Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Is anyone out there going to the WITCH lecture tonight? I'm not, and I'm
fishing around for a place to check out the Amazon Tarot. Billie Potts is an
artist and creator. I've got an address from "Tarot For Your Self", but it's
publication date is '84, so I don't know if they'll respond. Also, the tarot
book says the Amazon Tarot has alternatives for some of the cards (how neat!),
so I'd like to view before choosing.
	Mez

	The Unicorn Bookstore at 1210 Mass Ave in Arlington usually
	carries it (as well as some thirty or so other decks.)

					cathy

    
    re .1 -
    
    Where and when is the lecture? How do you get on their mailing list?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Dorian

Topic 457 in V2 has this year's schedule. You can get on the mailing list by
attending a lecture and signing up. I plan on going to the last two lectures;
if you want me to try to sign you up, send me the info. But, they're perenially
short of money, so going to the lecture and paying the standard donation would
really help.
	Mez

     Thanks!

    It bugs me when people say things like:
    
      "I (and my friends) think that feminists want power without
       responsibility
       ...they want to fight, not be partners
       ...they want to force other women out of the home
       ...they want to get back at men
       ...etc."
    and then continue on, assuming that because they (and their friends)
    think this, that it is true!
    
      "Because you feminists are like XXX, I OPPOSE YOU (even though I
       support equal pay for equal work, and equal opportunity...)"
    
    What bugs me is the combative attitude in people who oppose feminism
    because "feminists are combative rather than cooperative."  Sheesh,
    ever wonder WHY?!
    
    
    This may look like it belongs in a Hot Button or I Really Hate topic,
    but I have an honest question:  APART from AA and EEO guidelines (which
    is the GOVERNMENT'S attempt to implement fairness in the workforce, and
    I REALLY am not interested in discussing them), what is objectionable
    about feminism?   
    
    For what it's worth, I am a feminist AND a humanist AND a reasonable,
    nice person.  
    
    Pam

    To supplement your intake of thoughts on feminism, many discussions
    exist in V1 and V2, so please see also:
    
    Womannotes_v1
    369 - who is not a feminist
    511 - feminist consciousness
    750 - feminism??? help
    
    Womannotes-v2
    178 - what is a feminist
    475 - men as feminists
    651 - the myths of feminism - rebuttal
    874 - how has feminism changed your world
    964 - feminist haters
    
    
    -Jody
    

From off the net?


Exerpts from a feminist philosophical essay called "Oppression" by Marilyn
Frye.  The book in which it appears is _The Politics of Reality: essays in
feminist theory_ by Marilyn Frye (Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press, 1983).  

OPPRESSION

It is a fundamental claim of feminism that women are oppressed.  The
word 'oppression' is a strong word.  It repels and attracts.  It is
dangerous and dangerously fashionable and endangered.  It is much
misused, and sometimes not innocently.

The statement that women are oppressed is frequently met with the 
claim that men are oppressed too.  We hear that oppressing is
oppressive to those who oppress as well as to those they oppress.
Some men cite as evidence of their oppression their much-advertised
inability to cry.  It is tough, we are told, to be masculine.  When
the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence
that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing, the word
'oppression' is being stretched to meaninglessness; it is treated
as though its scope includes any and all human experience of
limitation or suffering, no matter the cause, degree or consequence.
Once such usage has been put over on us, then if ever we deny that
any person or group is oppressed, we seem to imply that we think
that they never suffer and have no feelings.  We are accused of
insensitivity; even of bigotry.  For women, such accusation is
particularly intimidating, since sensitivity is one of the few 
virtues that has been assigned to us.  If we are found insensitive,
we may fear that we have no redeeming traits at all and perhaps
are not real women.  Thus are we silenced before we begin: the
name of our situation drained of meaning and our guilt mechanisms
tripped.

But this is nonsense.  Human beings can be miserable without being
oppressed, and it is perfectly consistent to deny that a person
or group is oppressed without denying that they have feelings or
that they suffer.

We need to think clearly about oppression, and there is much that
mitigates against this.  I do not want to undertake to prove that
women are oppressed (or that men are not), but I want to make
clear what is being said when we say it.  We need this word, this
concept, and we need it to be sharp and sure....

The root of the word 'oppression' is the element 'press'. _The
press of the crowd; pressed into military service; to press
a pair of pants; printing press; press the button._ ... Something
pressed is something caught between or among forces and barriers
which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain,
restrict or prevent the thing's motion or mobility.  Mold.
Immobilize.  Reduce.

The mundane experience of the oppressed provides another clue.
One of the most characteristic and ubiquitous features of the
world as experienced by oppressed people is the double bind --
situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of
them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation.  For example,
it is often a requirement on oppressed people that we smile and
be cheerful.  If we comply, we signal our docility and our
acquiescence in our situation.... We acquiesce in being made 
invisible, in occupying space.... On the other hand, anything
but the sunniest countenance exposes us to being perceived as
mean, bitter, angry or dangerous.  This means, at the least, that
we may be found "difficult" or unpleasant to work with, which is
enough to cost one one's livelihood; at worst, being seen as
mean, bitter, angry or dangerous has been known to result
in rape, arrest, beating and murder....

The experience of oppressed people is that the living of one's
life is confined and shaped by forces and barriers which are not
accidental or occasional and hence avoidable, but are
systematically related to each other in such a way as to catch
one between and among them and restrict or penalize motion
in any direction.  It is the experience of being caged in: all
avenues, in every direction, are blocked or booby trapped.

Cages.  Consider a birdcage.  If you look closely at just one
wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires.  If your
conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic
focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the
length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just
fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere.
Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically
inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would
have trouble going past the wires to get anywhere.  There is no
physical property of any one wire, _nothing_ that the closest
scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be 
inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way.
It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by
one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole
cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and
then you will see it in a moment.  It is perfectly _obvious_
that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically
related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance
to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, 
are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon....

The image of the cage helps convey one aspect of the systematic
nature of oppression.  Another is the selection of occupants
of the cages....  When you question why you are being blocked,
why this barrier is in your path, the answer has not to do 
with individual talent or merit, handicap or failure; it has
to do with your membership in some category understood as a
"natural" or "physical" category.  The "inhabitant" of the
"cage" is not an individual but a group, all those of a
certain category....

If a person's life or activity is affected by some force or
barrier that person encounters, one may not conclude that the
person is oppressed simply because the person encounters
that barrier or force; nor simply because the encounter is
unpleasant, frustrating or painful to that person at that time;
nor simply because the existence of the barrier or force, or
the processes which maintain or apply it, serve to deprive that
person of something of value.  One must look at the barrier
or force and answer certain questions about it.  Who constructs
and maintains it?  Whose interests are served by its existence?
Is it part of a structure which tends to confine, reduce and 
immobilize some group?  Is the individual a member of the
confined group?  Various forces, barriers and limitations a
person may encounter or live with may be part of an oppressive
structure or not, and if they are, that person may be on either
the oppressed or the oppressor side of it.  One cannot tell
which by how loudly or how little the person complains.

    Based on my understanding of Frye's model of oppression, I see some
    interesting implications.  Her model, of course, presupposes that a
    group can set up a social system to explicitly serve its own interests,
    at the expense of other groups.   Obviously, many social theories have
    encompassed this view.  For example, going back to Karl Marx, the
    groups in question were economic classes; but Frye is concerned here
    with the sexes.  Given this sort of model, she seems to define
    oppression here in terms of whose interests are served by a social
    arrangement.  She concedes that a social system may also create
    barriers which deprive the original group of something of value. 
    Clearly, it is not in anyone's interest to deprive themselves of
    something of value.  If they value it, then it is in their interest to
    have it.  However, even though Frye's apparent primary criterion of
    oppression is interest, in this case she disagrees that this situation
    is oppressive.

    So, on the one hand, an oppressor is defined in terms of whose interests
    are served by a social system; but when that system doesn't serve their
    interests, they are the oppressor anyway.  It is clear that merely
    evaluating oppression a posteriori, in terms of interest actually
    served, is not a sufficient condition for her definition of oppression.
    I am not familiar with Frye's views, so I can't say exactly how she sees
    this issue.  However, whatever the case, the implications of the concept
    that an oppressor can act simultaneously in their own interests and
    against their own interests are also rather interesting.

    One possibility is that the oppressor group is simply stupid.  After
    all, why would a group ruthless enough to serve their own interests at
    the expense of others turn around and set up barriers to their own
    interests at the same time?  On the other hand, perhaps it isn't a
    matter of stupidity; maybe Frye believes that social systems are too
    complex to set up so single-mindedly, and as a result efforts at
    serving one's own interests in certain areas inevitably inhibit one's
    interests in others.

    Perhaps a clue to Frye's views is her suggestion that oppressive
    situations necessarily require a binary relationship.  This means that
    individuals must fall into one of two groups, the oppressor or the
    oppressed.  In order for there to be oppression, there must be an
    oppressor who created the oppression to serve their own interests.  In
    her binary model, oppressors cannot oppress themselves.  The result is
    that situations in which the interests of the a priori oppressor are
    not served cannot be oppressive for the oppressor.  I suspect that
    criteria other than interest, such as the distribution of privilege and
    power, fit into her definition of oppressor.  These distributions are
    uneven within social groups, especially in a hierarchical social order;
    Frye nevertheless seems to adhere to a strict binary approach to
    oppression.  However, her model does not preclude the existence of
    several co-existing binary dimensions of oppression, so that one can
    simultaneously belong on the oppressor pole within one dimension and
    the oppressed pole in another.  
    
    I don't know if acceptance of Frye's model constitutes any sort of
    litmus test for feminism.  I have my own views on the subject of
    oppression, which don't correspond to hers.  I therefore believe that
    her model of oppression is not the only conceivable one, but is it the
    only conceivable feminist one?  Not being in any position to speak for
    feminists, I don't know. Maybe someone can tell me.

    -- Mike

Got me, I don't model.

About half-way through your note, I began thinking about the society set up in
"A Handmaid's Tale". I just re-read it recently for a book-reading group. It
seems that the society set-up fits the piece of the model you went into;
oppressors opressing women and less powerful men (who could get more powerful
by following the rules). I'd be interested in reading what you have to say
about that. Can a model be applied to a fictional society?
	Mez

    For oppression to work, _something_ must be devalued.  This is so that
    it makes "sense" for one group to be dominant and one group to be
    subordinant.  Ideally, the subordinant group should have more of IT;
    the dominant group should have less of IT.
    
    Whatever it is (being emotional, having skin a certain color, etc.) is
    not INTRINSICALLY a bad thing.  It may be very much valued as a good
    thing in another culture.  Therefore, devaluing it means that the
    dominant group is cut off from it (and from the _benefits_ of having
    it) -- as a TRADEOFF for greater status, power, and comfort.
    
    I don't see it as illogical for the dominant group.  I see it as a
    shrewd choice between being able to do or be anything but have equal
    statu, versus not being able to do some things ("who wants to be that
    way, anyway, only xxxxs are that way") but be Top Dog.  
    
    I thought the birdcage analogy made perfect sense.  For instance,
    certain areas are set off as "women's specialties" in our society, such
    as housework and childcare.  Men are discouraged in our society from
    quitting their job to stay at home with the kids; women are not. 
    Therefore, women --in the birdcage-- get to play with their children
    and watch them grow and be the "main" parent MOM; men play a different,
    more distant role as DAD (USUALLY, all disclaimers apply).  Is the
    tradeoff worth it?  I'd say no...but it's not a *dumb* tradeoff either.
    
    Pam

    
    Did anyone read this past weeks Newsweek?
    There was an article by a woman titled "The Failure of feminism".
    
    I don't bring this up to rehash old arguments but if anyone
    read it, I was wondering what you thought.  
    
    Or, if anyone would like, I'll be glad to take the time
    to enter the article next week. Just let me know.
    
    							Hank

    I found it worth reading, and also thought of entering it here because
    it would probably make for some interesting discussion.  However, I
    *hasten* to add, it would be great if *you* (the author of -1) would
    enter it.  Please!
    
    aq
    

    Ah yes, biology is destiny, "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows
    Best" really represented the way life was for 98% of the american
    population, and men always behaved well toward women.
    
    Then along came The Dreaded Spector Of Feminism and suddenly the world
    went to hell.  
    
    Suddenly not everbody was heterosexual anymore, but so many men died
    from the stress of Feminism that many women had to live alone anyway,
    which was never the case before.  Moreover, the surviving men were so
    stressed out by Feminists seeking complete social and financial
    equality for which we are biologically unqualified that their
    personalities split.  Half of each male personality is unemployed and
    hoping desperately that all these Feminists holding down highly-paid
    secretarial positions will Return Home so that these unemployed
    personality fragments can take the vacated jobs and thus restore our
    shattered economy to its pre-Feminist condition of health.  The other
    half of each personality has money to burn of course, sleeps around in
    its BMW or RV on ski weekends in Colorado and, having only half a
    brain, is forced to behave like a complete a**hole toward women.
    
    We Feminists certainly have a lot to answer for!

    
    	RE: .15  Maggie
    
    	I love it!!!
    
    	If I stop chuckling anytime before Christmas, I'll let you know...
    

The "feminist agenda", if there is one, on child care is that both men and women
should share the responsibilities for raising kids. Further, in California, when
a couple splits up the courts try very very hard to ensure joint or shared
custody, so that the *children* get the benefit of two parents. Given this
scenario men and women would suffer or benefit equally from corporate attitudes
about children. To the degree corporations or society impose attitudes about
children that are based on the sex of the parent, they are sexist and feminsts
will oppose these attitudes.

This woman's problems are indeed one of the "failures of feminism" - the failure
of feminism to achieve its goals - but we haven't given up yet.

	-- Charles

    I wonder why this woman really left her marriage....in search of
    feminism???  She made some decisions and now she is bitter.  She 
    seems to complain about others but fails to see that she should 
    take responsibility for her decisions.  Feminism isn't the cause of
    her problems but it is the convenient excuse she makes.
    

    re .17, .21, I don't see this woman as a failure.  I see her more as a
    confused victim of a society that changed course in mid-stream, in
    relation to her age.  Many women her age (which is also my age) were
    raised to accept the traditional female roles of wife and mother, and
    were never encouraged to pursue college and a professional career. 
    This is especially true of women who grew up in blue-collar families
    that did not encourage their children to break the mold and go to
    college.
    
    Many of these women grew up assuming that they would get married, have
    children and stay home and run the house.  Many of them had mothers who
    never worked outside the home.  In the 1950's and 1960's the economy in
    the US was such that many male blue collar workers could afford to have
    wives who stayed home and took care of the kids and house.  They could
    also afford kids and a house.  Contrast this with the 80's and 90's
    when even many professionals cannot afford to have wives who stay home,
    houses and kids.  
    
    Many of these women found themselves in unhappy marriages, and with no
    job skills, or job skills which do not pay enough to live well on, such
    as secretarial.  The first step in having a society of independent
    women is in raising young women who realize that the most important
    aspect of life is to get a college degree in a profession that pays
    well so that they don't have to depend on men.  This is the only way
    that women will grow up with choices.
    
    I could identify with the woman who wrote the article but I don't
    "blame" feminism.  I realize that I am part of the generation that was
    caught in the middle, and I'm making sure my daughter grows up
    differently.  
    
    Hopefully, in the future the feminist movement will try to do more to
    include all women - working class women, women of color, lesbians and 
    housewives.  It is my opinion that until *all* women think that
    they have something to gain by being feminists that any gains the
    movement achieves will be limited.  Claims that the feminist movement
    in the U.S. has largely been a movement by, and for, white middle-class
    women is not entirely unfounded. 
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

    
    
    This woman sounds at least as resentful of her kids as she does
    of feminism.  It's disgusting!  Look at these two phrases:
    
    >...are saddled with raising children alone. 
    
    >...now tied down with a baby
    
    "Saddled with" and "tied down".  I bet she makes a great Mom )-:

    
    re:.22
    well put!
    

    Lorna, very well put, and I couldn't agree more.
    
    SandieD

I would feel sorry for this woman except for one thing: She expects a man to
pay for her on a date.

I sympathized with her until she mentioned the man going on a ski weekend with
a woman who was paying her own way.

When I was a teenager in the '60s, I thought it was strange that the boys
should be expected to pay for the date. (I didn't have any dates myself,
partially because I didn't want anyone to pay for me.) I thought then and still
think that having a man always pay for the date is just another form of
prostitution.

So when the feminist movement came along and it was all right for me to
nervously make my speech about wanting to pay my own way, I felt truly
liberated.

For every woman like the author of the article (I see her as a failure, all
right), I think there must be someone like me who is *grateful* for the
feminist movement.

Of course, I'm different, because I don't have any children and have never
wanted any. So I've never felt tied down to children. And since I've never
married, I haven't felt trapped and stuck with a crummy man, either.

I don't know why the author should blame feminism for the fact that we live in
a man's world. That's been true, as far as I know, for all of recorded history.
And women continue to do their part to ensure that men will always be on top. I
don't think she should blame feminists for that. Most true feminists are
trying to change the balance of power in their personal lives.

It's distressing to me that so many women (and girls) are beginning to have
children without husbands. Unless the women are really talented, or already
wealthy, they're condemning themselves and their children to lives without much
money. And as long as women make less money than men, they're going to be
perceived as inferior to men in our society. So the cycle is just continuing.

I think I've always been so afraid of being trapped in the "female" role that I
just squelched my biological imperative to procreate. I was born to be a female
but I wasn't born to be a mother.

Vicki Meagher

In many ways I can't identify with the woman who wrote the article. I don't have
children, my divorce left me better off financially than I was with my somewhat
spendthrift husband, and I don't miss being a housewife (I wasn't very good at 
it when I was one).

And yet...I can hear what she's saying and understand. There are a lot of us out
here that grew up being trained to one set of rules and having the game change
under us. IMHO,the failure of feminism is not that it went too far but that it
stopped too short. Women are caught between the new rules and the old.

And finally, I don't *need* a man in my life but I *want* one. And that makes me
feel somehow like a failure. That this is the fatal weakness that will bring me
down and prove I'm not worthy of equality. Because in my heart I want some
things the "new" woman isn't supposed to desire and that seems to have power to
negate all the other things I've earned. Would I change the world back if I
could and undo the feminist movement? Not in a million years. I may not be happy
with all that's happened but I know I wouldn't have fit into that other world
either. At least this way some of it's been my choice and not merely my fate.
liesl

    re .28, why isn't the "new woman" supposed to want a man?  What's wrong
    with a (straight) woman wanting a man?  
    
    It seems to me that a lot of (straight) men want women.  
    
    Why should it be considered "failure" for a straight woman to want a
    man.  (Is it also a failure for a lesbian to want another woman?  To be
    a true feminist and "new woman" does one have to go it alone?) :-)
    
    All I'm trying to say, liesl, is that I don't think you are a failure
    for wanting to have a man in your life!  (Maybe feminism, like the
    bible, shouldn't always be taken literally.)  :-)
    
    re Vicky, I just wanted to make a comment on your mention of the word
    "prostitute."  Personally, while I think most people would like to be
    financially independent, I don't necessarily think there is anything
    inherently *wrong* with prostition.  (I realize that most/many prostitutes
    are exploited, and I think that's wrong.)
    
    But, frankly, if a man offers to pay for my dinner and I accept, I
    really don't think it's anybody elses damn business.  I've dated men
    who earn 4 or 5 times my income, who have frequently offered to pay,
    and I always accept.  For one thing, if we each had to pay our own way
    it would have often meant that we would have been eating at Burger King
    or McDonald's, instead of the more upscale place the man wanted to go
    to.  On the other hand, my last live in boyfriend was so broke from
    having to pay unfairly high child support payments that I often treated
    *him* to a night out, on my measly secretarial pay.  I guess the point
    is that I don't mind paying my own way, but I don't make much money and
    if a male friend with more money, than I have, offers to treat me to a
    dinner at a place that I normally couldn't afford to go to, I accept. 
    One of my closest friends over the past 3 yrs. makes approximately 3
    times my pay, and he always paid for everything.  I used to tease him
    and tell him that it helped make up for the inequities in pay between
    the sexes, and he would seriously say that he could never sit by and
    let me pay when he knew how much more money he made than me.  
    
    I certainly don't expect *everyone* to treat me that way, or anyone to
    for that matter, but the point is, this particular man wanted to pay my
    way, so I don't think there was anything "wrong" with it.  (I guess he
    thought having my companionship in a "nice" place was worth the price,
    and if that's prostitution, so what?  It doesn't bother me.)
    
    Lorna
          

    I agree with Lorna.  I don't think the feminist manifesto ever said we 
    had to be asexual to be successful feminists.  I don't "need" a man to 
    survive; I have been self-supporting since my husband walked out 7
    years ago.  In fact, I supported my former SO while he went to school.
    (Okay, so I'm not a perfect feminist yet!  (*8  )  I can survive
    without a man's income.  Many times that has been incredibly difficult. 
    I have had periods of unemployment and underemployment, with all the
    associated terrors.  
    
    Yet, here I am!  On my own two feet -- even if I do sometimes limp --
    living alone, facing the uncertainties of my and my family's future.
    
    Yes, I can survive without a man.
    
    But they make such nice hugging partners!
    
    (*8
    
    E Grace

    
    time is money
    

    <... does that make me a prostitute>?
    
    dunno
    
    but 'male slut' sure feels descriptive.
    
    

    I feel that discussions above in regards prostitution seem to be like
    arguing the number of angels on the head of a pin.  
    
    A lot of the confusion relates to living the moment fully as opposed to
    posturing as part of our mating games.  Is a meal being eaten because
    the people are hungry or because they're participating in some drama
    leading to bed in which eating has little importance?  Ditto door
    opening and a variety of activities that lose their core purpose when
    they become tangled with sexual bargaining.
    
    People give and accept gifts as part of normal interaction.  There can
    be no consistant set of rules as to who's the giver or the receiver;
    it'd seem sensible (I want to say human, but don't want some of the
    baggage that goes with the term...) to roughly proportion the giving to
    ability to give, but it's out of whack to keep accounts...
    
    Not sure if I got across what I meant to say, but...

I suppose I didn't really make myself very clear when I equated "wanting a man"
to weakness. It's not the wanting but what I'll sell out to accomplish that.
Why do I think that selling out is required? Because that's mostly what I see.
Yes, I know, dozens of you have wonderful feminist male mates. But they are not
the rule. 

I'd still be married if I'd given in and become the good wife. My husband was
constantly irritated that after dinners I wanted to be in the living room with
the men and not helping in the kitchen. I put my career ahead of his dinners and
insisted on having rights in our house. I was told that made me inconvienient,
not to mention the emotional toll I was made to pay when I did not act as his
wife should. And this was a usually sensitive guy who worried about politcial
injustice and the plight of the underdog. He wasn't a monster though at times
he seemed so to me. 


But there are still times when I wonder if I should have given in. When I 
remember the hurt as I realised I was supposed to be a wife and not a person.
And I wonder further, what will I do if I fall in love again and it's still 
someone who wants a wife? Will being alone seem better than giving up part of
myself to be part of someone else? Or will my body give into the need to be held
and my emotions sway my intellect? And for those who say these aren't the only
options you aren't 40 and trying to date again after 15+ years of marriage.

For all the other problems lesbians have at least they don't face this. This is
the one point that makes feminsim different from all other isms. Blacks don't
need whites (outside the context of our specific culture), the Protestants don't
need the Catholics, the Muslims can live without the Jews - put them all on
their own planet and no problem. Divide men and women this way and the human
race is over. Not to mention we'd probably just flat miss each other. liesl

    re .35, I agree with your last paragraph.
    
    re anonymous with the lover, I don't think you're a prostitute or a
    slut, but I do think it would be nice if you could occasionally manage
    to spend a little on your lover as well as your wife and kid.  I won't
    place any value judgements on your having the lover, but as long as
    you're going to have one I don't think all of your money should go to
    your wife and child.  Afterall, the other side of the coin is using
    somebody and I hope that's not what you're doing. :-)
    
    (I guess I can't help but feel sorry for a woman who has a married
    lover with a child who spends all of his money on the family even though
    he makes a lot more money.)  Sorry for the digression.
    
    Re Eagles, I enjoyed being with the friend I mentioned who always paid
    my way.  I wasn't just in it for the food.  I'd rather go home to
    crackers and peanut butter than put up with a bore just for a meal. :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .40, well, I just don't like the idea of her spending so much of her
    money on him, when he makes a lot more money than her and he can't
    spend as much on her as she does on him because he has a wife and kid.  
    
    Yes, I do hope the situation turns out to be worth her while in the long
    run.  
    
    Who knows why anonymous chose to mention this in a notesfile?  Maybe
    he's bragging?  Maybe he finds the idea of being a male prostitute
    amusing?  Who knows?  And, I don't really care to be honest.  I just
    think it sounds like a lousy situation for a single woman to be in, but
    it's her life.  Good luck to her.  She'll probably need it.
    
    Lorna
    

Re: .31

I believe the technical term is "gigolo" but even that isn't entirely accurate.
Assuming that the REASON you are with this woman is not the money, then no,
you aren't exactly a prostitute, but...

Herb - I bristled when I saw your note, it really rubbed me the wrong way. Yes,
I think this person has a right to expect people to not be judgemental.

	-- Charles

    re .-1
    <it really rubbed me the wrong way> 
    tough
    
    re 48.37 et all

    My putative broadmindedness does not extend to adultery
    
    wrt value judgements 
    I think that expressions of value judgement are appropriate for lots of
    things; whether those pronouncements are made by me or others. The only
    proviso is that they be so labled.

    p.s. 
    The man could have avoided personal attacks simply by posing it as a
    hypothetical question rather than a question about himself.

    funny - Herb doesn't think he should have a lover...
    I just think he should treat her well... :-)
    
    Poor guy's probably sorry he ever entered anything now.
    
    Lorna
    

Re: .43

Herb,

I was and am trying to stay in the spirit of the guidelines the moderators have
recently suggested - using "I" language and talking about how *I* feel. Both of
your last two notes have made that much more difficult for me. I feel like you
don't care if you piss me off, you *know* you're right. It seems to me that
regardless of ones personal feelings about adultery, that adulterer does not
equal "slut". Yes, this person is an adulterer, no question, no dispute. You can
certainly *feel* as judgemental as you like about that, but I don't think this
is the place to *express* that, given the way the note was phrased. I've been
treating it as a virtual "SRO".

In any case, in some cultures, what this man is doing is EXPECTED of a
successful businessman. Of course in those cultures the man is expected to
support his lover, and the wife and kids are "in the know", so be careful of
assuming that your own views and own culture are "absolute truth".

>    The man could have avoided personal attacks simply by posing it as a
>    hypothetical question rather than a question about himself.

The man can avoid personal attacks simply by working for DEC. Right?

	-- Charles

    the author of the anon note .31 requested that I delete it.
    
    Bonnie J
    

I've been thinking more about the original article in .0, and I think this
woman's complaint is more with the sexual revolution than with feminism.

The latter-day feminist movement got its start when, in spite of women helping
with the leftist agenda of the sixties, in spite of women being "good girls" in
the sexual revolution, they were still treated as inferior to men. For
example, someone (a Black Panther, I believe), when asked about the position of
women in "The Movement", said, "The only position for women is prone."

The sexual revolution taught women that it was okay to have sex with multiple
partners. The birth control pill gave women the sexual freedom that men had
always had. And people (men and women) discovered that they could fall in love
several times during their lives, could marry several times, could find their
needs satisfied in ways other than having one lifelong monogamous relationship.
They were making these discoveries before those big, bad feminists came along.

Feminism is an easy target (feminists are almost the last group that you can
snicker at and make snide remarks about in good company). So of course this
woman blames the feminist revolution for her problems.

The sexual revolution and feminism are just two aspects of what is sometimes
called the "human potential" movement. Maybe this woman should blame the human
potential movement instead. It certainly must have been easier back when women
had so few choices (the era of zero potential for women who wanted to do more
than cook dinner and clean up and take care of the little ones).

I still come back to financial independence for women. As long as women are
going to make decisions that limit their financial independence, they are going
to be inferior.

Vicki Meagher

    
    
    	re: .50 (Vicki Meagher)
    
    	Interesting insights, Vicki.
    
    	I liked the article posted from Newsweek for  1 reason -- 
    	
    
    
    	It inspired =maggie to write 43.15!!  I wanted to stand
    	up and do a cheer by the time I finished reading it ;-)!
    
    	GIMME A =M!!   GIMME AN A!!   ;-) ;-)
    
    							nancy b.
    

    About men and women.....I personally find that women will often help me
    understand myself better, help me see the patterns in my life and in
    the group life that is our society and our universe.  Women will also
    be listeners, caring people who are supportive and help me grow.  But
    when I need comfort I primarily turn to men for solace and support that
    way.
    
    I need them both, and I'm trying to balance finding myself as a woman
    and losing myself to a man because I just couldn't juggle them properly
    before.  I'm getting closer to the happy medium these days....
    
    -Jody
    

    re .50, Vicki, I think that many women who grew up in the 50's and 60's
    don't feel that they were aware that they had any options, any choices,
    or any decisions to make, and that this is now catching up with women
    in this age bracket.
    
    It's one thing to be offered choices and choose poorly.  It's another
    thing to be so ignorant that you aren't even aware that you have any
    choices.  Some of us were pretty ignorant back then, or at least I sure
    was.
    
    Lorna
    

    I found Kay Ebeling's article quite interesting.  I wondered why she
    left, what she described as, a "perfectly good marriage."
    
    I found it insulting that she viewed women who opt for a career (sans
    children) as "denying their child bearing biology."  What happened to
    women making clear and positive choices about to have or not have
    children?  
    
    She certainly spoke from a limited and perhaps naive position when she
    informed us that the only way women can avoid prenancy is to take the
    pill or have their tubes tied at an early age.  
    
    I am so glad that she approves of women getting educations...so they
    can be smarter at raising children.  
    
    I was amused that she felt the freedom to make a decision for all
    women...that they shouldn't want to have a 12 hour a day executive
    office position.  
    
    But, on a serious note, I agree with her stance.  I mean really, now
    that there's a chance that women might make it into the board room,
    think of all the problems it will create.  Can you just picture the
    mess all that pink angora lint will make on the plush carpeting and
    overstuffed, cloth swivel chairs?  Such a tragedy!
    

    To me .15 and .55s commentary on .15 illustrate very well how two
    people can ostensibly be talking about the same subject and be
    communicating so differently.

    As I read .15, I interpret it as replete with irony -some anger-, some
    impatience and probably lots of other 'touchy-feely' stuff that I
    admire so much in Maggie in particular and woman in genl (except of
    course when it is being directed toward me).
    
    .55 on the other hand comes across to me much more as a rebuttal in a
    formal logic (kind of) sense.
    
    What is the nature of "truth" when I conclude that BOTH of those
    entries are 'accurate'?
    
    And how can a dialogue occur when communication styles are so
    different?

    Herb,
    
    The author of .55 seems to have failed to really grasp the extent
    of the post-birth training that 100% of the people in this culture
    receive, and how it is used to produce the traits called "masculinity"
    and "femininity", and how it is this environment, not heredity,
    that promulgates violence in one group rather than the other.
    
    Perhaps he does not perceive that the theme of .15 is women
    struggling against this training, and that the problem of violence
    comes from people who are *not* struggling against this training.
    
    Perhaps he merely fears that too many people are unaware that there
    are other cultures in this world which are 50% male *and* nonviolent.
    
    Perhaps he does not feel that other people can take statistics like
    "The U.S. population is 250,000,000.", "There are about 5,000,000
    people in our jails.", and "Approximately 30% of all crimes are
    `cleared by arrest'." and work out that fewer than 30,000,000 people
    are responsible for 100% of the jailable crimes, and thereby determine
    that this number is markedly smaller than the entire adult male
    population of the country.
    
    I don't know.  Probably the author thinks something else entirely.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    I disagree, Eric.  I'm not at all clear about what part biology plays
    in our (human's) destiny.  I do think, though, that boys are socialized
    to accept violence as a way of solving conflicts and that girls are
    not.  And I think that is the major reason why men are more likely than
    women to use violence (and maybe also why women often accept the
    violence that happens within an intimate relationship and don't leave
    -- it's so shocking, they are almost stunned into submission.)
    
    I think if we taught boys *and* girls that violence is not ok, neither
    men nor women would be violent.
    
    Justine
    

    Re: .58
    
    Interesting claim Justine, but I'm afraid I come down on the opposite
    side of the coin. I believe that regardless of what you teach people,
    they have, as part of their nature, violent impulses. I don't know if
    training can completely eliminate "acting out" those impulses, but I
    strongly believe that training and socialization can greatly reduce the
    *acts* of violence.
    
    Perhaps we actually agree, and I didn't understand your note, in any
    case I do believe that there is no monopoly on these impulses by one
    sex or the other. I futher believe, but don't expect everyone to agree,
    that there is no more tendency towards these impulses in one sex or the
    other. On the other hand, our (American) society certainly *socializes*
    men to believe that violence is acceptable in many circumstances, and
    is desirable in some. This is what has to be changed. I believe that
    men ARE more violent in our society, and that this is largely due to
    socialization AND WE CAN CHANGE IT.
    
    	We must,
    	-- Charles
    

    RE: .60
    
    YES! I agree. I'm sure all of us think, at times, "Boy, I'd sure
    like to <some violent act> that jerk!" 
    
    Doing that <act> is much more acceptable for males than it is for
    females. When I taught school, fights between boys were a regular
    occurrence. The ONE time a *girl* (who had been teased unmercifully 
    by this one boy [who was, in truth, a Real Jerk]) hauled off and
    poked him straight in the nose and knocked him on his *ss, most
    of the staff was shocked beyond belief. 
    
    Had it been another boy, it would've been "normal".
    
    Yes. We must do something about it. THe question is "what?" And maybe
    even "How?", when there is so much denial around the situation.
    
    --DE
    

    I believe violence is programmed into us, both male and female, as part
    of the fight or flight instinct.  It is possible that males may
    biologically show a tendency toward fight while females tend toward
    flight, which may just be the result of the physical strength
    differences between male and female.  If you're bigger and stronger
    than the other guy or gyn, fighting can be effective. If you're not,
    then running away or submission is a more effective survival tactic.
    
    The fight or flight instinct is triggered by fear.  The problem is
    not violence.  Violence is a normal, natural and sometimes even
    sensible human response to a threat.  The problem is *fear*.  If the
    threat is *real* then everything is cool.  But if the threat is
    imaginary then violence or running away are both equally nonsensible
    tactics.
    
    As humans we also have the capacity to respond to a threat by
    negotiating a peaceful solution, but this is not *always* the best
    tactic.  And this is not instinctive, its a learned skill.
    
    IMHO both men and women are not taught effective negotiation skills
    in our society and also there is a lot of rampant paranoia.  You
    know "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself" and "we have met
    the enemy and they are us."
    
    This is just my opinion.  I tend to look at humans as basically animals,
    but I don't use it in a derogatory sense.   Some of my best friends are
    animals :-)
    
    Mary
                               

    Hi Mary,
    
    I personally don't think the "fight" is stronger in males, but thats
    relatively minor. What I strongly disagree with is that the "fight"
    reaction is in any sense "right" when threatened. It's even less
    "right" as a reaction to fear - natural yes, but we must train
    ourselves out of the reaction. Our society and our world is one in
    which we must eliminate violence to survive. We are (and will be) too
    crowded, and have to efficient means of violence to allow casual
    violence to survive. I have no idea how we can do this. I know that we
    can't do this unilaterally, and I know it won't be soon.
    
    	-- Charles

    re .63 charles - agreed.
    
    up to now, i've avoided this string because it's hard for me to say
    anything which will not be extremely offensive to many members of our
    community.  so i apologize in advance.
    
    *WARNING: STRONG PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS*
    
    we are not animals; we can choose whether to behave in a civilized
    manner or not.  violence is not civilized and need have no place in a
    human society.  seeing a violent action from a man or a woman tends to
    make me think of them as rather sub-human.

    Re: .63
    
    Charles,
    
    You could be right that there's no difference between the sexes on the
    fight or flight response.  There is some evidence that at a very early
    age boys are more prone to hitting than girls, but its almost
    impossible to "prove" it one way or the other.
    
    Re: .64
    
    I'm not at all offended by your opinion, but
    I disagree with you ... violently (just kidding, of course :-)
    
    Mary (the human animal)

.60 society certainly *socializes*
.60 men to believe that violence is acceptable in many circumstances, and
.60 is desirable in some.

.66 Physical violence is sometimes necessary for survival.
.66 Survival is a basic human instinct.
.66 I can't agree that physical violence is sub-human.

Q.E.D.

Mike, I agree that *today* "Physical violence is sometimes necessary for
survival." I also believe that, in the long term, allowing physical violence
will *prevent* survival as a species. I claim we must work to cure those
situations that make physical violence necessary for survival. Other people,
people I respect highly, further claim that in fact physical violence is *never*
necessary, that survival is not always the highest good. I'm not there yet.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. The necessity of violence is one of
those religious issues that can raise strong irrational feeling (I know it does
in me.) Would you care to talk about the contention that men are in fact more
violent than women, and what the potential causes of that are? I'd certainly be
interested in hearing from someone who thought violence was necessary why they
thought men were, in general, more violent than women.

I'm not trying to be attacking or offensive. If I sound hostile, please ascribe
it to ignorance and confusion rather than malice. The world view you espouse is
radically different from my own, and I don't really understand it, thus I may
come across as attacking when I intend to appear curious.

	-- Charles

     re: .63 (Charles Haynes)

     > What I strongly disagree with is that the "fight" reaction is
     > in any sense "right" when threatened.

     Charles, are you saying above that:  when threatened, the "fight" reaction
     is not "right" in any way ?

     I am interpreting "threatened" to mean personally threatened with harm, I
     am interpreting "fight" to mean self-protection or self-defense /  the
     response to that "threat",  and I'm interpreting "right" to mean morally
     right, morally good, etc.

     > It's even less "right" as a reaction to fear - natural yes, but we must
     > train ourselves out of the reaction.

     Could you please give examples of what you're saying?  Trying to understand
     your above statement is causing short circuits in my mind ...  Are you
     saying if the "threat" causes fear it is natural but less right?  How must
     we "train ourselves out of this reaction"?

     >  We are (and will be) too  crowded, and have to efficient means of
     >  violence to allow casual  violence to survive.

     I don't understand this either, Charles.

                                                       nancy b.

    
    .64 -
    
    I agree with your strong personal opinion absolutely. Is there some way
    you can pass it on to our worthy leader, before he gets us all into
    something less than human?   :-}
    
    Dorian

re. Note 43.67              
OXNARD::HAYNES "Charles Haynes"                      
    
>Mike, I agree that *today* "Physical violence is sometimes necessary for
>survival." I also believe that, in the long term, allowing physical violence
>will *prevent* survival as a species. 
    
Must disagree. Who knows what the future holds ? Could be that our
capacity to fight efficiently will be the only thing that ensures
our survival. (Yeah, I know, I read too much SF.)
    
>I claim we must work to cure those
>situations that make physical violence necessary for survival. 
    
Agreed. We need a universally adopted philosophy which precludes
the initiation of violence. Unfortunately, even when we *get*
it, there is the matter of human volition. Some people will
always choose to behave in an unethical way. 
    
        
>Other people,
>people I respect highly, further claim that in fact physical violence is *never*
>necessary, that survival is not always the highest good. I'm not there yet.

Survival may not always be the highest good, but dying rather than
self-defense seems ludicrous to me. 

>I think we will have to agree to disagree. The necessity of violence is one of
>those religious issues that can raise strong irrational feeling (I know it does
>in me.) 
    
I don't consider it a religious but a philosophical issue.
        
>I'd certainly be
>interested in hearing from someone who thought violence was necessary why they
>thought men were, in general, more violent than women.

First, I believe violence is necessary *only* in a defensive mode,
when there is no other option. (Put in practical terms, I'd rather
buy a guy in a bar a drink than have him take a poke at me.)
That said, I think men are taught to be more 'comfortable' 
with violence than are women, , and may well have a hormonal 
tendency towards it, though this varies with the individual. 
Steroid use by bodybuilders and other athletes has been shown to 
increase agressive tendencies. Some men may have high levels of
testosterone 'pushing' them this way. I don't offer this as an
excuse, because I am convinced that humans are first and foremost
creatures of volition, merely as a partial explanation.
    
    Dana

    RE: .71
    
     >>I don't consider it a religious but a philosophical issue.
     
    
    There *are* those of us whose religion, and religious beliefs and
    life philosophy, make violence anathema.  Period.
    
    Most religions that *preach* non-violence also *teach* non-violence, at
    least to the best of their ability.  (For some unknown reason, the
    Religious Society of Friends comes to mind. (*8  )  We know it is not
    enough to prance around singing "Play nice.  Don't hit.  Eat lotus
    leaves!"  Alternatives must be found and taught.
    
    Hmmmmm...it's early yet, and this may sound disjointed.  Oh, well.
    
    I think, *think* mind you, that what Charles is saying is that ALL
    physical violence needs to end.  If and when we are able to accomplish
    that, there will no longer be a _need_ for violence. 
    
    E Grace  

re .72    
    >I think, *think* mind you, that what Charles is saying is that ALL
    >physical violence needs to end.  If and when we are able to accomplish
    >that, there will no longer be a _need_ for violence. 
    
    >E Grace  

    I agree. As I said, *initiation* of violence is the problem. But
    until _nobody_ initiates violence I will maintain my rights to,
    and means of, defending myself. from those who do. (And not to
    seem cynical, but I don't believe the day will ever come.)
    
    Dana
    

	Another concept is that the type of physical violence being
	discussed is a "man-made" phenomena, and that it is very
	related to the society we live in and not to anything that
	we are born with.

	I am violent and I am non-violent.  One I learned and am
	attempting to un-learn and the other I am.

	When survival is being discussed, is it of the individual
	or the group or the species (or some combination of these)?
	It is easier for me to be non-violent in regards to survival
	that includes others (except this file or my children).  For
	myself, for my survival, I am learning to not fight back all
	the time.  This may sound as though I am getting wimpy in
	my old age, but it is just the opposite, I am getting stronger
	and more grounded.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Anger is a powerful weapon when unleashed
			Anger that is controlled and directed appropriately
			leads to non-violent behaviour

    I have very strong feelings about survival and protecting ones family
    in an age of violence.  That would be doing what you have to do to
    protect.  However, I feel that if you start training our children how
    to get out of a situation by negotiating or backing down it would teach
    them there are alternatives to fighting and killing.
    
    I have tried to teach my son that it takes more of a man to walk away
    from an fight.  But it's so difficult to reinforce this because of the
    climate in our society. 
    
    It will take time but I think it can be done.
    
    denise  
    
     
    

Hi Nancy!

I was trying to articulate the pure pacifist party line, I'm not strong enough
to practice it, but I hold it as an ideal. In the "best of all possible worlds"
violence will not only be unheard of, but unthinkable - on the same order as
cannibalism is today. We are certainly not there yet. I have a lot of sympathy
for the pure pacifist view - as expressed by E Grace and the Society of Friends
for example - but I'm afraid that I think adopting it unilaterally will not
work. Of course the Friends disagree, and I respect that view, I'm just not
strong enough to adopt it myself.

> Charles, are you saying above that:  when threatened, the "fight" reaction
> is not "right" in any way? ... [description of "threatened", "fight", and
> "right"]

I'm afraid so, *I* think that reacting to violence with violence only
perpetuates the cycle of violence. Unfortunately, when it comes down to
pragmatic matters like protecting people I love, or myself, I'm not strong
enough to practice what I believe intellectually. I understand and sympathize
with people who believe that the first step in eliminating violence is to make
the victims strong enough to deter aggression, I have no good answer for that.
I cannot fault someone or some country that has suffered from violence from
wanting to be strong enough that that will never happen again, but it makes me
triste that it is necessary.

> Could you please give examples of what you're saying?  Trying to understand
> your above statement is causing short circuits in my mind ...

Hmmm, how to rephrase this? The basic premise is that violence is immoral.
Period - full stop. Starting from that premise, we combine it with the natural
reaction to fear being violence, I come to the conculsion that we must (somehow
- unspecified) train ourselves to NOT react to fear with violence (or at least
not ACT on those impulses).

>> We are (and will be) too crowded, and have too efficient means of
>> violence to allow casual violence to survive.

> I don't understand this either, Charles.

Hmm, I guess I compressed things a bit too much. It is a synthesis of a number
of things. First, I strongly believe that we will not limit population growth
in time to prevent serious overcrowding. Second, I believe that overcrowding
results in violent impulses. This has been clearly demonstrated for rats (but
people are not rats! Well, most of them aren't.) and is pretty clear that wars
are usually a result of population pressure. Further, when you jam too many
people into too small a space, "random" violence seems to increase. Third, our
means of incflicting violence on each other is getting more and more efficient.
Our technology for killing each other is frighteningly good, not just on the
large scale of nations, but personally as well. I believe that if I wanted a
MAC-10, full auto, it would take a few hundred dollars, and a trip of a few
miles for me to get one. I believe that if Brazil wants nuclear weapons, it a
matter of a few years and a few millions of dollars to get them. Likewise
Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, South Korea, and Iraq. Chemical weapons are
even easier. If we combine these with a attitude that violence is acceptable,
I'm afraid (yes, that's fear) of the consequences. One of the biggest things
fueling my fear is the concept of "vengance".Vengance + Violence is what is
fueling the conflict in Lebanon, Vengance + Violence is the engine driving
Northern Ireland, Palestine, and gang violence in our cities. I imagine
increasing the pressure all over the world by increasing populations, I add in
our violent human nature, combine it with ready access to efficient means of
committing violence on each other, and say "we must find a way to curb our
violent impulses". None of the other factors seem amenable to relief, though I
still support birth control and family planning in hope of reducing the
population pressure.

There is NO easy answer, there are NO pat solutions. I strongly believe that
personal protection is a basic right, but I want to make it unecessary. I'm
scared - scared for my kid(s), scared for the survival of the species.

Dana,

> Must disagree. Who knows what the future holds ? Could be that our
> capacity to fight efficiently will be the only thing that ensures
> our survival. (Yeah, I know, I read too much SF.)

Could be that our capacity to fight efficiently is the only thing that is
keeping us from joining the larger society of sentient species. I read too
much SF too. Have you read "The Forever War"? I like "Starship Troopers", and
"Beyond this Horizon" as much as anyone, but I don't live my life by them.
Heinlein was wrong.

> Survival may not always be the highest good, but dying rather than
> self-defense seems ludicrous to me. 

But you do realize that not everyone agrees with you? Dying for a higher
principle has a long history. Dying for your country, dying to save your family,
dying for a high moral principle. Some people would rather die than violate
their belief in non-violence.

> I don't consider it a religious but a philosophical issue.

That's what I mean when I say "religious". As in "VMS vs Ultrix" is a religious
argument.

Here is the Friends "Peace Testimony"

    "Our principle is, and our practices have always been, to seek peace
    and ensue it, and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of
    God, seeking the good and welfare and doing that which tends to the
    peace of all.  We know that wars and fightings proceed from lusts of
    men (as Jas iv. 1-3), out of which lusts and the Lord hath redeemed us,
    and so out of the occasion of war.  The occasion of which war, and war
    itself (wherein envious men, who are lovers of themselves more than
    lovers of God, lust, kill, and desire to have men's lives and estates)
    ariseth from lust.  All bloody principles and practices, we, as to our
    own particulars, do utterly deny, with all outward wars and strife and
    fightings with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence
    whatsoever.  And this is our testimony to the whole world."

    From a January, 1661 declaration in response to persecution by the
    King.  Cited in George Fox's journal.

	-- Charles

    As Charles has pointed out, right actions don't always correlate with
    immediate results.  A member of my local Quaker meeting refers to the
    "Johnny Appleseed" theory, which means that you spread your seeds and
    then move on, not worrying about waiting to watch the trees grow.  I
    like that concept; to me, it means that being in tune with a higher
    purpose means doing what is right, regardless of the immediate
    consequences.

    Here are a couple of quotes that summarize my view on this issue.  The
    first one comes from Harold Loucks, an Australian Quaker, who once
    said:  "An act of love that fails is just as much a part of the divine
    life as an act of love that succeeds.  For love is measured by its
    fullness and not by its reception."  Violence and hate may have its own
    short-term benefits (although I contend that it often backfires), but
    the long term results are that violence and hate perpetuate themselves. 
    Though love and nonviolence may not always seem as "effective"
    (although I contend that they often *are* effective), by living your
    life in agreement with those principles you plant the seeds, even if
    you aren't around to watch them grow.  This reference to the "divine
    life" certainly expresses a religious point of view, although for me it
    is just as important a philosophy of life even if God doesn't exist. 
    Moving beyond a concern for immediate satisfaction, with a view towards
    long term goals, is to me an area of personal growth that has become
    very important to my own spirituality.

    The other quote comes from Harold Brinton, in his 1952 book "Friends
    for 300 Years":

        The problem of consistency and compromise faces every thoughtful
        man [sic].  The soldier feels compelled to do many things contrary
        to the code of morals which he has accepted from childhood.  The
        pacifist finds it impossible to extricate himself from all
        connection with war.  Each is uneasy.  For both there is a sense of
        frustration and failure.

        The problem may be stated in this way:  Should men [sic] try to
        live up to the highest they know, squarely facing the probability
        of failure? or, Should they direct their efforts toward a lower
        goal with some likelihood of attainment?  Most persons accept the
        second alternative, believing that some gain is better than none at
        all.

        Yet, in accepting the lower and more attainable standard, there are
        few who do not preserve some area in life in which they can pay
        homage to the highest.  This is especially true of adherents to the
        great religious faiths which all began by repudiating compromise,
        though, as the number and variety of their members increased, they
        gradually came to accept it.  Even so, they tried to retain a way
        by which consistency could be somewhere saved in spite of general
        compromise.
    
    Another thing I would like to point out is that pacifism is a rather
    vague term.  Many "pacifists" disagree among themselves over when, if
    ever, any form of violence is appropriate.  The absolute pacifist line
    is not necessary the only expression of pacifism.  But I must admit
    that I lean strongly in that direction.
    
    -- Mike

    Thank you, Charles, for posting the Peace Testimony.
    
    >>work. Of course the Friends disagree, and I respect that view, I'm just 
    >>not strong enough to adopt it myself.
    
    
    I question my self often about my ability to have "the courage of my
    convictions", and, in fact, made mention of that in my request for
    membership letter.  Of course, I will never know until I am put to the
    test.  I can only hope that I will be able to live my beliefs.
    
    E Grace

    If "our" capacity to fight determines whether we survive at some
    nebulous time in the future, does that mean it's necessary for
    "us" to now practice this on women?
    
    Is that the reason a man batters a woman every 16 seconds? And if "we"
    *need* to be violent in order to preserve "our"selves, why are women
    not encouraged to practice violence, too?
    
    --DE
    

    Hi Dawn:
    
    am i right in understanding that those questions are rhetorical?
    
    
    				h
    

    re .79 To be more specific, the ability to *defend* ourselves.
    Which is, or should be, gender-neutral.

    RE: last few
    
    Herb: Yeah...I guess they were rhetorical. It does seem like most of the
    "practicing" is done on women, somehow...
    
    Dana: Agreed. Everyone should know how to defend themself(ves?). At
    this point in time, however, it also seems that women need to know how
    to defend themselves (and *don't*, mostly) against Yer Basic Guy Who
    Lives Nearby, Maybe In Her House, rather than some nebulous "enemy"
    from Another Land/Planet/Galaxy.
    
    If the belief is that we are threatened from without, why is it mostly
    men who need to know the "defense" stuff.
    
    --DE
    
    P.S. I really think the bottom line is that we need to understand how
    to defend ourselves, or how to negotiate, if you will...without
    violence. Excluding Threatening Interplanetary Trevellers, we are
    all (mostly) Human. I figger we oughta be able to get a little
    intraspecies dialougue going. I figger we gotta.
    
    
    I agree.

    I believe we have a violent nature, not that it can't be overcome by
    our peaceful nature.  I think we all need to work on developing our
    peaceful nature.  But, I think it is not possible to overcome it
    *completely*, that is I don't believe the ideal is attainable.  I do
    believe we should all work toward the ideal.  And not argue over its
    attainability.
    
    Mary
    

    	In the case under discussion (the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq) we
    have a situation in which a whole country is being raped.  If you don't
    like the term read some of the stories coming out of there.  I have no
    reason not to believe them.  That country (as much as any arab country
    can be) has been our friend.  They have opposed political violence
    against american civilians (terrorism).  The Kuwaitis themselves were 
    pretty stupid when they were providing "aid" to their own potential
    invaders instead of providing for their own defense.  At present there
    are also a large number of americans being held hostage by this rapist.
    	People here say we should always negociate, violence is
    unnaceptable under any circumstances.
    	In international affairs each country is its own policeman.  The UN
    has no troops and can only ask for the help of the member countries. 
    If there is a wrong in the world, and we want it corrected the only
    place we can go for redress is our own government.  (If you've ever
    been in trouble in some far away place you probably know this.)
    	The analogy is:  
    	  (woman to policeman) That man raped me, arrest him.
    	  (polieman to rapist) You're under arrest stand over there and let 
          me put handcuffs on you.
    	  (rapist to cop) Try it and I'll break your head
    	  (cop to rapist) I'm a pacifist and I won't stoop to violence
    	  (rapist stage left)
    
    	Our government's only lawful purpose is to protect us from
    violence.  If that means waging a war against a barbary pirate who can
    only be convinced by force, then so be it, and lets try to do it with
    the least possible harm to american lives.
    						John
    

In fact there is a non-violent alternative - "shunning". That, in effect is what
the U.N. embargo is supposed to be. The Secretaries of Defense for the last
three Presidents are unanimous in their agreement that sanctions should be
given 12 to 18 months to work. That's the *Defense* secretaries saying this, not
some left wing peacenik like me.

Yes, we should negotiate. Our demands should be 1) Unconditional withdrawal
from Kuwait. 2) Release of all hostages. I think personally that we should
demand reparations from Iraq for the damages done to Kuwait. Those demands are
not negotiable. After those demands are met, we can talk with Saddam Hussein
about his claims against the Kuwaitis - his desire for a unconstrained Gulf
port, his claims against the norther oilfields, his claims about overpumping.

No, agression against Kuwait cannot be allowed to go unanswered. No, appeasement
is not the way to deal with a bully. On the other hand, answering violence with
violence is not the answer either. We must find alternatives to violence, but
we cannot allow violence to go unanswered.

	-- Charles

    
>    have a situation in which a whole country is being raped.  If you don't
>    like the term read some of the stories coming out of there.  I have no
>    reason not to believe them. 
    
    i can think of all sorts of reasons to disbelieve them.
    
    
    a different analogy:
    
    kuwait to the u.s.: iraq stole our land
    
    u.s. to iraq: give it back
    
    iraq to the u.s.: but it was our land to begin with
    
    u.s. to iraq: tough, give it back
    
    iraq to u.s.: you've got to be kidding
    
>    	Our government's only lawful purpose is to protect us from
>    violence.  
    
    a nice way to do that would be to avoid war
    
    

Iraq's potential for developing nuclear weapons is undeniable. It is also
expected to take well over two years. The sanctions are expected to work within
12 to 18 months.

    
    furthermore, many experts suggest that the iraqis will run out of
    spare parts even earlier.
    
    we're only 'running out of time' if the objective is to have a war
    (before people catch a clue)
    
    

    re .86 et al (-< 'rape of a nation' is a mis-leading metaphor >-)

    While I'm not sure what the relevance of a political discussion of
    Iraq is to this topic, the phrase "rape of a nation" is not
    entirely metaphor. There's a chilling article in last Sunday's New
    York Times about the behavior of Iraqi soldiers in Kuwaiti City.
    I'm a sort of pacifist from 'way back, and am not advocating war
    in this instance, but it should be noted that while everybody is
    waiting for sanctions to work, there are a lot of Kuwaiti citizens
    paying a greater price than the sanctioned citizens of Iraq or the
    Western hostages.

    Another, pessimistic, point about the estimates as to how far away
    Hussein is from nuclear capability.  The CIA has *underestimated* how
    long it would take *every* nation that is currently nuclear-capable to
    develop a bomb, by about two years.  :-(.  Makes me very, very
    uncomfortable -- as I'm convinced he'd use it!  Eliminating this
    capability *now* makes infinite sense to me.  (And my son is also
    draft-bait.  Turns 18 in July, and is planning on taking a year off
    before going to college.)
    
    We need to get Congress to declare war.  That gives the country the
    full airing of whys we need to get this action supported.  Or not, in
    which case we bring everyone home and face the consequences of that
    action.
    
    Alison

    Hey, I'm thrilled!  Every time I turn on the news anymore, I hear
    discussion of "Feminism and the Feminist Agenda".  Whole segments
    of Nightline are devoted to it, as are feature articles in regular
    issues of the nation's major newsweeklies.  Even Congress is holding
    hearings on "Feminism and the Feminist Agenda", and sparking debate
    over whether it is right for one man to be Feminism's Commander in 
    Chief in all the connotations of that term.  Legal scholars are
    scrutinizing the Constitution to see what it has to say about 
    "Feminism and the Feminist Agenda."

    However, in going mainstream, "Feminism and the Feminist Agenda" have
    become abstracted.  Women are rarely even mentioned anymore; it's
    Saddam Hussein this, George Bush that, our founding fathers this,
    Congressman X that.  All this while women are still barred from
    front-line combattive roles in Feminism's campaign!

    Perhaps it's a good sign that our power structures are beginning to take 
    the Feminist Agenda seriously and analyze its strategic value to the 
    country and its economic impact with the attention it has long deserved.
    However, I also see that the focus has shifted away from women to an
    alarming degree, and onto topics I once saw as somewhat peripheral to 
    Feminism and the Feminist Agenda per se.

    What do you think about this "feminism with a male face"?  Can we
    really call it Feminism at all at this point?

	Sharon
    

Sharon,

> All this while women are still barred from front-line combattive roles in
> Feminism's campaign!

Perhaps you and I listen to different front line feminists? Almost all the
"front line combative" feminists *I* know are [still] women.

>   What do you think about this "feminism with a male face"?  Can we
>   really call it Feminism at all at this point?

Why not?

I maintain, somewhat stridently :-), that Feminism is a fight for Women's
Equality not Women's fight for equality. There is no inherent problem with
EVERYONE fighting for women's equality, however I admit it would be 
incongruous for men to be trying to lead the fight - if it weren't so typical.
Feminism, for me, is also the fight to allow men in more traditional feminine
roles.

For millenia we have had "male" terms claimed to be inclusive and universal -
for once we have a "female" term that is inclusive and universal, it's no
wonder that it causes confusion.

We cannot limit our allies in this struggle. If we are to succeed in
implementing the Feminst Agenda (whatever it is) we cannot afford the luxury
of casting it as a fight against an "enemy". We must make everyone allies, we
must convince those people in power that *they* are feminists. We must convince
the people in the boardrooms, the people holding public office, even people we
disagree with about other things, that feminism is their fight too. If instead
we cast them as our enemies we will be locked into the destructive win/lose
mode, and we will probably lose. We must instead find a way to make feminism
win/win - and that implies accepting "mainstream" help and allies, no matter
how much it may gall us privately.

	-- Charles

    Uh, Charles, I guess I wasn't being explicitly sarcastic enough.
    What I was trying to say is that the past few notes I've read in
    this stream seemed to be debates on Persian Gulf politics, with
    little direct relevance to the title of this topic, which is
    "Feminism and the Feminist Agenda".  (I don't dispute that there
    are a number of tangents here which are indirectly quite relevant,
    but they weren't what was being discussed, anyway).  I guess
    deadpan humor doesn't work as well in notes :-)

    That said, I agree with you.

	Sharon


    (By the way - "Feminism with a male face" was an oblique reference
    to "Socialism with a human face" in Czechoslovakia, which was
    subsequently crushed in 1968 by, um, a more powerful establishment
    (Soviet tanks).  Yes, I know that one was obscure.)

Oops :-) nevermind.

I agree with you about the rathole though. I also agree with you agreeing with
me.

I now return to the rathole, already in progress.

	-- Charles