Also, I for one am not claiming that the initial plan on SS was
    *intentionally* "male-hey-let's-leave-out-the-females." What I am
    suggesting is that it may not even have occurred to anybody to make
    at least some of the main muppets female, because everybody just auto-
    matically figured they'd be made male by default, that this would be
    the "normal" thing to do when you're making them reflect generic, 
    human attributes.
    
    Dorian

>	Does anyone know the address of ESPN?

 Yeah- I've got it somewhere.

 The  Doctah

    How about the commercial I saw this morning on NBC ("Today") for
    Bisquik where a wife apologetically asks her husband if he remembers
    the pancakes from the previous day.  Without looking up from the sports
    section he grumbles "How could I forget;they're still sitting right
    here!".  "Well", she says, "I think your going to like these much
    better!.  They're light and fluffy, just the way you like them!".
    "I think I love you," he responds.
    
    If he doesn't like the way she makes pancakes why doesn't he get off
    his lazy butt and make his own damn breakfast!.
    
    Tom

    
    re: sesame street
    
    from the 'for what it's worth' department, the sexist slant on
    sesame street was pointed out as early as 1972 in 'ms.' magazine,
    et al.
    
    i don't know whether i should be more upset that nothing has changed
    or that i can remember life before sesame street...
    

 
From "In These Times", Dec 20 issue, reproduced without permission,
received from a USENET newsgroup:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Abandon your stereotype of the computer industry as an enclave for binomial
nerds.  According to Infoworld, a microcomputer magazine, fewer companies than
in previous years used sparsely clad women to entice customers into their
booths at Comdex, an annual computer trade show.  One exception was the
Japanese firm Fujitsu.  Alice LaPlante reports, "With an Arabian Nights theme,
more than 1,000 Fujitsu guests were treated to a lavish spread of food and
drink as well as live entertainment that included magicians, sword swallowers
and belly dancers.  Some members of the audience were astonished by the
spectacle of a turban-clad Fujitsu senior executive being carried around on a
golden throne by male minions as his `favorite' women danced suggestively in
front of him, but that was minor compared to what happened next.  A `harem' of
chained `slave girls' was brought in front of the crowd and `auctioned off' to
the crowd.  A horrified Fujitsu manager watching from offstage stopped the
auction, but not before two girls were `sold' and carried away kicking over the
shoulders of male attendants."
 
------------------------------
 

	The ad that really gets me is the one where the husband is sitting 
	at the breakfast table while his wife secretly watches him eat his 
	English muffin, so she can catch the delighted little-boy look on 
	his face when he gets to the big glob of butter in the middle.

	The husband, apparently, is too repressed to show such "un-manly"
	expressions in front of his wife, because Real Men Don't Delight
	in Eating Breakfast and have to hide their feelings from their
	wives, who in turn enable such behavior by standing behind their
	husbands getting totally orgasmic watching them eat breakfast.

	Carla

>	wives, who in turn enable such behavior by standing behind their
>	husbands getting totally orgasmic watching them eat breakfast.

 Wow! Maybe I should become a breakfast person. :-)

 The Doctah

	The text below is the body of the letter I sent to the managing
	editor of Computer Shopper magazine concerning the use of 
	sexist language on their January 1990 cover issue.  

	Permission is granted to anyone who wishes to use part or all
	of the text below in a similar letter.  Any feedback on choice
	of wording, etc., would appreciated (I'm not comfortable with
	the ending).

							nancy b.



          Dear Mr. Thomason:

          Two feature  titles on  the cover of your January 1990 issue con-
          tains language  that exhibits  a semantic  bias  exclusionary  of
          women.   The phrasing  used in these titles assign masculine gen-
          ders and  denotations to terms that should apply equally to women
          and men.  Seeing this  in a  computer magazine  surprised me,  as
          technical publications  have typically  been on  the forefront of
          eliminating the usage of sexist language.

          The titles I'm referring to are:

               1)  THE ONE MAN OFFICE
                   Computing the perils and payoffs of going it alone

               2)  BOYS!  BUILD YOUR OWN APPLE LASERWRITER!

          Since the  mid-1980's, linguists,  editors, textbook  publishers,
          and professional  and academic  groups have  recognized the  term
          "man" as  being a false generic - a term used of a class or group
                            _____________
          that is  not applicable  to all  the groups members.  While it is
          true that  dictionaries still  define the  word "man" or "Man" in
          both it's  narrow and broad definitions, the word that was once a
          synonym for  "human being"  is being transformed into a word that
          now means  "adult male  human being".  The continued use of "man"
          as a  generic delivers  a subliminal  message that reinforces the
          conception of  maleness as the default state of existence and fe-
          maleness as the exception, or the "other".

          The specific  context in  which you  used "man" as a generic also
          displays ignorance  of the fact that a large percentage of people
          starting small home businesses happen to be women.  
          A gender-neutral term such as "person" would be inclusive of your 
          entire audience.

          The second  cover title is worse yet because the term "boys" car-
          ries absolutely  no connotation of including both male and female
          readers.   The general  context of your usage of "boys"  perpetu-
          ates the  cultural inclination that boys are the ones who are en-
          couraged to  be able  to understand how things work, to be handy,
          to be  able to put together their own Apple Laserwriter.  I imag-
          ine some men become weary of being expected to know how something
          works, to  be able  to fix the car or plumbing, just because they
          are male. Destroying gender stereotypes can be just as liberating
          to men  as it is to women!  Referring to any gender at all in the
          second title above is absolutely unnecessary.


          As editor  of a  technical publication, the pursuit of clarity is
          undoubtably one of your primary concerns.  To continue using  the
          former connotation of a phrase or word whose meaning has  changed
          is both  imprecise and unclear.  The importance of language usage
          was mentioned in the latest Association for Humanistic Psychology
          Newsletter.   It states that "language not only reflects society,
          but helps  to shape it," and it also, "helps us think, but limits
          our thinking".

          Using gender-neutral  terms in  your publication  may seem like a
          very small  step in  a very  large issue.   However,  these small
          steps being  made in  all major  channels of  communication  will
          gradually result  in  modern  English  language  recognizing  our
          daughters as fully-participating members of society.



                                   Sincerely,




                                   Nancy Bittle
                                             

    
    
    	I tried to word .538 so as not to appear as a personal
    	affront to the editor against his maleness or anything, 
    	but more as a general problem that he could influence.  
                                    
    						nancy b.
    

    And you did a good job of it!  Copngrats.
    
    --bonnie

    re .531 
    
>    Since Frank Oz also does Miss Piggy, it's hard to see the relevance
>    of the sex of the muppet to the sex of the muppeteer!

	And she (Miss Piggy) is such a pushy, sex-on-the-brain, aggressive 
	female,	one would think she was a man.
    
>    What I am
>    suggesting is that it may not even have occurred to anybody to make
>    at least some of the main muppets female, because everybody just auto-
>    matically figured they'd be made male by default, that this would be
>    the "normal" thing to do when you're making them reflect generic, 
>    human attributes.
    
	Since he is the one that always does things for the betterment
	of man - where is the problem?

	About life before SS, Howdy Doody show had - Buffalo Bob, Howdy
	Doody, Clarabell and Princess Summerfallwinterspring, the lady
	with the puppets - one male one female, the Mouseketeers were
	equal (or close) male to female (except for the two adults, who
	were males and the cartoons).  When you look back the fifties
	had childrens shows that were not terrible as far as showing
	females in leading roles.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			My first hero was Princess Summerfallwinterspring
			I wish that she had been a true representation
			of one of the Native American cultures.

    Miss Piggy, when asked about her marital status quotes:

    One doesn't need to be married to have status.


    (New Woman Jan '90)

    The ESPN reply reminded me about this one. A few weeks back my SO
    and I were watching TV and he was flicking channels, he hit upon a
    female apparently doing aerobics. He of course stopped at the channel
    despite my protests that it was foolish fluff and we could do better.
    The woman finished a another "contestant" came on. One by one
    these woman came on doing less and less of something resembling
    aerobics until it deteriorated to looking like peep show gyrations.
    
    Then came the commercial break: "We'll be right back with Miss Fitness
    1989" (something to that effect).
    
    Fitness! I couldn't believe it, I grabbed the remote looked up the
    channel and found out it was ESPN, the sports channel. What we'd
    been watching had 0 to do with sports/fitness.
    
    We ended up watching the rest (it's his TV) and saw the Miss Fitness
    swim suit competition and evening gown competition. One of the "gowns"
    was a leather mini skirt with matching leather halter top. Not to
    be confused with the Olympics...
    
    This channel is geared to men, and a specific class at that, if
    I may generalize for a moment. Other programming includes tractor
    pulls, and assorted mud contests. Not to be confused with PBS...

    Gail

>    We ended up watching the rest (it's his TV) 

 I'm curious, (and I don't mean to pry into your private life so tell me to
buzz off if you think this is too personal) does this really make a difference?
If he owns all of the toys, does that mean he makes all of the rules? Maybe this
makes a difference if you are just roommates or are just living together. Hmmm.

>    This channel is geared to men, and a specific class at that,

 :-(

>Other programming includes tractor
>    pulls, and assorted mud contests. Not to be confused with PBS...

 Yeah- I know what you mean. On monday night I watched a cheerleading contest
with my eldest daughter (captain of her cheerleading team). Definitely geared
to beer swilling, flannel shirt wearing rednecks (with the Caterpillar baseball
caps). :-(

 And the dance team championships just before the cheerleading competition
musta been for these same yahoos, eh?

 Actually, I happen to watch a few shows on ESPN on saturday morning that
really appeal to we rednecks. One is about flyfishing, and is extremely 
informative. I watch this with the baby. :-) (Gotta get her into fishing, to
justify many father-daughter fishing trips as she grows up. :-)

 I personally feel that ESPN does a pretty fair job of presenting a variety of
sports related topics. I don't really watch very much of it (and tractor pulls
are hardly an exciting show for me). But I do notice a serious attempt to
show a diverse group of shows. I think that stating that ESPN is targeted 
towards a certain class of men is a rather harsh stance, regardless of your
personal views of a particular program. I believe they cater to many interests;
that their primary audience consists of men undoubtedly factors into their
choice of programming, but women are by no means ignored on ESPN.

 set face/nopout

 The Doctah

    RE: last couple
    
    Yes, ESPN does go rather too far into the fake-aerobics-t&a shows,
    HOWEVER, it is the *only* station - the ONLY station - on which you
    can also find women's basketball, women's tennis, and women's golf
    more than once in a season. It ain't much, but it's something.
    
    --DE
    

    Not to mention some 'legitimate' (gawd I hate that word)
    women's health & fitness shows, eg. the one with Cory
    Everson. And the bodybuilding, if that's your thing.
    
    The Saturday AM fishing shows redeem the network, as long
    as you can stand the ads for Sports Illustrated every
    10 minutes. ("Yes, folks, you subscription includes SI's
    annual swimsuit issue.")
    
    Dana
    
    PS, Doctah, some of us beer-swilling flannel-shirted 
    good-ole-boys wear Mack Diesel hats :-)
    
    PPS If you object to the programs, write to ESPN *and the
    sponsors of the shows*

    Okay, it's old, but -- last night I caught the video for "Simply
    Irresistable" on MTV.  Not content with a mere quartet of mannikins,
    Robert Plamer surrounds himself with some 16 or so women who are made
    up to be as identical as 16 people can be.
    
    Actually, it's a wonderfully ironic video.  He's surrounded by women
    who, despite the stark contrasts of their vivid makeup and clothing,
    are about as bland as you can get, and he's singing about a woman who's 
    "Simply Irresistable."
    
    I also saw the video for Paula Abdul's "Forever Your Girl," which
    includes some sequences of dressing up three little girls like that.  I
    did see something that made me feel better about it.  There was a clip
    of an interview with Paula Abdul describing how they came up with the
    concept for the video and she described it as "video cliches."  At
    least they intended satire.

	Thanks, Mark, for hunting down the following address:

		 ESPN
		 Kerwin Communications
		 6525 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 707
		 Hollywood, Ca
		 90028

	Maybe I should just create a mail-merge file where I just
	have to substitute the name and time of the offensive 
	broadcast as data lines and the rest of the nastygram
	text is already there.  

	re: .546 (Dana Charbonneau)

	>    Not to mention some 'legitimate' (gawd I hate that word)
	>    women's health & fitness shows, eg. the one with Cory
	>    Everson. And the bodybuilding, if that's your thing.
	 
	Gosh, Dana, I *like* Cory Everson's show!  Or perhaps my 
	standard of acceptability has been lowered from seeing so 
	many shows like (gag) "Unstoppable Women of Sports".

							nancy b.

    This is a toss-up between this note and "worst movies". The flick is
    "Always" , and has an excellent cast. "How bad could it be?" says I to
    myself. Well, I'll *tell* you - after a formfeed so as not to spoil it
    for those who care....
    
    
    
    Bleah!!!
    
    Not only do we have a woman who works for an airborne firefighters
    group normally wearing slacks and work shirts putting these guys
    totally over the *edge* when she wear (*gasp*) a *dress*...
    
    But then all the guys get to dance with her when she's all gussied up
    like this (tongues hanging out to approximately their ankles)...
    
    Not to mention that she's a pilot, right? But she *can't fly the plane
    properly* until (you'll love this)...
    
    Her boyfriend *dies*, and controls her as a "guardian angel" type deal.
    When *he* helps her, she fly the damn plane! When *he* finally "lets
    her go" she can have a relationship with one of the firefighters. I
    mean, this woman is being controlled by a *dead guy*!
    
    It was bad enough with *live* guys, now we have to be obedient to
    *dead* guys?!?!?!?
    
    Bad flick. Great cast. Baaaad flick.
    
    --DE
    

    Hmmm...  have you ever tried to fly a plane?... until you do, don't
    knock it... for her to fly the plane like she did, she had to be
    GREAT!... it took a lot for her to control and bring it in like she
    did...
    
    I cried with her as she pulled back on the yoke....  you had to look
    at the film from a pilots eyes, then you saw a different movie.
    
    Gale - JASP!
    
    
    (Just Another Student Pilot)

	re: 922.82 (Dorian Kottler)

	>   -- 'cause they know what sells.   Dead women,  it seems, 
	>  sell better in porn and advertising than they do in news stories.

	While in Montreal over Thanksgiving, I noticed a very unsettling
	(to me) advertisement, which reminded me of the Opium (?) perfume
	ad with the apparently dead woman in it.

	This advertisement was in the form of a billboard on the walls
	of several Montreal Metro subway stations that I rode through.  
	It showed a woman dressed totally in black, underwater, with 
	pasty white skin, and an expression on her face (eyes wide open)
	and positioning of her body that made her look "freshly" drowned.
	Beneath her was written "Noir et Black".

	The first time I saw it, a scene from Lethal Weapon 2 flashed
	through my mind:  towards the end after Mel Gibson was told that
	the same guy had killed both his wife and the woman he just had
	a brief fling with, Rika.  Mel Gibson is put in a straight 
	jacket, weighted, and thrown over the dock.  He frees himself of
	the straight jacket underwater only to turn around and see Rika
	"freshly drowned".  The dumbstruck expression on her face, pasty
	skin, and wide eyes were most similar to those of the woman in
	the ad in Montreal.  
							nancy b.

    I just  saw  an  ad for a used bike (in the bicycling notes file),
    which  said  "owned  by  a  girl,  maintained professionally". I'm
    afraid that I can't understand why the first half matters.

--David

    Re:  ESPN string
    
    But I *like* tractor pulls!  And monster truck races and the
    bodybuilding shows, too!  I often drink beer, too.  But I don't
    wear a hat.  Does this make me a beer-swilling flannel-shirted
    good-ole-girl?  Or does it mean I can't watch?
    
    I tried bodybuilding for a while but gave it up because it was too
    much work.  But I do love to watch those powerful women with their
    muscles rippling with oil -- so sleek and graceful.  Mmm.
    
    Maybe in another life.
    
    --bonnie 

 Bonnie-

 It's not "culchah" so you aren't supposed to admit to liking it lest you
appear to be politically incorrect (a pastime of mine. :-)

 The Doctah

    In re: .538 { letter to the Editor }
    
    I would like to vigorously quibble with one phrase, namely that "since
    the mid-1980s" gender-bias in language has been recognized as a
    problem. It goes back much farthur than that. In the early 1970s, I
    worked as a consultant on a project developing curriculum material for
    upper elementary grades. We were very conscious of the need for care in
    this area, both in what we wrote, and in material we incorporated from
    other authors. We did not particularly feel like pioneers. The course
    was called "People and Technology," not by accident. Several years
    earlier the same organization (EDC Social Studies, in Cambridge) had
    developed a fine course with the title "Man, a Course of Study"
    (universally known as MACOS). By the time I came around, this earlier
    title choice was recognized by all as somewhat of an embarassment. Thus
    "consciousness raising" on this issue dates back at least to 1970.
    
    	- Bruce
    

     Last Sunday, we took our 7-year-old boy to see the ISCA/Budweiser
    "World of Wheels" show at the Bayside Expo Centre (Boston, MA).
    
     We all enjoyed looking at the various show cars, hot rods, monster
    trucks, motor bikes and we even enjoyed the "special guest appearances"
    of Scott Bakula, Robocop, and The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
    
     As a souvenir of the day, we purchased a copy of the "World of Wheels
    Souvenir Program", a book consisting of pictures of the various cars
    and vehicles in the show.  I was a little perturbed (and surprised at
    my own discomfort!!) to find that almost every picture in the "Program"
    showed a semi-clad woman arranged artistically near the vehicle in
    question.  I was even more surprised to find (near the middle of the
    book) pictures of the decorative females captioned (on one page) "The
    Girls who..." and on the other page "The beauties who...".
    
     Time for a letter to ISCA, I guess, but I'm not at all sure how to
    phrase it!!
    
    						Nigel

          re: .556 (Nigel Conliffe)   -< Women on "Wheels" >-

          >  Time for a letter to ISCA, I guess, but I'm not at all sure
          >  how to phrase it!!

          Looking for something like this? :

          (This is what I would write if I had gone from what you
          described.  Feel free to use all or part or none of it, Nigel.)



          Dear Madame or Sir:

          [NOTE: It would be much better to call the ISCA to find out the
          name of the person who is responsible for producing the
          publication or at least someone responsible for advertising or
          ICSA's public relatins, and address the letter (and envelope) to
          their attention]

          On January 8, 1990, I took my 7-year-old son to see the
          ISCA/Budweiser "World of Wheels" show at the Bayside Expo Centre
          in Boston, MA.  We all enjoyed looking at the various show cars,
          hot rods, monster trucks, motor bikes, not to mention the special
          guest appearances" of Scott Bakula, Robocop, and The Teenage
          Mutant Ninja Turtles.  As a souvenir of the day, we purchased a
          copy of the "World of Wheels  Souvenir Program", a book
          consisting of pictures of the various cars and vehicles in the
          show.

          However, I was disturbed to see that just about every picture in
          the "World of Wheels Souvenir Program" showed a semi-clad woman
          arranged artistically near the vehicle in question.  Worse yet,
          near the middle of the  book were pictures of  females captioned
          (on one page) "The Girls who..." and on the other page "The
          beauties who...".   I am offended at this blatant dehumanization
          of women in your souvenir program.  Your program communicates a
          message to my son (and all others who saw the program) which
          screams, "Women are first and foremost decorative objects whose
          spirit and intellect are of little consequence."

          I look forward to next year's "World of Wheels" and to a souvenir
          program without woman-as-decoration next to your vehicles.


                                             Sincerely,



                                             Nigel Conliffe

>          Dear Madame or Sir:
>
>          [NOTE: It would be much better to call the ISCA to find out the
>          name of the person who is responsible for producing the
<          publication or at least someone responsible for advertising or
<          ICSA's public relatins, and address the letter (and envelope) to
<          their attention]

    The PR person would be the best, but if you can't find out who
    that is, you have a good chance of finding out who the editor is. 
    In most publications of this sort, there will be a little box
    somewhere with a list of the photo credits, etc.  Normally this
    box will also include the name of the person who was responsible
    for producing the brochure -- might be called an editor, a
    graphics editor, a producer, or in some cases a designer. 
    
    --bonnie

    G'Day,
    
    	Nancy, you really have a flair for writing letters.  I'd love to be
    able to write like that but sometimes I find it hard enough to say what
    I mean let alone write it.
    
    David.
    
    
    

    I heard a pretty good one this morning.  On the radio they were
    advertising a home show and apparently it was directed towards men
    because they finished up with "There will be a free kitchen implement
    given to the first 500 women at the door, so bring the whole family!"
    I can just see some guy dragging his wife to this home show so that
    she can get a free spatula.
    	Linda

    
    
    Last night, during an advertisment for membership in the NRA,
    the woman spokeperson urged other women to join the NRA, stat-
    ing that membership is (in her opinion) vital to women who 
    are "single parents or "even single career women." The implication
    being that women need a gun IF they don't have a man to protect
    them.
    
    

    I think the implication was that women need the freedom
    of *choice*, if a gun is their chosen means of self-defense.

    The NRA does not advocate 'guns for everybody'. We do advocate
    the right to own guns *if one so chooses*. 
    
    Dana
    
    PS sorry, this is a hot button for me. 

	re: .561 (Deb Wolbach)

	> The implication being that women need a gun IF they don't 
	> have a man to protect them.
  	  
	In light of the prevalence of non-stranger (boyfriend, SO, 
	husband, EX-(all of the above)) violence, the NRA should change
	the ad to imply that women need a gun ESPECIALLY IF they
	have a man "to protect them."
							nancy b.

    
    re .563
    
    	I take offense to this statement. I'm getting tired of being lumped
    with a group of people that I may or may not have more than one thing
    in common with. 
    
    I understand that there is much violence against women by men,but I do
    NO violence to women (or other people) unless it is necessary (such as
    self-defense).
    
    I took this reply as serious because there were no smiley faces
    included. 
    
    This is stereotyping.
    
    ed

    Please continue this discussion about the NRA advertisement to either
    the "Tender Prey" topic (889) or the Guns topic (210).
    
    Back to our regularly schedule topic...
    
    -Jody
    

From an article on anti-Semitism in yesterday's Globe, two quotes:

"Anti-Semitism is the deepest-seated prejudice we have in Christianity, and 
we have to look at it constantly and work to eliminate it with all the 
tools at our disposal."

	-- Monsignor William Murphy, an aide to Cardinal Bernard Law


"Anti-Semitism seems to be the most acceptable 'ism' for people. There's a 
tolerance of it."

	-- Leonard Zakim, New England regional director of the ADL 
	   (Anti-Defamation League)


Well, gentlemen, I beg to differ with you. I have no desire to diminish the
gravity of anti-Semitism or of any other such "ism." But I submit that
there's one "ism" that is at least as grave, just as deep-seated in
Christianity, far more acceptable and tolerable, far more subtle, *and*
affects many more people, than any other such "ism." 

Who can guess what "ism" I'm thinking of? The winner ... to paraphrase 
David Letterman from a show of his last fall on which he told of a bet 
between two guys as to the outcome of the World Series ... the winner ... 
"gets to spend one night with my wife."  ;-)

Dorian

    My daughter Laure, after visiting my office about a year ago (she
    was then 9 years old) and having lunch with me and a group of
    colleagues:
    
    - Mom, are you REALLY the only woman in your group?
    
    - Well, as it happens, yes...
    
    - Oh Mom. you're sooooo lucky!
    
    Joana

    Yeah, I took a course in bedford recently.  The class was me and 13
    men.  The teacher's first quip to me was, "Boy, you're lucky."  "Why?"
    I asked.  "Because you're the only woman here!" was his honest answer.
    
    Feh.
    
    -Jody
    

	Panasonic (really Matsushita) set up an awesome exhibition/demonstration
	of their new industrial products (ranging from 2" floppy disk drives
	to super high-res flat-screen color monitors, to high-density integrated
	ceramic substrates) Monday in the Mill.

	Of course, accompanying all the other objects being used to demonstrate 
	their high-res monitors was one image of a SI-type woman in skimpy
	swimsuit.  The other engineers I was standing with seemed to be somewhat 
	uncomfortable with me standing there looking at that slide.  

	I said to the Matsushita rep:

		"Sumimasen, kore wa ... sukoshi baka des ne?
	 	     (motioning to the monitor)

	That was the best approximation of what I wanted to say to let
	him know I was annoyed with the screen that I could think of
	immediately.  
	
	I think it means something like, "Excuse me, that
	is a little idiotic, isn't it?"  From my exact wording
	I was concerned that what I was said bordered on being
	profane, and also that he would think I was talking about 
	the woman herself and not the idea of her being used in 
	an image.

	But he seemed to understand what I meant, and responded with

	"Hai, gomen nasai."   which means something like, "Yes,
	                      I'm sorry."

	I heard that expression used when I was an exchange student in 
	Tokyo on the streets or subway when someone bumped into me...

	I read somewhere a while ago (here?) in an essay relating
	the prevalence of women being portrayed as objects to 
	violence against women where someone raised the question:

	   "But how can you commit violence against an *object*?"

	[yeah, that doesn't really count, does it?...]

							nancy b.

    I went to the national Western Stock show this past weekend. It's
    the largest such show in the country. I happened to be in the sheep
    exhibition area when a class was announced. It was sponsered by the
    Wool Council.

    The class consisted of mostly young girls, there was one older woman.
    They entered the ring leading a sheep. The object was to pick the
    one with the best wool fashion sense and look of the outfit they had
    on. Oh yeah, they got judged on how cute their sheep was and if they
    lead well but it didn't count as much. liesl

    re: .-1

    That's usually refered as 'Ladies Lead'.  Its a very specific class
    in many sheep shows.  There's a whole long list of things
    that the 'ladies' are judged on...whether the clothing is hand made,
    how well the sheep follows them, etc.  Generally here in the east
    the class has been eliminated for lack of interest.  Most of the
    'real sheep women' wouldn't be caught dead out there.
    bob, a shepherd in western mass

I saw a comedian last night, who was discussion one of those half-hour long
commercials they play on Cable on Sunday mornings.  This particular one
was about a particular brand of make-over.  The show was done in the form
of a talk show, where they would have "guests", women who had had the make
over done...the comedian says something about...

"The commercial was *so* demeaning...

These women walk out, and the guy announces them and points out their
make-over. and everyone claps and cheers.  And then the guy says 'and
here she was *before* the make-over' and show's the picture to the
audience...and everyone says...'Eeeewwww'!  It's like 'You are *so*
ugly.'  Now she's someone you might want to be seen in a restaraunt with
but before...really, man, we're talking UGLY!

One woman, they made a point to *keep* showing her picture.  It was like
'Take a look at this person...wow...let's show her before shot again!
Can you imagine she looked like *that*?'  Audience: Eeewwww!"

The comedian was very funny.  The commercial he was describing wasn't.

D!

    There have been a number of quotes recently about cuts in the US
    Defence Budget, and the closing of US bases in Europe.  Almost every
    speech/interview/sound bite that I have heard concludes with the
    stirring patriotic phrase "Let's bring our boys home!"
    
     Does that mean that they're going to leave the 'girls' behind????
    
    					Nigel

	 I saw the following bumper sticker this morning on the way to
	 work and it really frosted me.  I hate seeing this crap of an
	 attitude.....


	 "The more I date men, the more I love my dog."



	 GGGGRrrrr.........

	 kat

    re .575 -
    
    Maybe it was an answer to the one that goes "Life's a bitch, then
    you marry one." ?

RE: -.1

>    Maybe it was an answer to the one that goes "Life's a bitch, then
>    you marry one." ?


         	 It doesn't matter their both sexist, and just because
	 one is said it doesn't justify saying the other.


	 I think they're both despicable.

	 kath

>	 "The more I date men, the more I love my dog."

Hmmm...you must interpret this one differently than I do.  I wouldn't have
frosted *me*.  Seems to me it only said "men" because it was (most likely)
a heterosexual woman driving the car, and she only dates men.  I interpret
that to mean "dating sucks, I'll stick to getting affection from my dog."
Would work just as well on a het man's car to say "The more I date women,
the more I love my dog."  Or on a bi's car "The more I date, the more I
love my dog."

There are many times I have felt that dating wasn't worth the pain and
aggravation and emotional turmoil, and have said to myself "I'll just stick to
my cat" (I don't have a dog.)  It had nothing to do with the gender of the
people I was dating, just that fact that I was dating them, and they were
hurting me or driving me crazy or whatever.  Cats (and I assume dogs) don't
leave you, tell you they don't love you, don't answer your calls, cheat on
you, lie to you, move in with your best friend without telling you or
charge things on your credit card.  So there are definitely times when I
feel that cats are preferable partners to the humans I date, regardless of
their sex.  And I don't think it's sexist to say that just because it might
be true that all the people I date happen to be of one sex or the other...

Hard to tell whether your interpretation or mine was the intent of the car
driver...

D!

    
    I take the same interpretation as D!, including the cat preference.
                                               
    Equality aside, there are some behavioral differences between the sexes
    as they are typified here in America which can sometimes make
    interpersonal relationships very challenging. I get enough challenge at
    work, and at least there I get paid for it. 
    
    Barney and Max have been super affectionate ever since I left them home
    alone for Christmas. They have finally figured out not to scratch the
    hand that feeds them, and we all snuggle, hum and purr together these days.
    
    So hey, I have two perfectly good relationships at home! Why should I
    go out and try to negotiate a new one - and that's what dating seems to
    boil down to.
    
    Also, Barney and Max are quite male. So, it can't be something that I
    dislike about male gender...

    
    re:.577
    it may be true that both are sexist, but one challenges the world
    the way it is and the other promotes already existing oppression.
    

    I s'pose they're both sexist, but I still laughed when I
    read it.  I guess I made the frustration-with-dating 
    interpretation, too.  And that reminded me of a quote by
    Linus Van Pelt:  "I love humanity.  It's *people* I can't 
    stand!!"
    
    Steve

    
    
    	re: .580        Good point, Joe White.
    
    

>          <<< Note 13.580 by DECWET::JWHITE "keep on rockin', girl" >>>
    
>    it may be true that both are sexist, but one challenges the world
>    the way it is and the other promotes already existing oppression.


	 Are you implying that one is 'alright' or 'not as bad' as the
	 other because of this?

	 k   

    re .583 -
    
    Sometimes when existing oppression is being promoted everywhere,
    as in the "life's a bitch then you marry one" message, it can be an 
    eye-opener to respond with another message that challenges that 
    oppression using parallel terms, as in the "the more I date men the 
    more I love my dog" message. It doesn't mean that either one is "all 
    right." It means that the oppressor is being asked to stop and think 
    for a moment about how the oppressee is being made to feel.
    
    Call it fighting fire with fire, or tit for tat, or whatever...who
    knows, maybe it'll help!
                 
    Dorian 

    
    
    I think Dorian's point is an excellent one.  "Humor" that perpetuates
    existing stereotypes hardly raises an eyebrow, but if that same kind
    of "humor" is directed at a group in power, it tends to make us
    uncomfortable, and that makes us (I think) examine the other kinds of
    "humor" too.  I probably wouldn't put a bumper sticker on my car if
    it contained a message that put down any group, but messages that
    challenge existing assumptions and power structures always make me
    think.
    
    If I were a man, I probably wouldn't like seeing "Adam was a rough
    draft" on a bumper sticker, but it might make me think, "Gee, that is
    another way of looking at it."  So, to my mind, there is some value
    there.  Angry messages that are thinly veiled with "humor" and then
    directed at women, people of color, or certain ethnic groups do nothing
    to challenge current ways of thinking -- they just perpetuate and (I
    think) validate hatred of anyone who is different (from white,
    straight-appearing, protestant males).
    
    Justine

    
    yes
    (please see intervening replies as to why)
    

>          <<< Note 13.586 by DECWET::JWHITE "keep on rockin', girl" >>>
    
>    yes


	 So, twisting it around to direct it at men is okay because
	 men have been doing it to women all along?



	 If so, that is the mentality that I fight against...and find
	 defeats everything I fight for.

         I feel that women who do this are no longer "innocent
         victims" in Sexism.  They're just as guilty in my book as the
         men who do it.


	 "Jane, why did you kick Tommy?"
	 "Because he hit me!"
	 "Oh well, honey, then if he hit you that's fine, you did
	 good.  Tommy get over here, don't you ever hit your sister
	 again! Hitting another person is WRONG WRONG WRONG!"


	 makes me ill...........


	 kath

    re:.587
    
    this is really hardly worth discussing, but i'll give it another shot.
    
    i firmly believe that our society oppresses women. it is axiomatic; 
    no 'proof' is necessary since it is self-evident. thus, a bumper 
    sticker that calls women derogatory names is of no interest except 
    as an example, albeit trite, of the sexism rampant in our society.
    
    i do not believe our society oppresses men. indeed certain classes
    of men are oppressed, 'black men', 'asian men', 'homosexual men', but 
    not the single class 'men'. thus, a bumper sticker that suggests that a
    woman might be better off without the company of 'men' (as a class)
    is thought provoking and questioning of some of the basic tenets of
    our society and thus rather profound (in so far as a bumper sticker
    can be profound).
    
    the analogy of jack hitting jill and jill hitting back is flawed in
    a several ways. 
    
    1) in the analogy the impression is given that jack has hit jill 
    once and jill has responded in kind. to be more accurate in setting the
    context, the analogy would have to have jack hitting jill millions of 
    times before jill responded. 
    
    2) the impact of jack's and jill's hitting is presented as being 
    similar. as suggested above there is a difference in both quality and 
    quantity between jack's bumper sticker, which is obviously directly 
    insulting, and jill's bumper sticker which is distinctly less hostile. 
    the analogy would be more accurate in describing the level of
    aggression if jack punched jill in the eye and jill slapped jack on 
    the wrist. 
    
    3) who or what is represented by the parental unit which says it was 
    good for jill to fight back and bad for jack to hit? does this parental 
    unit represent society? does society tell women it is o.k. to fight 
    back and tell men it's wrong for men to hurt women? a quick glance at 
    domestic violence statistics would suggest that this is not the case.
    the analogy would be more accurate in giving the overall message if the 
    parental unit said, 'don't hit girls, jack, because they are beneath you 
    and don't get angry at boys, jill, it's not your place'. 
    
    3b) it would appear from the analogy that jill is responding to jack's
    initial offense. a case of self-defense if you will. i will leave it to 
    others more eloquent on the subject to describe the virtues of 
    self-defence as a justification for hostilities of far more consequence 
    than bumper stickers.
    
    

>          <<< Note 13.588 by DECWET::JWHITE "keep on rockin', girl" >>>



	 I know what you're saying.

	 I don't agree with you.

	 So let's just agree that we disagree and get on with life.

	 Deal?

	 kath    
    

    
    absolutely!
    (and for what it's worth, i do understand your point and
    do not think you are totally off base)
    

>    But in the long run, its a sissy way out of a major problem in this 
>    country. 

 Did anybody else feel funny reading this sentence?

    This came to me bearing a long string of mail headers. Perhaps I
    just lack a sense of humor, but I found it offensive.

    For one thing, it's clearly directed at men.  As if women never 
    picked programming languages!  Secondly, each "woman" is rated
    according to her looks, cooking skill, and temperament.  The 
    implication is that these are the criteria men use to judge 
    women, and that since programming languages, like women, are
    servile to men (sic), that the same criteria can be applied.

    The whole thing made me sick.  But... I leave it to you to judge 
    for yourself.


*****************************************************************************

                 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES ARE LIKE WOMEN
			 by: Daniel J. Salomon
	Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
		  Waterloo, Ontario, Canada  N2L 3G1
 
     There  are so many programming languages available that it can be
very  difficult  to get to know them all well enough to pick the right
one  for  you.   On  the  other  hand most men know what kind of woman
appeals  to  them.   So  here is a handy guide for many of the popular
programming  languages that describes what kind of women they would be
if programming languages were women.
 
 Assembler - A  female  track  star  who  holds  all  the  world speed
	     records.   She  is  hard  and  bumpy,  and so is not that
	     pleasant to embrace.  She can cook up any meal, but needs
	     a  complete and detailed recipe.  She is not beautiful or
	     educated,  and  speaks  in monosyllables like "MOV, JUMP,
	     INC".   She has a fierce and violent temper that make her
	     the choice of last resort.
 
   FORTRAN - Your  grey-haired  grandmother.   People  make fun of her
	     just  because  she  is  old,  but if you take the time to
	     listen,  you  can learn from her experiences and her mis-
	     takes.   During her lifetime she has acquired many useful
	     skills  in sewing and cooking (subroutine libraries) that
	     no  younger  women can match, so be thankful she is still
	     around.   She  has  a  notoriously  bad  temper  and when
	     angered  will  start yelling and throwing dishes.  It was
	     mostly  her  bad  temper  that  made  grandad  search for
	     another wife.
 
     COBOL - A  plump  secretary.  She talks far too much, and most of
	     what  she  says  can be ignored.  She works hard and long
	     hours, but can't handle really complicated jobs.  She has
	     a  short and unpredictable temper, so no one really likes
	     working  with her.  She can cook meals for a huge family,
	     but only knows bland recipes.
 
     BASIC - The  horny  divorcee that lives next door.  Her specialty
	     is seducing young boys and it seems she is always readily
	     available  for  them.   She  teaches  them  many  amazing
	     things, or at least they seem amazing because it is their
	     first  experience.   She  is  not that young herself, but
	     because  she  was  their  first  lover  the  boys  always
	     remember  her  fondly.  Her cooking and sewing skills are
	     mediocre, but largely irrelevant, its the frolicking that
	     the boys like.
 
	     The  opinion  that  adults  have of Mrs. BASIC is varied.
	     Shockingly,  some  fathers  actually  introduce their own
	     sons  to  this  immoral  woman!   But  generally the more
	     righteous  adults  try  to  correct  the badly influenced
	     young  men by introducing them to well behaved women like
	     Miss Pascal.
 
      PL/I - A bordello madam.  She wears silk dresses, diamonds, furs
	     and  red high heels.  At one time she seemed very attrac-
	     tive,  but  now  she  just  seems  overweight  and tacky.
	     Tastes change.


 
         C - A  lady executive.  An avid jogger, very healthy, and not
	     too  talkative.   Is an good cook if you like spicy food.
	     Unless you double check everything you say (through LINT)
	     you  can unleash her fierce temper.  Her daughter C++ is
	     still  quite  young  and  prone to tantrums, but it seems
	     that  she  will grow up into a fine young woman of milder
	     temper and more sophisticated character.
 
  ALGOL 60 - Your  fathers  wartime  sweetheart,  petite, well propor-
	     tioned, and sweet tempered.  She disappeared mysteriously
	     during  the  war,  but  your  dad  still  talks about her
	     shapely form and their steamy romance.  He never actually
	     tasted  much of her cooking, but they did exchange simple
	     recipes by mail.
 
    Pascal - A  grammar school teacher, and Algol 60's younger sister.
	     Like  her  sister  she is petite and attractive, but very
	     bossy.   She  is  a  good  cook  but  only  if the recipe
	     requires no more than one pot (module).
 
 Modula II - A  high-school  teacher and Pascal's daughter.  Very much
	     like  her  mother,  but she has learned to cook with more
	     than one pot.
 
  ALGOL 68 - Algol  60's  niece.   A high-society woman, well educated
	     and  terse.   Few  men  can fully understand her when she
	     talks, and her former lovers still discuss her mysterious
	     personality.   She  is very choosy about her romances and
	     won't  take  just  any man as her lover.  She hasn't been
	     seen  lately,  and  rumor  has it that she died in a fall
	     from an ivory tower.
 
      LISP - She  is  an  aging  beatnik, who lives in a rural commune
	     with  her  hippie  cousins SMALLTALK and FORTH.  Many men
	     (mostly college students) who have visited the farmhouse,
	     enthusiastically  praise  the natural food, and perpetual
	     love-ins  that  take  place  there.  Others criticize the
	     long  cooking  times,  and  the  abnormal sexual postures
	     (prefix  and  postfix).  Although these women seldom have
	     full-time jobs, when they do work, their employers praise
	     them  for  their  imagination,  but usually not for their
	     efficiency.
 
       APL - A fancy caterer specializing in Greek food.  She can cook
	     delicious  meals  for rows and rows of tables with dozens
	     of  people at each table.  She doesn't talk much, as that
	     would just slow her work down.  Few people can understand
	     her  recipes,  since  they are in a foreign language, and
	     are all recorded in mirror writing.
 
      LOGO - A  grade-school  art  teacher.   She  is just the kind of
	     teacher  that  you wish you had when you were young.  She
	     is  shapely and patient, but not an interesting conversa-
	     tionalist.   She can cook up delicious kiddie snacks, but
	     not full-course meals.


 
LUCID & PROLOG -
	     These  clever teenagers show a new kind of cooking skill.
	     They  can  cook-up fine meals without the use of recipes,
	     working  solely  from  a  description of the desired meal
	     (declarative  cooking).   Many men are fascinated by this
	     and have already proposed marriage.  Others complain that
	     the  girls  work very slowly, and that often the descrip-
	     tion  of  the meal must be just as long as a recipe would
	     be.   It is hard to predict what these girls will be like
	     when they are fully mature.
 
       Ada - A  WAC  colonel built like an amazon.  She is always set-
	     ting  strict rules, but if you follow them, she keeps her
	     temper.   She  is  quite  talkative, always spouting army
	     regulations,  and using obscure military talk.  You gotta
	     love her though, because the army says so.

    I liked the car version better.  *lots* better.

I, too, think the basic premises of this are offensive: that men are the ones
choosing programming languages, and that women's worth is based on their
ability to cook and sew.

Nevertheless, I found it quite funny.  While perhaps offensive in context,
comparing a programming language's capabilities with the ability to cook
is actually quite appropriate and a useful analogy.  In fact, having read
this, if asked to describe the differences between languages, I might
very well use that analogy (though I would talk about choosing a genderless
caterer, not a wife or lover.)  And the characterizations fit the languages,
and I found it funny because I was able to say "Yeah, I know people like that
and now that you mention it, that language does remind me a lot of them."

Both based on personality and on my own language preferences I would choose
C or Lisp! :-)  (Where's Bliss?  That character has a bad case of acne...or
freckles...)

D!

 I think that the worst part about that is that because it relates programming
languages to different types of women, many women cannot enjoy such a piece.
If it related programming languages to fish, or trees, or cars, or planets,
many of these same women would be able to enjoy that type of piece. So the 
tragedy (to me) is that our society has created an environment wherein
humor directed at certain subjects cannot be enjoyed by many people.

 The Doctah

    I don't  think that it is a serious attempt to describe the choice
    of  a  programming  language. There are men who choose programming
    languages,  and  there are women who choose programming languages.
    This  was  a takeoff on how some men (and lesbians) might choose a
    programming  language.  I  put it in the same category as a lot of
    the  humor I see around here: It plays on some stereotypes, and if
    done  reasonably isn't offensive. Isn't there a piece somewhere in
    here  on  the  differences between men and women? I thought it was
    funny too.

--David

    re .596 (and lesbians)
    
    Speak for yourself. I find it quite offensive.
    
    Although I may choose to date women, I try not to objectify them.
    Maybe it's because I'm one, too.  Then again maybe we (lesbians)
    don't count as women.
    
    -maureen
    
    
    

    Personally, I resented the "sexy" characterization of "C".  I would
    have described it as a young, confused teenager, with acne, able only
    to warm prepared food in a microwave.
    
    Jim
    

        re .592
        
>>							     Perhaps I
>>    just lack a sense of humor, but I found it offensive.
        
        re .598
        
>>	  I confess.
>>
>>        I laughed out loud at the descriptions of BASIC and COBOL.
        
        Perhaps there is something wrong with me, but I confess I
        don't see the need to practically apologize for my
        feelings on reading it.
        
        Dan

    Re .592:
    
    > The implication is that these are the criteria men use to judge
    > women, and that since programming languages, like women, are servile to
    > men (sic), that the same criteria can be applied.
    
    I don't find that implication in the article.  The article certainly
    indicates that men select women and that men select programming
    languages, but it doesn't indicate that women are considered only
    servile to men.  (Note, in the above "men select x" means that select x
    is an act that men perform.  It does not mean that only men perform
    that act.)
    
    I think it is true that men select women (and vice versa); I don't
    think men and women wind up as partners by random chance.
    
    Nor do I think that treating women as objects is a large part of the
    article.  The article makes many references to skills, personality
    traits, experiences, and so on.  Women as objects is a minor
    involvement of the article -- of more impact is the stereotyping of
    skills.
    
    There is a natural comparison between programming and cooking.  The
    head of the computer science department at my college used that
    comparison in an introductory class -- and made the comparison between
    programming and cooking without needing to refer to gender at all.  In
    both recipes and programming, one lists at the beginning the objects to
    be operated on (ingrediants and data areas).  Then the recipe or
    program gives step-by-step descriptions of the operations to be
    performed on the objects.  My instructor drew several similarities,
    such as conditional expressions (if using 9 by 12 pan, bake for 30
    minutes; if using round 9" pan, bake for 35 minutes).
    
    Thus, the correlation of programming languages and cooking skills is
    somewhat natural.  What is unfortunate is that cooking as women's work
    is a stereotype, as were several other attributes mentioned.
    
    
    				-- edp

    <code on>

    Aw gee, I don't know. So many other languages are being used to mock and 
    degrade women these days - English, American, advertising, porn - why 
    shouldn't programming languages have their bit of fun at women's expense
    too?

    <code off>

    Arrgghh!  That article is infuriating to me.  The characterizations are
    amusing and apt, but the slant and tone of the whole thing spoiled it
    for me.  
    
    Perhaps there _is_ a natural correlation between programming and
    cooking, but I think it's far more than "unfortunate" that the
    stereotype of women-as-cooks-and-lovers-for-men was used.  I think it's
    a step back from equality.
    
    Some racist jokes are "funny," too, but that doesn't mean they're OK to
    forward on and on and on.  At some point you have to take a stand and
    say "yes, that's an amusing observation, but yes, it offends me." 
    
    Also, there is a DIFFERENCE between a joke told about a <blank> group
    by a non<blank> and a joke told about a <blank> group by a member of
    the <blank> group. This was clearly written by non<women> about
    <women>.  
    
    Programming languages (women) in this article are, indeed, objects to
    be categorized into how valuable they are for users (men) to use.  They
    are assessed by traits and skills (weight, physical attractiveness,
    talkativeness, effectiveness, cooking ability, and intelligence).  But
    just because you use adjectives to talk about how fast and stylish and
    dependable a car is doesn't mean you aren't talking about an object.
    
    Pam

	 I find the comparisons to be hilarious and for the most part
	 quite accurate....


	 I find the characterization of women to be degrading and
	 wrong.


	 kath

    I guess I wasn't able to winnow the chaff out of this one.  The first
    time I was forwarded it, I thought it was grotty to the max and not
    funny at all.  I just deleted it unre-read all the other times it's
    been forwarded.
    
    Going back a few replies, it's customary for people to apologize before
    disputing laff-riotousness because (as various comic writers have
    pointed out) most people get mighty irritated when their sense of humor
    is impugned.  I don't know why it should be such a ticklish subject...
    
    Ray

    RE: .603
    
    It's especially bad when the group doing the "analysis" is the one
    in power, and the group being "analyzed" is an oppressed group.
    
    If women were never or rarely objectified in the culture, if women
    weren't "The Ol' Ball and Chain", if women weren't *expected* to do
    certain things (cook,clean)...it would've been funny. As it is, it
    was only one more reminder that any random guy who wants to can come
    up with a list of how "things" that serve men's needs
    (like...oh...let's take a couple of random examples....uhm...how about
    'programming languages' and 'women') can be compared.
    
    --DE
    

        Well ladies, we could always make up our own

    let's see;

    MACRO = this is the man who as a lover needs to be told exactly what
    to do every step of the way. He gets the job done but it's so
    complex and tiring you're not sure it's worth it. And if any of the
    instructions aren't exactly right -

    potentionally offensive material follows 

    he comes prematurely. liesl

re: .607:
>    he comes prematurely. liesl

Not necessarily, but macro can be the fastest of the languages, so *you're*
not kept waiting unnecessarily for results.

Also, macro's small size makes it possible to get into places where other
languages cannot penetrate, as it were.

Indeed, macro allows unprotected access to all of your internal structures.
While this is useful if you have unusual requirements, it is not as safe as
some of the so-called higher-level languages, so you might want to be cautious
the first few times and use some protection, such as a good debugger.

Furthermore, one of macro's most important traits is that you can use it
without having to worry about checking the type of the declarations. Of
course, this may lead to problems in the long run since the name of a
declaration may not accurately  represent its content.  Of course, this
problem isn't unknown in real life, too.

Martin.
ps: look carefully: the above is gender-free.

    *ahem*
    
    this is the sexISM topic.           
    
    						=maggie

    In re: .592
    
    It seemed to me rather offensive.  It also seemed fairly free of real
    insight into programming languages.  It also seemed fairly free of
    originality; I'm pretty sure I saw a very similar thing maybe 10 years
    ago, but not about women (was it CARS? I can't remember).
    
    Was this published somewhere?  Or only netted?  Is this guy still at
    Waterloo?  Maybe a letter of complaint to the author would be helpful
    to him.  Or maybe a nice note to the department chairman asking if s/he
    knows what is circulating with his/er department's name on it.  The
    address is in .592.
    
    			- Bruce

    ... Quebec Court Judge Denys Dionne interrupted an argument about
    a point of law and said: "Rules are like women; they're made to
    be violated."
    
    This from someone in a position of responsibility who should know
    better.

    One of the last all male bastions in Canada - the Boy Scouts - has
    opened it's doors to girls.
    
    But the doors of the Girl Guides of Canada remain firmly shut to
    boys.

    I wasn't quite sure whether to put this here or in one of the "Rape"
    notes.
    
     On last week's episode of "L.A. Law", the show ended with a "touching
    romantic reconciliation" between Mike Kusak and Grace van Owen, in her
    office.  The two had been lovers/cohabitants for a time previous to the
    episode, but had broken up (?last season?).
    
     Anway, the scene shows Kusak coming into the office to talk to Grace;
    they kiss somewhat passionately.  She asks him to leave, and he agrees
    that he will leave, but instead they end up on the floor just out of
    camera shot about to commit an "act of passion". Indeed, the closing
    line of the show was Grace "Don't rip my robe".
    
     Now maybe I've been too close to the heat in this notesfile, but it
    struck me that this was a prime example of the "her voice said NO but
    her body said YES" cliche; to see it perpetrated between two (supposed)
    members of the legal profession seemed a little strange.  
    
    				Nigel

    That must be why they haven't made a soap-opera of my life - too
    boring!  :-)
    
    Jim
    

    If I remember right, she never said no, she said maybe they shouldn't
    have done that(the kiss), he said yeah maybe, then started to leave,
    then came back.  at no time did she say "no".
    
    vivian

    People, people, people.
    
    We are not talking about lawyers.
    
    We are talking about actors following a script as interpreted by
    a director.
    
    May I use this as an example the next time someone insists that
    they do not think of the make-believe of magazines, advertisements,
    television, and movies in the same way as they think of Real Life?
    
    						Ann B.

    I don't often get involved with "sexism", per se, as I feel "to each
    their own opinion". I _did_ come across a situation that P*ssed me off! 
    
    (start the violins) I was at H&R Block having my taxes done. Some of
    you may have heard of "Rapid Refunds"? This is a way to get your refund
    in a matter of days or weeks, depending on the plan you choose. Well, I
    asked for the details. Come to find out, there are three different
    kinds of "Rapid Refunds":
    
    	1) You pick up a check after the taxes are checked over for errors.
    	   Bacically H&R gets a loan and pays you that way. You get your
    	   refund in about a week. Costs include what ever the tax
    	   preparation charges are, plus, $25.00 for filing, plus an
    	   additional $40.00 (to pay off the loan).
    
    	2) You can have the IRS automatically deposit your refund in your
    	   checking account about two weeks after filing. Costs include
    	   tax prep plus $25.00.
    
    	3) You can have the IRS send a refund check to you within
    	   three weeks. Costs include tax prep plus $25.00.
    
    Now, the rest of the story....
    
    I was told that I could not get my refund using Rapid Refund #1. When
    aked why not, I was told it was beacuse I was not the "primary tax
    payer" when I filed last year.
    
    I was still legally married last year, my divorce wasn't final until
    September 1989, so we had to file married/jointly for the best refund.
    Where HIS name was first on last year's forms, he was concidered the
    "primary tax payer". 
    
    This ticked me off, as I paid 2/3 of our taxes last year!!!! 
    
    Granted, I thought #1 was a rip off anyway, but to be told that I would
    not be able to file that way because HIS name was first on the
    forms?!?!?! How STUPID can you get??
    
    

    Every year I do our federal and state taxes.  Every year the federal
    form comes addressed to "C L Richardson & P J Young" and the state form
    comes addressed the other way.  Every year I use the non-preprinted
    state form and put the names in *my* way, with my name first since I am
    the one who does the bookkeeping.  Beancounters...
    
    /Charlotte

    RE:.617
    
    THe Federal Govt list as the "taxpayer" who ever lists their name first
    on the return, the other is "spouse".  So, if you'd listed yourself
    first, you would have been the taxpayer.  Since its so arbitrary, I
    don't know why H&R Block would have such a stupid rule...Massachusetts,
    on the other hand, always lists the man as the taxpayer, the wife as
    the spouse.  THis drives me nuts, as I'm a CPA, and do our returns...my
    husband barely looks at them before filing.   This Massachusetts
    idiosyncracy is going tyo screw us up one day, though, because although
    they flip flop the names, the leave the social security numbers
    alone--so they have Tom with mine, and my name with his "spouse" social
    security number.  
    
    Susan
    
    

    I recently received Metpay's promotional drawing for something-or-
    other, but I did not play.  Actually, *I* did not receive it -- my
    husband, a non-DECie did, and that's was pi**ed me off.  *I* am the
    Digital employee; it is *my* paycheck from which the insurance is
    deducted weekly -- but *my* name was *not* on the card!  
    
    One card had my husband's name, evidently because he is listed first 
    on the policy (remind me to change *that* next year!), and one *blank*
    card was included to give to some other Digital employee as a
    promotion.
    
    Anyone else have this happen?
    
    Nancy

re last few

    The state of Missouri tax form specifies the lines on the
    form husband's name and wife's name for those persons filing
    jointly.  You're not supposed to put them in the other order.
    They have a note that single persons, heads-of-household, and
    so forth, should put their name in the "husband" slot. 

    Harrummmphh!

    The Kansas form (which I have to file because I live in
    Kansas, I just work in Missouri) is much simpler and
    non-sexist.

    -- Linda

>        <<< Note 13.538 by SYSENG::BITTLE "to be psychically milked" >>>
>                 -< a sample nastygram about sexist language >-
>
>	The text below is the body of the letter I sent to the managing
>	editor of Computer Shopper magazine concerning the use of 
>	sexist language on their January 1990 cover issue.  


Fyi:  This letter appears in the March, 1990 issue.  There is also a 
      'response' to it as well.  

Also, in the same issue is an article specifically using the 'one person office'
string instead of 'one man office'.

          re: .622 (ALIEN::MELVIN)           -< FYI >-

          > Fyi:  This letter appears in the March, 1990 issue.  There is
          > also a  'response' to it as well.

          Thanks for pointing this out!  Next month's issue was sitting in
          my to-be-read pile, where it might have stayed for a while ;-).

          > Also, in the same issue is an article specifically using the
          > 'one person office' string instead of 'one man office'.

          Are you referring to the article "BetterWorking One-Person
          Office" on page 466?  At first I was psyched to see that also.
          However, turn to the article, and you will see that the title
          refers to a software package by Spinnaker (in Cambridge).  The
          title of the software package is "BetterWorking One-Person
          Office".  Computer Shopper magazine was merely reprinting the
          title of a software package, _not_ consciously opting for the
          word "Person" instead of "Man".

          The "response" written in Computer Shopper (page 220, March 1990)
          basically states that the cover titles "The One-Man Office" and
          "Boys!  Build Your Own Apple Laserwriter" have nothing to do with
          sexual prejudice.

          I have entered Computer Shopper's response to my letter  in the
          =wn= topic on "Sexist Language".  Am interested in hearing any
          suggestions for the rebuttal letter, and would like to continue
          this in topic 112 (next/unseen will probably get you there.)

                                                       nancy b.

          They seem to learn little.

          On the Table of Contents (page 2) of the March 1990 Computer
          Shopper, there is a lift-off about an article related to laptops
          located underneath a picture of a man with a laptop that reads:

               "Ya, you girlie man.  You thought you had to be Arnold
               Schwarzenegger to tote all that power.  Compaq's LTE, the
               company's petite and powerful notebook-sized computer, has
               raised the stakes for all the players in the laptop market."

          hence denigrating the man who doesn't like to lug around a heavy
          laptop computer by calling him a "girlie man".

	  Of course, calling this another manifestation of misogyny would
	  be just sooo far-fetched.
							nancy b.

    re .624
    
    Agreed, it's a ridiculous ad.  It's a take-off of a sketch on "Saturday 
    Night Live."
    
    
    Judi
    

    C'mon, now.  You mean to tell me that woman NEVER objectify men; that
    some woman couldn't regender this to use to explain to another woman
    the differences between programming languages?  I worry, sometimes,
    that some folks are determined to find something offensive in anything
    using a gender oriented frame of referrence.  I hope i don't take
    MYSELF that seriously.

    
    	Well, this topic suddenly reminds me of a classic line used to
    	put down women for complaining about sexism:
    
    		Don't take yourself so seriously.
    
    	What exactly does that mean?  Are we all supposed to consider
    	ourselves and our feelings jokes?
    
    	Are we supposed to be "good sports" when women are insulted (lest
    	the "Humor Police" show up to arrest us for regarding ourselves
    	with a serious thought on occasion?)
    
    	Why is this line used so often against women (while engaging in a
    	political debate involving women's rights?)
    
    	I mean, I can just picture two Presidential candidates engaged in a
    	heated televised debate (shortly before the election,) when one of 
    	them suddenly turns to the other and says, "Lighten up!  You're
    	taking yourself too seriously!"
    
    	Or how about a doctor discussing procedure in the middle of surgery
    	(and the other surgeon says, "Gee, I hope I don't take *myself* that
    	seriously.")
    
    	What is the point of this expression??

    Ok.  I suppose i need to find a more precise way of expressing 
    myself than that.  It may take longer than i want to spend just
    now.  So for the interim:  It bothers me, just a little, that
    when a path is, so to speak, a two way street, but only traffic 
    in one direction is getting the heat.  I think i found humor in
    all the varients i ever heard using that general line of comparison.
    I've even found them funny in spite of occasionally having been a 
    member of whatever group is being used as the standard.  If the
    "street" had always been "one way", i'd be more supportive of some 
    of the objections.

  Suzanne, the only response you need for that is:

   "I don't take myself seriously.  I take this _subject_ seriously"

  JP