Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>	Why do some people dislike women as a class (a group?) ?

	 They're scared of women?  They're afraid of losing their
	 "edge" to women?  They view women as a threat?
	 
>	What are women (collectively or individually) doing that
>	result[s] in some people having misogynistic attitides ?

	 Agressiveness from a group that society is still conditioned
	 to believe should be 'submissive'?  Acheiving in areas they
	 have not acheived before, leading some people to feel
	 "tresspassed against"?  Feeling that women are "taking
	 something" from them?
	 
>	What are some examples (subtle or otherwise) of people acting
>	on misogynist feelings and attitudes?

	 Derogatory terms (ie, 'honey', 'missie', etc)...simply not
	 giving as much weight in a professional matter to a woman's
	 opinion/ideas...  There are many very subtle ways.....

         Sometimes I feel that people don't MEAN to perpetuate
         misogynist feelings/attitudes....but they have been
         conditioned to act that way.  It's like when I mention the
         word "homosexual" to some people, or "S&M", it seems to get a
         "preconditioned response."



	 kath

          re: .1 SOFBAS::LIVINGSTONE

          >  I know this isn't MENNOTES but can't the same questions
          >  be raised in reverse?
          >  Why do some people dislike men as a class (a group?) ?

          Right -- that sounds like a good topic to discuss in
          QUARK::MENNOTES, or in another topic here, but not this one.

          I'd prefer to focus in this topic on they reasons for and the
          manifestations of MISOGYNY.

          ...MISOGYNY that we see within ourselves, others, or "society".

          (When I wrote .0, I was already concerned that I was asking 
           too many questions to present a sufficiently narrow
           "start" for one topic...)

                                                       nancy b.

    Nancy, I think that some men hate women because they have been hurt
    at some time in their life by *one* woman, and they now blame the
    entire female sex for this.  An example of this would be a man who
    has been unfairly, financially destroyed during divorce.  I also
    think that women who demand child support payments that are so high
    that their ex-husband has to live like a pauper on the remains of
    his take home pay, and who go back to court every two years for
    more, and who go back to court to get 33 1/3 % of any overtime their
    ex makes, and who go back to court to get 33 1/3% of the 2nd wife's
    salary, if her ex remarries, is helping to foster hatred of women
    as a group.  I think women, in general, should start being more
    fair in regards to what they demand in divorce.  I know that in
    the past, many men paid nothing or next to nothing, in child support
    and nobody did anything about it, but now the injustice has gone
    the other way, and divorce settlements are usually still not fair.
    
    An example of what I think of as woman hating caused by the above
    reasons, is when a man *always* blames women for any problem that
    exists involving men and women.  I know a man, who was treated very
    unfairly during his divorce and whose ex-wife appears to be a very
    shallow, selfish, manipulative woman.  Everytime this man ever hears
    of or sees any dissagreement or fight that involves men and women
    he *always* immediately assumes that the man (even if he knows nothing
    about the individual man in question) is completely innocent and
    that the woman is a manipulative rotten human being.  In cases where
    the man in question has done something horrible, such as the Montreal
    murders or in one case where a divorced father killed his son and
    then himself, he makes comments such as, "I can understand what
    drove him."
    
    Hating any group, whether it's men, women, blacks, Jews, or
    homosexuals, is basically just gross generalization, by people who
    refuse to understand that every person is an individual, regardless
    of what larger group they may belong to.
    
    Lorna
    

>    An example of what I think of as woman hating caused by the above
>    reasons, is when a man *always* blames women for any problem that
>    exists involving men and women. 

 It's really funny watching men and women take sides during inter-sex disputes.
Extremely non-sexist people notwithstanding, it is generally very easy to tell
which side each sex will take. Men usually side with the men; women usually
side with the women- no matter what the argument is about. Though usually the
effects are more subtle than something as blatant as simply "siding" with the
same sex. Most times, it is more a matter of giving the benefit of the doubt.
Women will give the benefit of the doubt to other women even when it appears
that the women in question was in the wrong by saying something like, "Well
maybe... <insert semi=plausible justification here>" And men do precisely the
same thing. It's really quite humorous.

 Why misogyny?

 Sometimes it starts as a bad experience with a single woman. The bad feelings
carry over. Then it happens again with a different woman. And again. Soon, a
pattern develops. Then the "They're all the same" refrain erupts. It's quite
similar to the series of experiences that women draw upon when reaching the
conclusion that "All men are animals." :-)/2

 The Doctah

    Hahaha!  We shouldn't explore misogyny because many of us are
    man-haters?  What a laugh!
    
    It sounds like:  
    
    "Until you stop hating me, you cannot discuss my hatred of you."
    
    or
    
    "Discussing my hatred of you is very hateful of you so stop it!"
    
    What's funny is that this sounds like a pretty innocent and valid 
    question but someone went off in a huff because of the "general tone"
    of the file or something vague like that.  It looks like we just
    created an opportunity for this person to say what he/she has been wanting
    to say for awhile.  Good.  Adios.  I'm glad that's over with.  Now back
    to our regularly scheduled topic, the one only hateful women would
    even think of discussing!
    
    ps:  I never automatically side with the woman.  We are just as
    likely to be wrong as a man is.

    See also:
    
    MENNOTES:
    105 - What's a Woman Hater
    
    HUMAN_RELATIONS:
    418 - Misogyny
    
    WOMANNOTES-V1:
    321 - Women Who Don't Like Other Women
    774 - Why I Hate Marilyn
    
    -Jody
    

>                            -< Adios... ladies... >-

     
>    Just my parting .02 worth... I'm just trying to be honest... but I feel
>    actions speak so much louder than words.... I don't think we should
>    have to try as the adage says twice as hard as men to be judged equal,
>    but I'd rather see more action and less words... I think that gets to
>    the men and wins them over much more.
 

    Aw, Gee, Whiz.....if I promise to be a good little girl and mind my
    manners and all that good stuff, then the guys will be nice to me and
    not put me down unconsciously????   WOW!!!!  Is that all it takes????

    justme....jacqui                              

    [re-entered after editing to remove a silly assumption, sorry.]
    
    Current musings on misogyny...
    
    > 	Why do some people dislike women as a class (a group?) ?

    I am only going to address half the question, though.  I have far 
    less of a clue about why some women are misogynous as I have about 
    why some men are that way.
    
    We are all raised with expectations, with role models, with examples,
    with words and threats and whippings and lessons and disapproval
    and cajolery and other sorts of manipulation; we are shaped to appear
    to fit into this society.  The shaping affects us on many levels;
    most of us are not even conscious of all of the ways we have been
    shaped into being what we are.  
    
    And the sad part is that the shaping doesn't necessarily fit us
    into our society very well, after all.  In many people, the wrong
    learning methods are applied, and people are shaped with fear, or
    terror, or insecurity, or hatred; instead of love, or acceptance,
    or a will to understand.  
    
    I think that men who hate women are misshaped in two terrible ways.
    
    1- They are taught not to show fear.  Men are afraid of other men.
    Men know that other men may be bigger, or stronger, and that one
    must always be prepared to defend oneself...and that the best way
    to avoid needing to defend oneself, is not to show fear; to pretend
    fearlessness.  Most men even pretend such to themselves.  And failing
    to acknowledge that root fear, involves a fundamental misshaping
    of attitudes...a hiding from oneself, a dishonesty.  
    
    2- They are taught to see women as 'other'.  The differences of 
    gender are emphasized, as though we were unthinking animals, instead
    of the transcendence of similarity in our rational thoughts and emotional
    capabilities.  Such men don't see woman as 'the same' (equally human) 
    as they are.  Women are "different".
    
    When one has been shaped like that, I think that the combination
    of being unable to deal with (because one is hiding from it) the
    fear of other men, and the fact that women are seen as alien or
    other-than-(hu)man, erupts into misogyny in some cases.  I'm having
    a hard time wording this.  A man shaped to suppress fear, who has
    fear, has an unacknowledged emotional disturbance, with insecurity
    and anger as the visible manifestations.  I think this gets directed 
    at women, because its safer than directing anger at other men, and 
    women are seen as aliens anyway.
    
    > 	What are women (collectively or individually) doing that
    >	result in some people having misogynistic attitides ?
    
    This, I think, is the wrong question, except when we apply it to
    how young people are being shaped in our society.  Once a misogynyst
    has been formed, I think that the actions of women serve only as
    excuses and justifications for that hatred, not as causes.  I don't
    think that women are to blame that some humans hate all women.
    
    DougO

Well, it could be because society defines a woman as "not-manly", and
"not-manly" is about the worst thing you can be in this society
(traditionally).  Like, isn't it the worst insult in the world for
a boy to be called a girl, amoung kids?  Really bad insults are things like
faggot (also "not manly"), wimp, pussy, etc -- "not manly" -- 
"womanly".  

When I was a child, I didn't like girls much either, as a class -- because
I was taught they were not the strong, noble, smart, good ones, but
the passive, fainting-and-have-to-be-saved, cowardly ones.  It took
years of seeing counter-examples, and raising my consciousness to see
both the attitude in me, that I had been taught, and the brain-washing
still going on that continues to teach it.  Years to develop my own
version of what makes a good person (as opposed to the "manly" version).
(And years before my mother and I could talk about it together, about
breaking out finally from the brain-washing.)

I don't think there are individuals consciously trying to teach kids
sex role stereotypes, and that the woman's stereotypical role is
less valued, but I think it's still happening (see the recent movies
notes, etc.)  And I think it's one of the roots of misogyny.
(Another root is probably needing someone to hate -- which is
probably rooted in insecurity, which may or may not be partly caused
by not being able to live up to someone's stereotyped role for you.)

	MKV

RE: .12

>(and though Livingston read it
>    differently, the basenoter said nothing that attributes misogyny
>    solely to men.  He misread Nancy's questions.)

         FWIW.....Linda Livingstone is a "she", not a "he", :-) and I
         think I understand the point Linda is trying to make. (I
         know, this is what you edited out, but I just HAD to put it
         in!) ;-)

         The point being that it's very very off-setting to see people
         talking all the time about how the group "women" are being
         descriminated against, when there are REAL, viable groups out
         there that are also being descriminated against, sometimes
         much more than women are....and it's very upsetting and
         nerve-wracking and angering to hear, over and over again, an
	 agenda that simply talks about equality for women and the
	 hatred against them.

         I think it's important to fight for equality for ALL, not
         just equality for women.  And the vehement way that some
         women (people) fight for "equality for women" comes across,
         much of the time, as very narrowminded and very self-centered
         to some people.

         I'd like to see Womennotes tend toward a more 'equality for
         all' approach.  I, for one, have a hard time dealing with
         equality as a simple "gender-based" issue, and hence, that is
         probably why I come across as 'anti-feminist' and why my
         notes seem to cause a big stir many times.  I perceive quite a bit
         of anger in what I read by some of the vocal women noters in
         here, and that is very off-putting  to me.  I don't believe
         we can ever hope to bridge the misogyny barrier by projecting
         anger, and casting blame...I think it has to come from
         kindness and forgiveness (and forgetting) about the past,
         and by working together for a new future for EQUALITY for
         ALL.

         kath

    	RE: .15  Kath
    
    	> The point being that it's very very off-setting to see people
        > talking all the time about how the group "women" are being
        > descriminated against, when there are REAL, viable groups out
        > there that are also being descriminated against, sometimes
        > much more than women are....
    
    	"REAL, viable groups" (as opposed to women?)  Please explain!
    
    	Women are approximately 50% of the human population of our culture/
    	planet, so talking about discrimination against women covers an
    	*awful* lot of ground (and crosses the boundaries of nearly every
    	other group you could possibly name that is also a target of
    	oppression.)
    
    	> ...and it's very upsetting and nerve-wracking and angering to hear, 
    	> over and over again, an agenda that simply talks about equality for 
    	> women and the hatred against them.
    
    	Imagine - the *nerve* of people talking about women more often than
    	others in a file called *WOMAN*notes!  I can see where that would
    	be terribly upsetting in a culture like ours.
    
    	If we're allowed to talk about ourselves (more than others) *here*,
    	then who knows what will happen next.  This could be dangerous! :-}
    
    	> I think it's important to fight for equality for ALL, not
        > just equality for women.  And the vehement way that some
        > women (people) fight for "equality for women" comes across,
        > much of the time, as very narrowminded and very self-centered
        > to some people.
    
    	We can't fight for equality for *anyone* if we aren't allowed to
    	mention the injustices suffered by particular groups (out of the
    	fear of being considered self-centered, or out of concern about
    	angering the groups who *do* have power in our culture.)
    
    	> I'd like to see Womennotes tend toward a more 'equality for
        > all' approach.  I, for one, have a hard time dealing with
        > equality as a simple "gender-based" issue, and hence, that is
        > probably why I come across as 'anti-feminist' ...
    
    	It has been suggested before that the word "woman" be taken out
    	of the title of this conference (so that the file would not be
    	slanted so much towards issues involving women, specifically.)
    
    	Again, in our culture, it is sometimes/often seen as quite *nervy*
    	for attention to center around women instead of around men (where
    	it rightfully belongs, according to the cultural mindset that
    	accounts for misogyny in the first place.)
    
    	> I perceive quite a bit of anger in what I read by some of the vocal 
    	> women noters in here, and that is very off-putting  to me. 
    
    	How do you justify your *own* anger at the anger you perceive in
    	this notesfile?  (Or, doesn't your anger *need* to be justified?)
    
    	> I don't believe we can ever hope to bridge the misogyny barrier 
    	> by projecting anger, and casting blame...
    
    	...towards men.  Right?  How about the anger at women who appear
    	angry at men?  Is that kind of "women's anger" more acceptable to
    	you?  If so, why?
    
    	> I think it has to come from kindness and forgiveness (and 
    	> forgetting) about the past, and by working together for a new future 
    	> for EQUALITY for ALL.
    
    	Are you kind towards women whom you perceive to be angry about 
    	injustices towards women?  Or do you fight them?  Do you really think 
    	that all the problems of discrimination are strictly "in the past"?  
    
    	Do you think we can gain equality just by asking nicely for it -
    	making sure not to say anything that could make men mad at us?
    	
    	If we *have* to be "nice" at all times to gain equitable treatment, then
    	what we get in return for our "niceness" will *not* be equality, Kath.

    kath,
    
    If women can't talk about very real pain and frustration in re 
    being discriminated against here, then where can they talk in
    Dec? As it is, this file is quite mild compaired to what is found
    in feminist groups on the net news groups - the little that I've
    seen of them.
    
    Yes there are other groups that are discriminated against, and
    many of them have their own notes files. Such as files for
    Blacks and Asians and Homosexuals and Jewish people. Should we ask 
    them not to address their very real problems in their files unless they
    also address other kinds of discrimination? I don't think so.
    There are files, like Human_Relations and Soapbox where more general
    types of discrimination can be discussed.
    
    Some men in Mennotes use that file to vent about bad divorce
    settlements and grasping ex wives, yet their right to do so
    isn't challenged because they are focusing only on the discrimination
    that they have experienced. I think that this is right and proper.
    
    Women need a place where they can talk to each other, where they
    can say what happened to them and how it made them feel, and a place
    where they don't have to mince words or be 'nice'. Far too often
    in my life I have swallowed my pride and 'made nice' so as not to hurt
    other people's feelings. There have to be some places where we can
    talk about pain and hurt and frustration and all the bad stuff and
    connect with others so we know we aren't crazy.
    
    I know that, especially for younger women, some women don't agree with
    this or haven't experienced prejudice or discrimination.  But it is
    real, and it does hurt, and talking about it is a way to deal with it.
    One thing I've grown to dislike is covering things up and only talking
    nicely because it 'isn't done' to do other wise. I honestly don't think
    that is what you are advocating, but to many women of my generation
    that is the button that is pushed when we read words like yours.
    
    If I am upset I want to be able to say so, if I am angry I want the
    right to be angry, if I see prejudice I want to be able to call it
    by it's name. 
    
    Bonnie

    
    re: last few
    
    i get very tired of arguments of the form, 'how can you worry about
    <x> when <y> is so much more important'. examples include:
    	x=unplanned pregnancies		y=starving people
    	x=the homeless			y=nicaragua
    	x=the oppression of women	y=the oppression of anybody else
    
    you know, i *can't* worry about all the x's and all the y's. i don't
    have enough time, energy, money, commitment, strength or wisdom.
    furthermore, i think it's a waste of what little of those qualities
    that i do possess to try to justify why i might choose to care more
    one and not another. especially since i truly believe that most
    of the problems in our world are all facets of the *same* problem:
    not enough love and caring for everyone and everything on the planet.
    i *know* that women are not treated fairly in our society. i see it
    every day. it is REAL. since i love women, individually and as a group,
    their plight pains me, personally, in my gut. it is REAL. thus, i
    choose to give women's issues the first priority of what little energy 
    i can muster. but beyond that, i truly believe that if we can get our
    society to deal with our oppression of women, we will have made a major
    step in conquering *all* oppression.
    

    
    
    
    			We explore ... by example.
    
    

    	RE: .16 Suzanne

>    	"REAL, viable groups" (as opposed to women?)  Please explain!

	 other real, viable groups.....(sorry, I knew what I meant)
	 ;-)
	    
>    	(and crosses the boundaries of nearly every
>    	other group you could possibly name that is also a target of
>    	oppression.)

	 But those women will still be decriminated against in those
	 groups....
	    
>    	Imagine - the *nerve* of people talking about women more often than
>    	others in a file called *WOMAN*notes!  I can see where that would
>    	be terribly upsetting in a culture like ours.

	 I'm talking about in everyday......not in =wn= only.
	    
>    	We can't fight for equality for *anyone* if we aren't allowed to
>    	mention the injustices suffered by particular groups

	 Where did I say that?  I believe I said that other groups
	 have just as important injustices......and those should not
	 be ignored along the way....especially if we are striving for
	 the same thing.
	 
>    	It has been suggested before that the word "woman" be taken out
>    	of the title of this conference (so that the file would not be
>    	slanted so much towards issues involving women, specifically.)

	 Not by me......I think =wn= is pretty good as it is.....but i
	 think it could use some more compassion....
	    
>    	How do you justify your *own* anger at the anger you perceive in
>    	this notesfile?  (Or, doesn't your anger *need* to be justified?)

	 I have rarely felt "anger" at anything here....more like
	 FRUSTRATION at not feeling like I'm being listened to and
	 given a "fair shake."
	 
>    	...towards men.  Right?  How about the anger at women who appear
>    	angry at men?  Is that kind of "women's anger" more acceptable to
>    	you?  If so, why?

	 No anger is 'more acceptable' to me..........even FROM me.
	    
>    	Are you kind towards women whom you perceive to be angry about 
>    	injustices towards women?  Or do you fight them?

	 Do I have more choices? ;-)  I try to understand WHY they are
	 the way they are, and I try to help them understand WHY I
	 feel they are not being as effective as they could
	 be...(ie, I try to get my opinion across to them).
    
>    	Do you think we can gain equality just by asking nicely for it -
>    	making sure not to say anything that could make men mad at us?

         No, and I don't believe I ever implied that.  I said I
         believe there were alternate ways than anger.  And they have
         proven effective for me.
	 
RE: .17 (Bonnie)
	     
>    If women can't talk about very real pain and frustration in re 
>    being discriminated against here, then where can they talk in
>    Dec?

	 I never said "shouldn't" and "can't."  I said there are other
	 groups that can be a benefit to the fight for equality for
	 women by making it a fight for equality for all.  And by
	 adding more compassion toward these groups, more understanding,
	 I feel we can better win the fight......

	 "Make love, not war."
	 
>    There are files, like Human_Relations and Soapbox where more general
>    types of discrimination can be discussed.

	 I haven't really seen much REAL discussion on equality for all in
	 either file.   I think it's for all groups to address the
	 issue.  And not in a "generic environment."
	 
>    Some men in Mennotes use that file to vent about bad divorce
>    settlements and grasping ex wives, yet their right to do so
>    isn't challenged because they are focusing only on the discrimination
>    that they have experienced. I think that this is right and proper.

	 I think it is too.....But I think there is MORE that can be
	 added to it.....
	    
>    in my life I have swallowed my pride and 'made nice' so as not to hurt
>    other people's feelings.

	 Not "make nice", just not "make anger."  Work WITH to
	 educate, not work against.
	 
>	 There have to be some places where we can
>    talk about pain and hurt and frustration and all the bad stuff
>    and connect with others so we know we aren't crazy.

	 Agreed.....and there is more....
	 
    I know that, especially for younger women, some women don't agree with
    this or haven't experienced prejudice or discrimination.  But it is
    real, and it does hurt, and talking about it is a way to deal with it.
    One thing I've grown to dislike is covering things up and only talking
    nicely because it 'isn't done' to do other wise.

>	 I honestly don't think
>    that is what you are advocating, but to many women of my generation
>    that is the button that is pushed when we read words like yours.

	 You're right, it isn't.....My note has been taken with
	 negativity, I believe (ie, "you shouldn't", "you can't"),
	 when the real meaning is positivity (ie, "there is more",
	 "there are ways to work together", "there are ways to heal
	 the hurt by working thru it instead of dwelling on it")
	    
>    If I am upset I want to be able to say so, if I am angry I want the
>    right to be angry, if I see prejudice I want to be able to call it
>    by it's name. 

	 And after you do all that.....what do you do then?
	   

RE: .18 (Joe?  You never sign your notes, I don't know your name)
	 
>    i get very tired of arguments of the form, 'how can you worry about
>    <x> when <y> is so much more important'. examples include:

	 No, rather....

	 "how can you worry about only <x> when <y> is just as
	 important"               ^^^^                 ^^^^^^^

	 When all the x's and y's are reaching for the same thing...

	 No, with THAT in mind, please re-read my note (if you want).
	 
>    you know, i *can't* worry about all the x's and all the y's

	 All you have to do is change the word "women" to
	 "all"...still focus on women if you want, but don't push
	 aside the "all" part.....PLEASE!  It's just as important!
	 
>    especially since i truly believe that most
>    of the problems in our world are all facets of the *same*
>    problem:
	 
	 EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!  :-)
	 

	 kath    

    	RE: .20  Kath
    
    	>>Imagine - the *nerve* of people talking about women more often than
	>>others in a file called *WOMAN*notes!  I can see where that would
	>>be terribly upsetting in a culture like ours.

	> I'm talking about in everyday......not in =wn= only.
    
	Your "everyday" experiences rarely, if ever, jive with mine and
	this time is no exception.  If I heard women's issues being
	discussed everywhere else everyday, =wn= wouldn't be nearly as
	precious to me as it is (and I'd be a lot more encouraged about
	the state of our culture than I am at the moment.)

	As it is, I'm grateful to see women's issues given precedence here!

    	>> We can't fight for equality for *anyone* if we aren't allowed to
	>> mention the injustices suffered by particular groups

	 > Where did I say that?  I believe I said that other groups
	 > have just as important injustices......and those should not
	 > be ignored along the way....especially if we are striving for
	 > the same thing.
    
    	Why do you assume that other groups are being ignored in our lives?
    	Do you know any one of us on a 24-a-day basis?  Can you read our
    	thoughts?  How do you claim to know what we ignore or do not ignore 
	in our hearts and minds?
    
    	> ....I think =wn= is pretty good as it is.....but i think it could 
    	> use some more compassion.
    
    
    	What's wrong, Kath, are our feelings "incorrect"?  What would you
    	rather that we feel?
    
    	>>How do you justify your *own* anger at the anger you perceive in
    	>>this notesfile?  (Or, doesn't your anger *need* to be justified?)

	>I have rarely felt "anger" at anything here....more like
	>FRUSTRATION at not feeling like I'm being listened to and
	>given a "fair shake."
    
    	This statement is an unfair generalization about a notesfile that
    	is comprised of a diverse group of people (the vast majority of
    	whom have never done *anything* to you to deserve to be characterized
    	in this way.)
    
    	Do you consider this "listening" and "giving a fair shake" to
    	others here?
    
    	>>Do you think we can gain equality just by asking nicely for it -   
     	>>making sure not to say anything that could make men mad at us?

        >No, and I don't believe I ever implied that.  I said I
        >believe there were alternate ways than anger.  And they have
        >proven effective for me.
    
    	Your ways are effective for you because women/feminists who took
    	a stand (and were *not* nice) provided opportunities for you that
    	you would not have had otherwise through the women's movement.
    
    	Of course, it's much nicer for you now to disassociate yourself
    	with those women/feminists (and to have the benefits of what they
    	did without having to take the brunt of the cultural resentment
    	for it.)  

    	It's much rougher out on the front lines, Kath, although I'm
    	certainly happy for you that you *do* benefit from the work of
    	the women's movement, even though you spend so much time knocking
    	the attitudes that have accomplished so much for *all* women in
    	the past 150 years.

 THIS IS THE PLACE to deal with women's feelings, women's experiences, and
women's needs. Of course the women here (and men, for that matter) focus on 
gender based discrimination. Why shouldn't they? 

 In general, Kath, it is indeed the ideal to work for complete equality for
all people. However, in specialized spaces such as =wn=, it is both more
effective and more therapeutic to focus on individual aspects of discrimination.

 Trying not to bandwagon-

 The Doctah

    
    
    WOW!  Timeout people!  If womman_notes is for people to express their
    views, then that means ALL views.  I don't believe that such strong
    sarcasm is necessary between ADULTS.
    
    I believe that the original subject here was Misogony: what started it,
    what encourages it ...  Kath has made a valuable point.  Anger begots
    anger.  I, too, have been treated like nothing more than a little girl
    playing the roll of her daddy by men in management's boy's club.  But
    talking down to "younger" women who haven't had that experience, isn't
    going to help.  What also isn't going to help is holding a grudge by
    saying that society owes us, as women, for the roles that we've been
    forced into for the past, God-only-knows-how-many, years.  Carrying a
    grudge and venting anger publically, (outside of this notes file), do
    nothing but encourage hate of women in people who already hate women. 
    On the other hand, we must demand respect and if that ticks people off,
    then so be it.  I think you are all missing Kath's point and she is
    missing your's.  Kath is saying don't show the world nothing but anger. 
    You people are saying, "how do you know that we show anger when all you
    see is our replies in WN?"  Kath is operating on assumptions but
    responding with anger only proves, to her, what she is saying.
    
    Yes, thanks to the first feminists who fought so hard, we have a right
    to demand respect and a wage equal to that of a comparible man's.  I
    also understand that I am lucky.  Perhaps more fortunate than older
    women who've been in the business world for longer.  When I got out of
    school 2 years ago, women engineers were not common but at least not
    thought to be women trying to be men.  I had an easier time than I
    would have 5 or 10 years ago.  But don't hold that against me or anyone
    else.
    
    
    Rachael
    

    re .15 - 
    
    I think the point about "real viable groups" that are targets of
    discrimination, and whether or not women qualify as such a group, is
    absolutely central to all our discussions here and in other topics, of 
    how women are treated in our society.
    
    What *is* a real viable group? Assuming, for example, that blacks and
    Jews are viable groups in this political sense, what's the difference; why
    shouldn't women work, just as blacks and Jews do, for an end to
    discrimination against them, without being told they're just being
    angry and self-centered? What do racism and anti-Semitism have that
    misogyny doesn't?
    
    Dorian
    
    Dorian

>	What do racism and anti-Semitism have that
>    misogyny doesn't?

men.

    well, I've held my breath and counted to 10 now [ ;-) ], so I believe I
    will respond to several issues raised:
    
    1 - 'looking down on younger women'
    ----------------------------------
    I'm 35 and my sister is nearly 25.  The years between my 'coming of
    age' and hers saw _much_ change in the attitudes and status of women
    here in the US.  What I experienced, she did not.
    
    Do I look down upon her for this?  No.  But occasionally I become a bit
    annoyed when she tells me what I experienced didn't happen or doesn't
    have any relevance to these modern times.  [Today is built upon
    yesterday just as surely as tomorrow is rooted in today] But down deep
    our hopes for ourselves and future equality are very much the same.
    
    Times change.  I also suffered through horrendous cases of measles and
    mumps.  She did not as immunisations had been found.
    
    Now, I would no more wish the 'dues' or the 'fight' on younger women
    than I would wish the misery of mumps upon my much beloved sister.  I
    do not expect gratitude or respect for having lived and struggled
    through either. But I am today a product of my past.  
    
    I am not bitter and I do not hate, but I have worked and will work for
    the special concerns of women in our society.  I truly do see many of
    the ills of our society will fading with that betterment.
    
    2 - taking a broader view
    -------------------------
    This seems to come up in any discussion of the problems of women.
    
    [set mode/mildly miffed]
    time without number, members of this file have discussed the
    environment, the plight of the homeless, racism, AIDS, censorship, gay
    rights, anti-semitism, substance abuse ... and _not_ just in ratholes!!!!
    
    it would seem that many here, who forthrightly state that their _first_
    priority is women, already take a broader view toward world betterment.
    [set mode/normal]
    
    It would make me very happy if we could return to discussing misogyny
    in this topic.  [I carry a bit of it buried myself.]  Women really do,
    as a subset of humanity, have some problems stemming from it.  This
    does not say that other problems do not exist.
    
    I, for one, would be happy to discuss them in a different note.
    
    3 - for those who have not experienced it
    -----------------------------------------
    
    From the bottom of my heart:
    
      Bless you.  I sincerely hope you never do.
    
    
    Ann

re .26 :  Darn it, Catherine, you beat me to it again! :-)

re .27:  Thank you and amen!

Bobbi_who's_been_on_marches_rallies_picket_lines,_etc.,_for_all_the_"causes"
_Ann_mentioned(tired? who me?!:-(

	Just yesterday I had a discussion with another woman (she is
	about 7 years younger than I am) about my reactions sometimes
	to situations where I think that my sense of what the goal is,
	is attacked.  (This is very difficult to put into words since
	I am talking about gut feelings.)

	During the course of our discussion I came to the conclusion
	that what is happening to me is "survival tactics" get turned
	on HIGH.  It is much more than simple knee-jerk reaction.  Over
	the years I have had to fight for every inch of progess I have
	made, fight against society, family, friends and myself.  The only
	way I have made it to where I am is but being agressive about
	not giving up any thing that I have gained.  When this reaction	
	kicks in I do not know it is happening, but I have survived and
	I have made progress, I have done things that many women from
	my generation could not/did not.

	It is my feeling that there are a lot of women out there who
	have had life experiences that have led to them having developed
	similar "survival tactics" that are automatic.  It is my belief
	that many of the "young women engineers" have not had to rely
	on these, YET.

	It is not pleasant to be on the other side when I start running
	on auto-pilot, and it is usually something trivial.  This may
	make individuals think that I don't like them - but it is not
	a personal issue and just my survival.

	Because of the culture we live in all of us have traces of 
	misogyny and no matter how "good" women are they will never
	be good enough to be men.  So my reactions are often seen as 
	man-hating, or being a BITCH, or "not nice" or one of the many
	ways women are told not to be agressive, angry or fighters.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Misogyny is a form of self-hatred
			for men as well as women.

I believe misogyny to be perpetuated by many little things that we say and 
do without realizing the impact of them.


Case in point (please this is not a direct attack on anyone but rather just
an example)....I just read a personal name that said...

			"Men don't want to know."

If I were a slightly misogynic man, reading a personal name like this would
add fuel to my fire....in fact, being the woman I am now, I find it a very
detrimental statement to my reach for equality.   Yes, it's simply a statement,
but it reinforces negative feelings in some men.

I believe it's negative reinforcement, not positive.  Positive reinforcement, I 
believe, goes a long way toward our goal, while negative reinforcement 
hinders us greatly.  

I can support negative comments in a purely supportive environment in order
to vent anger, display frustration, but in an environment where we are working
to gain equality by working WITH others, I find it to be a great hindrance.


kath

    re .31 -
    
    Unless I'm mistaken, that quote, "men don't want to know," is from
    David Nyhan's column in the Boston Globe a few days after the murders
    of the 14 women in Montreal, in which Nyhan documented the sluffing of 
    the event aside by the (male-dominated) media.
    
    Would you consider this column another one of the little things
    we say and do that perpetuate misogyny?

    "Men don't want to know" was written by a man, Kathy.  David Nyhan
    in a Boston Globe column on the reasons for the relatively paltry
    coverage and exploration of the Montreal massacre of women.  So
    it's a bad example to use.
    
    I get the impression that you believe women's anger and raised voices
    are primarily responsible for the continuing of misogyny; that men
    are fully willing to pass the ERA but are not doing so because we
    have made them, and continue to make them, angry.  Have I got it so far?
    
    You further seem to be saying that all we have to do is "work with
    men" and "not against them" and that will do it.
    
    Perhaps you don't realize that women *have* "worked with men" and
    it just didn't work.  We still aren't guaranteed the same rights
    and protections under the constitution that men are.  Perhaps where
    you and many other women in this file differ is not a question of
    "working with" as opposed to "being angry at" men, but a question
    of *when* is it right to transfer from one to the other.  
    
    When, after "working with" men to get the ERA passed, to get daycare,
    to get deadbeat men to support their children, to get equal
    opportunities to the material goodies in life, and getting merely
    cajoled and jollied around, is it ok to begin to get just plain pissed 
    off?  Do you think women were subservient one day and suddenly 
    became strident one day back in the early 60s?  Do you think women changed
    from docile June Cleavers into screaming bra-burners once they took
    their first birth control pill?
    
    This is what so many younger women fail to see.  A woman's role
    has always been a deferential one to men and you can bet your
    engneering degree that the first stirrings of female desire for
    equal freedom and autonomy *guaranteed by the constitution* were
    done so "nicely".  We worked according to the system but found the
    system itself was male dominated and against us.  Several hoops
    were thrown for women to jump through and they did to no avail. 
    
    At what point do *you* get exasperated when the important goals of
    your life are thwarted?  Never?  Have you never kicked anything
    in sheer anger?  Is 20 years of failure to pass the ERA enough time
    for frustration to build?  Or, perhaps, you think there really IS no amount
    of time - that anger against the policy-makers is *never* justified.
    I hope you don't think that.  And I further hope that you don't
    think feminists are rightly regarded by men as mere spoiled brats
    who won't get their just desserts until they "make nice".  It's
    been done, Kathy.  Women have always had to be nice to men.  Until
    recently, you couldn't pay the rent without them.  Now we have the
    responsibility of paying the rent, (women single parents are
    practically the norm, these days), but we still don't get equal
    protection guaranteed under the law.  You got into engineering school
    but it wasn't because men believed you had the right to.  It was
    because when women asked nice, and got a pat on the head and a
    patronizing chuckle, they got tougher.  
    
    There's a great quote that goes, "The only requirement for the triumph
    of evil is that good men [sic] do nothing."  Be thankful your sisters
    are not "doing nothing" because no man would simply hand you the
    opportunities you've gotten any more than they'd hand them to any
    woman.  It was female anger that won what little gains we have made.
    And until the policy-making men are willing to respond to reason and 
    logic, only female anger will fuel the continuing fight for equality.
    THEY have a choice.  The ball is in their court.  Equalilty will
    happen because it's the right thing to do, or it will happen because
    we are forced to MAKE it happen.  It takes two sides to make a "war".
    Women are not screaming in a vacuum.  And our anger is not a silly
    little  exercise in how far we can push men.  It's an expected human
    response to those who would find out how far they can push us. 

RE: .33 (Sandy)

>    "Men don't want to know" was written by a man, Kathy.  David Nyhan
>    in a Boston Globe column 

1.  How many people read the Boston Globe?
2.  How many people read that article?
3.  How many people (men especially) in NOTES are going to immediately
    equate the personal name with the quote?
4.  Is my point made? 

The P_N stands alone and is VERY easily open to misunderstanding.  I said in
the paragraph BEFORE it that [paraphrased] "that we do things sometimes that
we don't think of the impact it will have on others"

>    I get the impression that you believe women's anger and raised voices
>    are primarily responsible for the continuing of misogyny;

No, you're not right so far.

The question was raised in .0, "what are some ways women can aid in perpetuating
misogyny" [paraphrased].  Please point out where i said that what I'm presenting
is "primarily responsible".  In fact, I do believe I did say "sometimes I
believe that women do..."  which obviously disputes your claim that I'm 
implying this to be a primary reason for misogyny.

>    Perhaps you don't realize that women *have* "worked with men" and
>    it just didn't work.

I believe DougO, Doctah, Steve Mallett, and Joe (?) White are living examples
that it HAS worked...and is still working today.

I challenge you to find ONE MAN that was won over to the feminist side because
he felt anger directed at him during a talk with a feminist (and from that 
sympathized with her plight), by legislation forcing him to act a certain way, 
etc.  

>Perhaps where
>    you and many other women in this file differ is not a question of
>    "working with" as opposed to "being angry at" men, but a question
>    of *when* is it right to transfer from one to the other.

Well, when IS it justified?  I don't think it is....I think it is a way to 
vent frustration, but I don't feel it should EVER EVER EVER be directed at
the group that we are striving for unity with.  I always try to direct
my anger at the PROBLEM, not at the persons involved in the problem.

>    This is what so many younger women fail to see.

Sandy...right here I am going to point you back to your note of 911.39 in which
you state...

	911.39>I don't make the pronouncements of absolute right and wrong  
	911.39>and I'm really 
	911.39>surprised that many people react to me as though I had.

At this point I believe I'll stop replying to this note.

kath

>You got into engineering school
>    but it wasn't because men believed you had the right to.  It was
>    because when women asked nice, and got a pat on the head and a
>    patronizing chuckle, they got tougher.  

Sandy, I'm VERY thankful for the past and the things women have STRIVED for
and what they've obtained, and I KNOW there is a long way to go....


But it would be living in the past to think that *I* got into college because of
the fact that women in the past 'got tough.'  Perhaps to say that *women*
began to be allowed equal opportunity for college was because of toughness,
but never why *I* got into college.

I got into college because I acheived, and because in this day and age, if
you acheive, you're rewarded....and it's not based on gender.  *I* got into
college because *I* acheived and *I* reached for it.

It's the *opportunity* to have the *chance* to get there that was given to me
by tough women in the past.

I'm GREATLY offended at your insinuations that I didn't get into college on 
my own merit.........

The mindset is HERE AND NOW.......I base my actions and my thoughts on the
mindset of hear and now.  I can never hope to make a difference by basing
it on the past transgressions.  Every acheivement is a step, and every
failure is a learning tool to me.  Never once shall I dwell on the past
failures, because there will be my downfall.


kath

GEMVAX::CICCOLINI:

  (Sorry, can't remember your preferred frm of address right now.)

> Be thankful your sisters are not "doing nothing" because no man
> would simply hand you the opportunities you've gotten any more than
> they'd hand them to any woman.

  Read what you wrote.  Then decide if you're part of the solution
  or part of the problem.

                                   Atlant

    
    re:.34
    sorry, i'm sure this seems like ganging up on you, but one of
    the first things that got me thinking about feminism was wondering
    why this slightly unkempt-looking woman was so *angry* at me for
    having liked 'a boy and his dog'.
    

re .34 --

So you're saying that, instead of getting angry, we should -- in response to 
misogyny --


massage an ego?

    re .35
    
    Kath,
    I'm not much of a feminist, and I like to believe my success has
    been achieved due to my own actions, but even I'm not fool enough
    to believe women aren't treated as equal.  If you truly have been 
    able to experience a life without prejudice because of your gender, 
    then I envy you. I envy any woman who doesn't have to work twice
    as hard just to be thought of as equal.
    
    	-maureen

    RE: last several
    
    Well, I for one agree with many of Sandy's points, here. 
    
    "Playing nice" with the boys hasn't gotten us anywhere. "Playing
    nice" with the power structure hasn't gotten any group anywhere,
    that I can think of. (maybe you can think of one)
    
    People began to pay attention because of Watts, because of Stonewall,
    because of the so-called "Bra-Burners" (and in the previous century,
    because of the women who risked death to get the vote). As far as I can
    see, "playing nice" hasn't gotten anybody anywhere. And truly, is the
    power structure going to give power away voluntarily? 
    
    Kath, I'm glad you've gotten where you are totally on your own merits,
    not having needed the help of pathfinders/breakers. That you have never
    in your life been at a disadvantage because of your gender is truly a
    modern success story. I wish 53% of the women in this country had 
    experienced the same. 
    
    --DE
    

    RE: .40
    
    Last line should read "53% of the population"...
    
    Sorry
    
    --DE
    

>1.  How many people read the Boston Globe?
>2.  How many people read that article?
>3.  How many people (men especially) in NOTES are going to immediately
>    equate the personal name with the quote?
>4.  Is my point made? 

No.  The fact that people often don't read and don't have the "correct"
frame of reference to interpret what they're hearing or seeing is my point.
Misogyny and women's anger about it would be understood a lot better with a 
little reading.  How many people do that?  Damn few.  The underling in
any power imbalance does the learning.  The superior doesn't have to.
Therefore, many women read feminist literature and understand women's
anger in the context of history.  Most men in the world wouldn't be
caught dead reading it.  Hense their all to often "misunderstandings".

> Please point out where i said that what I'm presenting is "primarily 
>responsible".  

Right here:

	>> Yes, it's simply a statement, but it reinforces negative feelings 
	>>in some men.  I believe it's negative reinforcement ... negative 
	>>reinforcement hinders us greatly.

So in what way are we hindered then?

If you're going to get stuck on the word "primarily", I'll offer that I
have inferred that from your many statements that seem to place much of
the blame on women.  "Women have a problem with the objectification of
women..."  "[women] reinforce negative feelings in some men" and others.

>I believe DougO, Doctah, Steve Mallett, and Joe (?) White are living examples
>that it HAS worked...and is still working today.

Yeah, that's Joe (!) White  ;-).  But picking out a few men from a relatively 
small microcosm of enlightenment, (young and educated men working in high 
tech fields), exemplifies only the possibilities.  There have always been 
enlightened men.  But policy is still made by white males the age of your 
father and mine who got to their positions by not rocking the boat built by
their fathers who got there the same way.  Enlightened men haven't, as a
rule, been successful in gaining political power.  But it doesn't mean
they aren't there.  And the ERA still isn't passed.  These men are mavericks -
brave guys to stand apart from other men and say "whoa".  I want more of
them - so many that some of them actually get to be policy-makers.

>I challenge you to find ONE MAN that was won over to the feminist side

"Winning them over" is not the goal.  I want equality guaranteed to me under 
the constitution no matter what they personally think.  They don't have to
like me.  They just have to treat me fairly and equally because I'm a human
too.  And when they don't, just like a human, I get angry.

> because he felt anger directed at him during a talk with a feminist 
>(and from that sympathized with her plight)

I think we're getting closer to understanding.  You see, I don't expect to
have to "get sympathy".  I expect to have my rights as a tax-paying
American guaranteed me just like the male tax-paying Americans do.  If you
think women should have to "get sympathy" first, then it would appear you
see women as even more powerless than they are or see men as more powerful
then they are.  Trying to "get sympathy" from old, white policy-makers who
don't know what the heck you're crabbing about and don't really care, is a 
useless waste of time.

>, by legislation forcing him to act a certain way, 

THIS works.  I don't care if they open doors for me but I want them
FORCED to hire the most qualified person for the job.  EVEN if it's a
white male!  How's THAT for a radical concept!  I don't care if they
stew and steam.  Equality is everyone's right.  I want it too and as an 
American citizen I'm entitled to it.

>I don't feel it should EVER EVER EVER be directed at the group that we 
are striving for unity with.  

Well, well, well.  Here's where I think the flaw is in your thinking.
Most men do not *want* 'unity' with women, whatever you think unity
is. That's why the "nice" methods don't work.  And that's why we NEED the
ERA  - to guarantee, that no matter what someone's personal prejudices may
be, fairness and equality for all is the LAW!  
    
You won't change a single man in notes.  We are just nameless, faceless
words and ideas, mostly radical and distasteful.  The only men we can
change are those in our social sphere - the ones who care about
us personally.  That's nice, but unless we hang out with legislators,
nothing is going to change, society-wise.  If you read about the
increasing honesty male politicians are using to defend their change to
being pro-choice, they invariably cite the women *in their lives*, their 
wives and daughters, as the reason.  I'm glad we have them, I really am.  
Because as a group, the lawmakers still regard women as less than
deserving of complete autonomy - as needing more "control".  That's why
laws will work.  And I don't care if it's a senator's wife or me that gets
it done.  I want it done.  And I don't think I should have to kiss ass
to get what men get simply by being born men.    

>I always try to direct my anger at the PROBLEM, not at the persons 
>involved in the problem.

So you see men as merely "involved"?  Who is responsible for this mess
in your mind?  Do you see society as a third thing, something separate from 
men and women?  I see it as a collection of male ideals. Women are "involved"
only to the extent that they are expected to follow rules they are not 
allowed a voice in.  But not allowed by whom?  By random others who are merely 
"involved" to the same limited extent?

And I still don't make the pronouncements of absolute right and wrong.
Sexism and misogyny are wrong but certainly not just because I say so.
There *are* universal truths which are independent of everyone.  You don't
kill people.  That's wrong even if I say it in notes and admit I don't
pronounce right and wrong.

Or do you disagree that sexism, racism and misogyny are flat out wrong?
    

>    I think that in this instance, the liklihood of misunderstanding is
>    considerably less because Dorian took the time to enter the Nyhan
>    article into the "Massacre in Montreal" note (888.79).
 

Steve....I don't think so.  I don't read all the notes in here and am sure that
many other's don't either.  I never saw the quote, and when I saw the personal
name I almost jumped out of my skin.  

The point is, taken out of context (which it is as a personal name) and not
having read the quote, I found it to be very insulting toward men....and 
shuttered when I read it.  In the next reply I will bring up other examples
of the simple point I am trying to make.


BTW....how come when asked for my opinion in this note, I stated it, and now
I'm condemned for it?  How come people are not allowed to give their views
on what they beleive without a lot of hassle and condemnation?

kath

	re: .43 (Steve Mallett)

	>    I think that in this instance, the liklihood of misunderstanding is
	>    considerably less because Dorian took the time to enter the Nyhan
	>    article into the "Massacre in Montreal" note (888.79).
    
	I was beginning to think that I had imagined reading that article
	Dorian posted, because no one had yet mentioned that it would be
	difficult to misunderstand the quote even if one had never picked
	up a Boston Glob when David Nyhan's entire article was posted
	here and discussed not that long ago.  

	Thanks for clearing up the confusion (in my mind :-), Steve.

							nancy b.

The following list contains comments made by Sandy in .42 and .33  I use them 
as example as to WHY I feel that sometimes some women perpetuate misogyny in 
others.  I present them as statements made by a woman (really Sandy, this
isn't personal....you've just given me good examples) and try to put yourself 
into the position where you were the person they were being said about.



>Misogyny and women's anger about it would be understood a lot better with a 
>little reading. [...] Most men in the world wouldn't be caught dead reading it.

>But policy is still made by white males the age of your father and mine 
>who got to their positions by not rocking the boat built by their fathers 
>who got there the same way

>I want equality guaranteed to me under the constitution no matter what 
>they personally think.  They don't have to like me.  They just have to 
>treat me fairly and equally because I'm a human too.

>Trying to "get sympathy" from old, white policy-makers who
>don't know what the heck you're crabbing about and don't really care, is a 
>useless waste of time.

>Well, well, well.  Here's where I think the flaw is in your thinking.

>Most men do not *want* 'unity' with women, whatever you think unity
>is.

>And I don't think I should have to kiss ass to get what men get simply by 
>being born men.   

>So you see men as merely "involved"?  Who is responsible for this mess
>in your mind?

>Women are "involved" only to the extent that they are expected to 
>follow rules they are not allowed a voice in.

>This is what so many younger women fail to see. 

>And I further hope that you don't think feminists are rightly regarded by 
>men as mere spoiled brats who won't get their just desserts until they 
>"make nice".   [implying, I think, that men DO feel this]

>You got into engineering school but it wasn't because men believed you 
>had the right to.

>Be thankful your sisters are not "doing nothing" because no man would 
>simply hand you the opportunities you've gotten any more than they'd 
>hand them to any woman.

>And until the policy-making men are willing to respond to reason and 
>logic, only female anger will fuel the continuing fight for equality.




===========================================================================


There, I've stated my opinion and I've back it up with examples (unfortunately
Sandy is going to see this as a personal attack, which it is not.)

I find comments like the above to incite frustration in others.....especially
those that are learning to not be misogynic.  Many of them are blatent
generalizations about men as a whole, or a major part.  Many of them cast
men in a bad light REGARDLESS of whether they are true or not.  The point
is, you're not going to get what you want by accusations and generalizations.

I can't remember the last time I 'won' an argument becuase I forced someone 
into something, or because I intimidated the person or degraded them.  When
you have differences with your partners on ANY subject, do you EVER win by
cutting them down and pointing out their flaws repeatedly???  I *work thru*
my problems and differences.  I don't DENY my problem, but I work thru it.

Take a man that is striving to put aside societies past rules and trying to 
treat women with equality.  Now, throw the above statements at him.  Will
he agree with them, or will he feel threatened?  Personally, *I* feel threatened by
them and I'm not even a man.


If you wish to discus this matter any further, I'll be available thru mail.
I will not discuss this matter here any further.  The question was raised, I
gave my opinion, it was challenged, I tried to support it, it was blasted
now I give examples.  I can do no more to support my position.  Take it for what
you think it's worth.


Thanks, Nancy....a very enlightening topic for me, I'm looking forward to
reading more replies from others and gaining more knowledge on what *I* can
do.

kath

    
    re:.46
    sorry again. every single assertion you quoted from sandy's
    previous note i find to be obviously true (and non-threatening,
    to me; terrifying, i should think however, to the 'establishment')
    

    	RE: .34  Kath
    
    	> I don't feel it should EVER EVER EVER be directed at the group 
    	> that we are striving for unity with.  I always try to direct
	> my anger at the PROBLEM, not at the persons involved in the problem.
    
    	In other words, we should not direct anger at men because of their
    	status as the holders of power (and because of our status as a group 
    	who wishes to acquire "unity with" this more powerful group.)
    
    	However, it's ok to direct anger at persons who are *not* part of
    	the group in power (as evidenced by your repeated willingness to
    	direct *your* anger at the women of =wn=, women who are feminists,
    	and individual women, such as Sandy.)
    
    
    	RE: .35  Kath
    
    	> I'm GREATLY offended at your insinuations that I didn't get into 
    	> college on my own merit.........
    
    	[Offered as an example of how comfortable you seem to feel while
    	displaying anger at a woman.  Obviously, such displays are far more
    	acceptable in our culture than showing anger at a man or men.]
    
    
    	RE: .44  Kath
    
    	> I never saw the quote [of the article], and when I saw the personal
	> name ["Men don't want to know"] I almost jumped out of my skin.  

    	Really?  Why do "possibly negative" comments about men make you so
    	incredibly jumpy?  Are you that threatened by what men might do
    	to you/us if they become additionally angered at women?
    
	> The point is, taken out of context (which it is as a personal name) 
    	> and not having read the quote, I found it to be very insulting 
    	> toward men....and shuttered when I read it. 
    
    	If one read the personal name ["Men don't want to know"] without
    	knowing its original context, what is it about the phrase that is
    	insulting at all (much less, "very" insulting??)
    
    	If I read the phrase out of context, my first thought would have
    	been "Don't want to know *what*???"  The idea of the phrase being
    	an insult would not have crossed my mind (unless the idea of
    	"men being insulted" was a pre-judgment I'd *already made* about a
    	certain group of people, such as women/feminists.)
    
    	> BTW....how come when asked for my opinion in this note, I stated it, 
    	> and now I'm condemned for it?  How come people are not allowed to 
    	> give their views on what they beleive without a lot of hassle and 
    	> condemnation?
    
    	How come so many of your notes amount to reasons why women/feminists
    	in this file should stop saying whatever it is we are saying?
    
    	Do you think that your views should go unchallenged simply because
    	you have chosen to "side with men" (as you phrased it yourself while
    	describing your stand in =wn= to the Soapbox crowd)?

    	RE: .46  Kath
    
    	> The following list contains comments made by Sandy in .42 and .33  
    	> I use them as example as to WHY I feel that sometimes some women 
    	> perpetuate misogyny in others. 
    
    	Looking at the examples (as written by a tax-paying adult member of
    	our society,) I see nothing particularly shocking about a single
    	word that you quoted.
    
    	> I present them as statements made by a woman ...
    
    	Now we get to the heart of your objections.  The statements were
    	made by a woman about men - which, in our culture, is tantamount
    	to saying that these were statements made by:
    
    		A child - about adults...
    		A slave - about the master...
    		Workers - about their boss...
    
    	Only in *this* sense can any of the statements be considered as
    	disturbing/offensive as you seem to imply.
    
    	It's a simple matter of insubordination to a group of people (men)
    	to whom we should be showing nothing less than the highest possible
    	respect.

re: personal name "context"

Here's the said personal name, quoted in full, from 922.28:

"D. Nyhan:  >>Men don't want to know.<<"   

Seems to me it'd be *very* hard to miss that fact that it's a quote
from the Nyhan article, since Nyhan is credited.  

	MKV (who_doesn't_get_the_Boston_Globe_in_CA_and_still_got_it)

       um, kath, this may be just why you are having problems with
       many of the other wommen in this conference. I also find most
       if not all of Sandy's statements true to fact and true to my
       personal experience. In that you've never experienced the truth
       of what she is talking about, this may well be why you don't
       understand what many women are talking about here. 
    
       tho I personally wouldn't use Sandy's words or style - I can't
       deny she is talking about real things that I have experienced.
    
      Bonnie

    
    	RE: .51  Mary Vaskas
    
    	> Here's the said personal name, quoted in full, from 922.28:

		"D. Nyhan:  >>Men don't want to know.<<"   
    
    	Thanks very much for reposting the personal name in full.  (I had
    	forgotten that the original author of the phrase was cited.)
    
    	Even without having read the article, I don't see how any real
    	assumptions can be made *at all* about this phrase (unless one
    	has already made some pre-judgments about women/feminists here.)
    

>    <<< Note 922.52 by WMOIS::B_REINKE "if you are a dreamer, come in.." >>>

>       um, kath, this may be just why you are having problems with
>       many of the other wommen in this conference. I also find most
>       if not all of Sandy's statements true to fact and true to my
>       personal experience. In that you've never experienced the truth
>       of what she is talking about, this may well be why you don't
>       understand what many women are talking about here. 

	 Where did you get the following?

		That I had never experienced any of this? (I've
		fought and won a sex descrimination suit....so
		I've been there)
	 
		That I don't understand?


	 First off, I understand EXACTLY the points many women are
	 talking about.  I understand that

	 1)  Women have fought long and hard for what they have
	 2)  Women are still fighting for what they deserve
	 3)  Women have been descriminated against
	 4)  Women are still being descriminated against
	 5)  Many men have a LONG way to go to accepting equality
	 6)  Many men are chauvanist bigots
	 7)  Women have very real, justifiable reasons to be angry
	 8)  Women SHOULD be able to express that anger
	 9)  Many of Sandy's statements are TRUE.
	 10) Many awful things have happened to women to make them
	     feel this way.

	 So far, I am TOTALLY *with* Peggy, Sandy, Bonnie, Suzanne,
	 and many others, right?  I truly believe ALL the above to be
	 true.

	 But, I'm talking something different.  The following is a
	 list of what *I* am talking about...the points I am trying
	 to make.  The above list is NOT open for discussion at the
	 moment, I believe in ALL of thse things, and most ALL of what
	 everyone is saying.  

	 I ALSO believe that

	 1)  People get defensive when others get angry *at* them
	 2)  People never like to admit that they are wrong (men that
	     they might be not treating women 'right', women that they
	     might be fostering that treatment by somethings they do)
	 3)  By dwelling on past transgressions we lose sight of
	     future possibilities (do bring up every wrong your
	     partner did to you went you get into a different
	     disagreement?)
	 4)  The matter at hand is "equality"...nothing more, nothing
	     less.
	 5)  Cooperation and compromise are essential to every
	     settlement.
	 6)  It is important to be honest and open.
	 7)  It's important to talk about your anger...to work thru
	     it.
	 8)  It is detrimental to direct anger at the person you are
	     trying to get to understand. (see 1.)
	 9)  Attitude will never change with simple legislation alone.


	 My point is that I feel that presentation can make or break
	 our 'getting the contract.'  I feel that "expressing anger
	 at a person" instead of "working thru that anger with a
	 person" is detrimental.

	 I've not told anyone they should do anything.  I've merely
	 stated what I feel to be detrimental.

	 Please, let's not condemn me, but rather ADDRESS my beliefs
	 and work with me thru them.  Why are my beliefs wrong?  I'm
	 open to understanding and I'm open to learning.  Please, do
	 not assume I'm implying something, but please ASK.  Let's
	 TALK.

	 Let's talk about what *I* feel women do to encourage
	 misogyny.  And let's talk about what is right and wrong with
	 my opinions.  Let's understand that I am NOT saying "women
	 should do this", let's understand that I AM saying that "from
	 my viewpoint, women are doing this."

	 This is my last try at TALKING.  PLEASE, I ask for TALK!  I
	 ask for EDUCATION!  I ask that you at least *understand* what
	 I'm saying, whether you agree with it or not!!!!!!!


	 kath
	 

    	RE: .54  Kath
    
    	> This is my last try at TALKING.  PLEASE, I ask for TALK!  I
	> ask for EDUCATION!  
    
    	Ok, I'll take a try at this - all I ask of you is that you accept
    	that what I am about to write *is* just talking (and is not meant
    	in anger or mean-spirited towards you in any way.)  Honestly.
    
    	> 1)  People get defensive when others get angry *at* them
    
    	Since women have spent thousands of years having cultures, religions
    	and yes, MEN angry at us, it is quite human for us to react to it.
    	It is *also* quite human for us to react to the "backlash" that
    	we're getting for our reaction to the original hate lodged at us.
    
    	> 2)  People never like to admit that they are wrong (men that
	>     they might be not treating women 'right', women that they
	>     might be fostering that treatment by somethings they do)
    
    	Ok, so if men will not admit that they have not been treating women
    	"right," and it makes them even angrier and more hateful towards us
    	when we refuse to accept their denials, what are we supposed to do?
    
    	Should we lie to them and agree that everything is ok (to keep from
    	acting in a way that might "foster" additional anger and hate towards
    	women?)  Should it be up to women to "adjust" (for their refusal to
    	admit they were wrong) by denying our own feelings instead?
    
    	Even if such deception ends up making men like us more than they do
    	now, wouldn't it be like "selling our souls" to have to lie to win
    	their approval?  Would it be worth it?  (To me, it would not!)
    
	> 3)  By dwelling on past transgressions we lose sight of
	>     future possibilities (do bring up every wrong your
	>     partner did to you went you get into a different
	>     disagreement?)
    
    	"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."
    
    	In the case of women, the danger of moving backwards (to face the
    	loss of our rights) is always a very real possibility in a society
    	as prone to change as ours.  It is also a fact that women have been
    	pushed backwards (in terms of education/employment opportunities)
    	at least twice before.  African Americans have experienced the same
    	sort of setbacks in their own movement (in the last 100 years.)
    
	> 4)  The matter at hand is "equality"...nothing more, nothing
	>     less.
    
    	Part of being equal is being free to say what's on our minds without
    	worrying that we might make more powerful groups mad at us.
    
    	As Sandy mentioned earlier, I believe, we can't consider ourselves
    	equal if we have to kiss the asses of those in power to "win them
    	over."  They should treat us equal whether they like us or not.
    
    	Once we are on equal ground, we won't *need* their general approval
    	any more than they need *ours* now.  Only then will we be free to
    	simply like each other (as groups) without the associated struggle
    	for power.  Until then, I don't personally care whether men (as a
    	group, in general) like us or not.
    
    	Give us equality first, then I'll care whether they also like us.
     
    	> 5)  Cooperation and compromise are essential to every
	>     settlement.
    
    	The problem is that when one group has power over the other, they
    	are a hell of a lot less inclined to want (or NEED) to cooperate *or*
    	compromise with a group that is trying to wrest power away from them.
    
    	We can't cooperate or compromise by ourselves if men aren't already
    	sufficiently motivated to do it with us.  So, the choices we have
    	left are to kiss asses, or fight.  Which sounds more palatable to you?
    
	> 6)  It is important to be honest and open.
    
    	You're seeing me at my most honest and open (not to mention blunt)
    	right now.  It doesn't come out of my mouth any more directly than this.
    
	> 7)  It's important to talk about your anger...to work thru
	>     it.
	 
    	You're assuming a lot (in error) if you think many/most of us 
    	*haven't* worked through it.  
    
    	Talking about injustice does not necessarily imply that one is
    	feeling emotional about it at that moment, in other words.
    
    	> 8)  It is detrimental to direct anger at the person you are
	>     trying to get to understand. (see 1.)
	 
    	You are assuming that we *are* trying to get men (in general) to
    	understand.  Personally, I don't care whether they understand or
    	not, as long as they start treating women with equality.
    
    	Give us equality first, then we can help them understand what they've
    	done.  As equal partners, we'll be in a better position to explain it.
    
    	> 9)  Attitude will never change with simple legislation alone.
    
    	Who cares?  Give us equality first (through legislation, if need be,)
    	then I'll care about their attitudes.
    
    	If given a choice between being hated and not being equal, *or* simply
    	being hated (but having equality!) - I'll take equality!  They can
    	hate us all they like, as long as we're equal first.
    
    	We can work on getting them to stop hating us after we're all on
    	equal ground.  Then, there would be very little point in hating us.
    
    	> I ask that you at least *understand* what I'm saying, whether you 
    	> agree with it or not!!!!!!!
    
    	Kath, I think many/most of us *do* understand what you are saying.
    	Do you really think you understand what we're saying (and why?)

    	RE: .54  Kath
    
    	> My point is that I feel that presentation can make or break
	> our 'getting the contract.'  I feel that "expressing anger
	> at a person" instead of "working thru that anger with a
	> person" is detrimental.
    
    	One last thing I wanted to tell you is that I don't agree that
    	our dealings with men (on a cultural level) should be in terms
    	of being a company who is trying to "get a contract" with a
    	customer.  I don't think women should be in the position of
    	trying to "sell" men anything (as sales personnel offering a
    	"potential customer" the sun and the moon to give *us* the
    	contract instead of having it go to some other group.)
    
    	Women aren't competing with some third gender for the contract
    	of equality with men.
    
    	Women and men must be equal partners.  Nothing less than that will do.
    
    	If men (on a cultural level) are not willing to negotiate the terms
    	of equality, then we have no other choice than to use what power we
    	*do* have to demonstrate to them that it is in their best interests
    	to work with us (and detrimental to them *not* to work with us) until
    	such negotiation is possible.  "Making nice" for *another 150 years* 
    	is simply not a viable strategy for us this time.
    
    	You must understand that I'm speaking on a "cultural level" (and not
    	about the individual men that we may know or love, in our own lives.)
    
    	We can't expect equality unless we refuse to accept anything less
    	than that, Kath, and I can't think of a reason in the world why we
    	*should* accept less.  
    
    	Can you?

	Pertaining to the recent discussion here on ways that
	"sometimes some women perpetuate misogyny in others"
	and the examples given of how this is done, I recall
	something I wrote a while back in the processing topic 
	about Suzanne Conlon that is applicable as well here:

   > 15.509 
   > < Suzanne Conlon  & acceptable levels of aggression in women >

   > Suzanne Conlon's contribution to =wn= is quite unique in that she is 
   > more outspoken, agressive, critical, and blunt then any other woman I 
   > have read in =wn=. 

   > I think Suzanne has received some flack for her notes partially because
   > her behavior falls out of the norm of what is an acceptable level of 
   > aggression for a woman.

	What I wrote above also similarly applies to Sandy Ciccolini, 
	Dorian Kottler, Catherine T., etc.

	Because of their agression, outspoken nature, appearing "not-nice", 
	bluntness, (not to mention having razor-sharp intellects and superb 
	verbal skills) undoubtedly generates a range of responses in
	both women (as voiced by several here) and men.  Responses that 
	perhaps range from total understanding to : 

	[... surprise ... discomfort ... resentment ... anger ... rage ...]
        (what's her problem?)   (feeling threatened) 	(how *dare* she?)
        (my wife/SO isn't like that...)

	While some might describe their behavior as "perpetuating misogyny",
	I would describe their behavior as "falling out of the norm of what 
	is an acceptable level of aggression for a woman" which can result
	in the responses above in both women and men towards women.

	Would I advocate telling these women to pipe down a little so as
	to not risk getting these responses?  Never.         

								nancy b.
      

          I started this topic after being inspired by Justine Sullivan's
          note which caused me to reflect on some of my own feelings that
          could be considered a form of misogyny and the ways it can creep
          into my conscious actions.

          I didn't realize how easily this topic could take on the tone of
          "women are responsible for misogyny because..."

                                                              nancy b.

          When I was a girl I thought other girls were silly because they
          would rather play house instead of with my Tonka trucks and
          didn't want to get dirty when I wanted to climb trees.  My older
          brother was my idol, while my older sister seemed to be
          everything I was not interested in (frilly dresses, ballet,
          generally being a perfect little girl).  In junior high school,
          the situation didn't improve a lot.  I had a lot more male
          buddies than female friends. My older sister was (still is)
          absolutely gorgeous, and would spend hours in the bathroom
          grooming or laying out for that perfect tan.  I thought she spent
          too much time worrying about her appearance, and she thought I
          spent too much time in the library, and thought I was absolutely
          sick to want to go to summer school. (The positive result was a
          low amount of sibling rivalry between us.)


          How I regarded females didn't drastically change until my first
          week at Duke when I met some of the other women on my dorm hall.

          What changed my mind?  (and I am embarassed and ashamed of myself
          for this): meeting/living with a lot of other women my age in one
          time at one place that had SAT scores and GPA's as high as mine.
          Not only that, but their interests were diverse as well.  They
          were into sports, music, and other things that I normally would
          not associate with a "typical smart high school kid".  It was a
          much-needed enlightenment as well as a humbling experience.

                                                          nancy b.

          In a technical discussion involving a male engineer, another
          female engineer, and myself, I have caught myself waiting for the
          man to confirm the correctness or give some sign of approval of a
          technical statement made by the woman, even if she's talking
          about a board she designed and of which he has little first-hand
          knowledge.

          I don't experience that too often anymore, but when I first
          started working here right out of engineering school I did it a
          lot.  Why did I have this short-circuit in my brain?  My theory:
          what *else* had my brain experienced, but that _all_ of my
          engineering professors have been male, and all of my T.A.s were
          male.  When we engineering students (male and female) were
          confused, a man knew the answer, a man was *always* right.  Gee,
          you mean that situation is suddenly different at Digital
          Equipment Corporation?  That's just not what I had been
          conditioned to accept.

          Now, I probably would not have looked to the man for confirmation
          had the woman making the technical statement been Grace Hopper or
          Ruth Goldenberg.  But gosh, that really limits the number of
          women engineers I can converse with and not need male approval,
          doesn't it?

          Recognizing _what_ I was doing and _why_, seemed to magically
          solve a good part of the problem.  Yet I will not deny that some
          residual effects of a male-dominated engineering education still
          exist.


          This is something I thought about after reading Justine's note.
          Then I became defensive and thought, "But I'm not a misogynist!"
          Yet I recognize what I described above to be a form of misogyny.

          {"if the shoe fits, eat it!" credits to either Catherine T. or
          Peggy Leedberg :-}

                                                            nancy b.

>          I didn't realize how easily this topic could take on the tone of
>          "women are responsible for misogyny because..."

 If you really feel that this is the current situation, I suggest that you have
missed the point that Kath was trying to make, assuming I correctly understand
it.

re: Ms. Fox and the infamous p_n

 I know when I read it, it really bothered me, much more so than when I read it
in Nyhan's column (which I didn't entirely agree with- so anyone who was waving
flags at the sight of his column is not going to see eye to eye with me on 
this). I saw it as a slap in the face to any man who cares, to any man who
wants to know. If I sit here and rationalize about it long enough, I can 
understand the motivations behind the words, and come to accept what the meaning
is (and discard the parts that don't apply to me.) However, my first reaction
deep in my gut, was hurt. I felt alienated, devalued, and altogether put off.
(This, by the way, is a feeling, and not subject to contention.) 

 I don't deny the the righteous anger displayed by Ms. Fox. (And I swear, if you
want me to stop noting here, all you have to do is have one person say "Oh, I
guess it isn't proper for a woman to express anger?") That is not the issue.
The issue is alienation.

 Look at it this way- if a man was feeling pain and anger about a divorce, how
many of you that read mennotes would react positively to a p_name "Women are
<the c word>."? (Assuming it was allowed.) I posit that very few would be able 
to avoid a negative reaction by rationalizing that it was just an expression of 
anger. Well, my reaction to the Nyhan quote as a p_name roughly approximates
what I would expect for a reaction from most of you to the aforementioned
fictitious p_name.

 Nuff said- too many of you are nodding off or formulating nastygrams already.

 Sigh...

 The Doctah

    <--
    
    Are you saying you think men *do* want to know, or that men don't
    want to know but you don't want women to *say* men don't want to
    know?
    
    Because if men do want to know, how then do you explain the measly
    media coverage of the shootings, that Nyhan cited in his column? Or --
    sorry if this sounds like a trick question -- do you think the event
    was given the coverage it deserved?

    	RE: .62  The Doctah
    
    	> Look at it this way- if a man was feeling pain and anger about a 
    	> divorce, how many of you that read mennotes would react positively 
    	> to a p_name "Women are <the c word>."? (Assuming it was allowed.) 
    
    	Mark, I guess I'm wondering why the personal name for women had to
    	be so much harsher to make the point here.  (I'm not disagreeing
    	with you that some/many women would not react positively to such a
    	p_name, but I'm wondering why it had to be a much more direct insult
    	to be an effective illustration.)
    
    	How about if someone in Mennotes posted an article about how badly
    	men feel after divorce, and included the phrase, "Women don't want
    	to know."  Then, what if the man who was bitter about his divorce
    	used the personal name:  "J. Smith:  >>Women don't want to know.<<"
    
    	Do you think many women would be upset by it?  Not to invalidate
    	your own feelings about seeing the phrase with "men" in it or
    	anything, but I seriously doubt that it would get a rise out of
    	almost any woman I know.
    
    	The thing is - there are so many worse things said about us nearly
    	everywhere we turn that saying we don't want to know would be
    	considered relatively harmless by most of us, I think, which is
    	why it would take a phrase like "Women are <the 'c' word>" to get
    	our full attention.
    
    	> I posit that very few would be able to avoid a negative reaction 
    	> by rationalizing that it was just an expression of anger. 
    
    	In my own example, I'd probably just think to myself, "I wonder what
    	he means by that."  If I'd seen the article, I'd probably be inclined
    	to think,"Well, I suppose some of us don't [want to know.]  Who knows?"
    
    	> Well, my reaction to the Nyhan quote as a p_name roughly 
    	> approximates what I would expect for a reaction from most of you 
    	> to the aforementioned fictitious p_name.
    
    	Can you honestly say that your reaction to the Nyhan quote is the
    	same as most of us would react to "Women don't want to know," though?
    
    	Again, why does the p_name against us have to be so much worse to
    	make the point?

    
    I am tired of hearing negative remarks by apparently older women
    towards younger women.  It has not been all peaches and cream for the
    last 2 years in engineering.  I appreciate, that relative to what
    you'all went through, maybe it has, but don't look down on me because I
    am young.
    
    Now, I thank the women who have fought so hard so that I could be an
    engineer.  However, I don't thank the women who give me a hard time
    because I am not their age or because I don't look or act like a
    tomboy.  I played with dolls AND trucks as a child.  I enjoyed both.  I
    liked to cook with my mom and I also loved to go to work with my dad
    to play with the eproms that he'd burned.  Yes, I am young but I am
    where I am because :
    	- other women worked hard to make it possible
    	- I am smart and I skipped a couple of years of education in high
    school and college.
    	- I had the guts to move to a big city like Boston all by myself
    from grape country in western Pennsylvania.
    
    ALL of those things enable me to be a professional woman.  Not just the
    work of older women.  If I choose to spend 15 minutes every morning
    putting on makeup, that doesn't make me the antithesis of all you AND
    *I* stand for.
    
    Please try to give us "younger women" credit.  We are not bimbo's who
    don't understand what the women's movement is about.  Don't assume that
    we are.
    
    

    This is a *W*O*N*D*E*R*F*U*L* discussion!  Blessings on Nancy for
    starting it and on Kath for hanging in through all the flak.  Heartfelt
    moderator-thanks to everyone for keeping the flames mostly turned off.
    
    Keep it going!
    
    						=maggie

    Re .60, Nancy, your reply really depresses me.  Maybe because I
    enjoy your company now, but realize that had we ever been children
    or teenagers in the same school or neighborhood, that you would
    have despised me.   I hated sports, math and science more than anything
    else when I was a kid.  I loved playing with dolls and dressing
    in frilly clothes.  My SAT scores would make you wonder if I had
    been born retarded.  (unfortunately I'm *not* joking)
    
    Sometimes I really wonder if I'm going to someday come to the
    conclusion that the entire women's movement has/had nothing to do
    with me.  Is feminism only about women who were math whiz's, wanted
    to be on the h.s. football team, and went on to become managers or
    engineers?  Is there any room for ordinary women, with average I.Q.'s,
    who maybe don't have college degrees, and who do enjoy some of the
    traditional female roles?  
    
    Sometimes it seems to me as though nobody really likes women, even
    other women.  Many men seem to consider women to be less than
    themselves, many women seem to think that anything that is considered
    traditionally feminine such as lace, the color pink, being a housewife,
    or not being athletic or not having a job that only men used to
    have is bad.  Even Lesbians who like having sex with other women,
    so I would think they would like women, seem to prefer women to
    be as masculine as possible.  It seems hardly anybody really likes
    anything that is traditionaly female - except cooking - we all like
    to eat.  Sometimes I feel as though the women's movement passed
    me by because I'm just not the kind of woman it was meant for. 
    It was really only meant for the women who could do the jobs and
    activities that only men were allowed to do before - such as
    engineering or lifting heavy objects.  It was perhaps never meant
    to value the differences that most females have from males.
    
    Personally, I have always liked some things about both men and women,
    and disliked some things about both.  (Except I have *never* liked
   *anything* about boys between the ages of 6 and 16.)  When I was
    a little girl I liked other little girls more than I liked boys
    because the boys all seemed to be too rough, and mean, rude and
    nasty.  But, as I got older I began to appreciate males, because
    they seem to behave more civilly after the age of 16-18, and I realized
    that many of them were as much fun or more fun to have as friends
    than women.  But, I never wanted to be like men.  I always wanted
    to be feminine.  I would just like to see things like trying to
    look pretty
    and taking care of children be valued as much as sports and math.
    Maybe I'm just very confused by this whole topic.
    
    Lorna
    

    	RE: .65  
    
    	> However, I don't thank the women who give me a hard time
    	> because I am not their age or because I don't look or act like a
    	> tomboy.  I played with dolls AND trucks as a child.  I enjoyed both.
    
    	Well, I played with dolls and tea sets (and *no* trucks) as a child,
    	myself, so I don't think the generalizations hold up according to
    	age.  
    
    	I also never wore anything but a dress - except for shorts or
    	bathing suits - until I was well into puberty.  My mother dressed
    	me up like her little doll during my whole early childhood, and I
    	loved it.  I had at least a zillion dolls, and they all had both
    	first and last names.  As Dave Barry would say, "I'm not making
    	this up."  :)
    
    	At the same time, both my parents stressed the importance of college
    	for both women and men.  My siblings and I took the message to heart
    	(and we're all college-degreed now, with excellent careers.)  
    
    	> Please try to give us "younger women" credit.  We are not bimbo's 
    	> who don't understand what the women's movement is about.  Don't 
    	> assume that we are.
    
    	Please don't assume that we assume this, ok?  
    
    	One of the most knowledgeable and dedicated women I know (with
    	regard to the women's movement) is Nancy Bittle, who is 24!  
    
    	So, obviously, generalizations about age simply don't hold, and
    	I think many of us are more aware of this than you may have realized.

    in re .65
    
    Perhaps you are reading something into older/younger women remarks
    that was not intended. I know that when I've mentioned younger women
    at all it was only to point out that the difference in experiences
    may well contribute to different points of view.
    
    Bonnie

    re .67
    
    Lorna,
    
    I can't help but wonder how many lesbians you've actually encountered.
    You might be surprized how many of us are actually "normal" women.
    The generalization, however well intended, is not appreciated.
    
    Believe it or not, some of us really can cook, sew, run a household,
    dress in a traditional feminine manner, etc.  We don't all grow
    up playing with trucks, learning to drive same, wearing short
    hair, and acting butch.  Heck, some of us even like pink!
    And BTW- there's more to being a lesbian than sex.  I even know
    a couple celibate lesbians.
    
    Some of us actually do love women for their entire beings.  Perhaps
    you can think of it as an extension of the love straight women feel
    for each other. And yes, I do believe women do care for each other.
    
    
    

 RE: Dorian

>    Are you saying you think men *do* want to know,
 
 Frankly, I have a very difficult time believing that men would want to have
a tragedy such as this swept under the rug simply because the victims were
women. It seems inhuman.

>or that men don't
>    want to know but you don't want women to *say* men don't want to
>    know?

 Whenever I am asked a question like that, I cannot help but feel slapped by the
implied insult. Is there really that much of a double standard? "Sure, I could
care less, but don't let none of them wimmins say so!" I can't imagine anyone
acting that way (I suppose some do, but do you really believe men in general 
feel this way?)

>    Because if men do want to know, how then do you explain the measly
>    media coverage of the shootings, that Nyhan cited in his column? 

 As it turns out, I haven't had nearly the access to written media that I have
had in the past, so I cannot even make a comparison between this and other
shootings with similar numbers of casualties (which seems to be the metric of
choice). I thought I saw quite a bit of media coverage on TV.

 One thing occurred to me, no matter what, whenever a tragedy hits home, the
people most affected always seem to complain that media coverage was 
insufficient. For example, a family I knew was burned out of house and home.
The media coverage consisted of a short article on an inside page. They were
somewhat miffed that they had not gotten the same attention that another
family had gotten a few weeks previous.

 Quite frankly, I have no idea what causes the media to get a burr in their
butt about any particular story. It usually seems to center around how many
papers they can sell- but is very quirky. 

 I suppose I could list a litany of possibilities as to why the coverage wasn't
as much as you would have liked to have seen- but you wouldn't buy it anyway.
They could even be real reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with the
sex of the victims, but I doubt you'd be swayed.

 May I simply suggest that there is a possibility that the fact that the victims 
were female was not the primary reason for the apparent lack of coverage.

 The Doctah

>    	Mark, I guess I'm wondering why the personal name for women had to
>    	be so much harsher to make the point here. 

 It is a result of intellectual laziness. I wanted an example that would 
definitely evoke the desired response, and not get ratholed by "Well, that
doesn't bother me." It didn't HAVE to be harsher. I was just trying to make a
point. (Not make points, as some seem to think).

>Then, what if the man who was bitter about his divorce
>    	used the personal name:  "J. Smith:  >>Women don't want to know.<<"
>    	Do you think many women would be upset by it? 

 Nope. I wasn't speaking as a spokesman for all men. Apparently, the other men
in this file were not affected by it as I was (or at least didn't feel the need 
to say anything about it.) I was speaking for me. It bothered me. Maybe I am
reacting inappropriately- it has happened before (and will certainly happen
again). I am discussing how I felt when I read that; that's all.

>    	Can you honestly say that your reaction to the Nyhan quote is the
>    	same as most of us would react to "Women don't want to know," though?

 Certainly not- I wouldn't ever say that, either. Hell- I'm, not even saying 
that other MEN would react this way.

 The Doctah

    C'mon Ellen, play fair.  My recollection is that Mark has *never*
    played that game.
    
    						=maggie

    Hi,
    
    I've been following this debate with great interest and I think
    what I'm beginning to sense (and I may be wrong) is that Kath
    may be condoning or encouraging the concept of "winning through
    manipulation".  [Note please that I'm not trying to put words
    in Kath's mouth here, but simply stating what I think I'm
    hearing.]
    
    My mother is a great manipulator and has always stressed to me,
    that to get what one wants, one must know how to act, what to say
    to  the other person.  For my mother there was no such direct thing as 
    "I want this", "please give it to me"; rather, she had to think things 
    through, "if I do or say this, then maybe he will let me do that."
     In her world, this was a very smart thing to know; she
    has lived most of her life in Eastern European countries, and for
    her, learning to manipulate others, was a true survival skill.
    During both wars, knowing what to say and how to say it and to whom,
    allowed her to live.  For example, by bribing a prison guard (with
    a pound of bacon no less), she was able to save my father's life.
    
   However, this manipulation skill should  not be necessary for most 
    of us in America.  We should be able to be direct in our needs and
    wants, we should be confident that we will receive our due just as
    others would for a job well done.   "I work, you pay me."  It should
    be this simple but it's not.  We should not have to resort to
    coyness and cuteness, we should not have to beg for our primary needs,
     like child support for our children, we should not have to resort
    to coercion, and we should not have to resort to anger.  
    
    The way things are today in this country, women will have to continue
    to get angry---God we're not angry enough still!---and stay angry
    until we are given the same rights and privileges as men.  For me,
    I prefer anger to manipulation.
    
    Maia
    
    
    

    
    We are all different.  We are all special.  We have all been subjected
    to childhood "conditioning" in order to get us to conform to the
    norms of society, of our parents or church or friends.  We've all
    been hurt and most of us have, somewhere in the course of our lives,
    hurt others as well.  That is the nature of human existence.
    
    We all hold doubts and fears about our selves, our purpose, our
    values and our priorities.  And its true that woman damage each
    other by refusing to accept each other as we really are.  During
    the course of my life, I've often found that men will come to accept 
    me as an equal more easily than other woman.  All humans are
    uncomfortable with change at first.  But the new and different soon
    becomes the norm and we adapt.
    
    The pressure to conform, to be "safe" is strong in woman because
    throughout thousands of dangerous years of evolution, safety meant
    survival.  It was fight or flight.  Men fought and we flew_:-).
    
    Today we are on the brink of a great change.  I truly believe that.
       
    Often in times of change, the opportunity presents itself to put
    the past to rest.  All we have to do is accept each other as we
    are.  All we have to do is love and support each other because
    (in the final analysis) we are more important to each other than 
    anything else.  No dogma, no tradition, no cultural norm, no
    conditioning, no painful past experience is as important as the
    individual standing beside us. 
    
    Sisterhood isn't about militancy or sexuality or career.  Sisterhood
    is about justice and freedom and democracy... not just for women
    but for all of humanity.  Its about courage and determination.  
    
    Whether you are drawn to science or sewing, whether you are a lesbian 
    or heterosexual or hermaphrodite, whether you carry a compact or a
    gun, you are my sister and I accept you as you are.  
    I will defend your rights and freedom as I would my own.
    We are family.. all of us and we will persevere.
                              
    Mary

    RE: .65
    
    If there have been disparaging comments by older women abotu younger,
    could someone give me an example? I have been following this string
    fairly closely, and I can't remember any such comments. Of course, I
    *am* one of the older women, and my...uh...uhm...[wait a minute, I'll
    think of it]...ah...OH! *memory* may not be the best.  [;-)]
    
    RE: personal name quoting Nyhan
    
    If such a thing gets your attention, wakes you up, makes you think...is
    that all bad? IF this quote alienates you, does that mean a man saying
    "Men don't want to know" alienates you from women? OR that bringing
    such a thing to your attention alienates you? OR that a woman's reprise
    of the quote alienates you? Or that you choose to be alienated when you
    read such a quote? 
    
    [THis isn't directed at you in particular, Doc, although I realize
    you're the only one who has voiced alienation due to the p_n.]
    
    RE: WInning thru manipulation
    
    Wow. I hadn't thought of that. Makes sense.
    
    --DE
    

    
    First of all : Yea, Mary! I couldn't agree with you more!
    
    Second : a restatement of what I said/yelled in .65
    
    I jumbled up a couple of ideas :
    	1.  That younger women should be given respect for being capable of
    understanding the women's movement.
    	2.  That feminine women should be given respect for being capable of
    understanding the women's movement.
    
    What I was reacting to:
    	1.  various comments implying that Kath must be a younger woman
    because she 'obviously' doesn't understand the fighting that we must do.
    	2.  the comment about what one liked to play with as a child.
    
    I was (and I'm sure this is a big surprise to you'all) also reacting
    based on personal experience with being pre-judged not-a-REAL-feminist
    based on my appearance, including my age.  So excuse me for my anger
    but some of these comments hit a nerve regarding misogyny, women to
    women.
    
    
    Thirdly : 
    
    Lorna,  It seems that you and I are arguing the same point.  I think
    that the equality for women means all women.  The great thing about the
    women's movement should be that we all have a choice as to what we want
    to do and when we want to do it.  If a woman wants to raise her own
    children and has the luxury of having the money to choose, she can stay
    home and work, as can her husband.  If a woman wants to be a truck
    driver, engineer, florist or secretary, she can be any.  
    
    So, Lorna, I think the woman's movement was for you too.   Although
    the people whom are probably the most greatful for feminism are the
    women who wanted to work in professions that they would formerly have
    been excluded from.  Sometimes I think it is implied that to work in a
    typically female role is a cop-out.  That all women want to be
    engineers or truck drivers and that the florists just wimped out.
    But I don't think that is intended in true feminism and that is
    certainely not what I believe.
    
    Rachael
    

    We've got another string going in this file where many women are saying, 
    essentially, "I feel threatened by many pronographic portrayals of women".  
    Kath is saying here that she feels threatened by some of the remarks 
    women make about men.

    I'm not sure that these two arguments are so different.  Although I 
    wouldn't go so far as to assert that women encourage misogyny, I think 
    that it is (at least in part; correct me if I'm wrong, Kath) fear of 
    misogynistic reprisals that motivates Kath to wish some things weren't 
    said.  In other words, if anger against men becomes socially acceptable, 
    then anger against women does too.  This is an interesting point.  

    I *don't* agree that legislated equality is more important than a societal 
    understanding of why equality is desirable.  *Both* are important.  
    Legislation may change court decisions, but it won't change the way people 
    act on a day-to-day basis much.  In other words, I don't want to have to go 
    to court to get my rights, I want them regardless.  I don't think this is 
    the same as "kissing ass" or "making nice", and I don't see it as
    manipulation.  I call it putting one's foot down, calmly but firmly.

    I'm uncomfortable with many pornographic portrayals of women, but I 
    wouldn't censor them.  I'm coming to think, increasingly, that Kath is 
    saying the same thing about certain types of statements about men.  
    Her discomfort is as real as mine, and I find it very relevant to the 
    topic of misogyny.

    Why does Kath's discomfort (or her feeling that anger is pointless and
    potentially threatening) neccessarily translate into a denial of others'
    rights to state their feelings and to fight?  Isn't taking her statement
    of discomfort as a call to self-censorship a form of the internalized 
    misogyny Nancy cites?

	    Sharon
	    

<set cynic on>

I think the media mavens are very astute about what men want to know, and
about what we all want to know -- 'cause they know what sells. Dead women,
it seems, sell better in porn and advertising than they do in news stories.

<set cynic off>

  This note seems to illustrate that there's a double standard about
  things, and that men *ARE NOT* the sole purveyors of this double
  standard.

    o The infamous personal name, along with some other replies,
      have made sweeping generalizations about men, and we've
      consumed many replies arguing whether or not those sweeping
      generalzations were bad.

    o But Lorna St. Hilaire made a generalization or two about
      women, and she was quickly shot at.

  If anybody's actually taking the poll, I WAS DEEPLY OFFENDED
  BY THE PERSONAL NAME, and my realizing from where it comes did
  not mitigate my feelings.  I just didn't think complaining would
  do any good.

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Meanwhile, Sharon's reply really cuts to the heart of things.

  It certainly seems to be the position of many of these replies
  that women's anger at men is okay, even good, the right attitude
  to take, but men's anger against women (assuming there is any)
  is "MISOGYNY".

  And many of you are working just as hard as you possibly can to
  put the worst possible spins on Kath's replies.

                                   Atlant

    <--  -1
    
    Misogyny is not "men's anger against women." It is hatred of women,
    by either men or women.

>    If such a thing gets your attention, wakes you up, makes you think...is
>    that all bad? 

 I was already thinking. All it did for me was make me react negatively. Hardly
helpful, in my estimation.

>IF this quote alienates you, does that mean a man saying
>    "Men don't want to know" alienates you from women? 

 Quite frankly, I think it is a rather presumptuous on Mr. Nyhan's part. Perhaps
he ought to reexamine his circle of friends, if he gets this impression from
those around him. Just because it was said by a man doesn't make it valid or
accurate, simply because the subject of the comment is "men."

>OR that bringing
>    such a thing to your attention alienates you? 

 I disagree with the premise.

>OR that a woman's reprise
>    of the quote alienates you? 

 Actually, I'd be annoyed by anyone restating what I consider to be a faulty
premise. But it does seem worse because of the nature of the quote and the 
forum in which it appeared. 

>Or that you choose to be alienated when you
>    read such a quote? 

 I almost agree with this. But the feelings didn't appear AFTER I thought about
it, they appeared immediately. So I don't think there's much choice involved.

 At this point, it seems the rathole has been thoroughly explored. Time to
move on, I guess.

 The Doctah

    I am generally a read only in this file but I found this discussion
    to be very interesting and I just wanted to add a few comments of my
    own.  
    
    If I want to change something in my life there is usually a very good
    motivator that starts things for me.  Ususally that is that I am angry
    about a certain situation.  That angry is used to push and push to
    accomplish what needs to be done.  
    
    I feel that you need to rock the boat sometimes to get things done.
    I feel that you need to say how you feel and that it's not ok to take
    second best or that we are willing to be quiet, not to take a stand.
    I guess I've been told too many times in my life to be a good little
    girl and to play the game.  
    
    Right now in my life it's too important for me to take control of my
    life as a woman and to be strong and to get what I want.  And I guess
    its that I just will say.  This is want I want in my life and my
    career.
    
     
    
    I applaud all wimmin who are there to help all of us get closer and
    closer to equality.
    
    
    my 2 cents
    
    Denise  
    
    

	Some general once said that in a war, beating your
    enemies wasn't nearly as hard as maintaining good relations
    with your allies. I think that's what a few people are trying
    to point out here. 

    I would hope, Dana, that our allies are in no doubt about who they are,
    regardless of any shotgun expressions of anger.
    
    We do.
    
    						=maggie

    Several notes have either stated that legislation does not
    change how people act day to day or asked whether we know
    of any case where a man changed his behavior because of
    legislation.  Well I experienced an important example.
    
    Early in my working life it was commonplace for men to make
    unwelcome sexual remarks to lower level women, to put their
    hands on them and even to demand sexual favors.  It happened
    to me many times.  I quit my first job when faced with 
    the unambiguous choice of sex with my supervisor or a bad
    performance review.
    
    When sexual harassment became illegal, and then against DEC
    policy, men's behavior changed.  Many cleaned up their act
    immediately; others changed after a few men were fired for
    sexual harassment.  I have no idea whether all the men who
    changed their behavior had an internal enlightenment.  I do
    know than day to day behavior at Digital and at company
    sponsored off-site events changed drastically and fairly
    quickly.
    
    This change benefitted all women, secretaries, assembly line
    workers, managers, etc.  It benefitted a few men as well, those
    who also suffered harassment by superiors.
    
    Legislation can change behavior.
    
    Pat
    

    RE: Dana
    
    Well, this isn't a war. BUt if it *were*, who one's allies are would be
    MUCH clearer. Unfortunately, who one's allies really are can be
    A) Unknown  and/or B) a subjective judgement (i.e, you see someone as
    an ally whom I don't)
    
    RE: changing behaviour
    
    I agree. As the president of the NAACP (I think) said, " I don't care
    if you *are* a bigot, so long as you don't *act* like one."
    
    --DE
    

This will be a long reply... but I guarantee that there will be no
cut-and-pastes in it :-)

How Bobbi's Personal_name Is Being Used As A Straw-horse

Old Eastern-European Jewish Folk-tale:

   There once was a rabbi (the Berdichever, I suspect) who, no
   matter what the question, always had a story that answered that
   question.  One day, one of his followers asked him, "Rebbe, why
   is it that whenever we ask you a question, you always have a
   story that answers the question?"
   	"Ah," said the rebbe, "I have a story that answers that
   question!"
	"Once upon a time, a king was riding in the forest, and saw
   a number of trees with targets painted upon them.  In the exact
   center of each target, there was an arrow.
	"'Hey you,'  the king shouted to a nearby peasant, 'bring me
   the person that did this.'  The peasant did so, and the king was
   greatly surprised that the person was merely a skinny young kid.
	"'Tell me', the king demanded, 'are you *really* the one who
   is responsible for all those arrows in all those bull's-eyes?'
	"'Yes, indeed I am, your majesty,' responded the kid.
	"'How in heaven's name did you manage to get every single
   one of those arrows to hit the bull's-eye?' the king demanded.
	"The kid responded, 'It was very simple, your majesty. 
   First, I shot the arrows, and *then* I painted the target around
   them!'"
	"So too, it is for me," concluded the rebbe. "I have all
   these arrows (stories) already planted, and I just wait for the
   paint (the questions)!"

What we are seeing in the /set tact=on discussion /set tact=off surrounding
my choice of a personal_name is nothing more nor less than a group of
people who already have their arrows, and are waiting to paint the target.

In the current case, the use to which those arrows and targets are being
put is what I call "belittlement of a person (or groups of people, or idea)
by use of successive straw horses."

Straw horse number 1:
We see someone taking only *part* of my personal_name, and attacking
that, on the grounds that the person who created the personal_name (my
name is Bobbi Fox, btw) is clearly going to alienate some (probably 99.9%)
men, because it is *quite clear* that it is a statement that slams men.
Huh?  as some people pointed out (thanks gyns and guys), "Men don't want
to know *what*?"  Further, who is to say that the "men" in the
personal_name is not that "gender-free, inclusive of women" use of the word
"men" that some quarters are so quick to defend? 

It is gently pointed out that the entirety of the
personal_name clearly indicates it's a quote, with attribution.

Straw horse # 2:
This is then attacked, on the basis that not everyone knows who D. Nyhan
is.  Or
[Straw horse # 3]
that not everyone read the article that Dorian Kottler so thoughtfully
typed in, so therefore not everyone would know the context.

This is disingenuous in the extreme.  It would seem to me that, if the
casual reader (female or male), who *did not know who D. Nyhan was, and
had not read "Shhh -- 14 Women Were Slaughtered"* would be *less likely to
be offended* (see Huh? above).

So, I can only conclude that that one of the following categories
can be assigned to each individual attacking my personal_name
(probabilities In My Opinion are assigned):

	1. S/he had no idea:
who D. Nyhan is;  how to read a quote; or where the quote came from
(probability IMO: 1%)

	2. S/he has the quality of (1) above,
with the added qualifier that s/he does not know how to use MAIL from
notes, to ask me to explain the personal_name, therefore having to
resort to attack in order to get clarification.
(Probability IMO: 0.5%)

	3. S/he has the quality of (1) above,
with the added qualifier that s/he does not have the courtesy to ask me
what I mean before jumping to conclusions and shooting with both barrels
(Probability IMO: 3%)

	4. S/he knew damn well:
who D. Nyhan is; how to read a quote; and where the quote came from,
and is worried that some man will be offended by the very concept
articulated by David Nyhan (a man, I will point out) in the article.
   (probability IMO: 49%)

	5. S/he has an itchy-trigger-finger knee-jerk response to
any woman who dares to use the word "men" in a sentence without the
all-important "most", "many", "some", or "not all, but some" qualifiers
preceding it, even if to modify the quote would mean being without
jounalistic integrity [not to mention that, in sound written English,
 use of a plural noun without article or adjective means "the general
case of {noun}, although there may be exceptions"]. (Probability IMO: 46%)


	6. S/he has his/her own ax to grind on the subject of women and
feminism, and lashes out at any convenient point from which to make a straw
horse (Probability IMO: 90%)

	7. S/he has a huge net.crush on me, and hopes to draw me out
for the purposes of sweeping me off my feet :-)
(Probability IMO: .00000001%)

I realize these probabilities don't add up to 1, but, since I am using
these numbers rhetorically, rather than empirically, anyone who wastes
net bandwidth pointing it out deserves constant line noise on his/her
modem :-)


BTW, I realize that some people might be legitimately stymied by the fact
that I used double angle brackets ("European Style") instead of quote
marks.  This is because notes barfs when I have single or double quote
marks in my p_n and try to mail something out.  If any NOTES mavens would
contact me off-line to tell me how to use quotes in a p_n, I would
appreciate it).


   Bobbi_who_is_proudly_feminist_and_will_never_forget_Montreal

    Re .70, when I commented in .67 that most lesbians seem to prefer
    to be as masculine as possible, I was referring to appearance only.
     I wasn't suggesting that there are no lesbians who enjoy cooking
    or sewing or taking care of kids.  My honest impression has been
    that most lesbians do prefer to have a masculine appearance.  I
    don't see what's wrong with me making that observation.  I didn't
    say *all*, I said *most*.  As to your wondering how many lesbians
    I've actually encountered, well, I guess the only lesbians I've
    ever encountered have been the women I've met through womennotes
    who happen to be lesbians, and the lesbians I see around Provincetown.
I admit that none of my closest friends are lesbians, but none of my
    closest friends are gay men or black or hispanic or Asian either.
     I haven't planned it that way.  It's just the "way the cookie
    crumbles" I guess.  I'm certainly open to being friends with anybody
    I can have a mutually good time with.  It just seems as though the
    only people who are ever interested in being friends with me are
    other straight white women or straight white men.  It may have
    something to do with the fact that I've always lived in small towns
    in N.E., didn't go to college, and don't have a professional job.
     We can only become friends with people we have occasion to meet.
     *sigh*  I didn't mean my comment to be offensive, but I still think
    it's true, and I also find it interesting and wonder why.
    
    In regard to why the killings in Montreal weren't covered in more
    depth by the press, were they covered in more depth by the Canadian
    press?  I was wondering if they would have been covered in more
    depth if the incident had happened in the U.S.  The United States
    has always been a self-centered country, and it seems rare that
    any news is covered that doesn't relate directly to our politics.
    Our papers never seem to report anything that happens in Canada,
    anyway.  Just a thought.
    
    I was also wondering, is there a word that means hatred of men?
     
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    in re hatred of men, it would be misandry - but that isn't a 'real' word.
    
    Some time ago I read an article in Newsweek about the current lesbian
    scene on the college campuses. To summarize briefly, there were
    two major divisions among the college women, the 'crunchy granola'
    lesbians who tended more to jeans, earth shoes and little makeup, 
    and the 'lipsticks' who wore quite fancy clothes and make up. I have 
    no idea how this division is reflected in the working world, and I 
    am sure that it doesn't come close to being describing all the types 
    of lesbian dress and outlook. I mention it, tho to indicate where
    some of the images straights have of lesbians may originate, i.e.
    if you've generally met only 'crunchy granola' types you may think
    that style of dress is common to all lesbians. 
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. I hope that the terms that I used are not considered offensive
    to anyone, they are, as best I recall the ones used in the Newsweek
    article. 

Bobbi:

  Perhaps you will direct your remarks to a specific set of persons
  whom you believe are using your personal name as a straw horse?

  I find your personal name an offensive generalization.  I care
  not a whit that you are merely quoting someone else.  If I quoted
  a vile remark of another and said "It's okay -- it's a quote", would
  you accept it?  Think back to the Doctah's proposed quote.

  Meanwhile, I hope you will also consider the broader context in
  which I was complaining.  There are *MANY* generalizations flying
  around here.  Are the complaints against them all straw horses,
  or might there actually be some basis for the complaints?

  (I haven't got the time or will to go back and bore you all
  with extracts.)

                                   Atlant

RE .89:

    Pat,

    Thanks for providing an example of how legislation can change behavior.
    My cynical viewpoint comes from being told in two job interviews that
    my gender was a the overriding negative consideration in their hiring 
    decision, *despite* the fact that this was illegal.  In one case, I was 
    told explicitly "I'd like to hire you, but my manager doesn't want a 
    woman in the position."

    Did I take the companies involved to court?  No, because as a broke grad 
    student working desperately on my thesis, I didn't have the money for a 
    lawyer, not to mention the time.  And because both were oral statements, 
    made with no witnesses... and because in the more blatant case (a foreign 
    subsidiary of a US company), I wasn't at all sure what laws would apply.  
    In short, livid as I was, I couldn't afford the risk.

    I think we should have legislation, too... absolutely!  But I don't
    think we should *only* have legislation.  I think changing societal
    attitudes (and what's socially acceptable) is an valuable goal too.
    Otherwise women without the resources to fight will continue to be
    discriminated against and exploited.

    What I said in my note was:

>	Legislation may change court decisions, but it won't change the 
>	way people act on a day-to-day basis much.  In other words, I 
>	don't want to have to go to court to get my rights, I want them 
>	regardless.  

    You've convinced (reminded, really) me that the first part isn't true,
    that it's more like "...it won't always change the way people act on a
    day-to-day basis".  The second part still stands.

	Sharon

Wow -- when I started writing this there were only a few replies and now 
there are almost a hundred.  I haven't read all that has passed before
in detail, so this may seem off the track, but I had to respond.
========================================================================

Something that should be kept in mind in this discussion is that 
misogyny is not an attitude that men have towards women -- it is an 
attitude that men *and women* both have towards women.  This means that 
if you are born female in a misogynist society, on some basic level you 
grow up hating yourself.

This self-hatred is the real trick of successful oppression.  An 
oppression imposed from the outside by nasty meanies in hobnail boots is 
certainly unpleasant, but it is resistable because it can be seen for 
what it is.  An oppression that flows from an internal sense of one's 
own unworthiness requires little maintenance from the outside -- beyond 
the occasional reminder of what happens to "bad" girls -- and is very
hard to resist since it seems a part of oneself. 

I see a very strong parallel between the dynamics of oppressed  groups 
in society (we will use misogyny here as a continued example) and abused 
children in families.  Children will usually respond to abuse by 
concluding that they are somehow "bad" and deserving of punishment, 
rather than accept that the abuse is arbitrary and has nothing 
whatsoever to do with them personally.  It is easier on the human psyche 
to believe that one is in control of one's own fate, however negative, 
than to believe that what you do makes no difference at all -- that you
do not count, and your fate is arbitrary and meaningless. 

One of the questions in the base note basically amounted to asking, What
do women do to cause misogyny?  The answer is: nothing.  What do
children do to cause themselves to be beaten?  The answer: nothing. 
Even if the child is noisy, sloppy, or demanding, the answer is still
the same.  No child deserves to be beaten.  Whether she is saintly,
shrewish, slatternly, sluttish, or silly, no woman deserves to be
hated for being a woman.  It is our deeply ingrained habit of self-
hatred, a belief in our own culpability, that lets us ask this question.

Abused children are often amazingly devoted to their parents, finding 
excuses and justifications for them and refusing to blame them.
Just so when we try to understand a man who commits an act of violence 
against women: women have hurt him, women have made him pay lots of 
alimony, women have been admitted to the school he couldn't go to, etc.
And what do we say about the woman?  What was she doing there at that 
time of night?  Why was she wearing that dress? Why didn't she fight?
Why did she go with him?  These kinds of questions remove responsibility 
from the perpetrator (and the system that encourages him) and locate
the blame in the woman.  

Women and men alike do this.  For women, it can give them a false sense
that they aren't one of *those* women (they don't go there, don't wear
that, wouldn't let someone do that to them), and that if they behave
properly they can avoid punishment.  Women who want to feel that they
fall into the "good" woman category can be especially insistent on
maintaining the barrier between themselves and "bad" women in order to
feel safe.  Women often join in behavior that will make them feel that
they aren't as "guilty" as the next woman.  Putting down other women for
being weak, airheaded, and beautiful, or strident, selfish, and
aggressive are ways of marking out groups of who women who somehow
*deserve* to be punished. If you don't belong to that group, you can get
away with thinking that perhaps you can escape guilt for what Mary Daly
calls the original sin of being born female. 

Another way to try to avoid the taint of this original sin to deny in
some way that you belong to the same category as other women. I did this
as a young person -- I was intelligent, "girls" were stupid. I was
interested in science and math, "girls" cared about boyfriends and mushy
subjects. Intellect had no gender, and I was an intellect at home with
other intellects -- who happened to be mostly male.  I thought I was a
liberated woman, while at the same time despising the mass of women. It
has taken a long time for me to learn to truly love women, including
this woman, my self.  

Yet another way is to deny that there is such a thing as the woman 
category.  We are all human, but to deny the uniqueness of our 
experience as women or men is to erase a reality that is quite vital to 
our existence.  Erasing it is an act of shame in being what we are.
I find this a very modern phenomenon, a creative adaptation to women 
getting out in the world and proving that their ovaries won't shrivel if 
they get college degrees.  If we identify with the generic experience 
of "humanity", perhaps no one will notice we are really only women.

Some of the ways of responding to an abusive childhood result in very
selfless, altruistic behavior.  Becoming a nurturing caretaker,
providing for others what you cannot have for yourself, is so much a
characteristic associated with femininity that many folks consider it as
biologically hardwired as growing breasts.  However, the thin line
between nurturing and being one of the "women who love too much" is
very, very fine.  The woman who loves too much rarely ends up happy, and
usually ends up as a support system for others who have no problem
taking what she is giving and returning very little.  

I very much appreciate the nurturing characteristics of women, and have
come to value them more and more as time goes on.  There are many ways
in which I feel women learn to be, on the whole, nicer than men, and I had
too much of Catholic childhood not to believe in the value of niceness. 
Nonetheless, nice women are often taken advantage of in their families,
jobs, and society.  Nice women believe that if they are good enough,
understanding enough, caring enough, then of course everyone else will
be good to them.  This doesn't always happen, and when they are
beaten, raped, denied tenure or not promoted they assume its because
they weren't good enough.  The trick is, no woman can ever be really
good enough -- misogyny rigs the standard to be always out of reach. 

I have learned to love women, but I admit that I do not personally love all 
women.  There are women who drive me nuts, irritate, infuriate, depress 
and frighten me.  However, in trying to perfect this art of loving women, I 
have learned to always ask myself some questions whenever I have a 
negative reaction to any particular woman.  For example, women of the 
plaid-shirted, glass-chewing variety are often thought to feel 
contemptuously toward women of the pantyhosed, lipstick-wearing variety.
Now, it could just be that in a particular case a particular woman is
just a rotten human being, but I have found that with a little probing 
there is often some little buried message that says "A woman like *that*
is <something bad>".  Those messages spring from our own misogyny, and
they help foster our own self-hatred.  

I have said before that all women are survivors of society that hates
them, children of a giant dysfunctional family.  We all deserve credit 
for surviving, and none of us is in a position to pass judgement on how 
another woman has survived.  Misogyny has shaped us, but as we become 
aware of it and how it works inside of us, we can heal ourselves.

    
    Catherine,
    
    Wow! You are SO right.  I cant tell you how many times I've said "I
    wish I were a man. "  or cried and gotten furious at myself for not
    "Taking it like a man"  or tried to run as far as a man or tried to
    lift as much weight as a man or walk or dress like a man.
    
    And I wonder if what you've uncovered doesn't explain a few things in
    our society.  Specifically, why am I 5'2" and 127 pounds and I feel fat
    constantly?  Why have I always hated my legs and arms and ...?  Why at
    the age of 22 and with lots of exercise and lots of encouragement from
    my fiance (a man, hmm), am I finally starting to like parts of my body?
    Why are diet books and work-out video tapes such hot sellers?  Those
    really interested in fitness, I think, read more factual stuff.   Is
    all of this evidence of the self-hatred you mentioned?  
    
    And the nuturing instinct you mention.  Yes, I nurture other people but
    how often do I nuture myself?
    
    Perhaps I've run on but you are so right Catherine.  
    
    Rachael
    

    
    
    Addendum :
    
    When I say dress like a man, I don't mean in any kind of kinky, sexual
    sense.  I mean like for 6 months wearing no makeup and only pants.
    
    

    re. Lorna and Bonnie, how many different categories of heterosexual
    women can we come up with...hmmm?  It seems like some stereotyping
    is possibly going on here.  If one goes by personal observance,
    then only those women who fit the stereotype are going to be recognized
    as belonging to the group.  As for Newsweek, I have noticed that they 
    try to be hip in alot of their articles, often using lingo to show 
    how with it they are, but not backing their little "studies" up with 
    any good methodology.  It seems like with the majority of the gay 
    population in the closet it would be hard to collect any factual
    data.  I know that neither one of you meant offense though...
    	Linda

	I have to comment on .92 by Lorna, because I _do_ have a lot of
	contact with both lesbians and gays, and I think there are some
	extremely unfair stereotypes in .92 that need to be cleared up.

	Being a lesbian does not equate being masculine.  Period.

	I know plenty, PLENTY, of lesbians who wear dresses, lipstick,
	eyeshadow, mascara, look as straight as Donna Reed, who don't
	even know how to change a tire!  Imagine!  Some want children,
	some worry about being seen in public looking like a wreck, and
	some are raising families in loving, nurturing environments.

	You'd be surprised at the number of lesbians and bisexual women
	you come into contact with.  I don't care if you're raised in 
	Great Falls, Montana or New York City.  Lesbians are everywhere
	and so are bisexual women, who might confuse you even more be-
	cause bi's are very, very difficult to spot.  Some are married.
	It doesn't mean they're straight.  And it doesn't mean they've
	got a desire to look butch.  

	I'd guess you meet a heckuva lot of lesbians whom you probably 
	assume to be straight women because of their outward appearance.  
	The lesbians you see around Provincetown are not the only ones
	you see.  You just don't know it because apparently you expect 
	them to wear hiking boots, have short hair, and carry engine 
	schematics in their back jeans pocket.

	Sorry for the tangent, but this is one assumption I'm tired of
	hearing all the time.

	Carla

    RE: dress and outward appearances
    
    It's probably a good thing to understand that the terms "masculine"
    and "feminine" as applied to dress have to do with convention only,
    and absolutely nothing to do with reality. How one dresses has no
    connection whatsoever with one's masculinity (maleness) or femininity
    (femaleness). Or one's sexuality, for that matter.
    
    RE: CAtherine
    
    I wish I could tell you how wonderful it was to see your node and user
    name at the top left hand corner of my screen. 
    
    Well said, (yet again) Catherine T.
    
    --DE
    

    Re .101, Carla, I am somewhat offended by the attitude and tone
    of your reply.  I have never said, nor do I think, that all lesbians
    know how to change tires, etc., etc.  I have gotten the impression
    in my life, from my personal experience, that *most*, not *all*,
    lesbians choose to dress in a masculine way - pants, flats, no purses,
    short hair, no make-up.  Can't I even say that this has been my
    impression, for God's sake?  Without being attacked for spreading
    horrible stereotypes?
    
    I can't help it if there are lesbians and bi-sexual women all around
    me in my daily life who for some unknown reason never choose to
    reveal this to me.  I'm sure I could care less, and would I would
    even be interested in hearing about it.  If any of my close women
    friends has ever been bi or lesbian I don't know why they wouldn't
    have told me.  If anything, I would find it interesting.
    
    Okay.  So, now I know.   When I go to P-town and see women dressed
    in stereotype lesbian clothing I should realize that they are only
    a small percentage of the lesbians in P-town at that given moment,
    most of them are dressed like me?  When I go to a FWO get together
    and notice that all of the womannoters who have publicly come out
    of the closet are also, to varying degrees, dressed in stereotype
    lesbian clothing, I will realize that the majority of the lesbians
    in attendance are dressed in stereotype feminine clothes and have
    not come out of the closet.  (I'm beginning to think there must
    be a very small percentage of het woman indeed.)
    
    Now I know that most lesbians don't dress butch.  Now I know that
    most lesbians look like Donna Reed.  Thanks.  
    
    I'm sorry.  But, I'm pissed.
    
    Lorna
    

    I honestly sometimes have felt, as a straight, white person, that
    it is impossible to say the right thing in regards to either
    homosexuals or blacks.  No matter what I say it will be taken wrong
    by somebody.  
    
    For christs sake, I entered two or three very sensitive poems about
    lesbians in the poetry topic (without persmission!)
    
    All I originally said was that it seems to me that *most* lesbians
    dress in (what our society would traditionally term) masculine clothing
    and so far nobody has actually said that that statement is not true.
    
    Lorna
     

RE: .62, .71, .72 (Doctah)

> I saw it as a slap in the face to any man who cares, to any man who
>wants to know. If I sit here and rationalize about it long enough, I can 
>understand the motivations behind the words, and come to accept what the meaning
>is (and discard the parts that don't apply to me.) However, my first reaction
>deep in my gut, was hurt. I felt alienated, devalued, and altogether put off

You know, I was sitting in my therapist's office today, very upset about
this note, and about some other things recently that have happened in my 
life that I felt frustrated/angered/upset/etc about, and I'll give you a little
of what he gave me.

1)  Anyone can say/do anything they want.
2)  You are allowed to take what they say/do however you want to.  Your 
    reactions are allowable, they are real, they are NOT disputable (ie, no
    one can tell you that you are not allowed to feel that way)
3)  Your reactions (what ever they may be) are JUSTIFIED

Now, I sat there and really THOUGHT about that.  Relating these thoughts to 
this argument means to me that women are allowed to say whatever they want 
to say, and however they want to say it.  This also means that men are 
allowed to take whatever they hear and reach to it in anyway they find 
appropriate (ie, agree, be offended, be neutral).

Also in direct relation to misogyny:  Men are ALLOWED to hate women.  Women
are ALLOWED to react the way they want to react toward that hatred.

We've reached an impasse', haven't we?  If men do not want women to react a 
certain way, then I believe that perhaps it is better for them to not 
perpetuate misogyny which might result in these reactions.

Conversely, if women do not want men to FEEL the misogyny, then they will
not act in a manner that might result in these reactions.


**Notice, I did not say "cause these reactions", because I firmly believe now 
that WE are the "cause" of our OWN reactions.  I believe we CHOOSE to react 
the way we do, someone does not make that decision for us.

Did anyone catch the circular problem with the above examples.  One possible
scenario:  If men hate women, then women react with anger toward men, which
in turn caused men to hate women even more.

So, where does this stop?  Are both sides conscious of what they are doing
to perpetuate this circle?  

Have you ever straddled a brick wall and had a very strong wind come along
and try to sweep you off?  I feel that way sometimes when men direct their
misogyny toward me.....and I think some men might feel the same thing when
women direct their anger at misogyny toward them.

I want to straddle that wall between men and women.  I want to love both
sides of that wall....I want to be THERE, and I want THERE to be shaded from
the winds.


kath

.76 (::Buehler)

>    what I'm beginning to sense (and I may be wrong) is that Kath
>    may be condoning or encouraging the concept of "winning through
>    manipulation". 


I believe you win the prize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, manipulation, but NOT in the manner you are implying.

American Heritage Dictionary:  manipulate (v):  2) To influence or manage
			       shrewdly or deviously.

      shrewd (adj)  Synonymns)  "this adjective refers to the posssession
                    of a keen, searching intelligence, combined with 
                    sound judgement." 

I believe you are implying the "deceive" part--ie, deceiving ourselves as
well as deceiving others.

"To influence shrewdly", "possession of a keen intelligence combined with
sound judgement."

I always failed to see why the word, manipulation, has a "bad" meaning to 
most, because, in reality, it really doesn't.  The best arbitrators in 
strike situations are GREAT manipulators.  They see a compromise that 
both sides would settle for, and the MANIPULATE both sides into believing 
they are getting what they want....that THEY are making the decisions. 

I'm not suggesting denying anything we believe in, or anything that we 
wish to express (anger especially), but rather suggesting that I believe
the greatest EFFECTIVENESS at reaching our goal does indeed come from 
"influencing others by using a keen intelligence and sound judgement."

And I believe sound judgement include understanding the circular effects
I mentioned in the previous reply.  

kath

>    I honestly sometimes have felt, as a straight, white person, that
>    it is impossible to say the right thing in regards to either
>    homosexuals or blacks. 


Lorna...imagine how straight white men feel...(adding men to your category,
and women to theirs)

Cheer up bunky......It's just that lesbians/bisexuals are very rarely 
distinguishable by their dress and their attitudes, just like het women
aren't easily identifiable.

Just like heavy metal/rock gets a unintentionally stereotyped by people
who haven't "been there."

Just another stereotype (and we ALL carry those around in some form or another,
it's not particular to you, just rather typical within the human race)...
Carla might find it important to just clear up some stereotypes (refer to 
my scenario in .105...you're allowed to feel 'pissed', and she's allowed
to feel 'angry')  Hey, what goes around comes around!  ;-)


kath

PS to .105


I said the following in .105

>Have you ever straddled a brick wall and had a very strong wind come along
>and try to sweep you off?  I feel that way sometimes when men direct their
>misogyny toward me.....and I think some men might feel the same thing when
>women direct their anger at misogyny toward them.

I find it more benefical to direct my "wind" at the wall in hopes of breaking
it down.


kath

	re: 922.67 (Lorna)

	>   Re .60, Nancy, your reply really depresses me.  Maybe because I
	>   enjoy your company now, but realize that had we ever been children
	>   or teenagers in the same school or neighborhood, that you would
	>   have despised me.   I hated sports, math and science more than anything
	>   else when I was a kid.  I loved playing with dolls and dressing
	>   in frilly clothes.  My SAT scores would make you wonder if I had
	>   been born retarded.  (unfortunately I'm *not* joking)

	Lorna, I agree.  It depresses *me* to think I was like that!  But I
	would not have "despised" you for being different (I wasn't *that*
	rotten!!), I just would not have paid you much attention.  I wouldn't
	have asked you to play with my Tonka trucks or Nerf football, but
	I still would have had a fun time at your birthday party and invited
	you to mine (with a request to not get me any silly doll houses :-).

	Maybe I shouldn't have entered .61 about why I finally *consciously*
	recognized women as fully participating members in society; what
	made me overcome my childhood prejudices, because I thought it might
	offend, and because it's so embarassing.  

	BUT, my revelation also happened to many of the guys I was in college 
	with.  The *only* reason I believe that some of them will respect 
	other women engineers today is because women in their classes were as 
	smart or smarter than they were, as was measured in some very objective
	and quantitative ways all throughout college (engineering exams). 

	That situation (the women being as good or better academically) made
	the dating dynamic really weird, too.  It was obvious which guys
	weren't comfortable with their girlfriend's academic abilities,
	and who were...

							nancy b.

Lorna,

I don't want you to feel that you are insane in your observations.  
I suspect that if you took a hundred women and divided them into two groups 
according to whether they looked butch-y or femme-y, you would end up with more 
lesbians in the butch group than in the other.  Stereotypes are not made 
out of thin air -- they usually have some basis in cultural reality.
Although certainly they do not describe all members of the group and 
anyone they do describe is not necessarily a member of the group, it 
would be a massive reality denial to say that they don't mean anything.

I sometimes think the way that lesbians (and gay men) jump to deny our 
stereotypes is an expression of our internalized homophobia -- if 
lesbians look like Donna Reed, then being a lesbian wouldn't be
so bad, would it?  After all, we are just like normal people.
It can be so embarassing when one is trying to be accepted by society
to have some lesbians insist on acting like, well, you know, dykes.
But that's just a minority, and it's understandable that you wouldn't be 
comfortable with someone like that.  Most of us wouldn't dream of 
wearing hiking boots and playing softball and really want nothing more 
than to have a baby or two and keep house just like any other woman.  :-}

So... given that I will admit there is some truth to the stereotype of 
lesbians looking "masculine", why is it that so many lesbians adopt a 
butch style?  I happen to think I just like wearing tuxes and ties, but
I had an interesting experience a year or so ago that gave me some 
perspective on the issue.  I went to a medieval recreational group
event and for various reasons ended up at one point wearing what would be 
considered women's clothing -- a long tunic and head covering against 
the sun.  I realized that I experienced a sense of panic -- I got called 
"milady" and men assumed I would want to dance with them.  I realized 
that without my butch signals I had no way of indicating to any 
potentially flirtatious persons of the right gender that I was open to 
their attention.  Ironically enough, when I ended up wearing something 
less authentic but more definitely butch (a short tunic, trousers, and 
boots), I felt more comfortable and had a woman come on to me about 
how very lonely she was going to be that night.  So, even though 12th 
century women's clothing is pretty comfortable (and is hard to tell from 
12th century men's clothing), I needed to make a statement that the usual 
expectations about "femininity" (i.e. that you are interested in a man) 
did not apply to me in order to identify myself.

I think that some of the kinds of styles that lots of lesbians adopt 
have to do with making that kind of statement.  I also think that it has 
to do with belonging, the history of the lesbian community, and how we 
conceive of sexuality.  Whatever the particular icons, you adopt them as 
part of claiming your place in the community culture.  Lesbians and 
gay men are always having to come up with new fashions so we can tell 
who we are. :-)

Besides the belonging issue, I do think there is an undercurrent of 
misogyny associated with the negative opinions many butch women have of 
a femme style.  When I went to the women's march on Washington, I wore a 
skirt for the first time in years.  Thinking about our suffragette 
foremothers, I could not help but feel that these women in their long 
white dresses, white gloves and high-button shoes were women of 
enormous strength, courage, and determination.  To be "feminine" is not 
necessarily to be weak, and we fall into a serious trap when we think 
that is so.  I felt very strong, powerful and angry in my skirt, lace 
gloves, and straw hat.  It was a healing experience and in some small 
way I feel like I experienced a victory over my own misogyny.

So... our homophobia is telling us that lesbians all have to look like 
Donna Reed.  Our misogyny is telling us that anyone who looks
like Donna Reed is a worthless ball of fluff.  When we really learn to 
love women, it will be completely ok for some women to have moustaches 
and drive trucks and some women to shave their legs and answer 
telephones.  If you're a woman, and it's how you look and what you do, 
then it's womanly.

    Brava!

    Lorna, at the risk of calling down beaucoup de heat on my own head, I
    gotta say that my experience is very like yours:  of all the lesbians I
    know (maybe 100?), only *one* is a serious, all-stops-out Femme in her
    choice of personal style.  I won't mention her name (she might disagree
    with me) but she is a member of this community.
    
    I know a few others who are more, hmmm, neutral? in their style, but my
    experience agrees with yours:  most lesbians choose short hair, flannel
    shirts, and boots ;') probably for the reasons Catherine illuminated,
    namely that it helps to have some visible signals that the usual mating
    assumptions do not apply.
    
    						=maggie

    in re .100
    
    Linda,
    
    Catherine and Maggie have expressed in far better written words what
    I was trying to bring out in my note.
    
    Bonnie

    Re .110, Catherine, thank you for entering this reply.  I really
    appreciate it and also found it very interesting.
    
    Re .112, Maggie, thanks for your reply, too.  It always helps to
    know we aren't alone in our overall perceptions.
    
    I was very upset about this yesterday when I left work.  I was afraid
    I had come across as "gay bashing" or something, and I would never
    do that.  I respect the rights of others to choose life styles
    different from my own.  And, besides I have never been bothered
    in any way by the fact that some people are gay, and can't understand
    why some straights are.  At the same time that I was upset, though,
     I kept getting these images in my mind of going to Provincetown
    in the summer and finding the streets jammed with throngs of Donna
    Reed clones wearing shirtwaist dresses, like some weird B movie!
    
    Lorna
    

        RE: last couple 

    I think you're right.  We learn to dress in ways that are not
    attractive to men.  Think of it as insulation - or maybe armour.
    If you dress in the traditional feminine manner, you are subject
    to the same attention that a straight woman would receive.  This
    can be quite uncomfortable for some of us.  Also, it is interesting
    to note that this attention occurs even if everyone in the free
    world knows your gay.  Take of the dyke uniform and it seems like
    you become fair game.
    

    RE: Lorna,

	I'm afraid I did take offense at you comments. I don't see
 	as "bashing", but representative of the viewpoint straight
	women exhibit towards lesbians - and it gets tiring to have
	fight the attitude of your sisters. What follows is an
	explanation of my feelings.

    I don't think it's your mentioning the stereotype that upsets me,
    so much as how you seem to have lesbians segregated into some
    inferior subset of women.  "Even Lesbians who..." leads me to
    feel that we are less than real women in your eyes.  This is
    supported by the only facts you accociated with our label is who
    we sleep with and "masculinity".  How would you like to be defined 
    by your bed parner? I don't suspect that you'd care for it anymore 
    than I would care to be viewed as fluff.
    
    I can't help but feel that you think we are somehow "less" than 
    real people - maybe a curiosity to be observed,  but not real  
    people.   Being segregated into a "special" group by your "sisters" 
    doesn't feel good at all - however "liberally" this segregation
    is phrased. This may not relfect your actual feelings, but it
    does reflects the impressions I get from them.
    
    You apparently know enough about "us" to make some rather painful 
    generalizations, but not enough to realize the impact on the object 
    of those statements.  It's not much different than me (a white woman) 
    making statements about how black people feel.  I might ask a general 
    question to prompt a discussion, but these folks are perfectly capable
    of speaking for themselves and I certainly wouldn't presume to make 
    assumptions on these  feelings.

    FWIW - I have an entire closet full of feminine clothing that I 
    enjoy wearing (but not paying for).

    	-maureen
    

    Re .115, Maureen, I'm sorry you were offended by my comments.  They
    were not meant to offend, I assure you.  It has *never* occurred
    to me to think of lesbians as "less" than any other women.  After
    meeting women such as Catherine and Justine I think I'd have to
    be a fool to think that, and I hope I'm not that much of a fool.
     Also, I really hope you don't include me in the "sisters" you feel
    you have to fight.  I don't want to fight with everyone who happens
    to be different from me in any way.  I'd just like to understand.
    
    Lorna
    

>	I'm afraid I did take offense at you comments. I don't see
> 	as "bashing", but **representative of the viewpoint straight                          
>	women exhibit towards lesbians** (emphasis mine)

>    I don't think it's your mentioning the stereotype that upsets me,
>    so much as how you seem to have lesbians segregated into some
>    inferior subset of women.

 Does anyone else notice the juxtaposition?

>"Even Lesbians who..." leads me to
>    feel that we are less than real women in your eyes.

 From what I know of Lorna's feelings and attitudes about gays, she does not 
think of them as an inferior breed of human nor mere curiousities. I believe
that the use of "even lesbians who..." in that context (which I, of course,
cannot recall right now) was to prove a point about her feelings re misogyny,
not to use lesbians as an example of inferior beings.

 The Doctah

    .106
    
    Hi,
    
    Yes I know what you're saying re: manipulation. My interpretation
    of manipulation is not negative either; again, to use my mother
    as an example, she was very shrewd, used very sound judgment
    when dealing with the 'enemy' or those people in power in her 
    world (gestapo, nazi's, bolsheviks, etc. etc.).  Her reward
    was she was allowed to continue living.  So I agree that this
    is a skill that can be very useful in life.
    
    What I'm suggesting though is that we American women should not
    have to rely on learning manipulation skills; our survival
    should not have to depend on what we say or do, who we know, etc.
    
    Yes, my mother, to survive, learned to be shrewd.  
    But I'm tired.  I would rather be able to simply say, 'hey,
    I can do this for you, if you will do this for me.'  I want to
    be able to be honest and direct, without all the other 'behind-
    the-scenes' politicking that manipulation requires.
    
    Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but I would love to live in a
    society that does not require me to plot, scheme, beg, or bribe
    in order to have a successful life.
    
    Why isn't being me good enough?
    maia
    

      I forget how we got on the subject of lesbian dressing styles, but in
    defense of Lorna, I have also only known or noticed lesbians in
    slightly masculine clothing.  Also, I guess I tend to group lesbians as
    a subset of women, just as heterosexual women are a subset of women.  I
    don't think that I think of them as a lesser subset, just a subset that
    I don't understand.  Perhaps I should start a new note discussing
    the lesbian way of life because I always thought that it was just a
    sexual preference.  (I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just not
    knowelegable on the subject.)
    
    So in any case, I think any insult that came out, was not meant and was
    the result of general ignorance on the of homosexuality.
    
    Rachael
    

RE: .118 (manipulation)

>    Why isn't being me good enough?

Ideally, it should be.  But the way society is conditioned, you'll never get
it by "just being you", because there are misogynic people out there in 
high places that are "just being me" too.

>    Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but I would love to live in a
>    society that does not require me to plot, scheme, beg, or bribe
>    in order to have a successful life.

If you want something that you don't have right now, you have to go out and 
get it.  Chances are that it's not going to just fall into your lap along
with a silver platter.  I've always found it essential to have an efficient
game-plan or my chances of losing are FAR greater.  

Do you think football teams going into games with the attitude, "ah, let's 
just play, we'll call the plays as we go along, and make decisions during 
the time outs."  Never.  They spend a great deal of time analyzing their
opponent, determining his moves, formulating countermoves.  

The point is, I believe that women need a effective game plan or their aren't
going to get what they want.  


And I don't mean they need covert operations, to beg, to steal, to bribe, or
to deceive.  


kath

    
    i think football (and most other sports) would be healthier and
    more fun if it was played <paraphrase> 'just for fun, let's just
    wing it'.
    

    "We really think we deserve a touchdown, could we have one pretty please?"

       This is just a thought on part of the base note that I wrote a
       few days ago off-line.  I didn't get back to noting until today,
       so I'm sorry it's out of the flow, but I'll put it in anyway.

    .0> Why do some people dislike women as a class (a group?) ?

    .0> What are women (collectively or individually) doing that
    .0> result in some people having misogynistic attitudes ?


            Maybe sometimes it is a problem of transition?

            I coach basketball, and one of the difficult things for me
       to teach the kids is the "transition" game.  When they are on
       offense, they know what to do and what to expect for help from
       their teammates.  When they are on defense, things are just as
       stable.  However, the transition from one to the other can be a
       real problem.  If one of the players is still playing defense
       when his/her teammate has already made the switch to offense,
       then neither of them gets the help they expect from the other,
       and the team gets burned.

            If I was going to make a "solve the problem in 30 minutes"
       TV show about this aspect, the first 15 minutes would look
       something like this:

       Scene 1:
       Our man Harry is in his divorce lawyer's office, listening to the
       "you won't get custody of the kids, and you'll have to give her
       the house and alimony" lecture.  His male polished professional
       lawyer is explaining that the traditional housewife of 15 years
       can't be expected to get along without considerable help from
       him.
        Lawyer: "You can't just leave her with half the assets and make
                 her fend for herself! [...] You need to give this
                 matter some real thought, and adjust your attitudes
                 about women before there are serious consequences".

       Scene 2:
       Harry is in his office, when his manager enters to discuss the
       four resumes he sent to her, for the manager position he has
       open.  She is a polished professional executive, and she is
       concerned.  She reminds him that Personnel sent him 10 resumes,
       five women and five men.  The four he sent her are all male, and
       8 of the 10 managers that work for him are male.  She then gives
       him the "women are just as capable and intelligent as men"
       lecture.
	Boss: "I see my other direct reports as being much more even
              handed in these matters then you.  [...] You need to give
              this matter some real thought, and adjust your attitudes
              about women before there are serious consequences".

       Scene 3:
       Harry is now in the office of one of his peers.  She has admired,
       (read: wanted to be involved with) him for years and he hasn't
       noticed.  Now that he is getting divorced, she decides to take a
       chance.  In the process of going over reports, she reaches for
       something on the other side of him, and one of her breasts come to
       rest momentarily against his arm.  He notices and she smiles,
       just enough for him to guess that this was not an accident.

       Scene 4:
       Finally, Harry is now walking into a conference room, early for
       his meeting.  He notices that the room is almost full of people
       (this is not DEC).  There is a great looking woman sitting off to
       the side of the room and the first thing he notices is her legs
       (she is sitting normally with her legs crossed, not
       suggestively).  He has a pleasured smile on his face as his eyes
       follow the curve of her body up to her face. Oh-Oh.  She is
       looking right at him and her glare says, "I am not a piece of meat,
       who do you think you are!?"

       Now we fade to commercial, and the voice over is Harry saying,
       "G*d almighty, do I hate dealing with women!"

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

       I have no idea what happens in the next 15 minutes!

       What do you think?  Is this close?

       Richard

    In football, the teams go in as equals, with equal opportunity for
    preparation and the reward going to the winner no matter which team
    it turns out to be.
    
    In life, women go into the game disadvantaged and disliked.  Their
    attempts at preparation for the game are discouraged because they
    are told they don't have to "win", it isn't "ladylike" and they won't
    get a man if they persist.  So they prepare for a different game, but 
    are thrown into the game of life anyway - except now they are dis-
    advantaged and if they play it with gusto and style, are also disliked.
    
    And a further insult, if the women win, by some fluke, the prize
    will be changed to be smaller.
    
    Manipulation served the woman well who saved her husband with a
    pound of bacon.  But she was dealing with a hostile enemy.  Are
    you saying, Kathy, that in dealings with men, women are dealing
    with a hostile enemy and likewise should resort to the same tactics?
    
    The woman with the bacon would not likely have "manipulated" her
    neighbor to get her husband back.  She well might have gone in there
    with a gun and started doing a little demanding.
    
    In this light, the women who are angry and demand equal rights NOW
    are doing so because they, (we), DON'T perceive an enemy situation.
    We are dealing with what be believed are peers - colleagues - equals,
    if you will.  The anger is in finding out you've been betrayed by
    your equal who sets himself up as your superior and then expects
    you to act as subordinate to complete the (im)balance.  We're 
    expected to be circumspect, indirect, to qualify our words and to soften
    our feelings.  To my mind, to do so would be to believe in their
    superiority and my inferiority and I don't believe it!  Since men
    are in power they still have the self-ordained authority to require
    their "underlings" to approach them in a certain way, regardless
    of the reason behind the approach.  Women are expected to approach men
    sexually in only certain ways, and the same goes for this situation.
    Failure to do so, (as in my stating directly I want the ERA and
    I don't care WHAT they personally think of me), is in itself a
    transgression and will be used as further justification for
    denying my request, a la those endless tired ratholes of "it's
    HOW you said it".  OK, OK, tell me how you'd like it said and let's
    get on with the discussion.  But there never is a right way to say
    it because it isn't supposed to BE said.  No one has ever reworded
    such a request "correctly" have they?  Not in 30 years has one woman
    found the "right way" to ask for equality or the "right way" to
    express her anger although I suspect the "right way" is the one
    that accomplishes nothing - the one that lets her blow off a little
    steam leaving the men unwounded and the status quo unchanged.  I find
    it hard to believe the fault lies with all these women.

    Don't forget that being circumspect, indirect and nice are part and 
    parcel of manipulation and although we all know being direct is a no-no
    for women, there aren't too many men who will appreciate being manipu-
    lated.  Many men are just as put off by feminine wiles as they are
    by feminine directness.  So even your answer looses.

    But that's what misogyny is all about.  Damned if you do, damned if
    you don't.  Wiles and directness, while used extensively by men to 
    accomplish their goals, are feared and hated concpets when preceded by 
    the word 'feminine'.  
    
    Don't manipulate but don't be direct.  Don't whine but don't get angry.
    Don't dress butch but don't spend too much time getting ready. Don't
    get too educated but don't talk nonsense, etc.  A womanly "style" is
    not appreciated by men in negotiations and neither is a manly style
    when used by a woman.  So there really IS no style that's acceptable
    in this kind of thing.  That's why we're mired in frustration and
    why still, in 1990, we don't have guaranteed equal protection under
    the law.  We've wasted precious time trying to find the key to make
    men listen when in truth, they, (the lawmakers), don't want to listen
    and all the "don'ts" are designed specifically to insure a woman has 
    little opportunity to present a logical and clearly thought out
    case for equality.
    
    If we ask nicely for equality we can easily be brushed off.  If we ask 
    directly for equality we can be taken to task for being shrill, strident, 
    for alienating men.  But all these things are beside the point since no 
    one appears to be interested in how alienated women feel in patriarchies
    and how they feel when men are shrill and strident with them, which they
    often are.  So mere alienation is of little interest EXCEPT when it be-
    comes a handy label to silence a woman.  That's why I just ignore it when
    I'm told that my words may alienate men.  Their society alienates
    women but nobody seems to think that's a bad thing.  That's because,
    I suppose, that women are and have always been, expected to do the
    adapting.  And when you don't, no matter what else you may be saying,
    right or wrong, justified or not, it is perceived that you are being 
    so because you hate men and THAT becomes the central issue to be
    discussed.  Labels, smokescreens, name-calling, "straw-horses", (great 
    note, that one!), all are tools used to bamboozle women, deflect
    attention from their words to their "attitudes", (as in, "I don't talk
    to people with your "attitude") and devalue them as serious and
    sincere humans with worthy causes and justifiable points to make.
    
    The MO seems to be - Ignore her until she goes away but if she just
    yells to be heard, then admonish her for the fact that she yelled.
    It's like tormenting a helpless animal until it strikes out and then
    killing it for biting you.  We don't live a charmed life and our "masters"
    are not kind and benevolent toward women when they make their policies.
    And, [in my opinion I believe that], because of that, they have no right 
    to be surprised, appalled or outraged when they find women becoming 
    angrier, and angrier. 
    
    The bamboozling works in notes, (tho some of us just yell louder, like 
    men would - you know us, we're the "strident ones!  ;-) ), and it
    works in life.  And it will only stop working once the world is
    convinced, (that's men AND women), that women aren't little fluffy
    toys to be humored and jerked around and laugh at - when more of us
    stand taller and yell louder and generally make life hell until we get 
    what we want, what we deserve, and what we are entitled to.  Until
    then, female "niceness" will continue to be the weapon we give to men
    to use against us in the battle for equality.

    I think a lot of the dynamics I've seen in the last slew of notes have
    to do with anger denied expression.  A lot of women have had plenty to
    get angry about.  However, if they start expressing that anger against
    men, they are told, "Hey!  Don't get angry at me!  *I* didn't do
    anything to you!"  Which might be true.  However, if you've spent much
    of your life being constrained by men telling you what you may and may
    not do, this comes across as yet another case of a man telling a woman
    what she may not do.  Since this is what you're angry about to begin
    with, the "Hey, not me" response doesn't exactly go over real well.
    
    Sometimes I think we'd all be a lot better off if men and women would
    just sit back and *let* women get angry.  "I've been cheated, I've been
    shortchanged, I've been pushed around, I've been humiliated, I've been
    patronized, by a bunch of jerk-face men and I've had it up to here
    with the scum-sucking slime molds!!!" etc, etc.  Eventually they'd get
    it out of their systems and could say, "Look, I didn't necessarily mean
    you in particular.  I was angry and you happened to get caught in the
    fallout zone.  I'm sorry if anything I said was unjust to you."  And
    then men could say, "I understand, you were frustrated and needed to
    get that out.  I'm sorry you had to go through all that; what can I do 
    to help?"
    
    But of course it never happened and it probably never will.  The simple
    act of a woman expressing anger is (or was) revolutionary.  Ladies
    don't get angry; they are always gracious and polite.  This means that
    the only way that ladies can be sure of getting things done is to get
    others to do things for them.  In other words, the only power ladies
    have is that of manipulation.  I prefer not to limit the tools at my
    disposal.  Different situations require different approaches.  In the
    "second wave" of feminism, I think the most effective approach will be
    less confrontational.  I don't know for sure, not having been there and
    not having studied recent history, but in the first wave of feminism,
    the confrontational approach was probably far more appropriate.

    re: note 125
    
    Assumptions:
    	men are in power
    	men are the enemy.  They prevent us from attaining our goals.
    	men want to stay that way.
    
    Alternative actions:
    	1.  Print "WELCOME" on your face and lie down in front of a door.
    	2.  Yell and scream when the opportunity arises.
    	3.  Yell and scream in response to a specific case of
    	discrimination. 
    
    Problems with each case:
    	1.  Like you'all said "making nice" all the time does nothing but
    	make us, women, look like fluff.
    	2.  On the other hand, always or most of the time seeming angry
    	doesn't do much good either.  If you meet someone who is often
    	angry, most people wonder what THEIR problem is.  I'm not saying
    	that we don't have a right to be angry.  I am simply stating a fact
    	of life.  People don't like anger.  They can understand anger if	
    	there is a specific reason for being angry but if there is no
    	obvious and current reason for it, the angry person is assumed to
    	be just that: an angry person.  Angry people are avoided, not
    	listened to.
    	This, I believe is the point that some people are trying to make.
    	3.  If, for instance, you don't get promoted and a man with similar
    	experience does get promoted, now is a great time to fight.  Or if
    	your housemate, SO .. decides that it's your job to do X because 
    	you're a woman, then fight.  But don't give all men filthy-dirty
    	looks because some men stare at your body.  These are just
    	examples.  The general principle here is be polite until crossed. 
    	Then fight like hell.  I don't think that carrying around a "men
    	are the enemy" attitude will change to situation.  
    
    Rachael
    

    example of misogyny...
      I was parked at a convenience store Saturday and noticed that
    the car next to me had a bound and gagged Barbie doll hanging down 
    from the rear view mirror.  Maybe the person was advertising their 
    sexual proclivities, but it gave me the creeps.
    	Linda

 re: -1

 I knew this woman who had a GI Joe doll that had the head ripped off it. She
attached it to her dashboard, and put a sign on it that said "The Perfect Man."
I thought it was funny.

 To me, that situation was analogous to "barbie in bondage." The difference in
our reactions to the situations may well be a reflection of the effects of 
misogyny on each of us.

 The Doctah

ASDS::RSMITH

>    	2.  On the other hand, always or most of the time seeming angry
>    	doesn't do much good either.  

I have a bit of a problem with this one since there's nothing to indicate that
women expressing anger here are angry always or most of the time.  This is 
a vague stereotype many people have of feminists - that they're angry *all 
the time*.  If a woman  *ever* expresses anger, others often assume she is 
humorless and/or *always* angry.  I think this belief stems from the miso-
gynistic attitude that women are generally mentally scattered and unfocused. 
So when they express anger, it is often assumed to be characteristically 
vauge and general and, in her emotionally unfocused rage, unwittingly
directed at the innocent.  This is pure rubbish.  

But if you don't like hearing women's anger, you can play on this accepted 
stereotype and find lots of sympathy from many people, (men and women), that 
you are the innocent victim of and a mere sounding board for dour, humorless, 
pedantic feminists who are just "angry all the time" and/or "at all men".  
It's been done many, many times in life and in notes.  It's being suggested 
right here with the above comment.

> ... but if there is no obvious and current reason for it, the angry person 
>is assumed to 	be just that: an angry person. 

One of the hoops women are tossed to jump through in this issue centers 
around this word "obvious".  If the reasons for women's anger aren't 
"obvious" to men, then it can be assumed that women are just angry people
and brushed off.  So women are often challenged not to just state their 
reasons, (because they could do so much too easily), but to make them
obvious to men.  It's a common game where the next play is to discount
every  effort at compliance with a mere, "I still don't get it", (when they
do), or, "I don't see it that way", (because they don't want to), or the
biggie, "Your experience is unique", (I understand you but you've just been
unlucky).  And that ends the discussion nicely.  Her complaints, her
reasons, all the logic in the world are irrelevant because she has failed
to "make it obvious" to her male audience.  

Forcing a woman to try to make a man admit something he can simply refuse to 
admit to is a nasty little game and a deliberate exercise in futility.  I 
believe the reasons women are angry ARE obvious, even to men.  Few men in 
their right minds would live under the restrictions and judgements they 
routinely expect women to accept good-naturedly.  Few would welcome the op-
portunity to trade places with a woman.  They know.  The reasons for female 
anger are obvious.  But to begin negotiations, both sides need to admit to a 
problem.  So by simply refusing to admit to anything, you can stop all 
further discussion.  The best tactic is to just assume women's anger
is just vague and unfocused fist-shaking unless they can find the key to
making men in power admit they understand, which they simply don't ever
have to, no matter what.  And this is the tactic responsible for the
continued comeback kinds of notes written by women who try to get the
admission, fail, as of course they will, and come back with another
scenario.  If a woman does this too many times, (the man of course can
play, "I don't see it" as often as he likes), everyone reading it assumes
she's really digging in, really playing hardball, really being nasty
- another feminist who's angry "all the time" and "at all men".  What
began as cool logic has turned into frustrated anger by a male consciously
or unconsciously playing this game of "convince me".        
    
People assumed to be strong and tough don't generally have to prove it.  
People assumed to be scattered and fluffy will have to show outrageous 
levels of strength and toughness.  Women who show outrageous levels of
strength and toughness are thought to be "angry feminists", vague and 
scattered anyway.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

>  I don't think that carrying around a "men are the enemy" attitude will 
>  change to situation.  
   
I don't know.  A "women are the enemy" attitude helped changed society around 
toward patriarchies quite well.  See the topic "Quotable Sexists" for the 
historic attitudes towards women that helped shape patriarchies and solidify 
male power.  Since women were initially revered and awed for their child-
bearing capacities, for women in modern societies to be seen as "lesser" 
than men, a woman-as-enemy attitude had to prevail among the men at some 
point during society-forming.  We weren't taught what men were taugh
so that we would be knowledgeable voters, we were simply denied the
right to vote. 
    
And for patriarchies to continue, so must this attitude though now, since 
woman-as-enemy is already validated and self-supporting via the various 
societal rules and traditons, men no longer have to consciously think of
women as actual enemies.  They just have to support the status quo,
(do nothing, admit to nothing), which is built on that premise and claim 
ignorance of the premise and/or indifference to the benefits accorded them 
through it.  Both of these defenses are routinely used in womannotes.
It's the "don't blame me" defense and the "I don't like it any more than
you" defense.

To maintain the economic and social disadvantages of women, the establishment 
has to see them as some sort of 'danger', some kind of 'enemy'.  But no in-
dividual man has to admit to it or can be held responsible.  Quite a nifty 
little setup.  Patriarchy has no open door policy.  It is everyman -
and no man in particular.

Two wrongs don't make a right but also don't believe women should be held to 
a standard of goodness that men don't.  Maybe because men saw women as the 
enemy first, before women saw them as the enemy, men feel they deserve to 
rule.  That's certainly the impression I get when I read words like, 'that 
was the past and this is now', or 'two wrongs don't make a right', or 
'anger gets you nowhere', and so on.  It all worked and continues to work 
wonders for men; anger, (the man in Boston who was let off for killing his
wife because he was angry that she cheated on him), the perception of the 
other sex as enemy, (as in not leting "them" vote or more recently, drink 
at certain bars or go to certain clubs or use certain doors or hold certain
religious positions or get certain jobs), and two wrongs making a right, (as 
in allowing the rape of a woman who is dressed a certain way - that one just
worked recently!!).

Aren't we supposed to see this?  Are we supposed to be too dense to see what 
works and to use it for ourselves?  Sort of!  We're supposed to be too un-
focused to really see these things for what they are and even if we do, we're
supposed to be too NICE to actually use any of the techniques that work.  
Action, competition, challenge and results - these are not accepted parts of
the feminine ideal.  And that arbitrary delineation of what should be male
and what should be female intentionally cuts us out of the race right at the 
starting gate.  No raised voices, no challenges and no meaningful protest 
allowed from women.  Misogyny.

    I recently saw a car driving down the street that had a home-made sign
    in the window the said "Ex In Trunk", and a fake leg, complete with
    a man's pants, sock, and shoe, dangling out of the back hatch lid...
    
    -roger
    
    

    
    I guess there's kind of been a reason I've been avoiding this topic a
    bit.  I guess I didn't want to think about it.  This response
    supplements a few other replies as to why anyone (particularly a woman)
    would have misogynystic tendencies.   This is difficult to write.  But
    it's true.  I contain a certain amount of misogyny (well, actually,
    it's a kind of fear-of-femininity combined with a twisted form of
    elitism).  Here's how I think it came about.  Please don't debate
    this...I'm tempted to delete it before even posting it...it's very hard
    to share innermost thoughts...
    
    When I was young, I felt I was criticized a good deal and felt
    unpraised (and unpraiseworthy).  I became a tomboy, and learned early
    on that for some strange reason the things boys did seemed cooler, and
    more interesting, and often more valuable (fixing things, doing math,
    going places and trying things for themselves) than what other girls
    did.  So I hung out with the boys.  And everything was cool.  I didn't
    really miss the girls.

    Then I went to middle school.  The boys still seemed cooler than the
    girls, but society seemed to think I should be friends with girls
    instead of boys, so I tried.  They turned their pert little noses up at
    me and found me socially unacceptable.  Yet, since it was very outre'
    to be friends with the boys, I was friends with other female social
    outcasts like myself.  It was okay, but I missed the boys.

    I went to junior high.  I flattered, persuaded, and cajoled my way into
    whatever circle of females was cool.  I felt twofaced.  I didn't like
    having to say and do certain things to be with them - I didn't like
    having to be somebody I wasn't to be acceptable.  Why were girls like
    that? Boys didn't make me do that, but it still wasn't cool to be
    friends with boys, so I stayed mildly unhappily on the fringes of the
    girls groups. I never did (and still don't) have the strength or
    self-esteem to say "the #uck with it, I'll do what I want", or "I don't
    need anybody to be okay"...

    I went to high school.  A technical high school, where the ratio was
    10:1 (M:F) in the school and 50:1 in my major (electronics).  The girls in
    high school were primarily cosmetology, nursing, and childcare majors. 
    The cosmetology majors were interested primarily in their looks, and in
    who laid who, and in gossip, and in getting a man.  These girls were
    interested in themselves and their clothes and their dates.  I was
    interested in none of these.  I made friends with the guys, who didn't
    make you change how you were in order to be their friend.  Granted, in
    order to identify myself with the men (and probably to signal myself as
    "not-fluffy-female"), I wore sneakers and jeans and flannel shirts and
    swore a lot.  I excelled scholastically (which was not terribly
    difficult at a tech school). I hung out with guys,  I majored in an
    all-male shop (not because it was all-male, but because electronics
    fascinated me, and I actually enjoyed cosmetology too, but the thought
    of spending 4 years in that shop with those girls made me want to vomit
    - they seemed so shallow and their priorities seemed totally alien to
    me).

    I began (as did the males in my shop, and elsewhere in the school) to
    look down on the cutesy females.  They seemed mere wisps as far as
    mentality went (although I'm sure that could have been because they
    downplayed it to fit in with all THEIR female peers - they played the
    game better than I), and they were totally catty to each other.  So I
    figured "why bother"?  There were some women, strong women, proud
    women, thoughtful women, that I really looked up to and these were the
    female friendships I sought, but a majority of the women didn't give me
    a second glance, nor I them.

    Now through this I was very painfully aware of being not-male, and in
    my mind since females seemed to be so very much the antithesis of what
    I felt I was, I got very down on myself at this point.  I felt cursed,
    and pained, by the fact that I was inherently flawed in my creation.  I
    didn't like MYSELF because I didn't like what the women around me had
    become, and I feared the same was somehow, to some degree, in store for
    me.  I buried my femininity, and worked to be as non-feminine as
    possible.  I subconsciously put on weight (i.e. I didn't stuff myself
    with "hey I'll get fat so men won't think I'm a fluffy female" in mind)
    so I was less-femalely-attractive.  I made derogatory remarks about
    other females, joking along with the guys (subconsciously at my own
    expense).  

    I went to college, where the ratio was 7:1 (M:F) in the school, and
    12:1 in my major.  The women at college were very SMART, but many of
    them still seemed eager to make me jump through repersonification hoops
    to be their friend. The sororities seemed clique-y, and I really didn't
    think they'd ever like me as me so I didn't bother with them.  I did
    find a few women (mostly outcasts from the past, like myself) with whom
    I became good friends, but my friends were mostly male, and I liked it
    that way.  They didn't play silly head games and didn't try to make you
    into something you weren't. They were very take-it-or-leave-it, very
    easygoing, pretty honest in their friendships.  A majority of the women
    either seemed VERY smug with themselves, or very sure of themselves as
    man-bait, or they seemed to be workaholics because they were driven by
    their parents, or future income, or they were even MORE down-on-women
    than I was.  My few-but-fantastic female friends were none of these
    things, and I saw them playing very few of other people's games, and
    admired them for it.

    There were parts of myself I hated and cursed as weak, often the softer
    female parts that had been buried for so long and refused to remain
    buried. I feared if I let them come forth all my strength would erode
    and they would overtake me, I would become what I hated/feared most.  I
    gloried in my intelligence, my ability to figure things out.  I stood
    by my staunchly male friends, and we grew together.  I learned lots
    from my female friends, few though they were.  They were much like
    myself, although they seemed more accepting of and comfortable with
    their femininity in many cases.

    Now I am working in a world where it is 50/50 (a place I haven't been
    since junior high - I have not seen an even ratio in the world since I
    was in junior high because high school and college (total of 10 very
    formative years) were primarily male dominated, being technical
    schools.  The women here are different from any women I'd met before. 
    And I try to be more accepting of all the women, in all their ways of
    working, and living, and loving.

    But inside me there is something that is terrified of being weak, and
    terrified of being female, and terrified of being adjudged a mental
    lightweight and a stereotypical, fluffy "girl".  I am trying to balance
    the contrasts.  While achieving mentally I am learning that it's okay
    to cry and be afraid, while weightlifting and installing
    dimmer-switches and fixing stereos I am learning how to dance, while
    wearing pants and sneakers I am learning that turtlenecks flatter me
    more than flannel shirts, while trying to grow comfortable and resolve
    some emotional issues I have about various things in my life I'm trying
    to lose weight and NOT be terrified that I look female.

    I do not dislike any woman more than I dislike myself (lord that's hard
    to say, and probably not as bad as it sounds).  The problem with female
    misogynysts is it cuts both ways, inside and out.  Since getting to DEC
    I have grown and learned and increased my understanding a thousandfold
    of the wonderful women that are here.  It helps me hope I will
    reintegrate my femininity fully, and accept myself as something more
    positive than I could ever have hoped.

    -Jody

Some thoughts on misogyny unrelated to the replies up to this point...

It seems that a lot of people equate misogyny and sexism.  Many people say
things like "She didn't get promoted because she's female - blatant misogyny." I
don't think the two are the s ame.  They go hand in hand, but are not
synonymous, and have to be dealt with differently.

Misogyny is a from-the-gut hatred or dislike of women.  It is very irrational
and very hard to combat on an individual basis, and probably the best  approach
is to change the society that fosters misogyny.  (Which is not to say that
misogyny can't be changed on an indivual level, or that society is the sole
cause.)

Sexism is discriminating against women, regardless of personal feelings for
them.  This I think it much easier to attack through individuals - through
education, and perhaps legislation, to prevent intances of sexism. (Which is not
to say that a change in societal attitudes won't effect sexism or that sexism
isn't a product of societal influences.)

The two, of course, promote one another, and a society without one would
probably be without the other, so combatting one *is* combatting the other. But
they aren't the same.

As an example, a have a male aquaintence who is defintely not a misogynist, yet
very sexist.  He doesn't hate women, doesn't "fear" them.  He just doesn't want
them to gain power, because it hurts him personally.  He wants to have power
over as many people as possible, and by nature of his maleness he knows he has a
large amount of power of women as a whole. And he likes it and wants to keep it
that way.  He doesn't think women are *bad*, or deserve to be subjugated, or
anything like that, he just see's the situation as being advantageous to
himself, so he fights to keep it the way it is. (I think he is unusual...I think
it is rare to find an individual who is either misogynistic or sexist but not
some of both.)

At any rate, to tie this in with the discussion, as to whether it is best to go
about achieving equality through legistlation or through making men "accept and
like" us, I think both are important.  The formerl is primarly important to
combatting sexism, the latter against misogyny.  And we won't get rid of one
till we can get rid of the other.

D!

RE:  .132  Jody.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with us.  I found it very
interesting and moving.  I am glad that you are working it out.  I
think it has been very hard to challenge gender roles and it is my
hope and belief that they are softening a bit.  As a boy who liked
both girl stuff and boy stuff (and still does) I can relate.

RE:  Misogyny and where does it come from.

Good question. Where does all bigotry come from?  I guess you could
point to the first level reasons, it is taught, it is one group
wanting a physical/sexual/economic advantage over another.  But where
do these things come from?  I don't beleive it is primarily a physical
size thing since there are examples of non-sexist societies and other
forms of bigotry are not size related.

I have to think that at the most basic level, the root cause is a
non-awareness of the connectedness of all things.  When under this the
illusion of a permanent, separate self, greed, ignorance, and hatred
arise as the insecurity of this separate self causes a desire to fluff
itself up by taking various advantages over other "groups" that the
mind differentiates.  When the basic interconnectness is seen, how can
you ever have or want an advantage over someone else?

How do we fix it?  I think there are multiple levels.  Working on
ourselves (which is the not really different than working on everyone
else), spiritual, political, raising our children differently,
standing up for what we beleive in (hopefully from a position where
there is space for the other person or group to change).  I think how
each of choses to make a difference is something each of us
must answer this question for ourselves and I don't think there is one
right answer.  

john

    re:	<<< Note 922.132 by LEZAH::BOBBITT "changes fill my time..." >>>

    Lord, Jody, you've said a mouthful.  I felt much of what you say
    and I'm a guy.  Also now a dad of 3 little girls.  I wish I knew
    how to help them avoid seeing 'getting a man' as their major
    goal in life.  I doubt I can have much impact against the tides
    of society.
    bob

re:	 922.132

I'm glad you had the courage to post this, Jody.  I can very strongly 
relate it to my own life and I'm sure there are lots of other women here 
who can, too.  Thank you!!

I also want to commend the honesty and courage that others are showing
in this topic -- I think it's one of the most important conversations
we've had in a long time. 

    Jody-
    
     Nice note! Thanks for the insightful reply.
    
     The Doctah

    Re: .135
    
    >I wish I knew how to help them avoid seeing 'getting a man' as their
    >major goal in life.
    
    I managed to avoid that, I'm not entirely sure how, but I never grew up
    thinking about marriage.  Part of it had to do with family tradition on
    my mother's side that women be able to provide for themselves.  My
    grandmother was a physical therapist, my mother was a physical
    therapist.  For a while there I thought it was incumbent upon me to be
    a physical therapist (tradition, you know).
    
    I, too, find that I'm more in the company of males than females.  I was
    generally not part of a social group in school, having grown up with my
    nose in a book.  I find that I despised the 'typical' teenager even
    when I was a teen myself.  I think most of that was directed at girls
    because of the whole makeup-and-fashion thing -- boys didn't really do
    that.  Still, a lot of it was based on an exaggerated sense of
    intellectual superiority, so I didn't exactly approve of teenage boys a
    lot.  They tended to do things like wreck their trucks over the weekend
    with amazing regularity.
    
    High school did something good for me.  As it turned out, about four or
    five of the cheerleaders for my class were in my honors English
    classes.  At least two of them were in my advanced math classes.  Here
    we had females who were attractive, popular and intelligent.  Not as
    intelligent as me, of course ..., but by no means dummies.  Also, I
    knew that I was getting pretty arrogant and I slapped myself around
    about it.  The older I get, the less superior I feel, which will be
    fine up to a point ....
    
    As far as angry feminists go, I'm not surprised to find people
    believing it.  I don't think feminists are always angry, although I'm
    sure some are, just as some men are always angry at the world. 
    However, I know there are a number of women in this file who are almost
    always angry *when they note here.*  Their notes are almost always
    expressing anger.  People's perceptions depend on what they see.  No
    doubt there are some men who never particularly notice women unless
    women draw their attention by doing something as "drastic" as getting
    angry.  Unfortunately, people can tolerate exposure to high emotion for
    only so long.  This is one reason why anger/confrontation is becoming
    less effective.

    I've followed this conference for a long time but have never replied
    before.  Now, after finding out one of the most articulate, intelligent
    noters I've ever read is leaving, and after having been deeply moved
    by many of the notes in this string (which I wound up reading from 
    start to finish in one sitting) I feel compelled to post something...
    
    I had attempted in another conference to start a similar discussion
    (re: .0)  Unfortunately it went nowhere, I wish I *really* knew why.  In 
    any event what I've found here has been extremely informative and, also, 
    somewhat depressing.  The more I learn about feminism and the past and 
    present treatment and status of women, the more discouraged I become.  
    In my own fairly enlightened circle of friends (and within myself as 
    well) there needs to be a significant change in attitude before equality 
    for women will be *truly accepted*, even though most of these people (and
    myself) believe it should be a reality in law and action.
    
    All I can say is that the supposedly "strident", "angry", "aggressive",
    and/or "mean-spritied" women who note in this conference (people such as
    Catherine and Sandy, Suzanne and Nancy, Peggy, Liesl, and on and
    on...) are probably doing a lot more good than they may realize.  I
    truly hope that their detractors one day come to realize this and learn
    as well.
    
    I doubt I will reply here often (or even again), but this is certainly
    one of the most incredible collections of humanity I've ever
    encountered...
    
    /Greg
    

>  RE: .138 by ACESMK::CHELSEA 

    
>    High school did something good for me.  As it turned out, about four or
>    five of the cheerleaders for my class were in my honors English
>    classes.  At least two of them were in my advanced math classes.  Here
>    we had females who were attractive, popular and intelligent.  Not as
>    intelligent as me, of course ..., but by no means dummies.


	 Unfortunately, I've been there.....and the 'smart'
	 cheerleaders are the one that are left out of every group.
	 The pop crowd thinks you're a brain and the brain crowd
	 thinks you're a pop.

         I graduated fifth in my class (out of 453) and I STILL was
	 treated by the other femme brains like I "wasn't as smart as them"
	 and the other cheerleaders NEVER asked to me do anything with
	 them.

	 Consequently.......I found my acceptance with the guys who
	 accepted me at face value.  Only *one* femme friend
	 throughout high school and she was in the same position I was
	 in (except she was a PomPon girl).  Male friends?  Too many
	 to count......

	 Yes, I'd have to say that these femme attitudes did quite a
	 bit to mold me into the twisted person I am today....like
	 Jody, it's hard to learn that I CAN have friendships with
	 women...that I don't have to resent them all the time, but
	 I'm learning......

	 and I know that accusations and anger is not the way to
	 accepting/loving myself.


	 kath

          Last night on CNN's Crossfire, Buchanon and Kinsey were debating
          the issue of how to punish violent criminals.

          In distinguishing the difference between the *really* violent,
          incorrigible murderers that need to be locked away from society,
          Pat Buchanon started with something like, "Well, if a guy just
          kills his wife..." as an example of the "other" type of violent
          criminal.  I thought I might have heard incorrectly.

          But a few moments later, Kinsey chimed in with a similar
          statement which was another attempt to distinguish between the
          "real" violent criminals and the ones that just need to have
          their hands slapped when he started with, "Well, if a man just
          blows up his wife..."

          Funny, it was one of the rare times when I heard the conservative
          Buchanon and the liberal Kinsey agree on anything.

          Also ironic was that the newsbroadcast earlier concerned the
          sentencing of the man who


          WARNING: DESCRIPTION OF GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AHEAD


          murdered his wife and put her body through a wood chipper.


          Nah, he doesn't need to be punished *really* severely; after all,
          he just murdered his wife.

          What is this a result of - misogyny, sexism, or is it just a
          general statement on the value of women/wives ?

                                                            nancy b.

    re .141, "just killing your wife..."
    
    I dunno, Nancy. For what it's worth, I noticed that in this past 
    Sunday's (ever more notorious) Boston Globe, the front-page articles 
    on Charles Stuart's murder of his wife were all continued in the Sports
    section...

	re: .142 (Dorian Kottler)

	>  in this past Sunday's (ever more notorious) Boston Globe, the 
	>  front-page articles on Charles Stuart's murder of his wife were 
	>  all continued in the Sports section...

	Darn, if they had pictures as well, it could be "Sports Illustrated".
	
							nancy b.

I thought this passage from *Beauty Bound*, by psychologist Rita Freedman, 
might be pertinent here. In her book Freedman analyzes the unequal
standards of beauty as applied to women and men, how and why our culture
goes about imprisoning women in impossible expectations of beauty and what
this does to women: 


"Never quite what she should be, woman must be revalued. She is, after all, 
needed for the very life-giving functions that make her so profane. 
Although assigned a separate and unequal place in society--generally 
excluded from the world of politics and power--woman cannot be exiled too 
far or too long. In the end, she is needed to do the work of nature. 
Therefore, she must be drawn back into man's world for mating and 
mothering, for lunch and laundry. Beauty confers added value on the 
devalued sex. It makes woman worthy of joining man's life, of sharing his 
bed, bearing his children, and wearing his name....

"Beauty clearly distinguishes woman as different, as a member of the other 
half of the community. A bride senses that idealized love is ephemeral; 
that it is only a matter of time before she will be discovered as just 
another woman. Similarly, beauty is only a temporary equalizer. Ultimately, 
it exposes the fair sex once again as the other sex. For the symbols of 
contrived beauty--the lacquered nails, the crimson lips, the strawberry-
blond hair--exaggerate gender differences. They elevate woman onto a 
pedestal while paradoxically defining her separate role. In lieu of equality, 
beauty serves as a kind of prop, or consolation prize. In the end, props 
and pedestals make poor equalizers. They cannot substitute for full 
personhood.

"The conflicting attitudes that result from contradictory myths are 
revealed in a study that found two major types of prejudices in men. One 
form of bias stereotyped women as fragile, naive, and pure. Men holding 
this attitude placed women on a pedestal and wanted to be chivalrously 
protective of them. The second form of bias defined women as emotionally 
and intellectually inferior, therefore deserving of subordination. Many men 
expressed both these attitudes at once, for in this case contradictory 
biases support each other.

"Women internalize the same conflicting attitudes and often feel 
confused....

"When myths are conflicting, they portray woman as mysterious and 
indefinable. Throughout history people have 'knocked their heads against 
the nature of femininity and failed to understand it,' claimed Freud. The 
'enigma of woman' remained Freud's great unsolved puzzle, perhaps because 
preserving the enigma was essential to preserving his concept of female 
deviance. As long as woman remains a faceless enigma, distanced by 
difference, she is harder to know but easier to ignore. As long as woman 
wears her beauty as a disguise, she can be seen as both more and less than 
she really is, more beautiful and less normal. Attempts to discover the 
secret essence of femininity will invariably fail, explains de Beauvoir, 
because it simply does not exist.

"The myth of woman as the fair sex perpetuates the feminine mystique. 
Petticoats and veils, padded bras and packaged bodies, everything that 
accentuates difference confirms woman as the 'other.' Recall the scene when 
Cinderella arrives at the ball. Even her stepsisters fail to know her, so 
blinding is her beauty. Camouflaged as a lovely enigma, she becomes 
unrecognizable. Unknown and unknowable, she is all the more desirable. Like 
Venus, a goddess of beauty but also a planet wrapped in steamy clouds, her 
core is hidden in a romantic mist. Beauty maintains the erotic mystery of a 
woman by concealing the human being beneath."


Incidentally, the photographs in this book of different manifestations of 
the "beauty mystique" in our culture and others are really compelling. 
Included are a Chinese woman's bound foot; an emaciated Karen Carpenter 
(the singer) before she died of anorexia nervosa at 32; a group of 
three-year-old girls all dressed up for a beauty contest; the fallen Miss
America, Vanessa Williams, who taught us that "the demands of beauty and the
taboos of pornography require a balancing act that often throws women off
balance as admiration turns to exploitation"; the Dallas Cowboys'
cheerleaders kicking us the message that "good-looking girls belong one
step out of bounds, cheering the guys on to victory";  AND... 

Georgia O'Keefe, who always just looked like herself, beautiful as herself
-- young and old -- with a lifelong expression of "serene determination"
(could that explain why some people say they think she looked like a man?). 
                        

    re .141
    
    I would like to think that the comments about 'just his wife' in
    reference to the appropriate punishment for murderers, relates to
    a perceptual difference in how much of a threat *to society* the
    murderer is.  Someone who has killed a random stranger is more
    threatening to society as a whole than someone who has killed an
    identifiable individual against whom a grudge is held.  It is entirely
    possible that killers of family members (wives, husbands, children)
    have a different pathology than killers of strangers.
    
    This is not to say that *any* kind of killing is 'ok', nor to deny
    that it is very unsettling to hear 'just a wife' in this context.
    But sometimes there is more than one reason behind a particular
    comment.
    
    Alison 

I wonder if they would have been as comfortable saying "just his kids".
	Mez

    In re: .145 -
    
    > Someone who has killed a random stranger is more threatening to
    > society as a whole than someone who has killed an identifiable
    > individual against whom a grudge is held.  
    
    	No, No, or, at least, only in the sense of perception.
    
    Far more people are killed by relatives and friends than by strangers.
    When people hear of a stranger-killing, they think: "it could just as
    well have been me." When they hear of a spouse killing they think: 
    "s/he clearly wouldn't have killed me instead; no threat." Instead,
    they MIGHT (but rarely do) think: "it might instead have been my spouse
    killing me."  That would indeed be an uncomfortable association. Yet it
    is (in general) the statistically most probable alternative, and
    clearly the greatest threat to society in the sense of causing death.
    

    a) A person who loses his temper with a stranger and kills him
    would be more dangerous than one who kills an SO. Why ?
    The situation with an SO has a much longer time to build
    up to a breaking point. One who loses his temper in a short
    time is clearly more of a threat to society.

    b) A person who kills an SO is more dangerous than one who
    kills a stranger. Why ? Because his loss of temper is so
    violent as to overcome his love for that person. One who
    loses his temper to such an extent is clearly the greater
    threat to society.
    
    hmmm.... a contradiction. Both of these make sense. 
    Anybody want to refute one or both ?
    
    Dana

    Copied from a letter in today's Boston Globe (without permission):
    
    "The recent explosion of the Stuart case illustrates in a clear way the
    racism, sexism and classism that pervade our society.
    
    From Oct. 23, 1989 to Jan. 4, 1990, we witnessed the ugly face of a
    racist society responding to the murder of Carol Stuart.  Now we are
    witnessing the sexism that allows no mention of men killing their wives
    to surface amidst the sensationalism."
    
    I proved her point by thinking, after I read this letter, "Huh? What's
    it got to do with wife-killing? ... Oh!"
    
    Nancy

          Some very enlightening (to me) concepts have been formed in this
          topic on the subject of "women and anger".  The subject continues
          to be discussed in other topics as well.

          I recall picking up something at Reading International in Harvard
          Square about "women in therapy", which said [paraphrasing]:

          --------------------------------------------------------------
          -   "Depression in woman *almost always* goes hand-in-hand   -
          -             with anger turned against herself."            -
          --------------------------------------------------------------

          The rationale behind that was that there is no real socially
          acceptable way for women to express anger.  Therefore, women must
          compact the anger _inwards_, or channel that anger so that it
          manifests itself differently (through chemical dependency,
          overeating, and other self-destructive behaviors).

          People won't go so far as to say that anger _in and of itself_ is
          bad, but, for one reason or another, a woman's expression of it
          is always *inappropriate to the situation* at hand.

          Even in WomanNotes, it is frequently said that we shouldn't be so
          angry here.  My reaction to that is: Where in the world is there
          a more *appropriate* place (as readily available to me) to
          express the anger I feel?  Why isn't the anger and resentment
          considered the first natural result of being members of a gender
          that is looked upon as innately inferior to the other?   There
          are _lots_ of other places where I can be happy, warm, caring,
          and loving (heck, I can just walk downstairs to Steve Mallett's
          office and I won't stop laughing for an hour or so afterwards:-).


          Kath, a while ago in 896.5 (the topic about "Still trying to
          understand" the Montreal massacre) you said something quite
          unsettling:

          >     I have felt backed into a corner like this.  I think I know
          >     the ultimate helplessness feeling and frustration and anger
          >     that could cause this kind of violent.
          >     Fortunately, my violence has been directed internally.
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

          That was said right after describing about how your boyfriend hit
          you in anger over his grades, and since then you've mentioned
          being raped twice and being involved in a discrimination suit.

          Kath, you have a LOT to be angry about.

          I see your encouraging other women here to not express anger as
          an outgrowth of your own decision to direct it internally.

          Be angry, Kath.

          Do it here, or in therapy, or wherever you are most comfortable.

          Yes, there's the danger that some guy will reject you, or not
          send you approving mail messages because of your anger.
          We will not.  Take the risk.

                                                            nancy b.

    re .150 -
    
    Well said!

    re .149 - 
    
    You mean there's a dead woman in all this someplace?!

    re .150 (Nancy) "people won't go so far as saying anger itself is
    bad"
    
    Yeah they will -- at least, that's what my church taught me.  Anger
    is a "sin", which in my church's definition meant it is EVIL.  I was
    taught that Anger is a character flaw, another sign of our "sinful
    human nature", just another name for Pride.  If we were truly
    Christians, we would never get angry but would be able to "turn the
    other cheek" no matter what anyone did  to us or to anyone else.  (By
    the way, this is a large, mainstream denomination which really can't be
    dismissed as  inconsequential numbers of the "lunatic fringe".)
    
    And, before anyone else asks the question, they explained Jesus'
    behavior of violently "rearranging" the tables in the temple as
    "Oh, that's *different*.  That was *righteous* anger.  We aren't
    allowed to have *righteous* anger because we aren't perfect.  Only
    God can have *righteous* anger and not have it be a sin."
    
    Lovely, huh?
    Beth

	re: .154 (Beth Keltz)

	>    And, before anyone else asks the question, they explained Jesus'
	>    behavior of violently "rearranging" the tables in the temple as
	>    "Oh, that's *different*.  That was *righteous* anger. 

	Geezums.  Where would we be without organized religion? (rhetorical q)
	Sinful and angry all the time I s'pose.

	>    Lovely, huh?

	Pretty ugly.  That church should be held liable for psychiatric 
	treatment of it's depressed members.

							nancy b.

RE: .150 (Nancy)

Perhaps we have different interpretations of 'internally.'

When I channel my anger, I channel it at the problem at hand.  Nothing more, 
nothing less.  If I am sexually discriminated against by a man, my anger
is channelled toward *that* man, and *that* situation.  *Not* internally
into myself.  I do *not* stifle that anger, I do *not* feel that I "should not"
be angry.

Instead, I channel that anger AT the specific problem where that anger can 
do some good.  

Were I to channel my anger at this situation toward the supportive men in my
life, I feel that I would be unjustly accusing them of something some other
man did.  For example, I would *not* say, "Men are chauvinist pig b*st*rds!"
because, simply, they are not.

THIS PARTICULAR man *would* be what I would consider to be a chauvinist
pig b*st*rd, and I would have no bones about telling him this.  I would have
no bones about directly my fury at him like a ton of bricks.

>          I see your encouraging other women here to not express anger as
>          an outgrowth of your own decision to direct it internally.


I'm *NOT* encouraging this at all, and after 150 replies, it really saddens
me to see people believing that I am.

In fact, I'm not encouraging anyone to do anything, I've been, all along, simply
stating that *FOR ME* it is so much more effective to channel my anger 
*where it belongs* and *toward whom it belongs*.  

I find it a detriment to me to direct anger at those that did not incur the
anger.

Hence, I avoid saying things like "Men are ---", "Men really ----", "Women
are treated --- by men."  Etc etc etc.


I'd wager to say that not a one of us enjoys being accused of something they 
did not do.  Why do we do the same to men when we don't enjoy it ourselves?

So, you see, Nancy, I *DO* get angry, I *DO*, also, channel my anger so that
it is effective in my fight for equality.  I keep my supporters around me, 
not put them on the defense.

What works for me might not work for others.  I'm not suggesting that anyone
do what I do.  I've only wished all along to state that other women's 
agendas work against mine.

Does mine work against theirs?  I don't know....to this point no one has 
seemed to understand my agenda, so when they do, I would be happy to discuss
how I work against theirs.

kath

re .156 (Kath)

>Hence, I avoid saying things like "Men are ---", "Men really ----", "Women
>are treated --- by men."  Etc etc etc.

    I agree it's a good thing not to lump *all* of one group
    together, because of individual differences.
    
>I've only wished all along to state that other women's 
>agendas work against mine.
    
    I guess that sentiment doesn't apply to *women* though, right?

re: .156

>Instead, I channel that anger AT the specific problem where that anger can 
>do some good.  

    Hey - if anger's going to go anywhere positive - that's the place!

re: .157
    
>>Hence, I avoid saying things like "Men are ---", "Men really ----", "Women
>>are treated --- by men."  Etc etc etc.
>
>    I agree it's a good thing not to lump *all* of one group
>    together, because of individual differences.
>    
>>I've only wished all along to state that other women's 
>>agendas work against mine.
>    
>    I guess that sentiment doesn't apply to *women* though, right?
    
    I think that remark seems unwarranted.  "other women" isn't "all
    women".  When noting it's important to give the other noters the
    benefit of the doubt, if there is any.....

    -Jody
    

    re .158:
    
    Well, my apologies if my understanding of "other women" is wrong.
    It sure sounded to me like it meant all other women, because there
    was specifically *not* a "some" qualifier in from of the "other".
    

    If a man kills 100 women, he is a nut case and is (hopefully) hunted
    down by The Authorities.
    
    If 100 men kill 100 women whom they knew, it's not a problem. AFter
    all, they knew the women. Therefore, the women must have done something
    to deserve being killed.
    
    Men know these things. They understand when a woman is acting
    improperly, and as her (ex)spouse/lover, it is their job to protect
    society from such dangerous women.
    
    If women were killing men at the rate men are killing women, something
    would be done. But then, women don't understand about proper behaviour
    and the consequences for not being nice. Besides, it's not their job to
    protect society from dangerous men. There *are* no dangerous men; only
    misunderstood ones.
    
    I suppose I should note that this reply includes a certain amount of
    sarcasm. 
    
    --DE
    

    I don't know if this is representative of misogyny or human nature, but
    men frequently blame women for "advantages" that women have but did not
    choose.  What brought this to mind was a juxtaposition of this note and
    the note on women in combat, which brings us to our first example.
    
    1.  In the Soapbox version of "Women in Combat," a number of notes were
    resentful of the fact that women weren't drafted.  Someone asked how
    come *women* weren't registering for the draft -- like they had a
    choice.  What august body decided to put the registration into effect? 
    How many women are seated in that august body?
    
    2.  Men blame women for depriving them of child custody during divorce. 
    In a number of cases, women are automatically granted custody over the
    father.  Why is this?  Probably because men are regarded as
    breadwinners and women are regarded as domestic creatures whose duties
    involve raising children; child rearing is a "natural" duty of women. 
    Who decided who was going to be the breadwinner and who would be the
    one to stay at home and raise the kids?
    
    [Actually, it's only recently that women have been granted custody by
    default.  In the past, women had far fewer grounds for divorce than
    men, so it was frequently the man divorcing the woman.  In those cases,
    the grounds were such as to make her an "unfit mother" so the man got
    custody automatically.]

>      <<< Note 922.157 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice" >>>

>>I've only wished all along to state that other women's 
>>agendas work against mine.
>    
>    I guess that sentiment doesn't apply to *women* though, right?


	 Oops. Thanks for catching that.  It should read "I've only
	 wished all along to state that some other women's agendas
	 work against mine"

	 Sorry, after this many late nights working, words start to
	 blur.

	 kath

What follows is a result of numerous attempts.  Some of it will appear
to be at variance with much I have written elsewhere in this
conference.  But appearances can be misleading.  I will gladly clarify
if asked.  This is difficult to write to the desired effect ... 
understanding and sharing, rather than recrimination, blame, or sympathy.
    
    Ann

==========

In the Beginning...
-------------------

The origins of my internalised misogyny are not hard to find.  My 
earliest memories include acceptance of the 'fact' that girls were 
lesser beings than boys.

There has never been a time I didn't know that I was a planned and 
wanted _son_.  I had no name until I was 10 days old because I had 
the bad taste to be born a girl.  This wasn't hidden from me -- my 
parents still tell a cute little story about it at parties. And people 
still laugh.

If I had had any doubts, they were all dashed away when I was five and 
my younger brother died.  At that time I was told that my thriving 
existence was a punishment from God.  There is no grey area in a 
statement like that.  Although it was made in an excess of grief, it 
has been repeated more than a few times since.

[I believe that my mother's self-hatred is immense -- she wanted _only_ 
sons and refers to my sister and myself as the 'two losers.'  While 
she feels pride in our accomplishments, she still harbours shame at 
having produced us.  At some level she feels that she has failed to 
redeem herself by only reproducing herself in like units.]

The bright spot in this sweeping rejection is that it was also made 
clear to me that I would never, _could_ never, be a boy; hence, I 
never tried to 'be like the boys' to gain approval [_anyone's 
approval].

Growing up
----------

My earliest playmates were boys. [There were no little girls in my 
neighborhood, and I wasn't bussed out until age 5.]  We all knew I 
wasn't a boy and mostly ignored it except during snow-writing 
exhibitions.  I wasn't precisely a tomboy, but I enjoyed myself.  
Pictures from that period of my life reveal a very untidy little girl 
with scraped knees and fly-away curls wearing absolutely filthy white 
pinafores with hand-made lace.  [no one ever fussed at me for being 
dirty, they just bathed me frequently] I wore DRESSES DAMMIT -- I
found out very early that they are not nearly as confining as
trousers. [no one bothered to tell me that my underwear were 'naughty'
objects so modesty was not a factor].  If the gang didn't want to do
what I wanted to, I was perfectly happy to do my own thing in my own
space. 

Then I went to day-school and was exposed to massive doses of other 
little girls.  At first, I was enchanted.  Then I made a fatal error 
-- a dressed a Barbie doll in the 'prettiest' dress I could find, 
which happened to be a silvery prom dress, and had her climb Pikes 
Peak [the coat rack].  Lord help me, but all hell broke loose then. 
_Girls_ didn't climb mountains... _girls_ didn't get dirty... _girls_ 
never allowed anyone to glimpse their undies, but made sure everyone 
knew they wore them.

Well, I knew I wasn't a boy, couldn't be a boy, didn't _want_ to be a
boy.  [and the boys had never minded]  Now it would seem that as a 
girl I was a _very_ flawed specimen. [and girls seemed to mind 
terribly] In light of the ridicule I suffered at the hands of little
girls [and their mothers], I really didn't think much of them as a
class of human being.

Unfortunately, once there were girls around the boys seemed to expect 
me to play with the girls -- you know, the ones who thought I was pond 
scum personified.  And something snapped.

_I_ decided that I was not pond scum or lesser or evil.  I decided 
that I was pretty and special and gifted.  I decided that I was going 
to be myself.

By a strange twist of fate, it was Catholic convent schools that 
proved to be the saving of my sanity.  Once I was in an all female 
environment, where the watching eyes and helping hands of men and boys
were absent, I was able to come to terms with my differences from
other girls.  Women _did_ climb on things and change tires and cook
and clean and sew and ... and most girls were not as anxious to
enforce, or live out, strict conformity.  We found our own levels and
gifts -- we didn't have to be either 'ladies' _or_ 'tomboys'.  Oh, I
know that many will argue that that was not the intent and that they
are probably right. But such was its effect upon me. 

Then I went to college.  Because, even in 1971, young women were a bit 
of an oddity in civil engineering I was treated both as a freak and a 
treasure -- frequently by the same people.  One of the benefits of 
being one of 500 women in a total student population of 17,000 is that 
very few women see each other as any great threat -- there's plenty of 
male attention to go around.  Another is that, being such a valuable 
commodity, you don't find yourself tinkering for acceptance ... that 
came later.

My best friend in college was a man -- most of my friends were.  But 
as time went by I came to value women more, because I was encountering 
them as individuals and not as a class.  I found vast diversity in our 
experiences, but strong threads of commonality.  I saw nothing to hate 
in women [even if were were still many that I disliked] and little to
hate in myself. 

And now ...
-------

So, I began first by having doubts about my own validity as a person 
and then having an extreme adverse reaction to others of my gender 
based upon experiential input.  I was in a class of the 'not we.'

I am still not free of the effects of my early indoctrination.  I 
still find myself saying and thinking dumb things about 'women' rather 
than '<name>' when I see a women do something I have no patience with. 

Yes, on some level I attribute 'gender blame' to women, but not to 
men. [and, oh yes, there's tons of stuff I blame [a] man for doing].  
This perpetuates misogyny in me.  I am aware and I am actively trying 
to change, but it takes time.

I cringe inside when someone says, 'too bad the first child couldn't 
have been a boy' or 'I just hope this first one's a boy' or 'we'll 
keep trying until we have a boy' because I hear in this '_real_ 
children are boys; but once you've bagged one, girls can be OK too.'
I view this as indoctrinating misogyny in both sexes from the cradle.

I do not subscribe to the notion that I as a woman can call down hatred 
upon all women by my actions.  I believe that we perpetuate hatred 
against women by our actions against women and against ourselves in 
perpetuating _self_hatred or contempt.

  Ann

    G,Day,
    
    Re: .164
    
    Ann, that would have to one of the saddest stories I've read.  I can't
    believe that this sort of thing happens in America.  I know it happens
    in a lot of poor countries (to the point of killing off the girls!!)
    mainly to ensure that the family name does not become extinct.  Now
    that's a pretty poor excuse but at least it is an excuse.  From what
    you have written it seems like your parents, your mum (mom?) in
    particular, had no excuse at all for what she did.
    
    I don't know how you get along with your folks now but if that sort of
    attitude persists from them today then if it were me I don't think I
    would be seeing too much of them at all.
    
    David.
    
    

    re. David  [and to those who have sent mail]
    
    Thanks for the hugs.  They never come amiss.
    
    Apparently, much that I edited out should have been left in.  I was not
    an unhappy child or an unloved one, merely an undesired outcome.  I was
    given all the best [to do less would have been dishonorable] and there
    were many, MANY special people that loved me -- my grandparents spring
    to mind and one very special aunt as well as numerous cousins, both
    here and back in Ireland, Scotland, & Wales, not to mention the
    housekeeper who told me I was an angel sent straight from heaven...I
    didn't but _that_ either.
    
    To my mind the tragedy lies not so much in what happened to me as it
    does in the fact that there are people who actually _laugh_ when they
    here a story of how the doctor finally said, 'Why doesn't that Scots
    lady name the thing Annie Laurie and be done with it?!'  [my name is
    Annie-Luise, for my two grandmothers Annie Stewart & Luise-Siobhan
    McGarra].
    
    I mean, what's so darned funny about _anyone_ wanting a son so bad that
    for nine entire months a name for a daughter _never_came_up!!?  It's
    not really _me_ I'm talking about here.
    
    Am I making any sense?  Should I try again?
    
      Ann
    
    [p.s. as for my parents, I am not welcome in their home.  you see I
    married a software engineer, I work outside the home, I have no
    children, and -- most damning of all -- I'm a politically active
    feminist liberal type ... gee, except for the children this describes
    my aunt mentioned above ...]

    Thanks *SO* much, Ann for your sharing!!
    
    Nancy