Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I don't think you're over-reacting.  The reported activity is more than
    a little sick.
    
    The bleachers at Fenway are ........ interesting, I guess.  I've been
    to three games in the last two years, always as part of a group.  What
    seems to have happened is that the "beach ball crowd" has stepped over
    a moral decency line.  Inflating beach balls and then batting them
    around through the crowd can be irritating, but reasonably harmless. 
    Then some yahoo decides to up the ante a little, and brings other
    inflatables to the park to bat around.  My guessing is that it is young
    men, in groups, probably under the age of 25 and trying to prove how
    "cool" they are.  Instead, they are demonstrating that they haven't
    learned to use the grey matter between their ears yet.  I've watched
    folks out in the bleachers get arrested and escorted from the premises
    (for reasons unknown to me at the time).  I *hope* that they arrest the
    idiots who do this, on charges of public lewdness if nothing else.
    
    Confronted with it at the park, in the company that I keep, I would
    remove the valve stem from the item as soon as I could get my hands on
    it, and report the owner to stadium security if I could identify him.
    
    Alison

    I'm afraid I don't find it much different than passing around the 2
    dimensional paper dolls for group enjoyment.  It wouldn't make me 
    feel any creepier than does stepping up to buy gas and having the pimply 
    faced kid put down his Hustler or the guy at the parking garage stop
    his porn video.  And stuff like that happens all the time to women.  
    
    But even in this forum and certainly elsewhere in life, lots and lots 
    of men claim that such displays of objectification absolutely do not 
    affect men's opinions of women in any negative way.  Skin mags are
    "art" and passing around dolls is probably just "freedom of speech".  
    I'm sure little boys as well as big boys can tell those are dolls and 
    not *real* women and that their attitudes toward *real* women remain
    unspoiled.  I'm also sure one could suffocate under the weight of the 
    heavy sarcasm there.
    
    Big schmeal.  In the continuum of objectification of women, this is
    hardly any large leap.  Perhaps it's just a lot more noticeable to men
    since these dolls are larger than centerfolds.  Maybe, since men of
    this generation grew up with 2 dimensional dolls rather than 3, they
    have a bit of an outsider's perspective and are perhaps are just a 
    little shocked at how objectification in general appears, rather than 
    being shocked about the actual objects themselves.  How soon before we
    have "Cherry 2000"?  Is that any more shocking?  Nope.  It's just the 
    same old mindset with a new and better technology.  
    
    Then again, it could be that this is being done by just one particular 
    group of sick men.  (A little more sarcasm there).
    
    Sandy

	BOSTON (UPI) -- The Boston Red Sox said Wednesday they will not
tolerate fans performing simulated sex acts on life-size inflatable
plastic dolls in the stands during games.
	``Security people are told to confiscate such dolls immediately and
the perpetrators are reprimanded,'' said Red Sox spokesman Jim Samia.
	The Red Sox reaction followed a column in Wednesday's Boston Globe
that fans were bringing plastic dolls into the bleacher seats at Fenway
Park, fondling them and simulating sex acts while passing the dolls from
fan to fan.
	Other male fans, meanwhile, were cheering on the activities in the
stands rather than action on the field, the column said.
	One woman who complained, Megan O'Sullivan, 23, said she was in the
bleachers Friday night and that her boyfriend had warned her about the
plastic inflatable dolls.
	``Some men were screaming, 'Yeah, yeah, do her!' with their fists
raised in the air,'' O'Sullivan said. ``They were touching her breasts
and doing other strange things. They threw her around to each other.
These are grown men we're talking about. It was disgusting. It was like
an advertisement for rape. I Don't think it's funny. It's violence
against women and it's humiliating.''
	She said other women and some school children in the stands looked 
``terrified, or uncomfortable. They were not laughing.''
	Samia said baseball fans bringing inflatable dolls to Fenway Park is
not a new problem, although he said such behavior is not tolerated by
club officials.
	``This isn't something that just cropped up,'' he said.
	Inflatable dolls first made an appearance last fall at Foxboro
Stadium, home of the New England Patriots. Some football fans bought
naked ``Lisa Dolls,'' named in mockery of Lisa Olson, the Boston Herald
sportswriter who was sexually harassed by players in the team's locker
room.

********

From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Subject: Red Sox frown on sex dolls in stands
Keywords: baseball, men's professional, women, special interest, children,
	pornography, social issues
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 11:05:35 EDT
Location: new england states, massachusetts
ACategory: regional
Slugword: ma-sexdolls
Priority: major
Format: regular
ANPA: Wc: 318; Id: u0789; Sel: bu--u; Adate: 6-19-1115aed; Ver: sked
Approved: clarinews@clarinet.com
Codes: ysbprxb., ynjwrma., ynjcrxb., ynxprxb.

    I almost came unglued when I read the article cited by .0.  I think I
    have to differ with .2; I'm also pretty damn offended by Playboy and
    all of that ilk, so this isn't something suddenly springing over my
    mental event horizon.
    
    It's not that objectification is anything new, but these male children
    are stooping to a new low in that their activities are so visible to
    others who have come believing a baseball park to be a "relatively"
    safe place to take their children or SOs for an afternoon's or
    evening's time together.
    
    -d

    
    >"...and the perpetrators are reprimanded."
    
    Well, golly, did they have their little hands slapped? Were they
    sent to bed without dessert? At the very least, the should have 
    been ejected from the game. (And could they be charged with a 
    'hate crime?' )

    My 14 year old son will be attending the Red Sox game on Sunday, with
    his grandfather. (I hope to be at the Brunch) This is not the sort of
    activity I want him exposed to. I have enough trouble with he and his
    sister using the word Gay as a derogatory term towards each other or as
    a description of something they don't care for. This irks me to no end
    and now I have to deal with him being exposed to behavior that puts the
    thought of public or private violent , disgusting behavior against
    women as being something that is acceptable or even condoned by
    society, well this is just to much. Anyone have the complaint
    department number at Fenway. 
    
    I'm still boycotting pro football and I guess if this is true, I'll
    have to add baseball to the list too.
    
    PJ(whose good mood just turned a little fouler after this)
    

    Write to the commissioner of baseball. That office is extremely
    concerned with the 'image' of the sport.

    >others who have come believing a baseball park to be a "relatively"
    >safe place to take their children...
    
    Lordy.  Why should a ballpark be any more sacred than the corner milk
    store, the local gas station or the television set - places that are
    rampant with images of objectification and violence against both fake 
    *and real* women?  And when you think of it, a ballpark is often a 
    concentration of men who are all revved up with their joyous male-bonding 
    combination of sex and violence so to me it seems much more appropriate 
    there than in Cumberland Farms.  At least I don't have to go to Fenway to 
    get milk or cat food.  I'm sorry.  I still think it's creepy, sure, but no 
    more than what's already out there assaulting our senses and in much more
    presumably benign settings.
    
    I agree with Dana - what'd they get, a stern talking too?  What did
    that official say?  Something like, "this is nothing new - it happened
    last Fall."  Well, I guess since it already happened less than a year
    ago, it's nothing to get all shook up about - it's old hat!
    
    Sandy
    

    
    If it's old hat, then let's hand them their hats and show them the
    door. The cell door.
    
    Not mad at anyone in here, just that this behavior really set off a hot
    button.  
    
    Now that I know who to write to, Thank you, I need to know where to
    write to. Anybody got the commisioner's address.
    
    PJ

hatpins, that's the ticket. Good for instant deflating, as well as self defense.

    >And when you think of it, a ballpark is often a 
    >concentration of men who are all revved up with their joyous male-bonding 
    >combination of sex and violence so to me it seems much more appropriate 
    >there than in Cumberland Farms.
    
    	I don't understand the "male-bonding combination of sex and
    violence" part, particularly in relation to a baseball game.
    
    Perhaps because I'm interested in _the_game_, I prefer to sit where
    I'm not distracted by fans' antics.  Is that why I don't see sex and
    violence occurring?
    
    Or am I missing the point entirely?

    
    re .11:
    
    Gee Sara, I was thinking the same thing.  A little pin is all it would
    take...tee hee hee...to take all the wind out of these "guys'" "fun".
    [Rathole alert: however, contrary to popular opinion, hat pins do *not*
    make good self-defense weapons - unless used against plastic inflatables,
    of course.]
    
    Semi-seriously, though.  Baseball is pretty boring to watch and, no
    doubt, people need something to keep them entertained during the
    "ho hum" parts (98%) of the game.  This shouldn't be the type of
    entertainment, though!
    
    I do differ with others here expressing the view that "this is no
    worse than Playboy".  I disagree.  I think this is much worse because
    it's acting out in front of large numbers of people (this, IMO).
    

    Re: .9
    
    Sandy, I guess I'm still living in the past.  Among all the organized
    professional sports, my grandfather thought the most of baseball
    because it demanded so many different skills from the players.  I grew
    up thinking much the same.  I love the game for itself, and I've always
    sort of had a special spot for it as the "American pastime" - I guess
    I'm still pretty naive in that I think of a baseball park as a place
    where I can enjoy wholesome, albeit sometimes rowdy, entertainment.
    
    I don't feel that way about the corner 7-Eleven.
    
    -d

    
    my brother, an avid baseball fan and fenway attender a few years ago,
    tells me that this may be an improvement. in his day the folk in the
    bleachers played 'pass the blonde' (as in they would pick up a real, 
    live female person and throw her around).
    

    Even years ago, I think the _bleachers_ at Fenway were on the rowdy
    fringe of acceptable behavior.  I've found other parts of the park to
    be more the way -d and I remember them:  serious baseball fans, and
    even families.
    
    .0 doesn't distinguish between the bleachers and the rest -- Brian, did
    the Globe mention the location?
    
    I don't _like_ the idea that the bleachers are a haven for
    beyond-the-fringe rowdiness, but I think it's been that way for a long
    time.
    
    Bob
    

    
    
    re .0
    
    yeuwwww! just reading that gives me a creepy feeling.  .. and a feeling
    of not being safe... I HATE that feeling,that I could be in
    physical danger just because I am a woman.. rrrrRRRR!    
    Even worse, in my mind, was that some of the watchers were young people,
    male and female....what an awful message to send
    
    Jamd

    re: .0, .15 
    i mean, like, TOTALLY rude, crude, and lacking in couth's.
    (i AM being serious, here.)
    Maybe this sort of activity is why i rarely go to sports events where
    all i can do is watch.  The very idea of doing such things boggles my
    mind (please, no comments on how easy that might be.)  I honestly can't
    think of a penalty truely appropriate for such behavior than wouldn't
    violate the "cruelty" clause.  These folks should not only be ejected
    from the event, but barred from any future games - FOR STARTS.
      

    
    Would someone be kind enough to find and post the baseball commissioner's
    name and address?  I don't get the Globe, and I'm really, really, busy
    right now so it would be a big help to me since I don't know where to
    look right off-hand.  (In the Boston phone book?)
    
    Thanks,
    
    CQ

    
    
    MLB and the Boston Red Sox have already taken action.  Anyone with
    inflatable dolls will have them confiscated by security, and anyone
    exhibiting inappropriate action will be ejected from the stadium.
    

    Bella's article made me GAG!!! I'm so sick of boys' sick behavior
    spoiling it for other fans. It seems like baseball games are going
    down the same sewer as football games.I went to one football game in 
    Foxboro, and I'll never go back because of the a**h***s that populate the
    stands. Plus buying all those cokes to pour on the morons who couldn't
    keep their hands and their comments to themselves was too expensive.
    
    RE -1
     
    But we do!!! The owners and baseball honchos need to know that a lot
    of paying customers won't put up with this behavior. Otherwise it's 
    "duh, boys will be boys" business as usual in a couple of weeks.
    
    Linda
    in a couple of weeks. 
    

    Yes, I agree - If enough of us write how disgusted we are, perhaps
    these people will get more than a "tut....tut, mustn't be naughty!"
    Perhaps if enough outrage is expressed even the bleachers can begin
    to feel like a safe place for all again.
    
      -HA

I wonder what the response would have been if White fans had brought 
inflatable dolls of Blacks and done mock lynchings?

George

    That would have been quelled immediately, and the perpetrators possibly
    brought up on civil rights charges.  It would have been one isolated
    incident.  That's all it would have taken.
    
    Disclaimer to the sensitive:  The above is strictly my belief and anyone 
    who takes it as fact and reacts as if it were is a fool.  ;>
    
    Sandy

    
    
    re .0 
    
    the scary part to me is what are the children seeing? I'm used to the
    CRAP that jerks play. But the kids. What does it leave them with?
    
    I still get REAL PO'd when people (usually teenagers) get extremely
    foul mouthed knowing there's a 9 year old listening to every word...
    no respect...
    
    (rathole alert:!)
    so call me old fashioned, but when I see those old movies where men 
    would tip their hats to each other on the streets, and remove their
    hats when a lady walked into the room, and the shots from the
    50's baseball games where men would be wearing shirts and ties....!!
    I think that those days were so innocent and ..respectful maybe....
    maybe they weren't even real..who knows...(end of rathole!)
    
    cathy

    re:  .16
    
    Bob,
    
    I can't remember exactly, but I believe this was taking place in the
    bleachers.  
    
    By the way, my apologies to you and anyone else I misled...Brian
    Hetrick did not write .0 - this is Cheryl Hetrick...and we're not
    related.  I will try to remember to sign my notes to avoid confusion.
    :^)

Sigh,  misogyny raises its ugly head again...

I wonder what is it about sports and drinking environment that brings
this out for some men?

john

    Re.27 Mommy isn't watching?

    Sorry, but when I read the basenote, I almost died
    
    laughing.  Seem pretty harmless to me.  
    
    T. S. 

  I didn't find it one bit funny.

                                   Atlant

    re. 29
    
    Gee, I didn't feel anything in my knee when I wrote that.
    
    I've felt nothing in my knee when I've been made uncomfortable by
    lewd behaviour and attitudes that treat women as objects.  Doesn't
    take a huge leap of faith when one is a woman and such comments are
    made in my presence to feel somewhat uncomfortable, and somewhat
    like the target of those remarks.
    
    And I felt nothing in my knee when I've experienced sexual harassment.
    
    And I felt nothing in my knee when I was sexually abused as a child.
    
    Your sensitivity and empathy is overwhelming to say the least.
    I do so appreciate  your contribution.

    T.S.

    May I suggest you take a valuing differences workshop, or
    actually sit down and talk to some women who are offended by
    this, rather than just dismiss people's pain so cavalierly..

    seems to me you are a person who needs his horizons expanded.

    Bonnie

    T.S.,
    
    Imagine I have this inflated Wayne Newton doll.  Now imagine that
    I, smiling, take a pair of scissors, and render it permanently
    non-inflatable.
    
    Now how do you feel?  (You don't have to tell us, but you should
    decide within yourself.)
    
    						Ann B.
    
    
    P.S.  Do y'know, I'm not sure I could actually do that?

Response .29, JUNCO::SANTUCCI (Tony), strikes me as a potential shot
at winding people up.  If it is, it's despicable.  Whether it is or
not, Mr Santucci appears to lack a great deal of sensitivity toward
women.

My knee wasn't jerking, either, Tony.  It still isn't.

-d

    Looks to me like the bait's already been taken.
    
    Did anyone notice how the subject has been changed from "how we feel
    about the inflatable dolls" to "how we feel about T.S."?
    
    Anyway, I liked, Atlant's response (.30).  It shows disagreement with
    T.S. *on the subject* without changing the focus of the discussion to
    T.S.
    
    Mary

<<And when you think of it, a ballpark is often a  concentration of men who 
<<are all revved up with their joyous male-bonding combination of sex and 
<<violence

--come on now,,,  out of the thousands of myn attending a baseball
game, a few dozen act like fools, , don't label the lot...  There's
bound to be creeps, but not all are...  


At anyrate, the image I see when I read .0 is disgusting..  

/ray

    I didn't say they *all* acted like fools, Ray, I mentioned the general
    mindset present which *allows* or even *promotes* some to act like
    fools.  Women in the bleachers don't seem to have the same, uh, needs
    for that kind of fun.  And it's my belief that women aren't of the 
    same kind of mindset because *if they were*, some of *them* would be 
    acting out, in probably the same ratio.  It's not the individuals - it's 
    the culture that creates the setting for public individual expression of
    that magnitude.  There will always be people who will step over the
    line.  I'm accepting that and believe that our culture should accept
    that too when it decides where and how to draw their lines.  
    
    But the culture hasn't accepted that - at least not in the "sex-fun for 
    men" arena.  We *have* in the drunken driving area - we limit everyone
    at the bar, stop random cars on the road and all because some will go over 
    the line.  But when it comes to men's paper dolls, inflatable dolls, their
    strippers, their sex lives, we let the line waver, draw it at different
    places at different times and if "some of the boys get a little outta
    hand", and enough people make enough noise, (and women's complaints are
    *often* silenced), someone gets to run around and put out a little fire or 
    two.  But little fires are cropping up everywhere, (that is, *if* you
    believe women!), and it's time to look to the reasons rather than merely 
    stepping up the running around with the water buckets *after* the fact!
    
    S.

    One of the key things here is the point that these jerks are probably
    drinking and anyone (man or woman) under the influence is totally 
    unpredictable. 
    These idiots need to be arrested, not just ejected from the stadium.  I
    too am totally sick of the way our society makes women into objects.
    
    I too would like to write the commissioner and anyone else who will
    listen.
    
    Karen

    Windup or not, that is a terrrible thing to say. As I said in my first
    reply to this string, my son went to the game yesterday. He didn't
    mention that this happened at the game. Just that he got to talk to
    Wade Boggs and got him to autograph his Rookie card and He got on the
    big screen at the park and stood up and took a bow and doffed his cap,
    which got a reaction from the crowd. (Little Ham) I hope he didn't see
    what went on. Taking a pair of scissors to amale doll! I grimace and
    love it at the same time. Love it because I hope some people who don't
    thing what's going on is a big deal, get the point very graphically and
    wince because I do get it and as most males do, I know that this is a
    very deep rooted fear at the core of our psyches and am just glad that
    I can bury it deeply enough to function.
    
    What a hateful act to do such a thing and what silly, disgusting,
    childish behavior to do so in a public place, let alone anywhere.
    What inane, childish minds (for want of a better term) these nonhumans
    have to do this.
    
    PJ

    I read this string for the first time for last Friday. I was vaguely
    amused at the thought of the thickos displaying for all to see that
    their IQ was roughly equal to their shoe size. Personally I blame it
    all on the on the fact that the game of Baseball is one of the few
    games that is actually more boring than English Cricket. As the latter
    consists mainly of sitting around in pouring rain waiting for it to
    clear, it is only slightly more interesting than watching a plank warp.

    So I sort of put the whole topic into the "Whatever will these
    Americans think of next" category that we Europeans have and went home
    for the weekend. When I got there I found that my copy of "Private Eye"
    had arrived. For those who don't know "Private Eye" as a fortnightly
    satirical and totally irreverent magazine, known for its blistering
    wit. (It is rumoured that several lawyers' children have had an
    expensive private education on what their daddies have made from suing
    PE)

    Anyway I got to the adverts and discovered that the UK is actually
    leading the USA in the direction of a nadir in good taste in the
    inflatable toys department. There was an advert for, wait for it,
    Inflatable Sheep! (Black or white). 

    Just think of the savings that could be made when purchasing one these
    as the Wellington boots would now be unnecessary.

    I suggest that a fund be started to buy said sheep and distribute them
    free to the intellectually challenged as they enter all American
    Baseball grounds. 

    Jamie.

    If I were to purchase tickets to a game, chances are I could only
    afford the bleachers.  If I were subjected to that kind of despicable
    behavior I would not only be offended I would be *frightened*.
    
    If anyone should think that that behavior is harmless, just remember
    the gang rape that occurred at the bar in Mass. a few years ago. Who's
    to say that those men wouldn't get carried away and assault a *real*
    woman?  
    
    .0 gives me the creeps, bigtime.
    
    Kim

    2 comments with reference to some recent entries here.
    
    1) I find myself feeling angry and uncomfortable when "intellectually
    challenged", retarded or references to people with a low IQ are made. 
    I worked with these people when I was younger.  Most of them are
    gentle, good natured people who would NEVER do something as unfeeling
    and hurtful toward others as the inflatable doll article suggests.  I
    am sure that those who made this reference were not actually meaning to
    insult the mentally handicapped, but it disturbs me anyway.
    
    2) It really irks me to have someone say something to the effect "well
    they are probably drunk" as if that is ANY kind of excuse.  Although
    there are a lot of people with drinking problems that they are unable
    to control.  I do not find "being drunk" and acceptable excuse for
    ANYTHING, AND it has been my observation that there are an awful lot of
    people who a) aren't drunk enough to be unaware of what they are doing
    and b) are just using alcohol as an excuse for outrageous behavior.
    If you kill someopne while you are drunk, rape someone while drunk or
    just insult them, you are STILL responsible for your actions.
    
    jimc
    

    I happen to love spectator sports.  Thursday night on my way home, I
    was listening to a local (Boston) sports talk show.  One of the boys
    (from his voice - I'd guess college-age) called in to apologize for
    having brought the doll to the game.  He said that they had not thought
    through the consequences and effect on the rest of the fans at the game
    clearly enough, and they wouldn't do anything like it again.  He seemed
    somewhat surprised at the level of disgust in the press and public, but
    also recognized that what they had done was wrong and unacceptable. 
    Apparently it had been a group of 15 guys going to the game together.
    
    The talk show host suggested to him that *all 15* of them should
    consider donating money, time, or both to the Jimmy Fund, which is the
    official charity of the Red Sox, as a way of following through on his
    apparent apology.  I liked the suggestion.
    
    Alison
    

    RE: .39  "nonhumans"
    
    PJ,
    
    I know you're feeling angry, but these people are human.  And it's
    their treatment of women as nonhumans that is so angering.
    
    Mary

    Intellectually, I know you're right Mary. Maybe if I changed it to
    subhuman and stated that they are trying to drag everyone else below
    their own level because they can't bring themselves up to an acceptable
    level of behavior that all truly human people aspire to. We don't
    always reach it and I'm as guilty of doing and saying some very sexist
    demeaning things as the next person. The difference here is that, while
    most of us are trying to and hopefully succeeding in overcoming years
    of reinforced behavior and changing our mindsets to a
    humanistic/equalizing point of view and behavior, these stupid
    Sh**-for-brains subhumans can't even think for themselves enough to
    realize what a brainless offensive, dangerous form of behavior this
    was. I can't even forgive the person who went on the radio to apologize
    for it. He should have had enough brains in the first place. It's just
    to bad that there isn't a test given to college applicants to determine
    potential offensive behavior patterns before acceptance. Yeah, I know.
    Acceptable to whom and by what standards? 
    
    PJ

    It's very tempting to use that classification "nonhumans" when
    describing people who engage in such despicable behaviors: rapists,
    abusers, misogynists, homophobes, etc.  I suppose it makes us feel
    better to believe that they aren't like us, that we could never behave
    like that because these people just aren't really humans.
    
    Unfortunately, they are.  These people (all the above categories)
    usually have homes, family, friends, interests and hobbies, people they
    love and who love them, and, in my mind, it makes it all the more
    frightening when they then turn around and act in ways that hurt so
    many others.
    
    But to call then "not human" or "subhuman" IMHO is a form of excuse
    making.  If you handed a gorilla a blow up doll and it started abusing
    it, you'd say "Well, it's just a dumb ape...it has no idea what it's
    doing."  You certainly don't say the gorilla is condoning battering
    women.
    
    The bleachers aren't filled with apes.  They're filled with people who
    are hurting other people and ought to know better.
    
    a few cents worth,
    
    Daniel  
    

An individual claiming to be one of those involved with these goings on called
a local (Boston) sports call show late last week and offered a humble apology
for his and their actions.   I don't have the full text nor can I offer a 
satisfactory summary.  I believe it was posted in the Red Sox conference.




Jim who's not sure if that's enough.

    re .47 you're right that all of these beings are human by the
    dictionary definition and they are also people by the dictionary
    definition. However a supposedly intelligent individual(intelligent by
    the standards which are generally used) that cannot see that such
    behavior is reprehensible and refrain from participating in such
    behavior and even more so, attempt to have his friends refrain from
    such behavior, is not morally human. All that I have written about this
    subject is very much IMHO and I would suspect, but not claim also in
    the oppinions of other writers in this string.
    
    re .48 I agree that an apology that so far seems to be anonymous, is
    not enough.
    
    PJ

    I don't think I can comment on the intelligence of these guys who
    brought the inflatable doll, but their judgement and maturity is
    apparently lacking.
    
    I do think, though, that there is a BIG difference between what they
    did and acting out with a *real* woman.  Thoughts, fantasy, and play
    acting do not equal really acting things out.  If that were true,
    we'd all be criminals.
    
    Mary

    re. -1
    
    To me, thoughts and fantasy are private acts; they don't impact 
    anyone until they are shared.  In this case, the thoughts and
    fantasies (assuming that's what they were)...were public, even
    exhibitionist.  
    
    When things like this enter the public realm, they impact other 
    people.  It would be rather a stretch to say that seeing this
    happen would cause others to act out similarly with real women,
    but I don't think it's too much to say that such actions contribute
    to the treatment of women as objects in our society.  To me, when
    such things take place, it sends a message that the people involved
    think the behaviour, and what it implies with real women, is OK.  When
    everyone else observing the behaviour stays silent, I believe that
    provides silent agreement that this is OK.  
    
    Sure, I have fantasies and thoughts, that, if acted upon, might make
    me criminal.  But, I don't make them public, unless I want them to
    have an impact on others.  I don't care for censorship, but I will
    speak out against things I find demeaning and dangerous.

    PJ, it's my belief that these guys were specifically looking for
    something "reprehensible".  To assume they "had no idea" is to give 
    them too much credit.  These were not children, they were grown men and
    they knew what they were doing, that they were doing it in public, and
    that it would shock a few people and needle a few feminists.  That's what 
    made the activity desirable in the first place - that's why they chose
    it.  They were making a statement for each other, ("I am male, desirous
    of and in control of women"), and for anyone around them, ("We are
    male, desirous of and in control of women").
    
    What do you imagine went on during the planning stages - that not a
    single one of them, (were there 15 in the group?), had any inkling that
    such a thing might inflame?  Such a belief seems little more than a "boys 
    will be boys" rationalization and should be offensive to men since it
    pretty much says males haven't got a clue about the world around them.
    These are men and they were completely in control of and responsible
    for the act they voluntarily planned to stage for the others at the
    game - whether they were drinking at the actual game or not.  They did
    not suddenly find this blowup doll under their seats after they were
    too drunk to understand that they were in public.  All this excusing is 
    really bothering me though I have to admit, isn't surprising me.  They
    should have been arrested on the spot for public lewdness.  Breast
    feeding mothers have been arrested for it!
    
    Sandy

    
    As a man, I am once again angry that the actions of a few will, in some
    cases, cause condemnation of men as a group.
    
    As a man and a human being, I am disgusted that this behavior happened
    even once. Apologies by those involved are a good start, but I agree it
    doesn't seem to be enough. I liked the idea of community service. I
    sincerely hope this behavior has not/does not spread to other areas.
    Unfortunately, stupidity knows no geographical boundaries.
    
    Also as a man, I am no less offended when men are referred to as boys
    (as some replies have done) than when women are when referred to as
    girls. I agree that these men's actions were childish, but that doesn't
    make them boys anymore than childish behavior would make a woman a
    girl. IMO, mutual respect is the only hope we have for equality.
    
    Mike
     

    What harm is being done by this particular behavior?
    
    While I don't condone it or agree with it in any way, I don't see
    the harm to spectators.  This reminds me of the issue of flag
    burning - some people, veterans/conservatives/patriots/etc felt
    that the flag was sacred for some reason and that buring it should
    be punishable.
    
    Those who were able to maintain distance and objectivity saw the act
    as a public display of a person's opinion that was protected under
    the free-speech amendment.  Even though they might feel that buring a
    flag was offensive and insulting, they could still realize that the
    act should not be made illegal.
    
    Flame me if you want, I just don't see the harm.
    
                                      L.J.
    

>    What harm is being done by this particular behavior?

 My take on this is that anyone who has been sexually traumatized by an
abuser or rapist would be likely to be significantly emotionally impacted
by such a public display, particularly in light of the whoopin' and hollerin'
encouragement. In and of itself, that to me is enough reason to stop that 
behavior by disallowing blow up dolls in the stadium.

 But it seems that perhaps as troubling as the relatively straightforward and
obvious effect of traumatizing victims of sexual battery are the more subtle
but also real effects of allowing such behavior to go unchecked. I think that
such behavior leads to less than respectful attitudes towards women and towards
male (and female, for that matter) sexuality. 

 Healthy attitudes and respect are necessary for what I would consider to be
equitable relationships and would seem to be harder to engender in an
atmosphere that encouraged or even tolerated such behavior. 

 I admit that most of the harm done here is psychological. And there is little
if any scientific tie between the behavior and, say, sexual abuse of women.
However, it seems to me that I should not have subject my daughter(s) nor
any male children I may ever have to such outlandish and immature behavior.
Frankly, the rub here to me is the fact that we are in a public forum that
is supposed to have at least a modicum of family atmosphere.

 If we can toss an obnoxious jerk for repeated use of vile language, I certainly
don't see a problem with tossing out a jerk that acts in an obscene manner.

 If this was happening in a club, that would be one thing. You don't take
impressionable young children to a club. And if some people get their jollies 
off by acting in such a manner, who am I to judge (so long as they don't go
out raping people afterwards). 

 The Doctah

    Well, if you (collectively) have to ask what is wrong with this 
    behavior, then IMHO, there's a lot wrong with our society today.
   
    Obviously, sexual harrassment and humiliation is so commonplace
    that pretending to rape a psuedo-woman is seen as 'funny.'
    
    Perhaps what we need is men inflatables that women could take to
    the good ole ball park, and fondle or exploit as they wished. This
    wouldn't make anything better, but it might help to explain to the
    collective you out there what's wrong with this type of behavior.
    
    A line from the now famous  Thelma and Louise, "in the future when
    a woman cries like that, she's not having fun."
    
    M.
    

    Don't know if the act should be *made* illegal, I thought public
    lewdness was *already* illegal.  I guess it's just a question of
    whether or not those in the decision-making capacity thinks this 
    is lewd.  And I don't much wonder which gender is most likely to be in 
    that capacity.  
    
    I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the comparison to flags except in 
    that it proves that symbols can be just as imflammatory.  The flag is a 
    symbol of an ideal but a blowup doll is a symbol of a woman - a human 
    being.  I can accept flag burning as an expression of non-alliance with
    the ideal it represents.  What is expressed with abusing dolls seems to
    me to also be an expression of non-alliance with what that symbol
    represents, (how's that for understatement!).  How can people miss this?
    
    Don't people understand the mentality behind burning someone in effigy? 
    If symbols didn't count in the human mind, this wouldn't ever have been 
    thought of, much less done.  But men take burning someone in effigy,
    (women don't generally do it), very seriously.  So they *do* understand
    symbols and they *are* willing to act out on symbols when the real
    thing isn't available for whatever reason.
    
    There are plenty of instances of real-life woman abuse, joe white
    mentioned the "pass the blonde" game, the Central Park jogger was a
    real life blowup doll for more sophisticated types.  These college guys
    were of the same mentality but were just a little more "white bread"
    about it - a little less earthy and gritty.  I imagine after another year 
    or two, maybe less, some real life woman will present an opportunity and 
    they *won't* be in a public place.  Now if they've done the equivalent
    of burning her in effigy, what do you suppose is going to be their
    response? 
    
    Men aren't born rapists or abusers, most of them work up to it in 
    increments, (blaming the various women for "provoking" them all the while).
    A slap here, a punch there, a failed attempt to force a woman into sex, a 
    better plan next time, etc.  In a few years you've got an abuser or a
    rapist and his earlier dates might be just as surprised! 
    
    These guys are well on their way and I'm sure the more savvy among
    *their* dates can see it. 
    
    S.

    re.53, Sorry, Mike, childish behavior is *exactly* what makes
    men 'boys' and women 'girls'. Adulthood is not a matter of
    size or age. It is earned. And so is respect.

...the Curmudgeon's Dictionary defines an adult as "A child who has
attained the age of majority, which age ahs been decided upon by other
adults."

What this means is that at least this dictionary agrees with Dana.  It's
not the years, it'w what you do with them.  The perpetrators of the
inflatable-doll incident are, to my mind as well, children.  I hesitate
to call them subhuman, though, because subhuman implies less than human,
and I suspect that with proper education at least most of these people
could be convinced of the error of their thought patterns.  My disgust
arises from the fact that they are, as was pointed out, old enough to
know better.  It's a disgust not so much with the individuals as with
a society that condones such actions to the degree that they thought it
funny.

-d

    
    "I just don't see the harm"..
    
    I hope I'm not just nipping at some bait.. Then again, I would be
    happier if you didn't really 'not see any harm'..
    
    
    It's the ATTITUDE this type of action indicates and *supports* that is
    the harm.  Those boys/men *may* not be such jerks to the women they know,
    but the message they give, and the message that is supported by the
    handslapping reaction is that such action is OK.
    
    That this type of behavior is supported, (IMO, a boys will be boys'
    response is a tacit indication of support) while a woman is arrested
    for lewd bahavior for breastfeeding just blows my 'flame on' switch
    all out of whack.  
    
    ATTITUDE. It's such an ingrained, subtle thing. 
    Attitudes can be changed - but in either direction; good or ill.  Can I
    support the action, or even laugh at it?  No. Because then I support an
    attitude of increasing overt hostility towards women.                  
    
    Jamd

    Re: .51 Cheryl? (not Brian)
    
    >Sure, I have fantasies and thoughts, that, if acted upon, might make
    >me criminal.  But, I don't make them public, unless I want them to
    >have an impact on others.  I don't care for censorship, but I will
    >speak out against things I find demeaning and dangerous.
    
    I think we are in agreement.  The fact that this was done in public is
    what makes it unacceptable to me.  But what they did does not imply
    that they are *necessarily* rapists in the making.
    
    Re: .58 Sandy
    
    >I imagine after another year  or two, maybe less, some real life woman
    >will present an opportunity and  they *won't* be in a public place. 
    >Now if they've done the equivalent of burning her in effigy, what do
    >you suppose is going to be their response? 
    
    This is what I disagree with.  Thoughts and fantasy is one level,
    acting out in effigy is another, acting out for real is another. I
    agree that the symbolism of the acting out in effigy is strong, but I
    disagree that one necessarily leads to another.  Acting out in effigy
    (in private of course) can actually be theraputic, releasing feelings
    and desires that would be dangerous to act out for real.
    
    I see these guys as a bunch of immature men lacking in judgement who
    are guilty of public lewdness.  I do not see them as future rapists.
    
    Mary
    

    I have a good friend who lost his leg in Vietnam. The sight of someone
    burning the flag is like spitting in his face yet I believe in the fre-
    edom to burn the flag.
    
    I'm having a hard time with this issue, though. I think I should treat
    them the same but I don't quite see it that way. 
    
    In councelling they tell you to vent your frustrations on inanimate ob-
    jects. Pillows and stuff. But still this is different to me.
    
    I'm confusing me!
    
    Kate
    

    Don't want to get into the flag burning issue here. Yesterday, I said
    that these people weren't human. Biologically they are. Mentally they
    aren't to me anyway. 
    
    LJ, sorry i couldn't answer yesterday, but i don't have a system at
    home. The very wrongness of this act is that it is an affront to women,
    an insult to the intelligence of the men who have been strving
    alongside their sisters to bring equality and simple decent respective
    human behavior to all people regardless of who or what they are. This
    throws back the strides we all have made in the past years. It's
    another salvo thrown by the people who are satisfied with the staus quo
    or want to see attituds move backwards. While these boys and mentally
    they are boys, may not have realized that they were doing anything
    really wrong, the fact remains that this is just the type of action
    that draws the attention away from the truly important issues such as
    abortion rights and others,just because it is more spectacular. 
    
    Again, on a personal note, my son was at the game on Sunday, and as he
    is 14 years old, much of his ideas can no longer be shaped by his
    family. He is getting out into the world and some of his feelings and
    beliefs will be influenced by what he sees and experiences out there.
    I don't want him to see that and feel that such behavior is OK. It is
    reprehensible. I will explain that to him, but I know that some where
    deep down in his mind, seeing such acts and finding them to be more
    commonplace then one would expect, will influence him and I don't want
    that.
    
    PJ

    
    .54
    
    How 'bout passing inflatable Black people around and pretending to
    lynch them? Or inflatable Jews, with maybe inflatable showers?
    
    Dorian 

    re .59
    
    Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, and I hope we can agree to
    disagree, but I still do not believe childish behavior makes men `boys'
    or women `girls'. I think we agree in this case, but who decides what
    constitutes childish behavior? Individual judgement, of course. What
    may be childish to you might not be to me, or vice versa.
    
    There is a difference between being something and acting like
    something. Legally, a person over the age of 18 is considered an adult.
    (S)he may not act like it, but (s)he has the responsibilities of an
    adult, and must suffer the consequences when society's laws and mores
    are not followed. 
    
    To calls these individuals `boys' seems, by some arguments, to excuse
    their behavior because boys might not know any better. (Please note
    that I am in no way saying anyone here excuses their behavior.) I
    believe these individuals did know better, they either just didn't
    think or didn't care. Either way, they were wrong and deserve whatever
    they get.
    
    Mike
    

    I agree that this acting out does not guarantee a rapist or abuser in
    the making.  Rather, I'm going from the person who is already a rapist 
    or an abuser, backwards.  And those people generally don't rape or
    punch the first woman they kiss.  But doing so to a symbol of a woman
    can just as easily be a step in that direction, another move toward
    hardening and coarsening of one's sensibilities.  To me it's the same  
    as a man grabbing a woman's arm during an argument, tightly, and even 
    though he may ultimately let go, he holds on for a moment, sees her fear 
    and feels his power over her - the dominance and control that is 
    considered part and parcel of being male.  He may be surprised at his own 
    actions, but next time, of course, he won't be.  It will be a little 
    easier to grab her arm, a little less shocking to hold tighter, a little 
    more heady to hold longer.  

    There are those, of course, who will be so shocked by their first
    instance of physical aggression that they will learn from it and fear
    their own power and ability to physically hurt a woman.  But that remains 
    in the realm of *their choice*, with the woman in danger or not according 
    only to his whim.  I don't find this a situation to be taken lightly.  
    Women are indeed vulnerable to male aggression at any time, in any place, 
    their own homes being one of the most dangerous places, (proven fact).  
    Given that very real danger, I don't feel there is any room for dallying 
    on the edge.  Why allow them that much leeway, (to be publically lewd 
    against the law), when just a bit more, (and there will always be those 
    who go just a bit further), will cause irreparable harm to one or more 
    women? 
   
    I'm not advocating that we arrest or limit men because of what they 
    *might* do.  These men have crossed the line of public decency and if we 
    allow that line to be ok, we are raising the threshold of acceptable male 
    behavior to the limit and those who would have only crossed the line to 
    that extent, (acting out with blowup dolls), now will go further to get 
    the attention or feel the power they crave.  I think this incident should 
    have been "over the line" and not made to be the line itself.  And since 
    public lewdness is already illegal, they are not in danger of "feminist 
    vigilantes" raining on their fun little parades.  I'm pretty sure it was 
    men who drew up the cultural laws and rules and decided on public 
    lewdness being against the law.  We have an opportunity now to decide how 
    best to apply that law to insure the public safety, (the alleged goal, 
    remember?).  Boys *will* be boys, and that's fine.  But I'd prefer the 
    more rabid among them get their jollies with a blowup doll and not a 
    jogger in Central Park or a woman home alone watching tv.  If we allow 
    blowup doll abuse into common acceptance, we're forcing those males who 
    feel they must make a statement into more and more dangerous, (for women), 
    territory.

    I think many people are assuming that these guys represent an "over the 
    line" instance of acceptable male behavior and as such, it isn't that bad.
    If that were the case, I'd agree.  But every woman knows these men are 
    not on the cutting edge of woman abuse by any stretch of the imagination.
    What they did was similar to cutting out all the x-rated parts of a 
    movie in order to show it in small-town America.  They offered a 
    watered down version of what is a very real and very sinister threat to 
    women everywhere.  Don't assume the "abridged" version is the real 
    thing in itself.  The real thing lurks around the corner and these men 
    know it and whether or not they could put it into words, they understood 
    quite clearly what they wanted to communicate to the women around them.
    
    As a personal aside, I've noticed in the last year an increased 
    tendency for men to "handle" women like these dolls.  More than once 
    I've been taken by the shoulders by an unknown man and shoved aside because 
    we were both approaching the same point on the sidewalk.  The most recent 
    was just last Friday nite, the first time was in Boston a year ago.  
    Where do they get the idea they can grab a strange woman on the street and 
    simply shove her out of their way?  By the cultural acceptance of men who 
    man-handle women whether it's in effigy or not.  
    
    As the world slides into the sewer, (a fabulous article by George
    Will), human dignity is fast eroding.  But women's dignity, always 
    at the lower limits of respect anyway, erodes much more quickly.  And
    so with men physically able and *increasingly mentally willing* to act out,
    the peril to women in their daily lives increases dramatically.  As a
    culture, we exhibit great intolerance to second hand smoke but raping and 
    abusing a woman in effigy is all freedom of expression.  You can't 
    recite the Lord's Prayer in school anymore, but "Me So Horny", the 2 
    Live Crew creation that talks about tearing women apart, breaking their 
    backbones, etc, is art and is protected.  We've lost it, folks.  I really 
    think so.

    Sandy
    

    The next time some strange man addresses you as "Doll", think about
    what Sandy just wrote.
    
    						Ann B.

         I can't help but feel, however, that as long as you (generic)
    keep on focusing on the negative, that more negativity will result.
    We can observe a world with chaos in it, but we don't have to
    participate with chaos as our rule.  As your beliefs solidify, so
    will your reality reflect this.  As long as you go on believing that
    men are brutal and malicious and overpowering, there is NO WAY you
    will ever generate a reality in which men are generous, nurturing and
    accepting.  Beliefs precede experience.  I very strongly believe and
    accept this.  Now, when I talk about focusing on the positives, I
    do not mean turn your back on the negatives...playing ostrich with our
    realities won't produce what we're hoping for.  But as we hold onto
    the positives, we can work to eliminate the negativity via various
    means of creativity and problem-solving.  Running around as a
    fear-monger, however, giving up, playing hopeless and helpless is
    doubtlessly going to lead to a life, for whatever it's (short)
    duration, of stagnation, despair and pain.  There are a few replies
    in here which fill this order both overtly and covertly.
         As for adults, it may be helpful to recognize that the child
    and adolescent within will live with us forever.  If the child and
    adolescent within are not free and curious, but are destructive
    and maladaptive, they will continue to impact us in highly counter-
    productive fashion.  No one who has an adult body who has a free
    child and free, curious adolescent within will do the acts you spoke
    of in here.  Only a "grown-up," who is shackled with the unresolved
    past parts of him/herself, will do things to consciously hurt others;
    it is the adolescent within who will knowingly find fun and humor at
    the expense of others.  An *adult* will have lots of fun and lots
    of humor in his/her life, but never at the expense of someone else.
    
    
    Frederick
    

================================================================================
Note 883.67            <GLOBE ARTICLE ON INFLATABLE DOLLS               67 of 68
TALLIS::TORNELL                                      81 lines  25-JUN-1991 09:52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      >> - the dominance and control that is 
    considered part and parcel of being male.<<  
    ^^^^^^^^^^     

By who....you?

With comments like this....maybe EDP is right after all.



pem

    Frederick:
    
    Why are you so quick to label us as "fear mongers"  running around
    hopeless and helpless, focusing on the negative?
    
    I think the discussion here has been very positive.  I think the
    examination of the reality around us is important, and helpful.  I 
    think hearing strong voices like Sandy's discussing the impact
    of the actions of some men helps me, at least, to accept that
    it is *real*.  Identifying, examining, and discussing the reality
    around me helps validate my perceptions and allows me to respond
    and act more confidently and positively.  
    
    If I were to go around believing that all men are generous, nurturing,
    sensitive and whatever other qualities you choose, I believe
    I will be hurt.  I have been hurt by men who did not possess such
    qualities.  That does not prevent me from finding and befriending men
    who are kind, etc.  What it allows me to do is better recognize the
    risks and act accordingly.
    
    Your argument to me seems like a nonsequitur.
    
    Cheryl
    

    Though I agree with a lot of what Sandy said in .67, I guess with me
    its a matter of degree.  I mean I feel *positively outraged* that men
    are grabbing her and displacing her on the sidewalk.  I feel concerned,
    but not outraged that men are being publicly lewd with an inflatable
    doll.
    
    If you'll pardon the pun, I think this inflatable doll thing is being
    blown out of proportion.
    
    Mary

    re: .71 (Cheryl)
    
          There is a tone, Cheryl, throughout various entries in here,
    that bothers me.  There is a tone of negativity, not just of
    dismay, but of despair, of hopelessness, of "The end is here."
    I don't care how negative things get, I will always work and attempt
    to find whatever positive(s) I can find within them.
          Understand something else.  Reality is subjective (we could
    argue this, but I'm entrenched in this belief, so I won't argue
    long.)  Objectivity exists within this.  The "reality around us"
    does not exist until we bring it forth either consciously or by
    allowing it.  I will not allow that reality, as spelled out in a
    few entries, to be a conscious part of my own personal experience.
    As I come into awareness of it, I can acknowledge its existence, but
    not to make it a direct part.  How?  Lots of ways, beyond the scope
    of both this note and beyond the usual discussion of this notesfile.
    (Suffice it to say, for now, that this can be done both by transmuting
    energies or by releasing the energy around the issues.)  Focusing on
    a negative, however, is very likely to manifest that negativity, in
    some form, unless its handled appropriately.  I do not consider replies
    which warn women of the lurking danger in all men to be appropriate.
    There is a lurking danger in all people.  THere is a lurking danger
    in all animals, in all plants, in all minerals, in the entire
    universe...  Calling women to arms, against men, is not going to 
    resolve very much.  I do not appreciate all the generalizations that
    I have construed from some of the entries in this notestring, which
    also are amplified by entries in various other notestrings.  
         My entry, therefore, was an attempt to balance out some of both
    the negativity and the generalizing.  Unfortunately, Cheryl, sometimes
    strong voices are listened to precisely because they are strong,
    and often aren't acknowledged for their lack in wisdom or decorum.
    Too, often we listen to those voices out of fear and via intimidation.
    Therefore, listening to a strong voice does not necessarily mean that
    one is listening to a "good" voice.  This is not meant to discourage
    anyone from expressing him or herself, nor to criticize someone for
    having done so, rather it shows that your argument is not necessarily
    valid.  
         So much for non sequitors...
    
    Frederick
    

    At a presentation called "Sex and the Power of The Media: Rethinking
    the Myth of the American Dreamgirl" Mediawatch founder Ann Simonton
    made some points pertinent to this discussion.
    
    As has been said, the doll incidents were not actual rapes, but what
    they did amount to was the continuation of the mental rape of women
    throughout society.  If you don't believe this, take a look around you. 
    The obvious examples of pornographic works specializing in the bondage
    or mutilation of women is only the most visible aspect.  Watch your
    televisions and magazines carefully and see how women are portrayed.
    
    Often, women are cut up into body parts: the perfect rear, set of legs,
    hair, bust, flat stomach.  Fragmented and reduced, they are not
    portrayed as whole people.
    
    Often, women are portrayed in threatening situations: men looming over
    them, cowering in shadows, looking over their shoulders, baring their
    necks in a instinctual surrender posture.  They are seen as objects of
    vviolence.
    
    Often, women are portrayed as vessels of sexuality.  Surrounded by men,
    outnumbered and easily overpowered, they become the objects of
    aggressive sexuality.
    
    These are images with which we live EVERY DAY.  Nobody looks at the
    perfume add and counsciously says "Well, I'll go out and oppress some
    women today..." But the subconscious message is enormous:
    
    Women are objects, not whole people.
    
    Women must subject themselves to society's desires instead of their
    own.
    
    Women have a passive role to play in their own sexuality.
    
    Women must accept these roles in order to be acceptable to the world.
    
    The end result is a culture whose rythms and institutions run on a
    basic principal that women are not equal participants in their own
    personhood.  Our entire beauty mythology is based upon this to the
    point that nearly 25% of American women were on diets before they were
    10 years old.  Now we even have complicated, painful and expensive
    surgical procedures to reduce women in size.  Ann Simonton: "I don't
    know about you, but I think we should be taking up *MORE* space!"
    
    The inflatable doll episodes are yet another crude display of how our
    cultural images objectify and subjectify women.  Will those people go
    out an commit rapes?  I don't know, but I do know that they actively
    helped to perpetuate the notion that women are simply objects and that
    objects don't count.
    
    We should all be disgusted.
    
    -daniel

        <An aside; NOT to start a rathole>
        
        On Sunday last, I went to my first ever baseball game - went to
        see the Red  Sox  and Oakland at Fenway.  When we (Sandy and I)
        went into the park,  we  talked  with  one  of  the  ushers who
        mentioned the bleachers incident and  emphasised  that security
        is now _tight_, with gate scrutiny  and  'ejectors'  on standby
        around the park.  All I saw  during  the  game  was a couple of
        beachballs,  and they appeared to be destroyed by  fans  before
        security  could  get close.  It was a great  day  out  with  no
        unpleasantness.
        
        FWIW
        
        

    
    .74
    
    -daniel, thanks for writing that!
    
    Dorian

> I can't help but feel, however, that as long as you (generic)
> keep on focusing on the negative, that more negativity will result.
  
Looking at the problem, however distasteful or negative the "tone" of
that feels, does not cause the problem, Fred.  "The finger pointing at
the moon is not the moon".  Nor can women make it all go away by putting 
on a happy face.  Maybe you are free to leave all this negativity for a more 
serene string, but women who bury their heads in the sand rather than face 
this square on will pay, eventually, possibly with their lives.  You
mentioned women shouldn't "play ostrich" but you don't like it when we
discuss this.  What do you propose instead?  And please, no idealisms
like "that it not be necessary" because it *is* necessary.  So how
would you like to see women dealing with it?

> We can observe a world with chaos in it, but we don't have to participate 
> with chaos as our rule.

Which is clearly a male perspective.  Women *are* forced to participate
whenever a man violently gets her attention, no?  She can't just say, "I 
choose not to participate" and walk away.

>  As long as you go on believing that men are brutal and malicious and 
> overpowering, there is NO WAY you will ever generate a reality in which 
> men are generous, nurturing and accepting.

Women are not responsible for "generating a reality in which men are 
whatever" and women's beliefs are in no way responsible for any behavioral 
qualities in men.  Sorry, Fred, men themselves own what they are.  *They*
get to take the credit if they are generous, nurturing and accepting.

> But as we hold onto the positives, we can work to eliminate the negativity 
> via various means of creativity and problem-solving.

This sounds like empty rhetoric.  Please name some of the various means you 
have in mind to eliminate the negativity.  And be specific.  I am *ready* 
to put them into action.  I just need to know what they are.

    
>                                      >> - the dominance and control that is 
>    considered part and parcel of being male.<<  
    ^^^^^^^^^^     
>By who....you?

No, Paul, by our culture.  Do you disagree that "real men don't eat 
quiche"?  Do you understand what it is "real men" are supposed to do or be?

>With comments like this....maybe EDP is right after all.

Maybe yes, maybe no.  Depends on what he said.  Why don't you just say 
it and we'll all know??  Where is EDP, anyway?  He's always been pretty
willing and able to speak for himself.  This string seems to be making
some men uncomfortable.  That's unfortunate, but I say we patiently try to 
continue our discussion anyway.  Or am I heading for the womannotes
hall of shame yet again???  ;^>  Dorian, that was priceless!

> The "reality around us" does not exist until we bring it forth either 
> consciously or by allowing it.  I will not allow that reality...

Oh boy.  So tell that to the guy with the knife at your throat.  There are 
some things one simply cannot control by sheer force of will, Fred, and
being surprised by a much larger, stronger and determined opponent is one of 
them.

> My entry, therefore, was an attempt to balance out some of both
> the negativity and the generalizing.

There is plenty of balance, already.  Women *do* still date and fall in 
love with men, have them for friends, flirt with them, etc.  You seem to 
have an understandably outsider's perspective on this.  You forget that
women cannot just stay away from men and thus control their reality so as
to foster nothing but good feelings.  Women, like men, have needs for
companionship and for love.  But unlike men, women must look among and 
spend time alone with the gender that is most likely to do them harm.  Men
looking for love and companionship have no such minefields to negotiate.
They may have others, yes, but virtually none of those others ever result in 
serious physical harm.  Now if men were looking for love and companionship 
among Sumo wrestlers, there might be some parallels we could draw...
    
But they aren't.  And therefore they, like you, Fred, have the *luxury* of 
believing what you're saying.

Sandy
    

    Daniel, I wanted to second that praise - beautiful note!
    
    S.

re .73, Frederick


I don't mean to denigrate you, Frederick, but I have to admit I
laughed when I read your note.  I found it rather condescending,
as it seemed to portray me and others who note here as being
empty vessels waiting to be filled with the experience and
arguments of those who are stronger or more vociferous.
    
>          There is a tone, Cheryl, throughout various entries in here,
>    that bothers me.  There is a tone of negativity, not just of
>    dismay, but of despair, of hopelessness, of "The end is here."
>    I don't care how negative things get, I will always work and attempt
>    to find whatever positive(s) I can find within them.

I don't perceive this negativity.  I've gone back and read the
replies here, and I still don't see it.  What I see is a number
of people stating their opinions about current events; some see
the events as insignificant, others as simply disgusting, others
as dangerous, and a wide spectrum of other opinions.  I find this
exchange of opinions interesting and edifying.  Certainly positive.
What I hope to get out of it, is some kind of clarification of what
I believe is happening and what I want to do about it.  This is 
unlikely to be the same as any one respondent.  And it certainly
isn't likely to be a feeling of despair.  As a woman, hearing
strong women voice a wide spectrum of opinions gives me hope, 
not despair.  It makes me feel positive, not negative.

>          Understand something else.  Reality is subjective (we could
>    argue this, but I'm entrenched in this belief, so I won't argue
>    long.)  Objectivity exists within this.  The "reality around us"
>    does not exist until we bring it forth either consciously or by
>    allowing it.  

The incident with the inflatable dolls occurred without my knowing
about it until it was complete.  

You seem to be trying to equate facts with how we perceive them.  
The doll event occurred separate from how I perceive it.  Rapes,
incest, violence all occur separate from how I perceive them.  My
perceptions are in no way responsible for the events.  Women or
girls who have been raped or abused or experienced sexual harassment
are in no way responsible for those acts of violence.  The 
perpetrators are.  

I can control my perceptions, but frankly, I don't think my perceptions
control those acts.  I can certainly work on changing society in such
a way that these things are less likely to happen, which I hope I do
to the extent I am able.  I think one step in doing so is to recognize
those attitudes, events, etc that I think are conducive to those acts.
I think that's one of the things we've been testing and exploring in
this string.

>    I will not allow that reality, as spelled out in a
>    few entries, to be a conscious part of my own personal experience.
>    As I come into awareness of it, I can acknowledge its existence, but
>    not to make it a direct part.  How?  Lots of ways, beyond the scope
>    of both this note and beyond the usual discussion of this notesfile.

I didn't hear anyone preaching or proselytizing.  I pick and choose
what I want to believe.  I welcome arguments that differ from mine;
that's the way I learn.

>    (Suffice it to say, for now, that this can be done both by transmuting
>    energies or by releasing the energy around the issues.)  Focusing on
>    a negative, however, is very likely to manifest that negativity, in
>    some form, unless its handled appropriately.

Ugh.  How?  I don't get it.  Are you saying that, by understanding the
dangers of rape, I am inviting someone to rape me?

>    I do not consider replies
>    which warn women of the lurking danger in all men to be appropriate.
>    There is a lurking danger in all people.  THere is a lurking danger
>    in all animals, in all plants, in all minerals, in the entire
>    universe...  Calling women to arms, against men, is not going to 
>    resolve very much.  I do not appreciate all the generalizations that
>    I have construed from some of the entries in this notestring, which
>    also are amplified by entries in various other notestrings.  

Wow.  I must have missed the call to arms.  I've heard many people say
it's hard to recognize danger in people.  I've heard many of the same
people say they like and respect and enjoy the company of many men.
I know I do.  I know my SO is kind and generous and sensitive, et al.
I'm no man hater, and I don't really perceive anyone I've heard in the
file to be one either.  I've been visiting here for several months,
listening carefully, trying to understand the dynamics of the file.
It seems that there is quite a range of perceptions about the file...
(hope this doesn't turn into a rathole!!!)

>         My entry, therefore, was an attempt to balance out some of both
>    the negativity and the generalizing.

I appreciate your concern and respect the way you are reading this.  
Unfortunately, your balancing act doesn't work for me.

>    Unfortunately, Cheryl, sometimes
>    strong voices are listened to precisely because they are strong,
>    and often aren't acknowledged for their lack in wisdom or decorum.
>    Too, often we listen to those voices out of fear and via intimidation.
>    Therefore, listening to a strong voice does not necessarily mean that
>    one is listening to a "good" voice.  This is not meant to discourage
>    anyone from expressing him or herself, nor to criticize someone for
>    having done so, rather it shows that your argument is not necessarily
>    valid.  

hmmmmm.   This is the part I laughed about.  Come to think of it, it's not
that funny.  The physical proximity of my name to your "we" in the "often
we listen to" seems a tad pedantic and condescending to me.  I am an adult, 
I am very intelligent, I am confident in myself.  I appreciate the strong 
voices for their strength, but I also listen to their arguments.  I do not 
agree with everything I read, either in substance or degree, nor with 
the strongest thing I read.  For me, the strength is good.  The content
may or may not be....I'll leave that to each individual to judge.

cheryl
    

	According to today's Boston Globe, there'll be a "Real Men" 
    protest at Fenway Park tonight.

	Red Sox general manager said, "I've seen the dolls in the
    ballpark before, but I didn't know what they were doing with them."
    Sox VP Joe McDermott said, "We do no allow such articles in the
    park."

	If anyone wants to call to express their opinions on this
    matter, the number is (617) 267-9440.

	deb

    This point was brought up in SPorts.... Has it been proven that
    the people who bring these inflatable dolls are male or female?
    Or did Bella just assume that male are the only ones who brought 
    them to the ballpark?
    
    REK

    Rick
    
    
    
    not to be dense here, but what percentage of women do you imagine
    would bring a blow up nude woman doll to a baseball game, or 
    am I super naive?
    
    I'd imagine it would be somewhere between 0 and minus 25%
    
    BJ

    Bonnie, you are not naive. The point is that everybody thinks that
    only males could bring said dolls to the ballpark. Are you thinking
    that women could not do such a thing?
    
    REK

    You're right, there is an assumption.  We don't know, for 100% absolute
    beyond-any-shadow-of-a-doubt surety that it wasn't a woman.
    
    However, I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money that it
    was a man.  In fact, I am *so* confident that it was a man, that I am
    very comfortable discussing it as if it was a man.
    
    REK, are you seriously suggesting that you think it was a woman?  Or
    are you just trying to deliberately obfuscate the discussion by
    pointing out the remote, almost negligible possibility that it was a
    woman?
    
    D!

    Actually, yes, we know it was a man.  he called into the radio station
    to apologize, remember?
    
    D!

      I am going to attempt to respond to both .77 (Sandy) and .78 (Cheryl)
together.
      First off, Cheryl, let me attempt to clarify (using only Sandy's
entries...for yours, frankly, did not cause displeasure for me...) what
I saw as maliciously negative:
.2 "Since men of this generation grew up with 2 dimensional dolls rather than
    3..."
.9 "A ballpark is often a concentration of men who are all revved up with
    their male-bonding combination of sex and violence..."
    [although somewhat retracted in .37.]
.37 "But little fires are cropping up everywhere,..."
.52 "'I am male, desirous and in control of women'"
    "Pretty much says males haven't got a clue about the world around them."
.58 "Men aren't born rapists or abusers, most of them work up to it in
     increments."
.67 "The dominance and control that is considered part and parcel of being
     male."
    "Women are indeed vulnerable to male aggression at any time, in any
     place..."
    "I've noticed in the last year an increased tendency for men to 'handle'
     women like these dolls."
    "As the world slides into the sewer..."
    "We've lost it, folks."

     Now then, Cheryl, since you are so fast to laugh at what I wrote, perhaps
you will read the above and tell me you'd feel good if you were a man who 
rejects being as those statements have labeled him.  Also tell me there isn't
not only fear "mongering" but severe pessimism and futility...in other words,
totally generalized negativity in the sum total of those statements.  Do
you still think it's condescending of me to point out the negativity?  You
know, you could have thanked me for not being more specific, for 
not singling out one person, for "slapping your hands," perhaps, instead of
really, forcefully calling this out as I'm doing now.  I honestly thought
some of the people reading this would see this, rather than praise you (as
a couple did in the "hall of fame" note.)  But then, it's all right, you
*do* say some significant and laudible things in .78.  It isn't just one
side or another, it's that one voice is so loud and so negative that it
deserves being noticed...for it's negativity.  
     I never argued against hearing strong voices, especially if there
are many, and if there are a variety of arguments from which to choose.
I think you misunderstood something, for I encourage not only women, but
men, as well, to listen.
     I also didn't say anything about encouraging rape by understanding
it (I didn't mention rape at all.)
     It's funny to me, too, that *you* (Cheryl) are the one I'm interacting
with because I haven't disagreed with what you wrote (up until .78, that is.
;-} )
     Also understand something else...if intelligence is what makes people
more spiritual (evolved, enlightened, "wise", understanding, etc., etc.) then
most of the people of the planet will never be *spiritual...*.  So using
intelligence as a reason to acknowledge one's enlightenment doesn't seem
particularly friendly or kind.  "Eggheads" have no more clue to spirituality
than "non-eggheads."  Spirituality has no basis in intelligence (necessarily.)
     That stated, let me say that "facts" are never as they appear.  Surely
you've had enough evidence of this, even in this conference, to know this
is true.  Surely all I need to do is to point this out, right?  (There is
*always* a greater truth.  It is the adolescent within us that has a 
definitively strong urge to see all things as black and white...it is only the
ADULT that we might be who can see life for its shadings of gray.)
     Getting into areas of pain is very difficult.  Asking me to portray
my understanding of victimization and martyrhood and various other forms
of self-pity, along with suffering, sacrifice and other types of unpleasantness
is more than I can do in this note, or even perhaps in a few notes.  Let
me say this, however.  As long as you see someone or something else as
being in control of you and your reality, you will never find the freedom
that total responsibility would otherwise afford you.  I will admit that
it may take us a great effort to get to that place where we can take
responsibility for all that occurs to us, and there will probably be pain
and many, many mistakes along the way.  This does not place blame, however.
This does not make shame or depression or other forms of self-abuse a
necessary component, either.  It is only when we can take total responsibility
that we can work to relieve ourselves of the victimhood we so often 
subject ourselves to.
    Look at the consensus.  What usually happens to those who have had 
great abuses forced onto them?  From where I sit (and my view may not
be shared,) most of them live into embittered old age and die, never fully
coming to terms with whatever it was.  They kept waiting for someone to
"fix" things...whether the perpetrator, the society, or "God."  Nothing
happened.
     There has to be a way out!  There must be a way past the
"wrong-doing!"  Well, I believe there is.  And I believe the way past all
of this is the road towards total self-determination via total responsibility.
One of the first steps is being real...that is, being HONEST with one's 
emotions.  In another note someone talks about what it takes to be a rapist...
well, if you look closely, you will see that what the "quiet types" often
have in common is their stiffled self-expression.  They never learned how
to appropriately express their emotions.  Another step is learning how to
forgive oneself.  Learning that it is extremely important to learn how to
forgive the *why* if not the *what.*  Admittedly this can take time.  But
it is a necessary step if one is ever to re-generate a positive future.
Along with this is the necessary step of looking towards positive futures
as inspiration for desiring to live into it in the first place.  Spending
one's time looking through the garbage is not as helpful or expedient as
creating new playgrounds.
      Anyway, without writing a major disertation this is, in part at least,
a response to both of your queries and humor at my expense.  I hope you
find something of value in it.

Frederick

     

    
>...you will read the above and tell me you'd feel good if you were a man who 
>rejects being as those statements have labeled him.
    
    If you have rejected those statements for yourself, then what
    is the problem?  Do not be so (seemingly) arrogant as to assume
    that Sandy or anyone else was talking about YOU, Frederick, in
    those statements.  I feel confident in assuring you that they did
    NOT have YOU, Frederick, in mind when they wrote them!
    

    
    On the topic,
    
    	I'm glad this was brought up and that Red Sox security is
    	taking steps to prevent it from happening again.
    	The actions of those involved were inexcusable.
    	By the same token, the behaviour of the woman a couple
    	of nights later, who stripped and threw her underwear into center field
    	and had to be removed from the ballpark, was also inexcusable.
    	Has Bella written about that yet?

    Thanx, Ellen.  Methinks he protesteth too much!
    
    S.

    D, you are wrong, Bella wrote in her "column" that the dolls were
    at just about every home game. The man/boy who called the radio station
    said he was responsable for 1 doll... What about all the other dolls
    that popped up?
    
    Bella has yet to write about the women who did a number for all fans
    in the bleachers the next night. 
    
    REK
    
    In my opinion ( I get the globe delivered daily) Beela  won't write
    anything about that scene... Most of her writings seems to be all about
    the dark side of males.

  > I also didn't say anything about encouraging rape by understanding
  > it (I didn't mention rape at all.)

When you said the following, 

  > I can't help but feel, however, that as long as you (generic)
  > keep on focusing on the negative, that more negativity will result.

What kinds of "negativity" were you referring to?  Everything *but* rape?

  > The "reality around us" does not exist until we bring it forth either 
  > consciously or by allowing it.  I will not allow that reality...

What kinds of "reality" were you referring to?  Everything *but* rape?

Is rape and woman-abuse neither reality nor negativity to you?  If not, is
it possibly because it hasn't happened to you and you don't expect it to or
because you feel that if it does ever threaten, at least you are confident
that *you* are somewhat of a match for your assailant?  That's nice.  But
it doesn't apply to women, now, does it.  (rhetorical - no question mark).

Are you saying only Fred's reality counts and everyone should base their
thoughts, ideas and very lives on that?  And that those who don't are 
"bringing it [negativity] forth" are "allowing it"?  This certainly is what
you seem to be saying.

> As long as you see someone or something else as being in control of you and 
> your reality, you will never find the freedom that total responsibility 
> would otherwise afford you.

This is all true, Fred, but it doesn't take into account that there are 
some things one just *can't* control, no matter *what* you do.  You seem to 
have a difficult time with this particular kind of situation.  Why? Bad
things *do* happen to good people.  Even nuns and sweet little old ladies 
in their little homes feeding their little kitties get raped and bludgeoned 
or merely roughed up a little.  Please explain your thoughts on the re-
sponsibility such women have for what happens to them.  Please don't duck
this the way you ducked the following which I'm also awaiting an answer to:

  Please name some of the various means you have in mind to eliminate the 
  negativity.  And be specific.

I think you're getting dangerously close to blaming women for the feelings
the actions of the men in their lives have produced in them.  Women *are* 
occasionally fearful of men and with good reason.  Wome *do* need to be
wary.  Women *do* need to be warned of the dangers lurking.  And the
reasons are certainly *not* because we are "negative" people who are
"inviting" a negative reality or anaything like that - it's because men
*can be* and *will be* dangerous.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that men have made women wary of men, and 
that some women are willing to warn other women who may have been lucky 
enough not to have had to become wary as yet.  I don't like it either, it's 
a damn shame.  We are in total agreement in this.  And that you perhaps suffer
some, (though I'm not sure how, but you are lamenting about it), from that
wariness your brothers have caused the women in your life is also a shame. 
But dangerous men do not wear big Ds on their foreheads. All a woman knows
is that she has a pretty good chance of encountering rape in her life, (3
out of 5 was it?), and that many more will enounter the "mere roughing up",
and that her assailant(s) will be male.  Now think a moment, what would
*you* do?   Just run through life feeling like you're in your own little 
world of divine protection or something and can just will away your potential 
assailants and flit merrily on your way?????  You could become a millionaire,
no, make that a billionaire if you can teach this trick to women.  I'm serious.

The mere fact that women are getting raped and beaten *still* by their 
husbands, dates, fathers, washer repairmen, etc, proves that women are 
possibly not wary enough! And I'm sorry to say this, but better you get a
little miffed than I get raped.  And that is the choice a woman must make, 
whether you like it or not.  I can't believe you would instruct your 
daughters to deal with the world the way you appear to be saying women here 
should.  Anyone who plays with matches may well get burned.  Perhaps you 
just don't understand that spending lots of time alone in the dark with 
different men you haven't known for years and years, (that's dating, Fred), 
is the equivalent of playing with matches, whether you like it or not.  The 
alternative is seclusion - but her house had better be well secured and 
guarded also, or she will certainly be at risk for getting a negative attitude 
and for becoming wary of men and then possibly, (gasp!), insulting some good 
guy with it.  Sheesh.  Now what do we do with her?  Women - they're impossible.

;>

>  I believe the way past all of this is the road towards total self-
>  determination via total responsibility.

Yeah - for the perpetrators.  Women already blame themselves far too much.

The way out simply does not lie with women needing to change their attitudes 
or by closing their eyes and clicking their heels together three times and 
saying, "I'm always safe around men.  I'm always safe around men.  I'm always 
safe around men".

Sandy - the loud voice.
    

The following are extracts from Frederick's .86.  My comments are
separated by **** ****.  This is getting rather convoluted with 
references and cross-references, and this is the only way I could
keep things straight.  If anyone has any suggestions on how best
to keep things clear (as mud) in such a situation, let me know in
whatever topic is appropriate.(Processing?  I don't know!)


       First off, Cheryl, let me attempt to clarify (using only Sandy's
 entries...for yours, frankly, did not cause displeasure for me...) what
 I saw as maliciously negative:
 .2 "Since men of this generation grew up with 2 dimensional dolls rather than
     3..."
 .9 "A ballpark is often a concentration of men who are all revved up with
     their male-bonding combination of sex and violence..."
     [although somewhat retracted in .37.]
 .37 "But little fires are cropping up everywhere,..."
 .52 "'I am male, desirous and in control of women'"
     "Pretty much says males haven't got a clue about the world around them."
 .58 "Men aren't born rapists or abusers, most of them work up to it in
      increments."
 .67 "The dominance and control that is considered part and parcel of being
      male."
     "Women are indeed vulnerable to male aggression at any time, in any
      place..."
     "I've noticed in the last year an increased tendency for men to 'handle'
      women like these dolls."
     "As the world slides into the sewer..."
     "We've lost it, folks."

      Now then, Cheryl, since you are so fast to laugh at what I wrote, perhaps
 you will read the above and tell me you'd feel good if you were a man who 
 rejects being as those statements have labeled him. 

********************
I have trouble with statements taken out of context, so I won't try to 
address each statement individually.

I understand the impact these statements have on you.  From a man's 
perspective, some of this might feel hostile to me.  Perhaps you
over-personalize, perhaps you make generalities out of things that
weren't intended as such.  I don't know.  I'm not you, and I'm not
a man.  All this is not intended to invalidate your response, but to
maybe ask yourself these questions.  I always do, when I have a
strong reaction.

I read Sandy's notes differently.  Often, I see her as a provocateur.
I see her as trying to shake things up, make people think, be realistic,
and respond to what's going on intelligently.  Not to minimize, as women
are often fond of doing (now look who's generalizing!).  I also see
her occasionally balancing out her remarks by more personal statements
about herself, which lead me to believe she's not a violent man-hater.
When I listen to her, I often hear a voice saying, "Wake up, we've got 
    problems, let's recognize them, and understand them, and act
    accordingly" and also"women are powerful, get up and do something about
    it!"
Maybe Sandy can clarify for us.

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

 Also tell me there isn't
 not only fear "mongering" but severe pessimism and futility...in other words,
 totally generalized negativity in the sum total of those statements.  Do
 you still think it's condescending of me to point out the negativity?  You
 know, you could have thanked me for not being more specific, for 
 not singling out one person, for "slapping your hands," perhaps, instead of
 really, forcefully calling this out as I'm doing now. 

***************
OK.  I said, "strong voices".  In your reply, you implied that all you
understood that I said was "Sandy".  I understood this.  I thought, 
perhaps, I could redirect your attention to the whole as the whole, 
rather than the sum of its parts.  When I said strong voices, I meant
"Mary Maling, D!, and a whole host of other strong women who participate
here, including Sandy".  You seem very focused on Sandy.  I like some
of her notes, I dislike others, I find them all interesting, they all make
me think...sometimes it takes me awhile to get past a *reaction* rather
than a response to her notes, and that, in and of itself, makes me think.

I didn't want to single out Sandy, because Sandy does not equal 
womannotes for me.  My reply which spoke of strong voiceS, was not 
referring directly to Sandy, and I hoped my subsequent reply would
make that clear.  Evidently, it didn't.

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

 I honestly thought
 some of the people reading this would see this, rather than praise you (as
 a couple did in the "hall of fame" note.)  But then, it's all right, you
 *do* say some significant and laudible things in .78.  It isn't just one
 side or another, it's that one voice is so loud and so negative that it
 deserves being noticed...for it's negativity.  
      I never argued against hearing strong voices, especially if there
 are many, and if there are a variety of arguments from which to choose.
 I think you misunderstood something, for I encourage not only women, but
 men, as well, to listen.
      I also didn't say anything about encouraging rape by understanding
 it (I didn't mention rape at all.)
      It's funny to me, too, that *you* (Cheryl) are the one I'm interacting
 with because I haven't disagreed with what you wrote (up until .78, that is.
 ;-} )

**************************************************
I have to tell you, Frederick:  The verb understand in its imperative form
as you have been using it is making me bristle.  I read it as, "Allow
me to enlighten you, and please make whatever feeble attempt you are
capable of to grasp these concepts which are so simple to me and yet
somehow seem so difficult for you to absorb" (Never knew one word could
convey so much, eh?  ;^) )  Now, I don't honestly believe this was your
intent, but it does appear to be a trigger word with me.  hmmmm guess
I learned something about myself.
****************************************************

     Also understand something else...if intelligence is what makes people
 more spiritual (evolved, enlightened, "wise", understanding, etc., etc.) then
 most of the people of the planet will never be *spiritual...*.  So using
 intelligence as a reason to acknowledge one's enlightenment doesn't seem
 particularly friendly or kind.  "Eggheads" have no more clue to spirituality
 than "non-eggheads."  Spirituality has no basis in intelligence (necessarily.)
      That stated, let me say that "facts" are never as they appear.  Surely
 you've had enough evidence of this, even in this conference, to know this
 is true.  Surely all I need to do is to point this out, right?  (There is
 *always* a greater truth.  It is the adolescent within us that has a 
 definitively strong urge to see all things as black and white...it is only the
 ADULT that we might be who can see life for its shadings of gray.)

****************************************************************
You've lost me here.  I never intended to imply that intelligence equates
to spirituality.  In fact, in my life, it's been quite the reverse.  
I don't quite know how I got this across, but if it's there, it's not
what I really believe.
***********************************************************
     Getting into areas of pain is very difficult.  Asking me to portray
 my understanding of victimization and martyrhood and various other forms
 of self-pity, along with suffering, sacrifice and other types of unpleasantness
 is more than I can do in this note, or even perhaps in a few notes.  Let
 me say this, however.  As long as you see someone or something else as
 being in control of you and your reality, you will never find the freedom
 that total responsibility would otherwise afford you.

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

Here, you and I disagree.  I believe in taking responsibility for one's
life and one's actions.  But, I do not agree that I have total control
over and total responsibility for everything that happens in my life.  
For example, when I was eight years old and sexually abused by my 
babysitter, I had no power and no control.  Today, I still feel the
effects of that abuse.  I am gradually gaining control over that 
aspect of my life and how I deal with it, and I don't expect to spend
the rest of my life harping on the experience.  I do need to examine it,
to understand my feelings, how I've coped, how it's influenced my life
IN ORDER TO FULLY EXERCISE THAT CONTROL.  
**************************************************************

  I will admit that
 it may take us a great effort to get to that place where we can take
 responsibility for all that occurs to us, and there will probably be pain
 and many, many mistakes along the way.  This does not place blame, however.
 This does not make shame or depression or other forms of self-abuse a
 necessary component, either.  It is only when we can take total responsibility
 that we can work to relieve ourselves of the victimhood we so often 
 subject ourselves to.

**********************************************************************
I'm not a victim, I'm a SURVIVOR. (That may have little relevance, but 
I had to say it anyway, it just felt good!)

For me, taking responsibility for my life means understanding, dissecting
and examining the world around me.  I still think we're doing that here.
*******************************************************************8
    Look at the consensus.  What usually happens to those who have had 
 great abuses forced onto them?  From where I sit (and my view may not
 be shared,) most of them live into embittered old age and die, never fully
 coming to terms with whatever it was.  They kept waiting for someone to
 "fix" things...whether the perpetrator, the society, or "God."  Nothing
 happened.

*********************************************************************
My personal belief is that many people who have experienced abuse, 
as I have, have entered a cycle of abuse, perpetuated by society.
Often the victim is blamed for the abuse, and the consequences
to the victim for talking about the abuse have a further negative 
impact on the victim.  Often, people take responsibility for the
abuse by believing they themselves are bad, because it's the only 
acceptable solution that lets them believe there is some order to
the universe.  

I think society is just recently learning how to help people recover
from abuse.  My own experience centers only on childhood sexual abuse,
but I expect this is also true of other forms of abuse.  

I repeat, for me, examination, memories, and focusing on the abuse
are helping me to recover from it.  This is my way out.  It is 
working (but it's slow, and painful, and very, very difficult).

*********************************************************************
      There has to be a way out!  There must be a way past the
 "wrong-doing!"  Well, I believe there is.  And I believe the way past all
 of this is the road towards total self-determination via total responsibility.
 One of the first steps is being real...that is, being HONEST with one's 
 emotions.  In another note someone talks about what it takes to be a rapist...
 well, if you look closely, you will see that what the "quiet types" often
 have in common is their stiffled self-expression.  They never learned how
 to appropriately express their emotions.  Another step is learning how to
 forgive oneself.  Learning that it is extremely important to learn how to
 forgive the *why* if not the *what.*  Admittedly this can take time.  But
 it is a necessary step if one is ever to re-generate a positive future.
 Along with this is the necessary step of looking towards positive futures
 as inspiration for desiring to live into it in the first place.  Spending
 one's time looking through the garbage is not as helpful or expedient as
 creating new playgrounds.
**************************************************************************
Here, I think is our major point of disagreement.  I believe that,
as you so poetically put it, looking through the garbage helps me to 
create new playgrounds.
********************************************************************

       Anyway, without writing a major disertation this is, in part at least,
 a response to both of your queries and humor at my expense.  I hope you
 find something of value in it.

*******************************************************************
None of the humour I found was meant to be at your expense.  Some of it
was in how I responded to your note, and as such was at my expense if
at anyone's.  I do find some value in it; I also find some areas of 
disagreement.  

Cheryl

     
    

    Your understanding of my meaning is perfect, Cheryl, I have nothing to
    add.  Your patience, however, far surpasses mine.  I'm just not
    convinced that Fred "just doesn't get it" and I'd be willing to keep
    going with him on this until he saw red, if need be, but I won't - it 
    too will get us nowhere.  I believe he knows and understands and
    chooses simply to reject that reality in favor of the one afforded him
    by his relatively safer station in life.  So be it.
    
    Wish I could, too.
    
    Sandy

    Sandy,
    
    You've been at it longer than I have!  I admire your tenacity, I'm
    more likely to shut up when I run out of patience.
    
    I started writing here with some trepidation, after being read-mostly
    for quite a while, because I'm not sure I have the stamina for this!
    
    Moderators, feel free to move me to the rathole...I'm rapidly digging
    myself in deeper, and deeper....
    
    cheryl

    re: .92
    
    >I'm not a victim, I'm a SURVIVOR!
    
    YAY,CHERYL!!!!!!!!!
    
    And survivors take no sh*t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    -----
    \ D /
     \ /
    
    p.s. my heavens, I think this file is taking over for my group therapy!

    re REK

    	SHAME ON YOU!

    				herb

    re Ward

    	When I read your offerings I almost invariably hit next unseen.

    My decision to do that is not based on agreeing or disagreeing with
    you. I don't read your writings long enuf to determine what you are
    saying.

    Your writing is the most turgid writing I have ever seen in electronic
    conferencing. For me, when I read your writing I feel like I am hiking
    through quick sand with lead boots on my feet, and a leaden knap sack
    on my back.

    (i briefly checked a few of the points you made in .86, and think I
    may even agree with your points)
    
    But even more important, when I read your writing, I feel like I am
    being lectured to. I don't like being lectured to.
    
    One of the things that characterized my youth, was that I had a father
    who "knew it all". He wouldn't even let me have my own opinions! Each
    and every opinion of mine he confronted and 'proved' to be 'invalid'.
    And he lectured to me, and lectured to me, and lectured to me. Finally,
    I realized I didn't have to listen and as soon as he started my eyes
    glazed over and my ears glazed over, and I was somewhere else. He's 85
    and he still does it!
    
    Now, when I see an entry by you, I get angry. Which, given my
    background isn't particularly surprising.
    
    The anger is my anger, and my problem. But thought I would let you know
    how I feel.
    
    					herb
    
    
    
    <Anyway, without writing a major disertation>
    
    I'd sure hate to see a dissertation, then!
     

re: "It's just a doll"

It doesn't exist in a vacuum.  

"I was just joking"  "I was just being friendly"  "It's just a movie"
"It's just a comic book"  "It's just an ad"

It all adds up, and it all affects us, and our perspectives on
ourselves and on others.

It's degrading and insulting, to me at least -- I can't ignore the
whole, I can't ignore the context.

	MKV

    Why Herb? Last time I check men do not hold the market on being rude
    and crude....
    
    REK

    my <shame on you>
    was intended to be shorthand for objecting to the entry on the basis
    that it seemed to be reducing the discussion to a kind of finger
    pointer (or tit for tat). The observation that a few women likely find
    private (or even public) pleasure in anatomically correct dolls seems
    to me to be irrelevant to whether the public actions in Fenway Park
    ought to be condemned.
    
    
    				herb
    The observation that men do not hold the market on being rude and crude
    in NO way -in my opinion- justifies men being rude and crude.    
    
    				h

    .98
    $set sarcasm=on
    
    Yes,  it's 'just a doll'.  What's the matter with us women, we simply
    have no sense of humor.  That's the ticket, it's our fault, if we
    could just learn to laugh more; I mean, it's funny, isn't it, to
    see a pretend woman being thrown around by a bunch of slap happy
    men at a ball game.
    
    Hmm, I wonder what would happen to Roseann Barr if she tried to imitate
    this behavior?
    
    Grumble.
    Maia
    

This morning's Globe had an article on the Real Men protest last night
at Fenway.  One not-Real man was quoted as saying, "It's just funnier
if it's a woman than if it's a pumpkin."

I'm sure it is.  I think I'll go be sick now.

-d

    re -1  A "woman" wasn't used, a doll was.  Tell me again that at the 
    gut level, these men know the difference between the two and what they 
    did involved only a doll and had no connection with women at all.
    
    Sandy

Re: .104

Sandy, did you misinterpret what I said?  I meant to convey this: "The
idea that using a representation of a woman makes it funnier is so
repulsive that I can't find words adequate for describing my disgust."
If I didn't get that across, plese forgive my failure to communicate.

-d

    Sandy,
    
    If I may, -d, I don't think Sandy meant YOU equated the doll to a
    woman, but the quote indicated that the man who made the comment 
    did.

    My gut tells me that these acts are a way (inappropriate though they may
    be) for some men to act out the tremendous anger, frustration, and
    impotence they feel toward women for making modern life uncomfortable for
    them. 

    (you know: sorta like: 
    	"You b*tch*s, THAT'l teach you to complain about us objectifying you!)
    
    Why is it that we react so much more intensely to this than we would to
    
    	hanging somebody in effigy or
    	burning a flag?
				herb
p.s.
    My gut also tells me that the intensity of our reaction signals SUCCESS to
    those dolts.

    Yes, thanx, I wasn't accusing d of that, but the man who made the
    unfortunate quote and what that meant wrt those here who are saying
    "it's only a doll". 
    
    >My gut tells me that these acts are a way (inappropriate though they may
    >be) for some men to act out the tremendous anger, frustration, and
    >impotence they feel toward women for making modern life uncomfortable for
    >them. 

    Mine too, Herb.
    
    >My gut also tells me that the intensity of our reaction signals SUCCESS to
    >those dolts.
    
    Irrelevant.  Death makes a murderer "successful".  So what?  If a
    perpetrator fails at hir mission, nothing's really been done, right?
                                                                        
    Fred?  I'm still waiting for your answers.
    
    Sandy

    'scuse me? I don't mean to interrupt, but comparing the doll thing to
    flag-burning seems a bit strong.
    
    o the doll business happened inside a ball park, i.e. a private,
    paid-admission entertainment venue, wherein the proprietors have the
    power to eject anybody who they deem is upsetting other patrons.
    [Presumably, if the majority of patrons wanted to play with dolls, and
    said the few who didn't were upsetting *them*, the ballpark folks could
    eject the protesters.] If somebody burned a flag in the stands, I'd
    expect they would be ejected, too.
    
    o flag-burning is, usually, intended as a political statement. I can
    imagine situations in which inflatable dolls could be used for same:
    take female inflatable doll, paint "Kuwait" on forehead, clothe male
    inflatable doll in the uniform of your least-favorite of the military
    powers recently involved in the Middle East, and bingo! you've got
    yourself a political statement. [As long as it's done in a public
    place, not a pay-to-be-admitted place or on private property.]
    
    Feeling Puckish today,
    -b

    Political doesn't only mean military.  One can make a statement
    regarding a gender by using that gender's most identifiable character-
    istic(s).  Take Madonna and the Evian bottle.  It's only a bottle and
    there was no meaning attached, right?
    
    (BTW, they were two very different kinds of statements.  Madonna was
    not exhibiting hostility).   
    
    Sandy

    re. 108
    
    Sandy:   sssssshhhhh ....don't bother Fred, maybe he's thinking ;^)

    re: .111 (Cheryl) 
     
         Yes, Cheryl, I'm thinking...and it hurts!  ;-)
    
    

        Oops, I didn't mean to enter .112 until I entered the rest of this,
    but no matter.
    
        Anyway, I was talking to a highly esteemed friend of mine and
    pointed these notes out to her (through .78 or thereabouts...just
    before my last entry yesterday...) and she told me, "Yes, Fred, you
    do seem pedantic and condescending...however, since I know you, I
    know why you did that..."
        But here is her response up to that point:
     
>>     "Generalizations that I have construed..."

      Indeed, Frederick, you read a lot more negativity into these
notes than I do.  Yes, reading this file conjures up a lot of rage and
anger in me.  Anger and rage are not negative if expressed appropriately.
This notesfile is an appropriate forum for expressing these emotions.
John Bradshaw calls anger the energy that enables us to defend and
protect our dignity.  
     Sandy says:  "But women's dignity, always at the lower end of respect
anyway, erodes much more quickly."
     Dignity is a given in my mind.  Dignity is to be discovered and 
claimed (or relinquished) by the individual.  No one can give dignity to
another and no one can take it away.  
     The last paragraph of .67 impressed me as extreme. "As the world
slides into the sewer, (a fabulous article by George Will,) human dignity
is fast eroding...and so with men physically able and increasingly mentally
willing to act out, the peril to women in their daily lives increases 
dramatically...we've lost it, folks.  I really think so."
     Have we lost it folks?  I don't believe that.  Rather than sliding
into the sewer, I think we're on our way out.  We're beginning to recognize
that our culture as defined by masculine values is limiting, at best!
The inflatable doll incident at Fenway Park reflects how women are, 
all too often, dehumanized in our society.  It also profiles how absurd
some concepts of manhood can be.  I think it's time to recognize the feminine
value as well as the masculine value.  Surely there are some examples that
reveal a positive dynamic of masculine and feminine together.  
     Growing up female in this "land of the free" was an appalling and 
intimidating experience for me...despite the sheltered world my parents
provided.  Growing up with the idea that men are better than women, I took 
a chauvinistic attitude.  I learned early on that males are born to privilege
and females are born to support the white male position of privilege.  For a
long time I believed what I was taught and lived it to a depressing degree.  
     I know I am viewed as a second class citizen because I am a woman.  Too
bad for me...life isn't fair.  A woman's place is defined by the men of the 
culture and then, according to Helen Gurley Brown "we became the men we
hoped to marry."  
     In recent years I have actively re-evaluated many of the notions I was 
taught as a child.  I realized it's not a man's job to define my place.  It's
my job. .. A new and often frightening thought.  I've abdicated a lot of 
personal responsibility looking for a man to define a place I could tolerate.
I have come to value the feminine and wonder about the value of the masculine.
     Overgeneralizing distorts more than it clarifies.  I want to believe
every human being is unique and valuable.  There are exceptional men and
women.  There are creatures of both sexes who behave in sub-human ways.
And then, there's the rest of us...doing the best we can at a time when the
old ideas of singular supremacy are failing us badly...men and women alike.
     Nonetheless, I'm losing patience with the male perspective these days.
Too many men come across as unbelievably blind, stubborn, stupid and childish
to me.  The male ego is sooo fragile!  I get tired of accommodating the male
mode of challenge and competition.  I'm tired of the idea of war as the 
solution to problems.  I'm tired of watching and reading about men hanging
onto privilege as their birthright by demeaning, diminishing, ignoring, 
intimidating and/or violating women.   
     I slip and fall into the trap of feeling that to value the feminine 
requires a devaluation of the masculine.  I'm looking for my own individual
balance that acknowledges the value of both...call it individual wholeness
if you will.  I haven't found it yet.
    
                  "Carolyn"
    
                 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Frederick
(I will attempt to answer earlier questions as I find the opportunity.)
    

    I don't see it as very different from flag-burning and that's what
    scares me.
    
    When people burn flags/effigies it's because they disagree with/dislike
    someone politics. The someone represented by that flag/effigy. So when
    they gang rape women dolls, it suggests to me that they don't like
    women.
    
    manisha

    <I don't see it as very different from flag-burning and that's what
    <scares me.
    
    <When people burn flags/effigies it's because they disagree with/dislike
    <someone politics. The someone represented by that flag/effigy. 
    <So when they gang rape women dolls, it suggests to me that they don't like
    <women.
    
    how about a tiny change? to...
    
    so when they gang rape women dolls, it suggests to me that they don't
    like/agree with women's politics.

    re.115 umm, Herb, are you saying that an aversion to being raped
    is a political stance? 

"Women's politics"????  You mean Phyllis Schafly and Gloria Steinem have
finally reached a consensus??

    <so when they gang rape women dolls, it suggests to me that they don't
    <like/agree with women's politics.
    
    Herb, I tried that. It assumes that there's such a thing as 'women's
    politics'. I don't think there is. So for me it doesn't work.
    
    manisha
    

    what I meant was that if
    she sees it as not very different from flag-burning
    then the analogy should be
    
    that they don't like women's politics NOT that they don't like women
    
    A	people burn flags/effigies because the disagree/dislike someone's
    	politics
    
    B   Raping dolls is not very differnt from flag-burning
    
    C   (ergo, kinda) Raping dolls is not very different from disliking
    	peoples politics/

re: .115, .116:

    either that, or he's saying that rape is a valid form of expressing 
    political disagreement. (!)

    Wow!
    
    you people are nasty

Herb, this 'analogy' really bothers me.  When you burn a flag, you are
destroying a *symbol* that many people hold dear because it is a symbol
they have chosen to *represent* their country.  In other words, it is
a symbol of a nation, an aggregate.

No women's movement I am aware of has chosen an inflatable doll as their
symbol.  Since it can therefore not be interpreted as the chosen symbol
of an aggregate, the obvious interpretation is that an inflatable female
doll is a symbol of *a* [nonspecific] *woman*, _singular_.  There's a level
of indirection there that's missing from the flag-burning example, and to
me, that level of indirection is key to the behavior being threatening.

Unlike countries, where groups of people are simultaneously subjected to a 
threat when they are attacked, women who are raped are generally raped
one at a time.  If this is a symbol of political disagreement, it is a
symbol of disagreement with an *individual* (who did the doll look like?),
and **all*the*more** despicable because of their tactics.  Rape is never
acceptable, no matter what your politics.

    Sharon

    Thank you, Fred, for that note.  Your friend Carolyn seems very wise
    and you are brave and demonstrating an openness by posting her words here. 
    My respect for you is increasing and it's not because I think you're 
    anywhere near close to agreeing with me!  ;^>
    
    THIS (and the discussions following) is communication!  (Said like
    Lynn Redgrave at the end of her Weight Watcher's commercials).
    
    Sandy

    I asked why do people (we) react so much more intensely to the rubber
    doll incidents that we do to 
    
    			flag burning or
    			effigy hanging
    
    the answer was
    
    intense flames at me
    			

re: .125

No, Herb, I don't think peopel are flaming at you.  It seems to me that
they're trying to understand what you're saying.  This is a tough topic,
and people are prone to get their backs up.

As an answer to your question, I think we react so much more strongly
to the rubber-doll incident than to flag-burning or effigy-hanging
because the doll incident betrays an attitude - which its holders may
not even understand - about *people*, a whole group of people.  Burning
a flag is a political statement - it's not directed at people but rather
at what they say or think.  There's a level of abstraction there, so it
doesn't hit as hard.  Effigy-hanging is directed, usually, at one person
rather than a class - again, there's removal in the sense of "that's not
me."  If I'm a woman, the "anatomically correct" doll *is* me - at least
representationally - so the incident does directly attack something of
*me*.

-d

    To those who were not flaming at me, I apologize for flaming at you.
    
    
    				herb

    Herb, thanks for entering that.  When I read your flame, I felt the
    impulse to flame back, but decided to wait a day or two and see if my
    considered response would still be hot (I have a nasty temper, which I
    have worked for years to de-fuse - as opposed to diffuse ;)
    
    aq
    

    Herb, WADR, there is no comparison between flag-burning and
    doll-rape. Burning a flag may mean any of a dozen different
    things - freedom of speech, anti-(the current administration),
    etc. Doll-rape can _only_ be viewed as advocacy of rape.
    
    Your analogy and subsequent reasoning fail.

    i didn't MAKE the analogy.
    I accept that there is no comparison!
    I asked WHY the analogy DOESN'T work. 
    
    It was somebody else (Manisha?) who compared rubber dolls to flag burning
    AFTER THAT.
    Once SHE said the analogy was appropriate I made the -vacuous(?) formal
    logic- point that if SHE found them comparable, then rubber dolls
    PERFORCE would be a political expression (in HER scheme of things)
    since -and just as- flag burning was a political expression.
    

    re: .91 and .108 (Sandy) 
    
          I wanted to answer your questions, but they required some
    thinking on my part...therefore I haven't been as expedient as I'd
    like to have been.  So, though the topic isn't "timely" now, I do
    want to respond to demonstrate my own integrity.
          However, in looking at your entries again a couple of times,
    answering your questions is very difficult.  This is because there are
    some very fundamental problems with the compatability of our 
    "reality philosophies."  For me to express my philosophy or life
    understandings to you is far more than I can be reasonably expected
    to entertain in here.  I have written volumes of stuff in DEJAVU and
    elsewhere...and the things I have written in there, while not
    necessarily originally my philosophy, *do* reflect a great deal of
    my current thinking and thinking I'm heading towards.  
         Please don't think I'm ducking answers by not answering.  Just
    let me say this:  There are levels of awareness...greater truths...
    everywhere.  These change moment to moment.  Sometimes some things look
    black, and then you see white.  Sometimes they are muddy and no black
    or white is visible.  An animated respresentation would be a movie
    (and there are lots and lots of examples of this type of movie) wherein
    we see something from one person's view and then via another camera
    we see the same things from the other person's view.  We, the viewer,
    are left to decide, "Which way was the 'right' way?"  
         In my view of reality, there is a strong possibility that *BOTH*
    views are correct...both are valid.  This view is a microcosm of the
    quantum physics understanding that a wave can become a particle or
    vice versa, depending on the intention or even the observation of
    the observer.  Paradoxes exist.  Realities are subjective.
         Is there such a thing as a victim?  Yes.  Are victims responsible
    for what happens(ed) to them?  Yes*.  But the * is very important. 
    Again, it depends on the particular truth one wants to hang onto.
    The greatest truth I am aware of says that "yes" they set it up.
    But to understand this one must be aware of the mulitiplicity of one's
    own existence, and most people are not.  Therefore, coming from a 
    singular time-based view of reality, the victim is not responsible.
    That is, the victim does not have conscious control over the event.
    This is why children, etc. are truly victims.  This is why those who
    have never taken responsibility for their entire reality *do*
    experience victimhood;  they didn't make "it" happen, it happened *to*
    them.  Without looking at the multiplicity, without understanding
    that this illusionary reality is a symbolic representation of REAL 
    emotions and thoughts, there can be little grasp of the concept of payoffs,
    blockages, dark laws, etc. that are the basis for the reality in the
    first place.  (Also, as I have stated before, it is extremely important
    that the word "responsibility" is not confused with the word "blame.")
         You see, this is *real* intricate...and I could go on and on...
    and that wouldn't be appropriate.
         What is important, though, is to not lose sight of the fact that
    people are in pain.  This pain is very, very real to them.  It needs
    to be handled.  It is *not* handled by telling them they were 
    responsible.  It is far more important to deal with the pain first...
    and hopefully "fixing" it...and *then* to teach them how to take that
    responsibility.  I have no intention of writing to a group of people
    and adding to their pain.  What I tried to do was to show that life
    does not need to be negative.  The world does not have to be viewed
    as a dark place.  There *are* ways to live in a positive and fun-filled
    world.  I am working hard to create this for myself.  I have an
    awareness of this world I speak of though I am not fully in it.  
         "Domination is a temporary solution to a problem...the difficulty
    with domination is that it requires constant manipulation in order to
    maintain itself.  Dominion is a permanent solution to a problem."
    --Lazaris
         Not having control, as you described it, is part and parcel to
    domination.  Yes, it, like shit, happens.  But there are higher truths,
    greater, lighter systems...sorry I can't answer more fully.  I am
    willing to "drop" this at this point.  Either I have made a point or
    I haven't.  Thanks for the patience with my response.
    
    Frederick
    

    Well, Frederick *is* using a definition of "responsible" that doesn't
    appear in any dictionary I've ever used.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .134 (Ann)
    
         Maybe life would work a little better for you, Ann, if you
    got your head out of books altogether.
    
    Frederick
    

    
re .132 (Frederick)
    >> In my view of reality, there is a strong possibility that *BOTH*
    >>views are correct...both are valid.  This view is a microcosm of the
    >>quantum physics understanding that a wave can become a particle or
    >>vice versa, depending on the intention or even the observation of
    >>the observer.  Paradoxes exist.  Realities are subjective.
      
    
    Frederick, when I read your notes, I never get the impression that you
    think that someone else's reality could be true - I think you present
    your ideas as _The_Way_, and that is what upsets me, not your
    existential philosophies about the meaning of "victim" and
    "responsibility."  Many of us who have been abused, raped, and
    otherwise mistreated - especially by people we loved and who we thought
    loved us - don't want to hear that we are "responsible."  Even if the
    one saying it has some special, private meaning for that word.  If I
    felt that you understood that, that is, if in your notes you made it
    clearer that what you are talking about is your experience and not
    _The_Truth_, I wouldn't be so angry.  I encourage you to go back and read
    any 3 of your replies in this string, and see how often you use the
    words "I," "me," "my," and how many times you use the words "you" and
    "people" -- in other words, how often you presume to know what's best
    for someone else and how often you label your ideas as right for you.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Justine
    
                                                             

    re: .136 (Justine)
    
         I could agree that your assessment is valid.  Actually,
    it's probably true.  Part of that reason is that I have deliberately
    made an effort to avoid getting too "vulnerable" with this notesfile,
    mostly due to having a sense that this isn't "my place."  That is,
    though I *have* interracted in here, and though I *have* been 
    occasionally vocal, I *still* feel that this place is primarily a
    "woman's place"...with the very unabashedly vocal males
    notwithstanding.  Therefore, I *have* also made an effort to keep
    sort of an "arm's length"...
         Perhaps this is a mistake on my part.
         I simply haven't felt it appropriate enough to draw attention to
    "me" as much as to "what I say."  This fits, doesn't it?  I mean,
    I *could* talk about the beatings I've gone through, the broken heart
    I've experienced over and over, the betrayals, the disappointments,
    the hurts, injustices, unfairnesses, the incredible angers or rages
    that I have confronted, the jealousies, the massive sadnesses, etc.
    *all* the various woundings of my soul...but it seems to me that I
    don't have to.  Others in here, particularly the women in here, have
    almost an obligatory need to do that in some sort of safe place. 
    Though this place isn't entirely "safe," it is safer than many.  Also,
    if *I* get in here, I feel that it would be nothing but fertile ground
    for my own negative ego (which is problem enough already.)  Ego, for
    me, is very easy to excite around women.  Therefore, I am efforting
    myself to keep "me" out of this potential battle ground (and ego
    would definitely lead to "better than" or "worse than" games, and
    other interesting but harmful tactics.)
         So, if effect, I agree with what you wrote.  I'm sorry to anger
    you and how ever many others by my detachment.  Perhaps I've been
    overly cautious (within myself) and maybe I've made an inappropriate
    decision.  From where I sit, however, this seems to be the best of
    my aware choices.  
         I'll stay away or butt out, if that is more appropriate.  I *do*
    have a hard time accepting all the things I read, however.  It is 
    difficult to keep quiet when I see "flaws" in
    thinking/beliefs/attitudes.  (And by "flaws" I mean destructive,
    non-helpful, limited thoughts, ideas, etc.)
         Anyway, that is where I am in here at this point.  If I truly
    felt like "one of the gang" in here...if I truly felt as though I'd
    be welcome as an equal, rather than as an annoyance (due to my 
    gender,) then perhaps I could make my entries more *real* (real-
    my definition, not from a book, being "honest with my emotions.")
    
    Frederick
    

Frederick, you are free to talk about your personal life and feelings as 
you like, or not, as you like.

But if you aren't going to talk about how *you* feel, don't impose your
views on other people by saying "you" this and "you" that.

You are very, very free in giving advice to people who have not asked for
it, making judgements about other people's health and life paths, and
commenting on the validness of other people's views. 

I resent that.  I didn't ask if my views were "flawed", nor indeed did most
of the women I see you disagree with.  Ann didn't say her life wasn't
working well, and yet you gave her advice on how to make her life "work
better". That is presumtuous and I find it quite offensive.

Frederick, you are welcome here, but I do not welcome your judgements,
unasked for advice and condemnations.  I do welcome your sharing, commiseration
and support.  I even welcome your dissenting opinions and arguments.  

Ever single note I have ever read of yours, each one, has sounded like a
*lecture*, like you had a better idea of what the right path for me was than
I do.  You don't.

D! (noter)

    "One might..." ususally works better than "You should..."

    
    So....  has anyone heard anything more about this inflatable doll
    stuff?  Has this happened in other cities?  
    
    I didn't have a chance to say this when it was more timely, but if I
    were at a game, sitting in the stands, and I saw a group of young,
    drunken men pretending to rape a blowup doll, I would be afraid.  I'd
    be especially afraid if the behavior escalated (more violent, louder- as
    if for the benefit of those watching) and spread to those outside the
    party who brought the doll.  I keep thinking about this with regard to
    what happened in Kenya -- I can imagine in both cases a few obviously
    violent, obnoxious men starting it and then others joining in because it
    seemed safe(?), expected(?).  
    
    I know that the concept of the "mob mentality" has been documented. 
    And I suppose that women are as likely as men to be caught up in
    group(no)think, but....  what's telling for me is what a mob of males
    do -- rape or simulated rape, cat-calling.  Why is that the kind of
    behavior that so many men engage in when they can?
    
    Justine