Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Don't know where else to put this, but 783.5 has just become an author
    deleted note.
    
    I guess it was in the wrong place, because I mentioned that the general
    problem mentioned in the basenote is not limited to a certain race but
    to the number of people with x-characteristic, where x-characteristic
    is the one that is desired by the seeker.  I didn't say that the
    problem wasn't there, just that it is shared with more than just one
    group of people.
    
    THere's a huge set of people.  THose you get close to have certain
    traits, whether they be physical or mental.  You weed out those who
    don't have the traits you desire.  Anyone who desires traits which only
    a few people possess, is going to have a smaller subset of people at
    the end than those who desire traits which are common.
    
    For those folks who desire someone without white skin, there's a trait
    that's going to eliminate a lot of people out of the original set.  For
    those folks for whom white skin is acceptable, maybe another criteria has to
    be that the person has certain views on religion that are not of the
    mainstream variety, than that trait is going to whittle down the
    original set quite bit.
    
    Eventually some people are  going to get to the point where the
    original set has been reduced to such a great degree that the chances
    of meeting one of the members of the defined subset are very slim.
    It doesn't matter what color your skin is, or what religion you
    practice, or what you think in general, if your subset is small than
    you're going to have problems meeting a companion.
    
    Sorry to offend.
    
    Lisa

    
    
    RE: .1942
    
    (Lisa)
    
    I agree with you.  When we limit our choices to be with
    X-characteristics, we narrow the field of people who we feel with be
    compatible with us.  
    
    My field is very narrow in a personality sense (as opposed to a
    physical sense), that's probably a good indicator of why I'm single at
    the moment.  I find that there are very VERY few men in this world who
    have the characteristics that I desire in a mate.  However, I choose to
    make those limitations because I know they are the ones that I'm going
    to be happy with.  
    
    However, on the other hand, if I want to complain about my lack of
    intimate encounters, I really have no one to blame but myself for
    making those restrictions! ;-)
    
    
    Hugs.
    
    Kath

Let's put it this way:

I've been straight and I've been a Lesbian.  When I was straight, I thought
it was hard to meet the "right" man, and I would have said much the same
as Kath and Lisa - that it is hard for anybody to meet someone who is 
right, since there are so few who have any given set of qualifications.  Then
I started dating women, and my qualifications are basially the same except
that I'm looking for a woman instead of a man - and it is *much* harder.  As
in, a different order of magnitude.  As in, instead of just having trouble
finding the "right" one, now I have trouble finding *any* one.

That having been my experience, I can imagine that 'ren has had similar
*real* problems that make it *especially* hard to find someone who meets
her qualifications.

The previous notes about how hard it is for white women to mates, too,
strikes me as saying "Hey, things are tough all over".  Well, its true,
they aren, but that doesn't mean that things aren't tougher for some people
than others.

D!

    
    Thanks for saying that D!. It hits a hot button with me when I am
    questioned about including race as a requirement. So let me rephrase
    it.
    
    No, the guy doesn't have to be black. But he does have to know about
    Black history in America, he has to be sensitive to what problems it
    creates for black people, he has to have a sense of responsibility
    about doing his part to make a difference in the black community, he
    has to be prepared to father black sons, and to instill in them a
    complete understanding of what it means to be black in America and how
    to still have pride in yourself even when the odds are stacked against
    you in many ways. And he has to think that strong black women are
    wonderful. 
    
    I'm sorry to have suggested that skin color has anything to do with 
    what I'm looking for in a man. But the fact is, the number of non-black
    men who meet my criteria is proportionally smaller. And the non-black
    men who do feel this way don't wear signs. So, its easier to use race
    as an arbitrary screen; black men are proportionally more likely to
    meet my criteria.
    
    Kathy, your sympathy for my needs in a relationship, and those of many
    of my black female peers, is clear. I hope when the time comes, I will
    be able to extend the same amount of sympathy to you.

Ah yes, 'ren...you will date white men who are "black centered", but they
are hard to find so you look for black men.  I will date bisexual women
for are "woman centered", but sometimes it is a lot easier to just say
that I will only date Lesbians since the odds of them being women-centered
is much higher.

I'm curious - have you ever found a white might who fits the description
you gave of "black centeredness?"  (My term, of course.)

I'm also curious - does the term "Oreo" carry pejorative connotations when
you use it?  (My brother, a black boy raised by a white family in a 
predominantly white and hispanic area, is sensitive about that term.)

D!

since this is the rathole and all I'll go on to say that 'ren has every right
and priviledge to include, for her own (very good) reasons, skin color as one of
her criteria in selecting a partner.  It's her life, and her kids, and in real
life in this (and every) country, race has a real bearing.  Another note 
somewhere in the file eloquently explained why color-blindness, and treating
everybody the same, as if race was so incidental as not to matter, has its
down-side.  I learned something I had never understood before from that note.
And if you are not going to ignore race as totally unimportant in day-to-day
social relations, how could you possibly say that it must be ignored as a factor
in your choice of a life-partner?

Race may or may not be an overriding criterion for you.  But it's legit as a
factor to consider, in this "arena" (there must be a better word!).

I see it as much the same as wanting a partner who is of the same religion as
you.  It's not the only thing, but if it is important for *you*, well, you're
the one you need to please here.

Sara

I agree, D!.  It is *no* trouble for me to meet single men.  Meeting single
men I'd be interested in dating, however, is obviously tougher.

When I was in college though, it was next to impossible.  I went to a women's
college, and although there were some men on campus, there weren't that many.
I remember going back to my room one day and realizing there were *no* men I
knew that I'd be even *vaguely* interested in, which was somewhat of a first.  
In a not atypical day I'd come into contact with maybe 3 single men, of whom 
one was engaged, one was gay, and the third was one of my professors.

Had I gone to college to meet men, I could really have been despairing at
that point.  Sure, you could argue that I could have chosen a different college,
and that's true.  For 'ren, there are no such options.  And while there were
not-that-many men on my college campus, I come into contact with even fewer
black men on an everyday basis now.  If 'ren comes into contact with more than
3 single black men on a typical day, it is because of a real *effort* on her 
part.  Compared to 'ren, it was probably easy for me to meet men in college
(and I never thought I'd say *that*!).

If a woman in engineering - like Kath or Lisa - has a problem *meeting* 
single [professional, white] men, I honestly find that incredible.  That 
they have a problem finding men they'd like to date, I can understand.
Now let's say they are interested in dating one in a hundred of the single
[professional, white] men they meet who are in a certain age range, say
above the age of consent, but too young to retire.  At that rate, chances
are good they can find someone in a year who meets their criteria.  Now let's 
apply those criteria to 'ren.  How long do you think it takes 'ren to meet 
100 single [black, professional] men within the stated age range?  I'm not sure I've
met that many in my *life*!  And if you think 1/100 is too high, well...

    Good luck, 'ren.

	Sharon

    
    Here in Hudson, there are two black college-educated technically
    oriented single men. (There were 3 before severance hit.)
    And there are 4 such black women. 
    
    When you add on the three married men, the ratio of male:female engineers
    becomes 6:4. Now somebody tell me, how many places can you go where the
    female engineering presence is THAT STRONG??? No engineering school I know
    of. 
    
    My point - there's something unusual about these statistics. It gives a
    glimpse not only of the invisibility of black engineers in the
    building, but more clearly it shows how skewed the percentage of black
    male professionals is.
    
    Now, if I add in college-educated "non-engineers", I believe the number
    of women grows by 2-3, and the number of men grows by 2-3, so now we're
    at 8:6. This is NOT NORMAL for a professional environment!!! 
    
    If I took a guess at how many male engineers were in the building vs.
    female engineers, I'll bet the ratio will not be 6:4. If I take a guess
    at the ratio of college educated men and women in the building, I don't
    think it would be 8:6. Also important, even if it were 80:60 instead of
    8:6, at least it would take longer to meet them all and realize that
    none of the 8 of them are quite what you need. Now if 6 of them are
    married (two of them to white women), pickin's get REAL slim. Let's
    make one of them gay (statistics say that's possible), and there's ONE
    ELIGIBLE COLLEGE-EDUCATED BLACK MAN IN THE WHOLE BLOODY PLANT. If this
    man spends his evenings talking to his computer, I'm SOL. 
    
    
    More on the point, as Sharon said, in my day to day existence, its not
    easy for me to run into very many black-identified educated men. And if
    its not easy for ME, in a technical field that men have dominated
    for eons, think how much harder it is for black women who are *not* in
    technical fields.  
    
    How many of you have ever dated someone in your building? I've dated
    ONE person here. He was the only one who was eligible and met a
    percentage of my personality requirements. It didn't work. Okay, 1
    down, 2 to go. 
    
    If you've ever wondered why the black people at Digital try so hard to
    network and get together, think about what it means that there are only
    30+ of us in a plant that has around 1500 employees. We're talking
    >>>2%<<< of the building's population. Even though we're supposedly 14%
    of the national population. Please don't ask where the other 12% are.
    All I know is they aren't at HLO.
    
    I guess sometimes the whole thing just bothers me.
    
    D! The black-identified scenario is on the money. I can think of two
    black-identified white men who married STRONG black women. They went
    into those marriages knowing that the women were all about doing things
    in the black community, making a difference, championing the cause of
    black people, etc. And they are very supportive men. They work very
    hard to identify with the world and to understand their wives'
    perspectives. I can think of another man who is not black-identified
    but is very color-blind who married a black woman who is more laid back
    about championing causes. But she has her moments. And he's convinced
    me that he has learned to identify with her issues. He doesn't wear the
    blinders any more. And I can think of 2 other black women who were not
    looking for black-identified men. I'm sure their white husbands love
    them and that's all that matters to them.
    
    I don't see a lot of white men at my family reunions. I don't see a lot
    of white men at black night clubs (I see white women there...), I
    don't see a lot of white men in pictures of church gatherings. So, I
    don't get the feeling that there are a lot of black-identified white
    men.
    
    As for oreos... no it isn't the nicest of terms. It means, as it
    should, black on the outside, white on the inside. A child who is
    raised in a white home isn't going to have a lot of say in the matter.
    Nor is a child who has no black peers growing up. But those children,
    as adults, have to figure out who they are, and how they're going to
    deal with racism, just the same as the rest of us. And if they decide
    that racism isn't real, and "some people are just assholes", then they
    can also decide that making an impact on the black community is not a
    priority for them. I don't think those people are going to be able to
    relate very well to me. In all the cases I've come across, the more
    color-blind a black man was, the less he could relate to me. It didn't
    stop him from finding me desirable, but that's not ALL there is to me.
    
    Okay, I'll stop here. 

    Umm, 'Ren, you could come out to SPO and find the numbers skewed
    in a very different way ;-)
    

    
    I could also go to the Boston plant (SPO is Springfield, MA for those who
    don't know.) and possibly to the DCO plant in Landover, MD or some of
    the sales offices in NYC and Chicago. Unfortunately, Hudson is where my
    talents are best utilized. Too bad my career comes before man-hunting.
    Otherwise, I KNOW I'd be married.
    
    BTW, one of the criticisms my last male flame had of me is that I work
    too hard. He hoped to marry me. So I've OBVIOUSLY got my priorities
    mixed up.

    
    
    RE: .1947 (Foster)
    
    Your sarcasm is quite endearing....really.
    
    The ONLY point that I am making is that you have made certain choices
    that restrict your subset of the population that you're attracted to.
    Making those restrictions is not "bad" or "wrong."  And most of all, I
    don't condemn you for making those restrictions (you come across as
    thinking that my restrictions couldn't possibly be as strict as yours).
    
    Just because I'm WHITE and my main focus is on attracting MEN, does NOT
    mean that I have it any "easier" than you do.
    
    I don't want a "white man", I want a man who's sensual, caring, honest,
    open, openminded, understanding, accepting, playful, flirtatious,
    musically/artistically oriented, unassuming....my list could go on and
    on and on.
    
    If I were to count the number of men that I've met in my life that
    really fit the KIND of man I would want to spend a great deal of the
    rest of my life with, I could count them one hand.  THAT is how
    "few" they are......  It's a very particular, very unique type of man
    that I am attracted to.
    
    I know you're going to probably get hopping mad at me for saying this,
    but frankly I think it's bigoted of you to say that just because I'm
    white, female, and male-oriented that I have it easier.
    
    It's just NOT like that.  We make our restrictions that we want for the
    people we wish to share our lives with.  We must take the
    responsibility for the fact that those restrictions might limit us to a
    VERY small subset of the population.
    
    Choosing people to become intimate with is not a matter of colour of
    skin, or population percentages....it's about OUR choices and OUR
    restrictions.  
    
    I get really sad and upset when people try to explain away something
    using a factor that doesn't even factor into the equation.  Just
    because someone is black or lesbian or white or whatever does not mean
    that they have it any "easier" than the next person.....
    
    I'm sorry you don't have any "sympathy" or sorrow for me and my plight. 
    Frankly, it doesn't bother me if you don't.  I've made my choices, and
    I'm willing to accept the consequences of those choices.  I would
    rather be single and happy, than to compromise those choices and be
    with someone and depressed.
    
    I take responsibility for my choices, and that is VERY important to me.
    I won't take responsibility nor the burden for yours.  I will not feel
    sorry for you and your "plight" because your choices are yours and
    you've made them freely.....those choices don't have to do with the
    fact that you're black, they have to do with the fact of who you are
    INSIDE and what you WANT.
    
    Kathy

    
    
    RE: .1949 (et al)
    
    FWIW....
    
    	No one has said (that I remember, and I certainly didn't say it)
    that 'ren shouldn't choose "black" as one of her criteria.
    
        However, in choosing that as a criteria, she must accept the
    consequences of that criteria (reducing the subset).
    
    	I don't understand where anyone got the idea that ANY restriction
    was "bad."  
    
    	If anything is "bad", per se, I would think that it would be the
    act of setting your criteria, then blaming others for the fact that
    the subset of people who fit your criteria is so small (and that's what
    I feel 'ren is doing).
    
    
    <sigh>
    
    kath

I don't see how 'ren is blaming others for the fact that the subset is small,
but she is pointing out that if one looks at the composition of our society,
the subset should be larger.  The difference is that she's not fixing blame,
but observing phenomena.  Looking at a situation like that and saying "there 
are no other phenomena at work here, it's JUST ME" when there are clearly
factors at work which are way beyond your control -- that sounds like a quick
path to self-hatred and depression to me.  It's beguiling (we all like to 
think we're more in control of our lives than we really are), but pointless
and damaging if taken to the extreme.  I'd venture a guess that that's part
of what 'ren is talking about when she talks about having self-esteem despite
being black in a white-oriented society.

    Sharon

    
    Kathy,
        Where do you get the idea that I'm blaming others, or ANYONE for the
    fact that my subset is so small?  I'm discussing the facts, and how
    things are, and some of the why's of it all, and I'm even giving
    examples. But I'm NOT blaming. That's something you're projecting on
    me. Egads, next you'll be telling me that I'm blaming you just because
    you've probably dated some of those black men who prefer white women.
    Hey, you can have 'em!
    
    And don't worry, I think so little of you that the fact that you would
    call me bigotted neither surprises me nor fazes me.
                          

(another) sigh

    
    
    I don't find my opinion being listened to or valued in this
    conversation.
    
    I think it's time for me to drop out of it.
    
    kathy

>Just
>    because someone is black or lesbian or white or whatever does not mean
>    that they have it any "easier" than the next person.....

You really believe this???

You really believe that being white isn't easier than being black?  That
being a man isn't easier than being a woman?  That being straight isn't
easier than being gay???

All I an say is that your perspective on the world is so VASTLY different
from mine that this discussion is probably totally pointless.

Why are you (and so many other majority-types I've met, including, to a
certain extent, myself) SO INTENT and proving that you have it "just as bad"
as someone without your privileges?  What is it that is so important about
demonstrating that there is no inherent difference in privelege.

I've seen this tendency before.  People who say "It isn't being black that
makes it hard to find a husband, but being who you are".  People who say
women can be engineers just as easily as men, if they work hard.  People
who say that poor people can just work hard and get out of the ghetto...
Where does it come from?  Why is there such insistence that everyone is
equal?

The truth is everyone is *not* equal.  White heterosexual middle class males
*are* born with privileges, and the closer to that norm you are the more
privileged you are.  Why is that so threatening?

Kath, it sounds to me like you are saying that 'ren is blaming you (either
generic or specific) for her difficulty in finding a man.  It seems to me
that she isn't blaming anyone, she's just venting; or if she is, she's 
blaming society and the structure which set her up for this difficulty.

>I will not feel
>    sorry for you and your "plight" because your choices are yours and
>    you've made them freely....

That's like saying "So you are a woman who wants to be an engineer, and
you have to battle sexism the whole way?  I won't feel sorry for you. It
was *your* choice to be an engineer, you made that choice freely.  You could
have been a secretary and encountered a lot less resistance, quitcherbitchen."

D!

More thoughts on people who insist that *they* are not granted an
advantage by virtue of birth...

I think I understand where this insistence and insecurity comes from.

When a black person says to a white person "Your life is easier than
mine by virtue of being white", the white person feels threatened.  Because
what it means is that some of their success came because of a fluke of
birth. Everyone wants to be able to claim their successes are due entirely
to hard work and intelligence, and that anyone who did the same work and
was just as intelligent would succeed similarly.  To believe otherwise 
would imply that you had ad advantage; that you won the race by having
a starting line a few feet in front of other people.

So the white persons says (more to convince hirself than the black person)
"No, I worked hard for where I am, it has nothing to do with the fact that
I am white!"  And, in fact, the white person sets up whole logical (but
fallacious) arguments to *prove* that in fact being white gives no advantages.

I, for one, am finally beginning to accept that I got where I am today
*partially* because I am hard-working and intelligent, but also partially
because I am *lucky*.  Lucky to have been born white to middle class parents
who valued education.

D!

    
    kath, I think you totally misunderstood most of what 'ren said.
    From one who's on the "really *listen* to what I'm saying" soapbox
    so much of the time, I just don't understand how you can so badly
    misinterpret someone else's words.
    
    And kath, BTW, I don't think anyone's trying to negate that you have
    a problem.  I just think another note would be the place for it.
    I can't stand it when somene says "I have a problem" and someone
    replies to the note saying, "Oh, but *my* problems are *sooo*
    much worse."  Just start a new note about it, and no problem here.
    
    Just *don't* make it into an "us vs. them" or "me vs. her" issue!
    (general advice)
    

    I don't think Kathy was saying she has it WORSE, but just trying to say
    that simply because she was born with white skin doesn't mean things
    should automatically be easy.  That even though things may be stacked
    in her favor statistically, that doesn't mean that she's been having an
    easy time with her personal life.  If you want to share your life with
    someone else, and you can't find that someone else, it doesn't matter
    what color, or persuasion, or religion you are, you're going to be
    unhappy.
    
    THe main thing to note here is that this is a problem that cuts across
    all people, regardless of who they are, and it's making many people
    unhappy.
    
    I'm going to stop here.  I'm not feeling good enough right now to be
    pile driven into the ground.  And seeing what has happened to some
    others in this string...............
    
    Lisa

    
    
    Folks,  let's not let this discussion get away from us.  It looks like
    some folks have a lot of feelings around this -- maybe we should take a 
    break from it for a while and come back to it.
    
    And lest we get this rathole on to a straight path, how about a base
    note on race and women?   I'll start one.
    
    Justine

    re.1960, .1961
    
    Wow, D!, you struck one of my nerves ... or, more accurately, you hit
    upon the very opposite of something that I've experienced in my life.
    
    I was born with a ton of _huge_ advantages in this life.  I was born to
    educated, white, upper class parents who saw to it that I went to all of
    the 'right' schools and finished and polished me to a fine sheen --
    dance lessons to instill gracefulness, a summer in Dijon learning to
    cook, books on any subject that engaged my interest, ...
    
    I thought my struggle to keep a roof over my head in college was
    _monumental_ until I looked around me and realised that my struggles
    were pretty much nothing when compared to the struggle that many faced
    each and every day to just stay alive.  Yet in acknowledging this very
    bald fact, I was [sometimes still am] accused of false humility, or
    reverse bragging [or something].
    
    It's weird that in acknowledging that I was granted enormous advantage
    by an accident of birth [and timing], I provoke[d] hostility.  Like,
    maybe, somehow I'm to blame for it?
    
      Annie
    
    p.s. no, I'm not a 'poor little rich girl' ... at least not any more.

    D!
    
    I don't claim to speak for anybody here (just a disclaimer).
    
    I personally believe that some people feel threatened when a member of
    a minority group expresses the facts about the disadvantages they have
    suffered.  I think it may sometimes be a transferance of feelings....
    perhaps the member of the "majority" group has had a truely rotten life
    and resents the implication that his/her life was better because he/she
    was this and not that.  Other times, I think the member of the majority
    group may feel that they are being catagorized as part of the problem
    that keeps the minority at a disadvantage, there for, the best defense
    is offense.  I think a lot of it is subconscious, but I agree, when you
    are talking about oranges, it doesn't help to compare them to apples.
    
    Christine

    
    
    RE: .17
    
    D!
    
    I was talking in regards to FINDING SOMEONE that you MESH with....
    
    don't generalize this discussion into something it's not.
    
    kathy

>    I was talking in regards to FINDING SOMEONE that you MESH with....
    
>    don't generalize this discussion into something it's not.

I know what *you* were talking about. However, I see a link between
the attitudes I mentioned (that everyone starts off on equal footing)
and the stance you have been taking in this discussion.

I think they *are* related, and I think what I said about some people
getting defensive when told they have advantages is true, whether it is
about finding a mate or finding a job.

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

Generally speaking (not to Kath) I think everyone should remember that
EASIER does not mean EASY.  Saying it is EASIER for a white woman to find
a mate does not mean that anyone is saying that it is EASY for a white woman
to find a mate.

D!
 

    
    
    Manish (.26)
    
    That's exactly what I've been saying though!  To make the choice from
    "white" to "black" might narrow the field of choice, but that's a
    choice that the person makes.
    
    What's so awful about this entire thing is that basically I think
    everyone is saying the same thing.....yet in different ways.
    
    It's the same with ANY attribute a person chooses to restrict their
    field.....smokers/nonsmokers, professional/nonprofessional, etc etc
    etc.
    
    We make choices about who we are attracted to and that's not "bad."
    However, *I* am only saying that we are all unique individuals and that
    we can't categorically say "X Group has it easier" because it's simply
    untrue.
    
    I value the fact that I'm a unique person.....I don't appreciate it
    when I feel that uniqueness is being stripped away and I'm being
    categorized in with millions of other people.
    
    kathy

    I'll try this.  Don't shoot the messenger though.
    
    Yes, you make the choice that you do/don't want white/black or
    smoking/nonsmoking.  But it's not REALLY a CHOICE.  it's a "marked
    proclivity".  It's like saying gay people CHOOSE to only want same-sex
    mates.  It's something that may cause so much discomfort if it's not
    followed that it doesn't FEEL like a choice.
    
    I often CHOOSE to have friendships/relationships with younger men.  But
    sometimes it's because I've felt VERY uncomfortable with older men type
    situations.  It's not a solid permanent rule, but it's not really a
    CHOICE either.  It's subconscious.
    
    Likewise some people may want a professional, an intellectual, someone
    who is financially stable, someone with or without children, as a mate. 
    But sometimes the desire for that TYPE of person is so ingrained that
    to say we can cast it aside willingly seems almost ludicrous because it
    would cause a sense of discomfort if we chose someone who did not fit
    our "archetype".
    
    Am I making any sense?
    
    Dancing amongst the landmines
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    
    Very true, Jody.....
    
    Can I ask you something (I'm feeling very misunderstood today....)...
    
    ....given the "marked proclivities" you mentioned that are totally
    unique to each and every one of us....
    
    .....could you make the blanket statement that any large section of the
    population has it any "easier" than the other....if you don't section
    that population based solely on their subset of "marked proclivities"?
    
    
    Actually, this is a rhetorical question.....I think I'm getting into a
    rathole of trying to prove that it's not a good thing to stereotype
    people based on different criteria than the actual situation involves.
    
    Ughly mughly....I'm glad I'm going to the Throwing Muses tonight....I
    NEED a break.
    
    kath
    
    

    interesting discussion.
    
    when i was looking for a mate here was my criteria and what i met in
    diane
    
    criteria                                   diane
    blond                                    black hair (graying)
    blue eyes                                blue eyes (very sparkly)
    same height as me (short)                5"8" (taller)
    professional                             homemaker for 17 yrs
    lesbian                                  lesbian
    children                                 children
    single                                   divorcing
    loves to go out dancing                  too shy to dance in public
    same values                              pretty much same values
    kind, nice                               kind, nice
    
    so you see, i didn't fall in love with someone who met all of my
    criteria, BUT i did fall in love with my soulmate!
    
    to quote Madonna, "Lucky me!"  which is how i feel.  Very fortunate.
    
    sue

re: .29
    
>    .....could you make the blanket statement that any large section of the
>    population has it any "easier" than the other....if you don't section
>    that population based solely on their subset of "marked proclivities"?
 
    If you don't section that population based on their subset of "marked
    proclivities" I don't think you have anything to base "easy" or "hard"
    on.  It removes the criteria, which removes the selectivity.  Without
    any proclivities, any one would do.
    
    -Jody

    Kath and Lisa,
    
    I hear where you're coming from. It is difficult to find a mate and the
    more criteria you (generic) have, the more difficult it gets.
    
    Lets assume my criteria are same race and professional. There are more
    white professionals than black. So surely I'll have a wider choice of
    people to meet if I'm white. I may not find any of them suitable for
    other reasons. But if I were black, there aren't as many men that
    satisfy those basic criteria. I think that's what 'ren is talking
    about.
    
    manisha 
    who is neither black nor white

    Kath,
    
    I don't see us saying the same thing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
    You're talking of choosing between black and white. I'm talking of
    choosing between same race / different race. To me there's a tremendous
    difference between a white woman choosing a white man and a black woman
    choosing a white man. I would find it very difficult to marry someone
    of a different race. Not because the skin colour matters. But because
    there's a large part of me, he would never understand. 
    
    manisha

    Re: .32
    
    Manisha, your point is quite valid and well taken in re: same or
    different race, but I think both Kath and 'ren are working at the
    choice between black and white.  I see in 'ren's remarks an open
    willingness to match herself with a white man so long as he meets her
    criteria for black awareness - she said that she uses color as a first
    but not necessarily final filtering mechanism.  It's just (as I see it)
    that there simply aren't as many black-aware men of *either* color as
    there are men who are not black-aware.  There is a further stricture
    amongst black-aware men in that some who are white may sympathize with
    and support the black community while having "white" among their own
    criteria.
    
    The result is that the set of men from whom 'ren can draw, based on her
    criteria (some choices, some inborn), is vastly smaller than the set
    from which Kath can draw.  Kath's set is, nonetheless, vastly smaller
    than the set from which some others can draw.  The set from which you
    can draw, Manisha, is quite likely even smaller than 'ren's, because
    your criteria include same-race, and your race is neither white nor
    black (despite what it has been called by insensitive whites!).
    
    -d

    
    
    RE: .32 (manisha)
    
    > You're talking of choosing between black and white. 
    
    <Sigh>  *NO*, I am not.
    
    kat

    
    
    RE: .33  (-d)
    
    >The result is that the set of men from whom 'ren can draw, based on her
    >criteria (some choices, some inborn), is vastly smaller than the set
    >from which Kath can draw.  Kath's set is, nonetheless, vastly smaller
    >than the set from which some others can draw.
    
    How do you know?  How do you know 'ren's criteria, how do you know MY
    criteria, how do you know anyone else's criteria enough to make this
    proclamation?
    
    This is my WHOLE point!  NO ONE makes they're criteria based solely on
    race.  If you add up any TWO individual's criteria (let's assume that
    one is black and one is white), is it really based solely on the ONE
    criteria of RACIAL CHOICE who's "pool" to choose from is going to be
    bigger?
    
    Perhaps my pool to choose from is HUGE compared to 'ren's.  THAT is not
    the point!  The point is that the REASON my pool is bigger is because
    of the criteria I've used, NOT because someone is white or black or
    WANTS solely one race.
    
    Forget it............I don't know why I'm bothering to continue this
    point, it seems very obvious to me that people are not grasping it.
    
    ;-(
    
    kath

    
    
    > I hear where you're coming from. It is difficult to find a mate and
    >the more criteria you (generic) have, the more difficult it gets.
    
    Yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!!!!!!!!  ;-)
    
    
    >    Lets assume my criteria are same race and professional.
    
    Given your assumption, yes. If your *only* criteria is "race and
    professional", a white person would have it "easier" than a black
    person (given population demographics).
    
    However, I don't think I know ANY people who's criteria is that
    generic.  My criteria is very long and involved with many very
    intricate, very delicate requirements.  I did an exercise a few years
    back that involved writing down my criteria (and it involved a LOT of
    soul searching).  I found that the list, when I REALLY looked at all
    aspects of ME was exploding exponentially.
    
    If we talk in a generic, superficial sense, I would gladly say that
    black women have it harder than white women (given the same
    race/professional criteria).....but life just isn't that simple.  
    
    And I feel that by simplifying it, we lose the individuality and
    uniqueness of each and every one of us.
    
    kath

    Kath,
    
    I think I understand everything you are saying.  Yes, 'ren has
    made a choice to narrow her field to black men, and that is her
    right.  I think the point 'ren is trying to make is that our society,
    whether we believe it or not, is still extremely pro-white.  It's more
    that the black role in society is limited that limits her range more 
    than her choice to date black men only.  If black men had the same 
    opportunities for education/career as did white men, 'ren would have 
    a more equivilant chance of finding a mate as does a white woman with
    similar desires (a mate chosen with race in mind).  Until opportunities
    for the black people in our society are equal to that of white people, 
    it is harder for 'ren to find even people she may be comfortable
    relating with on a companionship level based on life-style similarity.
    
    Kath, please don't take this as a criticism, I'm just trying to explain
    how I have interpreted the comments around this subject.  I'm just
    saying that I do understand your point of view and am trying to gently 
    disagree (not blast you for your views).
    
    'ren, I hope I haven't offended you or misrepresented you by using you
    as an example of my thoughts, for it is not my intent to be offensive
    to any party involved in this discussion.
    
    Christine

    
    You got it Christine.
    
    If Kathy and I have the EXACT SAME criteria, except she is interested
    in white males and I am interested in black males, statistics say I
    will have more difficulty.
    
    At the same time, if we DON'T include racial criteria, but simply deal
    with all males, the number of men who will a white woman, are different
    from the number who will date me.
    
    I didn't list the full extent of my criteria, but I'm sure its as long
    as Kathy's.

    
    Then again, I've met plenty of folks who won't settle for
    anything less than A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E perfection in a mate.  Do
    I have any "sympathy" for these folks?  Not one little bit.
    In fact, just the opposite.
    

    
    
    RE: .38 (RE:  Using/not using "I" language)
    
    Re-read the quote of yours that I highlighted in .35.
    
    
    
    k

    
    
    RE: .40 (Gugel)
    
    That was my other point.
    
    When we narrow our field to such a small selection, I feel that we also
    discard our "right" to complain when we don't find anyone that matches
    our criteria.
    
    ;-)
    
    kath

    oh, kath,
    
    I'm sorry but I don't agree with you on that one. What good would it
    do if a person dated people that went against all their inner
    conditioning just so as not to limit their options? Would that not
    just waste their and the person they were dating's time.
    
    I remember in college, I'd not dated much and accepted a date with
    a guy who none of my friends could tolerate. I figured I'd be 
    broad minded and try an evening with someone who was unlike the
    sort of guy I usually 'clicked' with. It just plain didn't work.
    It was a wasted evening for both of us. (and I tried!) The one good
    thing that came out of it was that I did know someone who would
    like him and fixed them up, and they dated for several months 
    afterwards.
    
    Lets say that I become a widow (goddess forbid) in another 20 years
    and I decide I want to date. There aren't going to be a lot of the
    sort of men that I'm comfortable with available to date. In my case
    it would be a lack of single men around my age (+/- 10 years) with
    enough education (self or formal) that I can feel comfortable talking
    with him, and someone my kids will enjoy. I suspect that the numbers
    of such men in the geographic area where I would be living would
    be almost non existant. But, I'd want to stay with my house where
    I'd have lived for 30+ years, and near my grown kids. 
    
    Would this mean I didn't have the right to complain that there wasn't
    anyone interesting around? 
    
    Sometimes people are caught between a rock and a hard place. 'ren has
    an excellant job in an area where there are few 'elligible to her' men.
    In her case, unlike the hypothetical (and fervently hoped not to come
    to pass ) scenerio I outlined, there are selection factors over which
    she has little control (race and education). A widow can sell her house
    and move, 'ren can't change the American education system and the
    way Blacks have faired in it.
    
    Bonnie

    
    I think people can always complain...  I love that joke that Betsy
    Salkind does:
    
    
    	people say if you don't vote, you have no right to complain.
    	so I voted....
    
    
        god, I hate this weather.
    
    
    I also think that we all form judgements about whether or not someone
    has a "right" to complain.  It seems to be one of those human traits --
    I think most of us are quite judgemental and form opinions about things
    all the time (no, we don't, you say? :-)  So what?  I complain because
    my job is 32 miles from my house.  At least you have a job, some might
    say in response.  Some days I think yeah, she's right.  I have a job,
    so I'll stop my belly-aching.  Other days, I think, yeah, but I still
    hate doing all this driving and I'll complain if I want to (but to
    someone more sympathetic next time).  And the world still turns.
    
    It's Friday, and it's sunny outside (in Eastern Mass.)!  
    
    Justine               

    
    re .42:
    
>    When we narrow our field to such a small selection, I feel that we also
>    discard our "right" to complain when we don't find anyone that matches
>    our criteria.
    
    So, since you yourself admitted to having such a small selection
    criteria, have you discarded your "right" to complain? ;-)
    
    (I wouldn't presume to answer this for you, kath.  My .40 was
    only talking about friends I know very personally and have known
    over a number of years.)