Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Minor RatTunnel.

	I believe the word in "Fine Time To Leave Me Lucille" is "hungry",
not "hundred" and I though the line was "four hungry children and a crop
in the field", but then, I never was very fond of the song.

					--D

    My impression is that if they really harbor that much anger....why
     do they question why they can't get through the so-called
     "glass ceiling"?  Who wants an employee that's pissed-off all
     the time.

    
    	Go read Soapbox, then tell me why men are allowed at levels
    	above the Glass Ceiling.
    

    RE: .1
    
    Ah, I think you're right about that. It's not what I would call one of
    my favorite songs and they probably said 'four/two hungry'... and I
    heard it as 'two hundred'. I don't know - On the other hand maybe they
    did say two hundred..... It would have fit in with the tone of the
    evening!
    
    Rick

    re .2  Try not to confuse cause and effect.
    
    S.

    re 992.24, 29 et al
    
    I was disturbed by this reply and some of the discussion following it. 
    Not so much because I thought it was sexist but because I felt it
    exhibited a very judgmental attitude towards people who live in a
    reality that most of us, thankfully, never have to experience.  Birth
    control; taking control of one's own destiny; saying "no" to the man
    you depend on for your survival; having enought self-esteem to know
    that you have choices, all these things are not a part of many women's
    realities.  All they know is what they and the generations before them
    and everyone around them live.
    
    I won't tell Cindy not to be angry -- I HATE it when someone tells me
    how I should and shouldn't feel -- but I'd like to suggest that the
    anger is better aimed at those things in our society that perpetuate
    the reality these women live in.  Then maybe that anger can be turned
    towards remedying the situation.
     

    re .6
    
    It's Cathy!! CATHY....NOT CINDY  (my husbands ex girlfriend as it would
    be). 
    

    
    
    
    wow...is this note just pour moi??
    I'm impressed. 
    
    Interesting how a differance of opinion can piss off so many otherwise
    rational people!
    
    My point: If men are blubbering sex crazed barbaric beasts, and women
    and controlled meek subservient(SP?) wimps, then WHO will take 
    responsibility for the overpopulation problem?
    But women are NOT weak willed wimps you say? Then why don't they
    either say NO or take some precautions? 
    It angers me that PEOPLE keep popping out babies like there's no reason
    not to.  And since WOMEN are the ones walking around pregnant for 9
    months, I'd have to say that if I couldn't say no, for fear of being
    beaten or (aghast) left alone, then I'd damn sure TAKE SOME
    PRECAUTIONS.
    
    IT ANGERS ME. 
    Starving, homeless, unloved babies ANGERS ME. It SHOULD anger everyone.
    
    Of course, if you REALLY want an earth shaking rat hole producing
    opinion, the cost of aid to starving nations should be free supply
    of birth control and the instructions of use of the same. 
    And what ANGERS me are those who stand to say that it is those peoples
    RIGHT to reproduce at will. 
    
    That is beyond belief and REALLY ANGERS me. 
    
    But I'm happy now.  
    
    Cathy (NOT Cindy!)
     
    
    

    Re .6
    
    Hello,
       I wasn't angry.  I believe I said that up front.
    I feel kind of wry about it...about a lot of things...
    Like being mistaken for other people...
    Just kind of lumped us together did you?
    
    Besides ... my nick-name is spelled with an i at the end.
    CindI.
    However, because you messed it up, YOU have to call me
    Cynthia or Mrs. Barber-Mingo.
    I have had to do the following in another conference as well.
    Bn-ers may remember it.
    
    
    ---------------------------
    Sung to the tune of "My name is not Susan" By Whitney Houston
    
    ......
    A d-mn shame,
    Forgot my name,
    Well anyway....
    
    My name is not Cathy,
    So watch what you say,
    But if you do mean her,
    Then be on your way,
    
    Don't want replies about Cathy,
    She's the poster not ME,
    so show some Re-spect,
    For the notes that you READ.
    
    My name is not Cathy..My name's not Cathy...My name's not Cathy...
    You'd better get it right.
    My name is not Cathy..My name's not Cathy...My name's not Cathy...
    You'd better get it right.
    My name is not Cathy..My name's not Cathy...My name's not Cathy...
    You'd better get it right.
    
    ;->

    re:.8
    
       Gads!  I for the most part agree with what you've said, but even
    *I* wouldn't put it in such a way.  And everyone knows how terribly
    un-pc I am!  ;^)
    
       But I do think it's their right to have as many kids as they want.
    Just as it's my right to have as few as I want.
    
       As for who to blame for over-population?  Try certain branches of
    the Christian church that don't allow abortion *OR* birth control.
    
    
    
                                    L.J.

    RE: .8  Cathy
    
    > My point: If men are blubbering sex crazed barbaric beasts, and 
    > women and controlled meek subservient(SP?) wimps, then WHO will 
    > take responsibility for the overpopulation problem?
    	
    Are you looking for personal volunteers?  Why not you first?
    
    > But women are NOT weak willed wimps you say? Then why don't they
    > either say NO or take some precautions? 
    
    They?  Who are "they" - women?  Aren't you a woman, Cathy?  Who are
    you talking about?
    
    > It angers me that PEOPLE keep popping out babies like there's no reason
    > not to.  And since WOMEN are the ones walking around pregnant for 9
    > months, I'd have to say that if I couldn't say no, for fear of being
    > beaten or (aghast) left alone, then I'd damn sure TAKE SOME
    > PRECAUTIONS.
    
    If it were your life, you might do something different (just as someone
    else might run your present life differently than you, if given the
    chance.)  Your life isn't anyone else's to run, though, and vice versa.
    
    > IT ANGERS ME.
    > Starving, homeless, unloved babies ANGERS ME. 
    
    Perfectly valid statements.  Only you can decide what angers you. 
    
    > It SHOULD anger everyone.
    
    This is not for you to decide, tho.
    
    > And what ANGERS me are those who stand to say that it is those peoples
    > RIGHT to reproduce at will. 
    
    What sort of police state do you think it would take to enforce a ban
    on reproducing?  Would you allow similar restrictions on your own life
    (if some aspect of your life angered me?)
    
    > But I'm happy now.
    
    Me, too.

    It is a observation among people in Public Health in the third world,
    that birth rates drop soon after infant mortality rates.  If one knows
    that, despite your best efforts, only 1 in X (X can equal 3 to 10 or
    more, depending on the country) children will survive childhood, then
    producing many children is common reproductive strategy.  People do not
    wish to have birth control when it is a numbers game on child survival.
    
    This has little or nothing to do with child bearing in the developed
    nations.
    
    Cathy, I sense that there is a lot behind this issue for you.  Are you
    perhaps speaking about some personal observations or situations you
    have seen.  I would also suggest that you "walk a mile in their shoes"
    before you condemn all those who appear to fit the conditions which
    make you so angry.  You may not, even then, like or agree with their
    reasons, but it is important to try to see their side (whomever they
    might be).  Please excuse the tone of this note, I needed to say
    something and I could not find a gentler way to say it.  If it helps
    any, I am aware of some situations similar to those you speak of which
    also make me angry (the a welfare mother of my acquaintance.  She has a
    22 year old son and a 5 year old daughter.  Is totally public
    supported, and, there is no way in h*ll you can convince me that she
    did not have the youngest, just in time to continue on the dole, by
    accident.  Doesn't have a husband, but usually has a guy around who is
    about as big a deadbeat as she is.  GRRRRRR).
    
    So here I stand.  Quite definitely with a foot on both sides of that
    fence.
    
    In re: 992 - There are more things for women to be angry about than I
    care to think about sometimes.  Jody, I just wish I could kindle some
    of that justified anger in my daughters.  I despise what I see society
    doing to them (but, like, Dad's such an idiot).
    
    Enough obfuscation.  G'night
    jimc

================================================================================
Note 992.58                  Why are Women Angry?                       58 of 58
CSC32::MORGAN "Handle well the Prometheian fire..."  20 lines  26-AUG-1991 17:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   RE:    <<< Note 992.27 by CSC32::CONLON "Next, after the Snowperson..." >>>
    
>    	I'd regard .24 as an instance of internalized misogyny - I
>    	didn't see anyone else here tell other women that we SHOULD
>    	be angry at men as a class, for example (I only saw women
>    	express their anger at behavior, eg. the various injustices
>    	that are visited upon women.)

    Mikie? wades into the shark infested water...
    
    While what you indicate is possible, I don't think it's the case. I
    know Cat and I know she's been through some tough working conditions
    and work promotions. She does not impress me as one who engages in
    internalized misogyny.
    
    Women *can* and *should* be angry with other women. After all, who but
    other women are going to stand up for women's concerns? I treat the
    women in my life as my equal, if they want something they can attempt
    to get it themselves. If I want something I can attempt to get it
    myself. Neither they, nor I, are _guarenteed_ that we will acheive our
    goal.
    
    How many women are there in the U.S.? How many of those women belong to
    and/or are active in NOW or some other similar organization?
    
    The secret to changing one's situation is to change it locally, then
    proceed to the bigger playing fields with *support*, not just bitch and
    hope someone will wave their magic wand for us.
    
    How many women have taken Billy Dee's Collabaritive Politics Course? How
    many women were offended by her words? Does anyone know what those
    words are? 

    
Re: Note 992.29
CSC32::PITT
  >  re .25
  >  
  >  What I'm trying to say is, if you KNOW that dogs chase cats, and that
  >  dogs will ALWAYS chase cats, and you accept that that's the way dogs
  >  are and have always been, then you BETTER protect your cat.... :-)
    
    I tell women in my life that if they know men's natures, refuse to
    project their whims upon that male nature, that men will never let them
    down. Women then know what to expect from me and from other men.
    
    The same holds true for me(n) with respect to women.
    
    In my opinion problems arise when we try to elevate the human from
    animal to some foreign icon of fictional civility. Humans, men and
    women, are still animals as far as I can tell. Knowing that animal
    nature, being able to cope and work with that nature, will eliminate
    many problems.
    
    So I agree with you. That may not help your case thought. B^)
                                 

    
    
    I don't know who said it (sorry...) but I CANNOT agree that it is
    anyones RIGHT to reproduce at will. 
    
    It is not a RIGHT to reproduce, it is a biological function that
    animals cannot control, that maybe someday Humans will be able to.
    
    It is a responsibility to NOT reproduce beyond the limitations of
    the planet. It is a responsibility to NOT reproduce beyond the
    limitations of our own means. 
    
    Ever heard "the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few"?
    
    I agree that the Church's ban on birth control is beyond what I can
    really discuss at all rationally.
    
    Cathy

    I agree Cathy, reproduction is not a right, but rather a function.
    
    But then again, I don't labor under silly ideas of vaporous "rights".
    To me rights are something we _earn_, not something a mythical deity
    handed to us.

    
    re .12
    
    jimc.
    
    HI. No, there is nothing 'personal' in my feelings in this issue.
    But everytime I turn on the TV and see a pregnant woman with a baby
    in her arms, one at her side, and two others playing behind her,
    knowing that at least one of them will die of starvation before he
    reaches the age of 5, I get angry.
    
    Everytime I hear the latest birth statistics, I get angry.
    If every couple only had TWO kids, the population would stabalize...
    or so you'd think.
    Now since a whole lot of people are not having ANY kids, then 
    somebody out there needs to figure out where babies come from. 
    
    And before someone jumps on the "you are predjudice against poor people
    or minorities or etc. etc. etc." let me just say that I am NOT
    predjudice when I see a baby, no matter what color or religion or
    anything else, starving to death or full of disease. 
    
    Suffering babies make me ANGRY.
    
    Cathy
    

    re:.15
    
       It was who said it...and I stand by it.  If I am to be truly
    pro-choice (yet another rat-hole) and stand up for a womans right
    to abortion then I must also stand up for her right to have a
    child if she so desires.  It is her body...it is her choice.
    
       Many people through out history have tried to enforce this
    mythical idea of "the good of the many over the good of the few".
    Hitler was one.  If you start with that thinking, where do you stop?
    And why do *you* or any one person get to choose what's right?
    
       Again, I agree with the basics of what you're saying.  In some
    respects I'm even nastier about it than you are.  I'd say stop all
    aid to foreign countries of food, etc.  
    
    
    
                                       L.J.

    The problem revolves around what constitutes a right and whether they
    exist.

    RE: <<< Note 998.18 by USWRSL::SHORTT_LA "Touch Too Much" >>>
    
  >     Many people through out history have tried to enforce this
  >  mythical idea of "the good of the many over the good of the few".
  >  Hitler was one.  If you start with that thinking, where do you stop?
  >  And why do *you* or any one person get to choose what's right?
    
    I hear drek like this from persons who I perceive as those who can't
    think clearly.
    
    It is not a mythical idea. It actually works. But if it's taken too far
    then the idividual suffers. The idea which serves us best is to balance
    the needs of the individual and the collective together in a wholistic
    mesh, not to swing to either extreme.
    
    Not everyone agrees with or likes that; that's unfortunate.

    RE: .13  Mikey?
    
    Wow, long time no see in notes, Mike!
    
    > While what you indicate is possible, I don't think it's the case. I
    > know Cat and I know she's been through some tough working conditions
    > and work promotions. She does not impress me as one who engages in
    > internalized misogyny.
    
    In no way did I attempt to comment on her life as an individual.  I was
    commenting on her notes in 992.*, and the internalized misogyny present
    in her words.  Anything else she may have said or done in her life had 
    zero bearing on what I wrote about her note(s).
    
    > Women *can* and *should* be angry with other women.
    
    Thanks - I was angry at Cathy (I'm glad you approve.) :-)
    
    Trying to tell women to be angry at WOMEN (as a group) for the problems
    that (also) HURT women is an attempt to foster prejudice, which is not
    something to condone.
    
    > The secret to changing one's situation is to change it locally, then
    > proceed to the bigger playing fields with *support*, not just bitch and
    > hope someone will wave their magic wand for us.
    
    Why would you assume that if women mention something in a conference,
    it necessarily means that they are doing nothing about it anywhere else?
    
    Do you go to Soapbox to tell them that if they're discussing politics
    there, they must not be doing anything about these issues elsewhere?
    
    It's so easy to characterize women's political debates as 'bitching' as
    a means of dismissing almost anything women have to say.  (I'm not 
    accusing you of doing this personally - it's part of cultural misogyny.)

    RE: .15  Cathy
    
    > It is not a RIGHT to reproduce, it is a biological function that
    > animals cannot control, that maybe someday Humans will be able to.
    	
    You still haven't described for us the police state you would like
    to see instituted to put limits and bans on human reproduction (and
    how some of these might be enforced.)
    
    > It is a responsibility to NOT reproduce beyond the limitations of
    > the planet. It is a responsibility to NOT reproduce beyond the
    > limitations of our own means. 
    
    What if someone decided (before you had children) that it was YOUR
    PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to avoid over-population by having no children
    at all (ever.)  Would you have accepted this and abided by it (despite
    having differing opinions on responsibility?)
    
    Who decides what is responsible for your life?  Can I decide for you?
    Will you do what I think best for you?

Re: Note 998.21
    SC32::CONLON                
    
  >  In no way did I attempt to comment on her life as an individual.  I was
  >  commenting on her notes in 992.*, and the internalized misogyny present
  >  in her words.  Anything else she may have said or done in her life had 
  >  zero bearing on what I wrote about her note(s).
   
    I see nothing to support your idea. Perhaps you are suffering from a
 unconscious projection?
     
    >> Women *can* and *should* be angry with other women.
    >
    >Trying to tell women to be angry at WOMEN (as a group) for the problems
    >that (also) HURT women is an attempt to foster prejudice, which is not
    >something to condone.
    
    There is nothing here to indicate that Cat was attempting either
 consciously or unconsciously to foster prejudice. Cat's words are a
 call to action. My perception is that those who responded negatively to
 her words are those who may feel indicted because they are too lazy to do
 something to improve their lot. 

    >> The secret to changing one's situation is to change it locally, then
    >> proceed to the bigger playing fields with *support*, not just bitch and
    >> hope someone will wave their magic wand for us.
    >
    >Why would you assume that if women mention something in a conference,
    >it necessarily means that they are doing nothing about it anywhere else?
    
    Who assumes such?

   > Do you go to Soapbox to tell them that if they're discussing politics
   > there, they must not be doing anything about these issues elsewhere?
   
    Sure, I'd piss them off so much they'd get something accomplished
 besides bitching. What have you done in the last week to improve
 woman's lot? Go ahead, tell us.
     
  >  It's so easy to characterize women's political debates as 'bitching' as
  >  a means of dismissing almost anything women have to say.  (I'm not 
  >  accusing you of doing this personally - it's part of cultural misogyny.)

    You forget Suzanne, I'm an old sailor. I know alot about bitchin'.
 B^) I've never dismissed anyone of any sex who was sincere in doing
 something to change their lot. I dismiss anyone who's too damn lazy to
 work toward a brighter future. 
                                          

    RE: .23  Mikey?
    
    >> ...I was commenting on her notes in 992.*, and the internalized
    >> misogyny present in her words...
    
    > I see nothing to support your idea. Perhaps you are suffering from a
    > unconscious projection?
    
    You may not agree with the support I provided in 992.*, but it's
    present.  Perhaps you are suffering from a deficiency in reading
    comprehension?
    
    > There is nothing here to indicate that Cat was attempting either
    > consciously or unconsciously to foster prejudice. Cat's words are a
    > call to action. 
    
    Cathy did a "call to blame" when she stated that women "SHOULD" be angry 
    at women for some of the very things that were described as (also) hurting 
    women.  This fosters prejudice.
    
    > My perception is that those who responded negatively to her words are 
    > those who may feel indicted because they are too lazy to do something 
    > to improve their lot. 

    How easy it is to dig up whatever you feel like attributing as motives
    to others when you don't agree with what they say.  (It's pretty weak
    as an argument, though.)
    
    >>Why would you assume that if women mention something in a conference,
    >>it necessarily means that they are doing nothing about it anywhere else?
    
    > Who assumes such?
    
    If you don't assume this, then why give lectures on *how* to take action
    to people who are already doing it?
    
    >> Do you go to Soapbox to tell them that if they're discussing politics
    >> there, they must not be doing anything about these issues elsewhere?
   
    > Sure, I'd piss them off so much they'd get something accomplished
    > besides bitching. 
    
    Excuse me?  You "would" piss them off?  Then I take it you haven't done
    this yet (so you weren't responding "yes" to my question.)
    
    Do you honestly think you would have this much of an impact on their
    lives (by merely telling them off)?  I kinda doubt it, Mikey.  :-)
    
    > What have you done in the last week to improve woman's lot? Go ahead, 
    > tell us.
    
    Sorry, but you haven't bothered me enough yet to motivate me to go
    through the exercise of justifying my right to discuss politics with
    you.  Try this one in Soapbox, though.  You might get a rise out of
    those folks.  :-)
    
    > I've never dismissed anyone of any sex who was sincere in doing
    > something to change their lot. I dismiss anyone who's too damn lazy 
    > to work toward a brighter future. 
     
    And I bet you think people live in dread of being dismissed by you,
    too (so they fall down on their knees seeking your validation.) :)
    
    Just kidding.  (I get a kick out of the "I'm the center of the
    universe" mentality that our society tries to socialize in males.) :-)

    
    	Mikey?, you should start writing in Soapbox again - you definitely
    	haven't lost your knack for Soapbox-style wrangling. :-)
    
    	You'll have to learn a bunch of new spellings for words, though
    	(like "yer" for "your", and "kerrect" for "correct") if you want
    	to be politikally kerrect over there. :-)
    

    Suzanne,
    
    I'm curious-in 992.?, you indicated that Cathy's note was an
    example of internalied mysogny (sp?).  Is this fact or your
    opinion?  It feels to me that you are stating it as fact, yet
    you seemed to blast Mikey for stating his perceptions of what
    Cathy meant.  I'm just confused (and no, I don't need reading
    comprehension lessons).
    
    Are you more upset with Cathy's statements because of the word
    SHOULD?  Would her thoughts still have been invalidated if she
    used words more like I FEEL?  I may not agree with everything
    Cathy said, but I do agree that there are women out there who
    get me angry.  These are the women who get by on their looks 
    alone (no prejudiced against beautiful women, just jealous (-:)
    and find it easier to maintain the status quo to make it harder
    for women who want to accomplish more (IMO).  I get angry at 
    women who tell me that I'm a traitor to my gender for wanting
    to get married and have children.  And there are men I get angry
    at, such as some men I work with who think I get certain benefits
    for being a woman (couldn't be that I EARNED them, huh?), or who
    automatically assume a biological reason for my becoming angry on
    occaision (excuse me, fella, but it couldn't have anything to do
    with the stupid thing YOU just did or said?).  Know what I mean?
    So, I get angry at men and women and situations, but I understand
    why you don't want others to tell you what SHOULD make you angry.
    Perhaps starving babies Do make you angry, but not as much as other
    things.  We all have to prioritize our lives and decide for us what
    issues are tantamount to our leading healthy, productive lives.
    Unfortunately, we are not only women, we are mothers, sisters,
    professionals, lesbians, blacks, whites, latinos, european and so 
    on and that causes many to really have to dissect what is and is not
    important, then we take it from there.  That I think is resonsible
    for many of the diverse opinions shared here.
    
    Sorry for getting carried away here.  I really meant to investigate
    the possibility of a semantics problem vs fact/opinion.
    
    Christine

Re: .10 et al.

Reproduction is not a right.  As Cat says, it is a biological function
that lesser animals cannot control -- and hence they find that other
animals control it for them.  When rabbits overpopulate, coyotes do it
too, and soon the rabbit population isn't a problem.  Then the coyote
population falls, and the design of nature -- *NATURE* -- is brought
back into balance.

Who are we, the *ONLY* species that is smart enough not to play by the
rules, to think we know what the hell we are doing??  We don't.  Every
g*dd*m time we mess with it, we f*ck it up.  And popping babies out as
regular as clockwork because we think it's our god-given right to do so
is part of it.

WE DID NOT INHERIT THIS WORLD FROM OUR PARENTS -- WE ARE BORROWING IT
FROM OUR CHILDREN.

My wife and I made a *responsible* decision.  We had two children and
then made sure we would not have any more.  We rose above the animal
urge to becoem immortal by overpopulating the world.

I agree with Cat.  But it's not only *women* who should be angry with
the subset of women who don't exercise responsibility.  Men and women
alike should be angry with the women AND THE MEN who behave like mind-
less baby manufacturers.

-d

Re: .15

Cat, the Church's ban on birth control is not what most people think
it is.  (I can't address your specific understanding of it because I
don't know you personally.)  Read this carefully, folks -- this is what
the position REALLY is.  I know this stuff, because I used to teach a
pre-marital course for the Church and was required to explain this so
that the engaged couples could understand it.

The Church's position on birth control is delineated in an encyclical by
Pope Paul VI, entitled "Humanae vitae," "On human life."  This document
says up front that the Church does not approve of artificial means of
birth control.  Then, further down, it says VERY CLEARLY that not using
birth control is the IDEAL.  But, it goes on, we are human -- we are
not perfect.  Some of us don't have the perfect faith to trust that God
will give us children in the way, and at the times, that will be best.
So, the encyclical says, the matter of birth control, rather than being
something the Church can edict, is A MATTER OF INDIVIDUAL DECISION, THE
CHOICE MADE BY A COUPLE'S EDUCATED CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE.

Read this and understand.  At the bottom line, the choice to use birth
control is YOUR choice.  Period.

-d

    -d and Cathy,
    
    I surely do not understand your anger at the production of babies.
    To a point, I do understand that it is a shame for people who 
    cannot support/care for children to have them, and it would be my
    preference to see this stop, however, as LJ pointed out, if I am 
    pro-choice, it's a two way street.  I can't support a woman's right
    to terminate a pregnancy if I support controlling other woman's rights
    to bear children.  Yes, reproduction is a function, but it becomes a
    right when others try to control it through legislation.  Now, as -d,
    if you make a personal choice to have only 2 children, FINE!  But
    please do NOT tell me that I SHOULD or SHOULD NOT have X amount of kids
    as the "resonsible" thing to do.  If I felt my fiance and I could 
    support and care for 12 children, I would have them and it has nothing
    to do with increasing my immortality.
    
    Christine

Re: .29

The whole problem, Christine, is that human population is increasing
exponentially:

				    |
				    |
				   |
				  /
				 /
			    ,,-'
		....----'''

It is not that individual peopel cannot support their children -- it is
that the WORLD cannot support that kind of population growth.

How long will it be before there is maybe one square yard per person?
Having 12 children is all well and good, but will your children's
children's children, down unto the tenth generation, have that same
luxury, or will they find that their 10x-great grandparents usurped it
from them??

You have the ability to support many children, fine.  But your use of
the resources to rais them is directly denying those same resources to
a woman of Arabia, or Africa, or Asia -- because you have 12 kids she
cannot have any.  Or at least any that survive...

-d

    -d
    I'm beginning to see your reasoning, I just don't agree with it.
    Children don't waste our resources (IMO), but adults, and large
    corporations who have no respect for the environment.  I also dont
    see the point about my having 12 children preventing a woman elsewhere 
    from having any.  

Christine, it's not you individually.  It's the collective yous.  All of
us here in the USA.  We have about 1/20 of the world's population, yet
we use over 3/5 of the world's resources.

It's not children who waste resources.  It's their parents, who bury
paper diapers in landfills and choose to buy commercial infant formula
instead of nursing when they can nurse, and buy lots of synthetic-fiber
clothes and plastic toys (nonrenewable resources) and so on.  It's
people who make the choice not to recycle, not to use recycled
materials, not to buy fuel-efficient cars.  It's all of us, to a
greater or lesser degree, and what it comes down to in the final
analysis is that if we continue the way we are, there will not be a
habitable place on this earth in another 500 years.  We will have used
it up or poisoned it.

Having large numbers of children is a contributor because those children
will grow up to be adults and continue the cycle.  Read a book by Larry
Niven and Jerry Pournelle, called _The Mote in God's Eye_ -- it's a
science fiction book, and it's a long one, but it is such a biting 
commentary on our drive to overpopulate that I think you will be moved.

-d

    Acouple of minor points.  Cath, if everyone in the world started having
    only two children per couple (replacement), the population would still
    continue to grow for a long time.  The simple reason for this is that
    people live longer than it takes their offspring to reproduce.  So if
    you have two children and in 20 years they have 4 (accounting for their
    spouses) and in twenty years they have 8, by the time you die (if you
    live about an average life span, you will be indirectly responsible for
    between 16 & 30 new lives.  Eventually, and I forget how long it takes,
    replacement will level out at ZPG (Zero Population Growth),
    unfortunately, IMO, that would be too late.  This is THE reason that
    the Chinese government is restricting families to one child.  And even
    they are having trouble with it.  What, you may ask, is the answer?
    
    Uhhh, beats me.  I wish I knew.  A plague, efficient space travel, a
    really nasty war, or a very grim future.  It does not look very
    promising to me.  8-{  Sorry.
    
    8-{
    jimc

    
    .d
    
    I must admit that NOT being RC, the only thing I have to go on is hours
    of conversation I've gotten into with my Father-in-law.
    He started us sending us this monthly publication on anti abortion.
    That was all fine. One opinion, but the articles that angered me were
    the ones that said things like "Condoms are the work of Satan. Sex is
    not for fun but to populate the Earth in Gods Plan". This magazine
    had articles on how the ANY form of birth control is against the
    teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Since sex is ONLY for the
    purpose of reproduction, why would you want to stop pregnancy? It also
    talked about how even the pill prevents the fertalized egg from
    attaching to the Uterus and therefore causes it to die, Killing the
    baby. They consider this murder. 
    The magazine quotes the bible and the RC church. 
    They do, apparently find the rythm method acceptable, at least in the
    more modern teachings. 
    
    I can't say that this is how the church really feels, as I said, this
    is mostly from reading and listening to my Father-in-law!  
    
    One article spoke about how the West has no right to teach birth
    control as to Third World countries as a criteria for supplying food
    and medical supplies to starving,dieing children. We have no right to
    interfere with those women's right to have children.
    
    I stopped reading the magazine when they published a picture of the
    head of one of the babies that had been aborted (at about 7 months) in
    a effort to scare people in believing that abortion is killing babies
    and not just birth control.  I found the picture tasteless and very
    very sad.
    
    Christine, I think that 'good of the many outweighing the needs of the
    few' does come into play here when you're talking about MY "right" to
    keep having babies, if a) there is a physical limit to how many humans
    this planet can support b) my "right" to have babies when I potentially
    do not have the means to support them, somehow seems to imply that the
    baby has no rights, that my rights override his. c) There is a simple 
    matter of how much food we can produce. 
    
    I guess to carry it one opinion further, the women in this country who
    CHOOSE to not take precautions but continue to bring children into the
    world whom they cannot support, are not only infringing on that babies
    right to the basic of human needs (food, shelter), but they are also
    infringing on the rights of the rest of society.
    
    I guess I find it hard to argue about the 'rights' of one woman, when
    we're talking about the starvation or suffering of many of her
    children multiplied by 20 million. 
    
    Cathy
    
    
    
    

    Thanks, -d,
    
    I still think that if we can raise our children to be enviornmentally
    aware, it may bring improvement to our planet.  Thanks for the book
    
    recommendation, but, sc is the only catagory of book that I don't
    read.  I've just never been able to get into it, although I'm sure
    it would be informative.  I just felt that you and Cathy were saying
    the in general people shouldn't have more that X number of children,
    and that does get me angry.  I still feel it's a personal choice as
    to how many children people should have, and again, based on other's
    priorities and other causes we all support, the responsible decision
    is different for everyone.  I don't want to be considered irresponsible
    for having 3 children as opposed to none, one or two.  
    
    Cathy,  I understand your point about starving babies, and yes, it
    does make me angry.  I felt you were stating earlier that no woman
    should have children and that made me angry.
    
    Christine

Re: .35

Christine, yes.  You have it.  The responsible choice is different for
everyone.  What angers me, and what I see Cat expressing anger at, is
that so many people are *not* making responsible choices -- not only in
the number of children they will have but in most or all aspects of
their lives.

I think we, the "arguing" parties, have achieved a consensus here, and
I think we all deserve a dip in the flotation tank.

For an informational item, it works out that a per-person average of
0.9 children is the ZPG figure.  Pretty tough to do if considered in a
vacuum,, I'd say, but it can work out because some will have no
children.

-d

    
    re .35 and .36
    
    
    :-) YES YES YES/...THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    yeah.
    
    
    Cathy
    

    Got it now, thanks -d and Cathy.  Does the floatation tank have
    massueses (one of these days I'll find a dictionary and stop
    butchering our language)?

    Well, Christine, (  (*8   ), before you enter you note, you can hit the
    DO key and type SPELL, and the on-line Houghton Mifflin dictionary will
    spell check the note for you.


    This is fun.

    E Grace

    You women are great!  I'm getting so educated, just think, only
    a year or so ago, I didn't really know how to write or reply...
    Bet some of you wished I never learned :-)
    
    And yes, this is fun!
    
    Christine

Re: .34

Cat,

What I said in .28 is the official position of the RC Church, clearly
stated in print (clearly for Latin scholars, anyway!) but not well
understood either by the majority of Catholics or by nonCatholics.  I
have found many priests, even, who have no concept of what the
encyclical says.  And people who want to make a point will slant and
pervert whatever they think they can use -- that kind of casuistry is
universal, and the Stone Age of religious bigotry dies hard!

As with every cause, political or whatever, there are nuts at either
end of the spectrum.  The anti-abortion publication you describe is not
an official organ of the RC Church any more than Jimmy Swaggart's
antiCatholic ravings are the official position of the Assemblies of
God.

-d

    I don't know, -d.  It seems to me that I have heard the pope state
    quite clearly in recent years that "unnatural" birth control is a sin. 
    I also clearly heard the College of Cardinals, or whatever it is
    called, iterate their abhorrence on the idea of teaching Third World
    countries the tyranny of birth control.

    And it was said in English.

    E Grace

The deal is, E, that the Pope and the College of Cardinals can say
what they bloody well please -- as human beings.  The current Pope does
indeed think artificial birth control is a sin -- but he has not had the
gall to revoke the encyclical of his once-removed predecessor.  That
encyclical still defines the *official* position of the Church.

I myself don't think much of the current Pope's opinions...

The problem comes in when people believe the opinions of others without
making the effort to find out what the RULES are.  It is all the worse
when the opinionis are those of people we're supposed to respect for
their wisdom.  What it comes dwon to is that we reap what we sow, and if
we sow intellectual laziness we shall reap its consequences.

-d

Re: .44

May I (sort of) respectfully suggest that you get your facts straight?

The current pope's official name is John Paul II, as in "second," not
17th, fer godsake.  He is entitled to say whatever he damned well wants
to say about birth control and sin and any other topic he chooses to
speak to.  You will note, if you make the effort to examine his writings
and sayings, that he has not *ever* said that his opinion, which he has
every right to believe is correct, is *the official Church position that
is supported by Canonical Law*.  He's not a fool -- he won't try to pull
the threat of excommunication on you if you use condoms.

As for running the North American side of things differently, no, he
has made no such decision.  He has, however, bowed to the obvious fact
that we in North America are rather better educated and more likely to
take issue with being ordered about by him and his minions than are many
dirt-poor, starving, South Americans and Africans who know no life
except that of being ordered about by one dictator or another.  He
would still prefer that we all kowtowed to his authority, but it is
daily becoming clearer that he cannot tell us what to do.  He can tell
us what he thinks -- and if we don't like it, we can do what we choose.
He is also entitled to tell us what he thinks of our choices.

-d

    I haven't read all the replies to this just the first few and these are
    my feelings.
    
I *don't* want to get in trouble here, but I *do* want to present my view.

I used to say, too, that I disliked the way 'those women on welfare act', and 
I also said/thought, why don't they just say no?! etc etc...

Now I can see that focusing my anger and frustration on them was a way for me
to continue to dislike 'women' (generic) or some women because they obviously
didn't have the high ideals I had etc etc.

It was, FOR ME, bullsh*t. It was a way to say, some dumb women == ALL
WOMEN ARE DUMB. This only provided (untrue) fuel for my low self-esteem to feed
on. No not consciously, but it helped me to remain a target (rather than
victim). I think it was easier for me to *think* that we all have this POWER to
just say no, to drunk abusive husbands; but that there must be something
intrinsically wrong with *ME* becasue I can't. See the cycle?
	all women have power, hubby comes home and beats me up, what happened
	to MY power, result = low self-esteem

At least thats how it was for me. It was much harder to accept
that we are all flawed, and YES I do somethings wrong and I say the wrong
things and I have to keep trying before I get it right. Its harder to see the
human side and accept it in yourself. I can say that I also didn't like women
in years gone by *because* I didn't like myself FIRST. Once I learned to like
me and accept me, it was easier to understand that others don't necesarily
CHOOSE their cicumstances, at least not consciously.

 And that by grouping them into one 'group' (THOSE women) they become less
like me in my mind and I feel that this is where part of the fallacy lies.
Once I can see them as different from me (as in not-human) then I have
expectations from them, that I don't even have of myself.

At least this has been my experience.

Hannah

    My sister is a welfare mother....she has six kids.....women like my
    sister end up fighting a losing battle sometimes...she did not finish
    high school....her husband wasn't always there....she was scare to
    death about working outside the home....she struggled to take care of
    her children....
    
    She is started to take control of her life.....she is starting to try
    to get off welfare....she is going to school to learn how to be a
    medical assistant....I give her so much credit....
    
    It's not easy for alot of women to be who we think they ought to
    be.....when my sister and I were teenagers....we were surpose to get
    married and raise a family....not get an education....not be anything
    else but wives.....Unfortuntely, my sister got caught....she got
    pregnant at a early age.....don't condemm other people sisters unless
    you know the reasons why....know were they come.....it's not easy for
    older women to break lose of the chains......
    
    She's been trying for years to the right thing for her children.....but
    without an education.....what could she do......
    
    My sister is one of those women on welfare.......you don't know what
    you're are talking about.....you don't know my sister......
    
    
    denise

    
    Thank you, Denise.
    
    The arrogance and judgmental attitudes that ooze from this
    note just make me sick.  Like *you* are so high and mighty
    and perfect and blameless!  Excuse me while I puke over here.
    
    My mother had eight children.  Not one of us *ever once* went
    hungry or suffered!  You know *nothing* about me or her or us!
    
    You want to talk about rights?  Here are a few for you!
    
    It is *MY* RIGHT to exist and be here!
    It is my sister Mary's RIGHT to exist and be here!
    It is my sister Anne's RIGHT to exist and be here!
    It is my brother Paul's RIGHT to exist and be here!
    It is my brother David's RIGHT to exist and be here!
    It is my sister Monica's RIGHT to exist and be here!
    It is my brother Peter's RIGHT to exist and be here!
    It is my sister Kate's RIGHT to exist and be here!
    
    Take your g-d spiteful, hateful attitude and SHOVE IT!
    

    
    .48, were you directing your reply at me? I hope that I didn't come
    across that way because that was the opposite of my intent!
    
    I was trying to say that NOW (today) I do understand that we are all
    human, we all have struggles and I have empathy for others. I was
    trying to point out that I USED to feel that way (condeming others for
    their supposed lake of power) but I came to realize it was because *I*
    didn't have my own power or self-esteem. I no longer blame people for
    their circumstances, I try to understand instead.
    I was trying to say that by directing the focus off of humans and on to
    'groups' is a way to see people as less than human and therefore of
    'different' capacities (expecting more or less from them than
    yourself).
    
    I hope I am making myself clear here. I certaninly did not mean to
    imply that 'those' women are 'all alike', I was using that terminology
    to show how ridiculous my ideas were at the time, that it was ME and my
    thinking that was in error. 
    
    Hannah
    

    I made what I think was a responsible choice. I don't particlarly like
    children for more than about an hour. With that in mind and a few other
    hedonistic reasons I had myself sterilized. The world just doesn't need
    half copies of me.
    
    To me sex is better when I/we know that no children can ensue. That was
    one of the hedonsitic reasons I had for getting a vas.
    
    I recommend that men consider the process. Life is better, IMO, when
    the only child I have to tend is myself. B^) I even know some women who
    are or have considered having no children. My wife is of that mind now.
    I think it will help them too. One woman in my neighborhood has a
    tee-shirt which shows an anguished woman saying "I can't believe I
    forgot to have children." B^)
    
    So while there is the biological urge for children in most men and
    women, there are a few of us who are willing to forego the pain and
    enjoy the fruits of our labors without passing it own to children.

    $ SET MODE /I_FORM

    Question to those who argue that an unlimited right to procreation
    exists: can you suggest a *workable* approach which will redress
    the overpopulation problem without denying parents the right to
    have 12 children (assuming they can support them, to remove that
    issue as a red herring)?

    I don't know about other people, but when I express concern about
    overpopulation, the suffering or lack of suffering of large families
    in the here and now is not an issue. I come from a family of four
    children. I'm not about to go out and shoot any of my siblings (I
    even like some of them), but that's just too many. [In my view] I
    don't believe even maintaining the current population is acceptable
    ... it's got to go down if the world three generations hence is
    going to be even marginally tolerable.

    I don't believe given individual choice this will ever happen -
    it's too easy to look around you and say "*my* children aren't
    hungry, so there's no problem" (which I'm not quoting from
    anybody specifically). The problem is not that close - it's a
    large-scale population issue, which makes it a lot more abstract,
    impersonal, and easy to ignore ... but none the less real.

    So far, my parents' four children have had a total of four
    children (I have and will have none), so in a very local sense
    we've corrected our parents' excess ... so far.

    If individuals find it so easy to ignore the problem, how will the
    problem ever be addressed?

    Widespread famine?

    War? (Seems less likely these days, at least in the Armageddon
    scenario.)

    Draconian government measures a la the Chinese one-child-per-family
    campaign?

    Monetary influence, such as removal of tax incentives for having
    children (i.e. removing deductions)? How about removing deductions
    after the second child? Negative deductions?

    Education? (---> widespread famine when it doesn't work)

    If I have a point here, it's this: the farther along a spaceship
    is on its trajectory, the more fuel you have to spend to correct
    its course. The longer the population is allowed to continue to
    increase, the more disastrous the consequences, and the more
    intrusive the measures that will have to be taken when measures
    *are* taken.

    So ... what would you [widely dispersed] suggest?

    $ SET MODE /NORMAL


    ... waiting for the sound of the bolt being drawn back on a
        high-caliber keyboard ...

    RE: .52  Paul

    > Question to those who argue that an unlimited right to procreation
    > exists: can you suggest a *workable* approach which will redress
    > the overpopulation problem without denying parents the right to
    > have 12 children (assuming they can support them, to remove that
    > issue as a red herring)?

    Before we get to this, I'm still wondering what kind of approach some
    of the folks here (who want to limit reproduction) would want to see
    applied to put bans and limits on it:

    		Forced sterilization?
    		World-wide pregnancy police?
    		Forced abortion?

    It seems to me that before we can suggest a compromise for reproductive
    freedom (to conceive,) it would be helpful to know what drastic measures
    this compromise would avoid (and if any of you think these are feasible
    and desirable if no compromise can be found.)

re: .53

> ...while making sure that safe, cheap, easy and discrete birth control
> methods are readily available.

    It is difficult to imagine something identifiable as a "birth control
    method" that was not discrete.  However, it is only by being *discreet*
    that one exhibits discretion, which sounds like the goal you had in mind.

         Sharon

    re .54 (Suzanne) -

    I think the Malthusians' principal goal is the larger one
    (population restraint), not the local one (individual restraint).

    The point I tried to make in the analogy with a spaceship was
    this: forms of restraint which are "gentler" (and which I'd
    characterize as those involving voluntary behavior modification,
    whether through education, tax incentive, brainwashing, or
    whatever) have a smaller immediate impact, and as such must be put
    in place much earlier to have an adequate response in the long
    run.

    If these aren't used ... or don't work ... then in generations to
    come (and not too many) people are more likely to face the kind of
    involuntary limits you cite as examples (forced XYZ).

      re .49
    
    First of all, I think it was probably ME who makes you sick? Maybe you
    might want to read back and be sure who is causing this illness in you.
    
    I think that you have poor Denis rather confused by your emotional
    outburst at her rather innocent (though rather confusing ) note.
    
    Looking back through all of the previous notes, I don't remeber anyone
    talking about your sister Mary and her RIGHT to be here.
    Soo, the confusion continues. 
    Please let me know what exactly you're sick over. I Will see what I can
    do to clear up my comments.
    
    Now of course, if it IS Dennise who makes you sick, then she'll have to
    take this up with you herself. 
    
    Secondly, "Shove it"??  Is this within the bounds of good noting
    protocol? Is this nice? You and the sock lady should perhaps spend less
    time together.
    
    Third, back to the note at hand, some interesting points. So are you
    saying
    that the RC church in the USA HAS said it's ok to practice birth control? 
    Do they limit it to any particular types. This is quite contrary to
    what I understood to be the case,.....interesting...
    
    Cat
    

    
    Well, Cathy, it was obvious to me, but I'll tell you the
    way I saw things going here.
    
    One, you say are very "ANGRY" at women who have more than two
    children.  Or is it three?  Just what *is* the "proper" limit,
    according to Cathy Pitt, that should be adhered to by all people
    in the world everywhere?
    
    Two, you also said that you think that people *don't* have the
    right to have children.
    
    Now, since Denise's (not Denis) sister has had six children
    and my mother has had eight children, obviously you are very
    "ANGRY" at both of them.  Afterall, what "right" did they have?
    None at all, according to you, in your own words.
    
    *That* is why I am angry - at your words, at *you*!
    

    oh dear oh dear oh dear.
    
    folks, I have been told that
    	a) I can't have job x because I'm a woman
    	b) no woman should have a career, since she would then
    	   neglect her husband and children (both given)
    	c) it is wonderful that I planned to return to work as an engineer
    	   after having my 1st child, because it advanced women's equality
    	d) it is terrible that I planned to return to work after my child's
    	   birth, because she needed me
    	e) it is wonderful that I have worked part-time since my 2nd
    	   child's birth, since my children should come first
    	f) it is terrible that I have worked part-time since my 2nd child's
    	   birth, since it proves that I am not committed to the project
    	g) career women are kept down by the glass ceiling
    	h) I contribute to the glass ceiling by having a career and kids
    	   since working moms are not dedicated
        i) having more than one child is foolish, since you can't provide
    	   for more than one as well
    	j) having only one child WILL produce a rotten spoiled brat
    	k) having any children is stupid, all they do is generate dirty 
    	   laundry from all orifices
    
    and on and on and on.  In reality, I do my best to get by, meet all my
    responsibilities -- and god knows, they are legion!  and no movement
    has yet helped me meet them all! -- without going completely round the
    bend, trying to fulfill the expectations of every group that thinks
    they have an interest in how my life turns out.
    
    can we figure out yet that what works for one may not work for all? and
    vice versa?
    
    stop bickering, get on with your own life, with what works for you, and
    leave others (men and women) to their own choices.

    re.57  and the Roman Catholic position on birth control.
    
    All of the encyclicals, policies, position papers, et al boil down to:
    
      No, artificial birthcontrol is not "OK."
      People are human, and will make their own choices.
      The Church will try [_real_ hard ] to get you to sign up to never use
        artifical birth control, but ...
      It's your conscience, be it upon your own head.
    
    The Church is not against population control, but the 'preferred'
    population control methodology is firmly rooted in self-control and
    abstinence.
    
      Annie
    

Re: .57

No, if course the RC Church does not say, in the USA or anywhere else,
that it is all right to use birth control.  At least not in so many
words.  As I explained somewhere way back there, the encyclical "Humanae
vitae" lays down the law - but how many Catholics ever read the whole
thing?  Or how many *priests* ever taught exactly what it says?  Try
counting them on the thumbs of one foot, and you won't be far off.

I, as an official representative of the Diocese of Manchester (NH, not
England), was instructed carefully that we, the leaders of the course,
should lay out the whole truth.  Much of our effort at the last of our
sessions was devoted to damage control, after the required talk by a
priest.  I wouldn't let some of those priests baptize my goldfish, let
alone instruct my children!

Ww were taught that what it comes down to is this:  If you believe in
the Christian God as viewed by the Catholic Church, then it is your duty
as that God's creation to use your intelligence and your faith to
determine how you will respond to the Church's call for sanctity.

-d

The RC Church does approve of, and teaches, a method called Natural
family Planning, which relies on vaginal temperature and examination
of vaginal secretions to determine when the woman is fertile.  Depending
on whether you want or do not want to conceive, you either have sex or
abstain during that time.  This method is *not* rhythm, and it is as
reliable as any artifical means other than sterilization.  I know two
couples who have never used anything else.  One has two children, both
conceived in the specific months when the attempt was made, and the
other has three children, also conceived deliberately and on first try.
Each of these couples has been married at least ten years.

One particular advantage of NFP is that it relies on *both* partners --
it is not something that the woman does, or that the man does.  It is
a deliberate choice to abstain or not, and it is said by my friends to
have produced a significant heightening of their love for each other.

-d

    re.62 In a previous version of this conference someone (Jody?)
    posted statistics on the relative effectiveness of various methods 
    of preventing conception. The method you refer to was, if memory 
    serves, only about 70 percent effective. Frankly, not good enough
    for _me_. Your mileage may vary.
    
    Of course, if you are seeking not to prevent but to _conceive_,
    the method may be better ;-)

     re .58
    
    
    
    Please quote where I said I was ANGRY at women who have more than two 
    children. I don't remember saying that. Perhaps it was when I was in
    my snit. 
    
    I said that I was angry at women who keep "popping out babies" because
    they would not take RESPONSIBILITY to NOT do that. Either they would
    or COULD not say NO. I was referring to UNWANTED pregnancies "oh sh&t
    I'm pregnant yet again", not necessarily to those women who just like
    to have lots of children. I won't touch that one as I don't want to
    insult the list of family members you posted earlier.
    
    Since you want ME to decide on a limit (I am honoured by the way),
    I will.
    
    HEAR YE HEAR YE. Proclaimed this day fourth. NO WOMAN SHALL HAVE MORE
    THAN ONE (count em 1) baby until the planet has recovered from the
    mis use and mistreatment we have put it through with our self centered
    selfish attitudes. If you would like to have more than ONE baby, please
    contact me and I'll put your name on the list (but you better have a 
    damned good reason).
    Thankyou.
    
    
    There. NOw if there are any other many world issues you'd like me to
    take care of, please just let me know.
    
    Cathy
    
    :-)
    

    Re: 998.53, Ann,
    
    The World Future Society is advocating a world-wide power grid.
    Evidently, according to their figures, where there is available
    electrical power birth rates drop. They even have an elaborate
    role-playing world game they use to demonstrate their concepts.
    
    It's an interesting idea.

    Reply to .59, Thigpen_S,
    
    Not really, I think what it all boils down to is that no one,
    regardless of their gender, is !gaurenteed! (sp?) anything. In essense,
    regardless of our gender, we make our world as we go along. If we don't
    like something we change it as best we can. If we can't change it and
    we have the emotional energy and resources to continue, we approach the
    issue from another more promising direction.

    
    re .64:  Well, if you were only referring to "unwanted"
    pregnancies, and not necessarily "unplanned" pregnancies,
    then I guess I misunderstood.
    
    And by the way, asking you "how many should a person have?"
    was supposed to be sarcastic.  I know you answered, "one",
    but I'll do as I damn please anyway.  In this country, at
    least, it *is* still my right to decide.
    

    re. the general populace herein
    
    regardless of the popularity of her opinions, Cathy has a right to her
    anger
    
    whether I, personally, believe that she is 'wasting' her anger on the
    'wrong' things is immaterial.  I am quite sure that there are those
    here who found my reasons for anger [ in .2 of the other note, I think ]
    quite trivial and silly
    
    I believe that it would be more constructive, and certainly more
    _in_structive, if we explored the reasons behind our anger rather than
    taking offense at the sources of our anger -- to ask "why?" in a
    sincere and non-confrontational way.
    
      Annie
     [the noter]

    	It's all well and good to be concerned about over-population
    	(and I agree that it is a threat to our planetary well-being)
    	- but I still haven't figured out what any of this has to do
    	with the concept of being angry at certain women over it (for
    	having babies every nine months, or whatever.)
    
    	When I see photos of the famine in Africa, I'm angry to tears
    	at the way children look when they are in the process of starving
    	to death - but it never occurs to me to blame their mothers for
    	giving birth to them.  I'm angry at the bureaucracy that prevents
    	aid from reaching these people in time.  I'm angry that these
    	children are suffering and dying, but I don't see the point of
    	blaming child-bearing women for the conditions causing this.
    
    	I mean, how many women are having babies every 9 months?  My
    	Irish Grandma (Catholic, of course) used zero birth control and
    	had 10 children (including my Dad) - but they didn't have babies
    	every 9 months.  It was more like every 18 mos to 2 years (until
    	my Grandma was naturally finished.)  They would have had 15 babies
    	or so, but they were both immigrants from Ireland and spent some
    	years working to help bring their many siblings over from Ireland
    	before getting married.
    
    	My Grandparents were not rich, and they raised all these kids
    	through the Depression.  But they did it for religious reasons,
    	so were they "better" than some other mother now who doesn't use
    	birth control because she doesn't want to (and keeps having babies?)
    
    	I'm just sorta rambling here - but these objections to the women
    	who have babies every 9 months sounds like an indictment against
    	poor women (and against women, in general.)
    
    	If we are concerned about over-population, why does controlling
    	the reproductive habits of WOMEN seem to come forward as the
    	way to fix it (and why are women being asked to shoulder the 
    	blame for the fact that our species is filling up the planet?)

    This isn't addressed to anyone in particular, but I couldn't help but
    offer a comment, in view of the direction this discussion has taken.

    All this fuss about whether or not people have some sort of
    "reproductive rights" is really rather moot.  There are too many
    cultural and religious forces at work on this planet to ever make any
    sort of voluntary birth control program work.  But not to worry. 
    Someday nature will take care of our over-population problems for us.
    Have a gander at what's going on in the sub-Sahara regions these days,
    if one wants a preview.  All we can hope to do is delay the inevitable
    for as long as possible, it seems, and hope that the inevitable will not
    fall on our children or grandchildren.  

    Meanwhile, the planet continues to suffer irreversible damage done by
    our hands.  A pity, really.  Our Mother Earth is such a beautiful
    place.

    Mike 
                                                                        

	Children starve to death right here in the good old USA.  You don't
have to go to Africa.  Harry Chapin founded World Hunger Year to fight hunger
everywhere, including the US.

	My take on Cathy's statement is that she was angry about irresponsible
reproduction.  Bringing children into the world that cannot be cared for.
Having a fourth when you can't feed the three you already have. Figuring that
it doesn't matter if you have another, 'cause they'll just increase your
monthly check.  It angers me as well.

	I don't think she's talking about having 3 kids and suddenly having
a financial/medical/personal crisis put the family into dire straits.  I don't
think she's discussing families of eight children when they can be cared for -
accidental or planned.

	I also have to agree with Paul.  If we don't slow down the global
birthrate, we're going to have a problem.  But you can't get some people to
look any farther than the end of their noses.  I also don't know what the
long-term solution is.

	Ann, w.r.t. your comment on first-world countries - do any first-world 
countries actually have negative birth rates?


					--Doug

    Doug -
    
    I'm not sure about currently, but there have been times in the past
    where negative birth rates have occurred.  France in the early 1800's
    is one outstanding example (and occurred long enough that the general
    population declined).  It is my belief that modern Russia (*not* the
    Soviet Union, but the Russian Republic) has a negative birth rate, but
    I can't prove it.
    
    The 1800's French example, and the Russian example, are both telling,
    because they have occurred in the absence of readily available,
    reliable birth control.  In both cases, the negative birth rates are
    economically based.  Several conditions have to apply for it to work. 
    First, economic conditions must be good enough that a high percentage
    of pregnancies result in children reaching adulthood.  Second, they
    must be bad enough that the family is hurt by having more than one
    adult male son per generation.  (I say son because historically the
    son is the one responsible for the economic care of his parents in
    their old age, regardless of who provides the physical care.)  In 
    France this occurred when division of the family farm between sons 
    resulted in a non-viable living for the children.
    
    
    wrt another note:
    
    My guess is that electrification occurs at the same economic point as
    the survival of pregnancies to adult children.  The cause-and-effect
    relationship isn't as clear to me.  There may be a correlation, as
    electrification allows improvements in food and water purity, reducing
    disease, increasing disease resistence, and improving diets in general.
    
    Alison

    RE: .71  Doug G.

    > Children starve to death right here in the good old USA.  You don't
    > have to go to Africa.  Harry Chapin founded World Hunger Year to fight 
    > hunger everywhere, including the US.

    Children with plenty of food are also emotionally, physically and/or
    sexually abused, and/or murdered, including in the US.  Families with
    little money do not have a monopoly on abuse, tragedy or neglect.

    >My take on Cathy's statement is that she was angry about irresponsible
    >reproduction.  Bringing children into the world that cannot be cared for.
    >Having a fourth when you can't feed the three you already have. Figuring 
    >that it doesn't matter if you have another, 'cause they'll just increase 
    >your monthly check.  It angers me as well.

    Does it also anger you to think about families with incomes who have
    another kid just to get that extra tax deduction?  (Or do you assume
    that most people with jobs have children for the right reasons, while
    people on welfare have them for the wrong reasons?)  

    In our society, people_on_welfare == bad (compared to people_with_jobs.)
    Since most welfare recipients are women with children, anger against
    welfare gets tied up with anger at women (whichever one comes first.)
    This fosters prejudice against women (and blacks, since they are wrongly
    perceived to comprise the largest numbers of people on welfare.)

    This subtle form of prejudice makes *me* angry.

    >I don't think she's talking about having 3 kids and suddenly having
    >a financial/medical/personal crisis put the family into dire straits.  
    >I don't think she's discussing families of eight children when they 
    >can be cared for - accidental or planned.

    Agreed.  Many people assume that a family not usually on welfare is
    going to do ok by their kids (unless evidence comes out to the
    contrary.)  The opposite assumptions are most often made about people
    habitually on welfare (unless evidence comes out to the contrary.)

    I really wonder sometimes why our culture has such a strong prejudice
    against people on welfare.  If the gov't gave me the direct choice, I
    would love to see every penny of my tax money go to human beings (for
    food, shelter, etc.)  Instead, some of MY tax money bought the Marcos's
    (Philippines President) some buildings in Manhattan.  This really makes
    me angry!!  (And no, I don't regard these buildings as shelter for these
    ripoff artists who pocketed American tax dollars.)

    I wonder if the prejudice against people on welfare comes from the idea
    that these Mothers with children are getting money without working for
    it (at a job outside the home.)  Then again, it's considered the height
    of traditional values for Mothers with husbands to be supported at home
    without getting an outside job.

    If anyone tells me that s/he PAYS for welfare out of her/his tax pocket
    - guess what!  I pay for traditional families out of MY tax pocket (by
    paying more taxes since I don't have as many dependent deductions as
    they do.)

    It seems to me that the big difference is that Welfare Mothers with
    children are not in the custody of men who pay the bills (but are,
    instead, in the custody of Social Services who pay the bills.)

    Perhaps this is why our culture finds Welfare women an abomination.

    Suzanne,
    
    There are as many reasons for welfare families as there are welfare
    families.  I, at least, condemn no one on welfare.  But it is an
    unarguable fact that, as Franlkin D. Roosevelt said, continued
    deependence on welfare is a subtle narcotic, one that saps the vitality
    of the very people it is intended to help.  We as a nation cannot
    afford to promulgate indefinitely the concept that welfare is the way
    out.  Jesus said that there will always be poor, but he also suggested
    that a hand UP is more appropriate than a handOUT.  Welfare parents, of
    either sex, are not incapable of productive outside-the-home work. 
    Some would find it easier to arrange child care than others, and I
    admit that child care options wquite frankly suck for the poor.
    
    All of this can be addressed.  But yelling back and forth here doesn't
    address any of it.
    
    -d

    RE: .75  Doug

    Thanks very much for your note!
    
    >Somehow, I don't see the tax deduction to be a large enough factor
    >to cause someone to have a child.  A child is an expensive proposition. 
    >It's pretty hard to break even on them. [Especially with child labor laws
    >;-) ] I can see where some people who aren't paying out, but can increase
    >what they take in by having another child might be more tempted.

    The increase for an extra child can be as low as $38 per month, though,
    last I heard.  Considering the expense and additional work of raising
    another child, it doesn't seem like a large enough factor to want an
    extra child either.  Yet, of course, a lot of people will assume that
    because people on Welfare receive money for the number of children 
    they have, it's natural to want to have more children *simply* to get
    the extra money (which is an unfair generalization/stereotype.)

    >If you land on welfare, and the system is screwing you (and I believe 
    >it does) so it's difficult to get off - you at least have the 
    >responsibility to *not make the situation any worse*. That is where 
    >I think Cathy was coming from

    When the system is screwing you (and you don't see how you'll ever
    get off Welfare,) how do you suppose that these middle class values
    (of being responsible for not having more children and costing more
    money) come into play?

    Is it hard to imagine that someone in that situation might decide to
    get on with whatever life made possible to them, even if it cost the
    doggone system a few more dollars?  

    >I had a responsibility to begin repaying my student loans, even though 
    >I was out of a job.  As a consequence, although I found myself with gobs 
    >of time on my hands, I had to stick to things that were free, or damn 
    >close.  I didn't spend money on anything that wasn't necessary.  

    You also probably knew that your situation was temporary, though, didn't
    you?  You weren't faced with a nearly hopeless cycle of poverty.  (Your
    approach and responsibility in this situation were admirable, but your
    case doesn't bear much similarity to people in virtually permanent
    poverty.)

    It's also easy to be where we are and to decide that people on Welfare
    should do what *we* might deem as "the responsible thing" - but remember
    that they are already out of the mainstream of society anyway, so
    they may not CARE if they can wear the label of "at least responsible
    enough not to make it any worse."  And I doubt they care if any of 
    the rest of society thinks worse of them (since they're already 
    subject to so much prejudice as it is.)

    Perhaps most people here don't realize what a dehumanizing experience
    it is to be on Welfare.  It seems to be assumed that it is just "free 
    money" (sought after by lazy people out to cheat hard-working American 
    taxpayers.)  Now we want people labeled this way to listen and respond
    to what the rest of society considers "responsible behavior."

    The more our culture continues to dehumanize folks who live in this
    situation, the less and less they will want to toe the line to the
    values we wish to impose on them.  Calling them all irresponsible
    does nothing but dig the knife in deeper (making it less and less
    likely that they will ever be part of the mainstream.)

    >> I pay for traditional families out of MY tax pocket (by paying more 
    >> taxes since I don't have as many dependent deductions as they do.)

    > Well now, it's not quite that clearcut. After all, how much you pay
    > is a function of how much you make. 

    Exactly.  I was imitating the way people describe Welfare recipients
    as taking their money (almost as if they dig through taxpayers' actual
    pants pockets, wallets and purses for their monthly income.)

    It's not quite that clear cut.  And people on Welfare don't deserve
    to be treated as though they have 200 million bosses who pay their
    salary directly out of their pockets - yet this is the nature of some
    of the cultural prejudice against people on Welfare.  

    This attitude (of treating Welfare recipients like the scum of the
    earth) only makes the problem worse for ALL OF US.  The responsible
    thing would be for *us* to refrain from making things worse, would
    it not?  (If we believe that "responsibility" is the proper course,
    then why do so many of us just make it worse this way?)

    
    re .60
    
    >when I see photos of the famine in Africa, I'm angry to tears at the
    >way the children look when they are in the process of starving to
    >death-but it never occurs to me to blame their mothers for giving
    >birth to them. I'm angry at the bureacracy that prevents aid from
    >reaching these people in time.
    
    Why is it always the responsibility of 'some larger governing body' to
    take responsibility for the individual and that individuals
    iresponsibility? (did that make any sense??:-)
    Lets assume for a second that you are a resonably intelligent person,
    and somewhat responsible for your own actions (and certainly
    responsble for the actions concerning your own body, yes?). Lets assume
    that your first child dies of starvation and your next three are on
    their way out. The rats just ate the last of the Capt. Crunch and you
    had the dog for breakfast. Old hubby comes home feeling frisky. What do
    you say? I think I'd say   "WHOAH BUB! I KNOW where babies come from
    and I think we should look around and THINK for a second before we
    bring yet another baby into this mess, or maybe let's read that
    brochure that they gave us last year"
    -or-do you say "sure lets do it and hope that the government sends that
    check (food whatever) in time"-or-"well maybe by the time the baby is
    born we'll get back together"-or-"sure, just because there are already
    milions and millions of orphans and starving children in the world and
    the planet is on its last legs and there may not be food enough to feed
    us all tomorrow, it's our right, so lets DO IT". 
    It is certainly that Mother who watches her children starving to death
    or dieing of disease. As a human being, she has got to know the
    suffering that is happening all around her. As a human being, does she
    have the right to create yet another human being KNOWING that the
    suffering will be as great? Isn't that the just a little irresponsible?
    Ok so that's a worse case scenerio, and, despite you're trying to twist
    this into a welfare statement, this isn't just there or here or them or
    us. Every human being MUST take responsibility for his/her actions. 
    
    Cold? Sure. But life is cold. Reality is cold. Starving babies is as 
    cold as it gets. UNloved, homeless babies is pretty cold too.
    
    But this is off of the point somewhat. What I was really getting at was
    that WE (yeah, us WOMEN) still haven't learned to make up our own minds
    and be STRONG enough to JUST SAY NO. Though we try to tell ourselves
    how strong and independant we are, WE still say YES, cuz someone else
    wants us to say yes. We aren't strong enough or independant enough to
    say NO, even though the reasons (unwanted pregnancy) may be the ONLY
    reason we want to say NO at the time. (NOT INCLUDING RAPE, OK??)  We
    prostitute ourselves to make someone ELSE happy when we KNOW it's wrong
    and not what we want. But then we tell the world "It's MY body" when
    its convenient for the issue at hand (abortion comes to mind here).
    WELL IF IT'S YOUR BODY THEN TAKE SOME DAMNED RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT!
    and Suzanne, before you get all Hyped up again, I am including ME in
    this little snip I'm having. Though you seem to wish to ban me, I AM
    still of the female persuasion and will most likely stay that way. 
    
    ok. jump on. :-)
    
    Cathy
    
     

    
    one more thought occurs to me. (ugh:-)
    You may ask, doesn't the husband/man/spouse/boyfriend have some
    responsibility for this, in your little pea brain Cathy you dirt bag?
    :-)
    
    Well, of COURSE he/she/it does. 
    My husband is very responsible and I can depend on him to help me in
    making the right decisions. 
    But as an INDIVIDUAL, I reserve the right to make the ultimate decision
    based on what I think/know is right or wrong. 
    I think that independance and self reliance comes from the ability to
    weigh all of the factors and make a decision that is base on RIGHT even
    though the opposition may be strong. 
    
    If this makes no sense (it almost makes no sense to me....) then it
    just comes down to "JUST SAY NO" if you don't want to do it. If
    he/she/it is worth it, they will, if not understand, but at least learn
    to live with it...
    well that's the theory anyhow.....
    
    ..just a little deeper...but that's what makes life so DAMNED
    exciting!
    
    Cat ;-)
     

    	RE: .77 Cathy
    
    	Child-bearing women in Africa are not responsible for the natural,
    	economic, and political conditions that have brought so much death
    	and disease to themselves and their children.
    
    	Sure, I can project what I (as an American college graduate with
    	10 years as a computer engineer) would do if I were stuck permanently
    	in an area seized by a prolonged famine.  Do you really think my
    	(or your) approach to the situation is going to be the same as the
    	one used by people caught up in a national human tragedy that they
    	can't see beyond?
    
    	Lovemaking and child-bearing is a natural human activity (and it
    	takes place in areas that have famines, too.)  How easy it is to
    	be smug and sit in an affluent area of the planet and condemn 
    	people for being human.
    
    	It's pointless and cruel to blame the women in Africa for the
    	famine.  Neither does it make sense, unless one is looking for
    	a way to damn women.
    
    	> What I was really getting at was that WE (yeah, us WOMEN) still 
    	> haven't learned to make up our own minds and be STRONG enough to 
    	> JUST SAY NO.
    
    	It's a matter of prejudice to take a tragic situation visited upon
    	the women (and men and children) of Africa and to use it as a way
    	to damn women as a group.
    
    	> But then we tell the world "It's MY body" when its convenient for 
        > the issue at hand (abortion comes to mind here). WELL IF IT'S YOUR 
    	> BODY THEN TAKE SOME DAMNED RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT!
    
    	The women suffering and dying in famines in Africa are not the ones
    	telling the world it's their bodies, remember.  Holding them
    	responsible for what women say in the western world is pointless
    	(especially if it means screaming at them not to be hypocritical
    	about things they haven't said.)

    RE: .78  Cathy
    
    > You may ask, doesn't the husband/man/spouse/boyfriend have some
    > responsibility for this, in your little pea brain Cathy you dirt bag?
    > :-)
    
    Take some responsibility for yourself and recognize that you are
    projecting this image on yourself (no one else here is doing this.)
    
    

    
    Suzanne,
    
    since you refuse to read my mail to your asking you to lighten the hell
    up, I will ask you here, in front of God and everyone, to please 
    get a grip and smile awhile. 
    
    My opinions of myself or anyone else, are my own. If I choose to share
    them in a public forum, then I am, I suppose, putting myself at the
    mercy of other noters and hoping that they will take my opinions and
    either reject them, comment on them in a non-personal way, or ignore
    them completely. 
    As you have decided, based on the ONE opinion that I expressed in this 
    note, that "I won't read your crap", then that is sad, as I WILL
    continue to listen to all opinions, and discuss them as UNemotionally
    as I can. 
    
    You will also find, that my thoughts, opinions,ideas are NOT cast in
    stone. I can listen to reason and am always willing to learn. Since
    there are many noters here who have very interesting opinions (some of
    which I do not necessarily agree with TODAY), I will continue to
    question WHY and try to have these folks educate me. 
    
    I will however, throw out CRAP that is based on some hair trigger that I
    happen to trip over by sharing my opinions, when it attacks me
    personally.
    
    I do not want to see this note go the way of 1001. So please get off my
    personal back, and attack my opinions all you like.
    
    SOrry to everyone else in here who has had to listen to this cat fight
    that I had no intention of being any part of. 
    
    Cathy
     
    

 Doug brings up what I consider to be a key point.

    >If you land on welfare,[...] you at least have the 
    >responsibility to *not make the situation any worse*. 

 And yet that is exactly what is being fought here. The push back is "you can't
tell me what to do. You can't force me to be responsible. You can't do anything
even though you are footing the bill for my decisions." I happen to think
that attitude is completely bogus. It makes me very angry that people behave
that way, sapping other people's earnings for their own selfish reasons.

 I don't believe that people have the unqualified right to reproduce without
bound. Of course, given the under-seige mentality of many people, they tend
to argue that the allowance of any limitation to the right to procreate is
the same as condoning all sorts of governmental intrusion into the reproductive
rights of the people. So they tend to support, for example, welfare mothers
having more and more children that they have no intentions of even making
a serious efort to support. So what? The gummint will pay. Folks, that's
you and me who are paying. You know, the people who are saying no to more
children because we cannot afford them...

 The Doctah

    	Cathy, I stopped reading your mail when the first sentence read
    	like a request to step outside and draw pistols. 
    
    	This is not a war and I refuse to engage in an offline battle
    	to the death with you.
    
    	If you're looking to show men how evil, nasty and stupid women
    	are by drawing me into a prolonged fight with you - find another
    	playmate.
    
    	I have better things to do.

    
    Doug, .71:
    
    You say you are angry about the things that Cathy says she
    is too.  But your reply doesn't come off as a heavily-laden
    value judgment.  You tell us you are angry too at these things
    and why and leave it at that.  You don't "pronouce" judgments
    on the world and women at large.
    
    On the other hand, Cathy's reply was wrapped in the most
    extremely vulgar and dehumanizing language she could possibly
    think up (see her "popping out babies every 9 months" for *the*
    *most* highly offensive example).
    
    And looking at her last few replies, she's *still* sitting
    up there on her throne pronoucing judgments to all the world.
    
    It kinda sucks.
    

    
    I am not in any way pointing the finger at African Women or any other
    group of people.
    I can see where it may have come across as such.
    
    I was referring to women in general. ANyone out there who has the 
    ability to say YES when they MAY CONSIDER FOR THE APPROPRIATE REASONS
    saying NO.   Have the courage and the good concious to say NO.
    Yes, it is not up to me to decide what those APPROPRIATE reasons may
    be, but as a human being on a dieing planet full of starving babies, I can
    ask nicely, in the name of human suffering, PLEASE STOP. 
    Of course it would help if men weren't walking talking breathing sex
    machines (AARRRR just kidding!!!! ;-)
    
    Cat 

    
    perhaps we can just open up a "cathy is a bitch" note and leave this
    one to the topic at hand?  Or is THIS the "cathy is a bitch" note?
    
    cathy (I'm STILL light :-)
    

	Growing up, I was taught "You are responsible for your own actions."
That meant, for the most part, be prepared to take the consequences for what
you do.  I don't see that as an exclusively middle class value.  It's the basic
rule I've been running my life on for years and I don;t think it's unreasonable.

	...but then I don;t think we should need a paragraph on the side of
butane lighters telling you not to set yourself on fire either.


						--Doug

    re Doug
    
    >...but then I don't think we should need a paragraph on the side of
    >butane lighters telling you not to set yourself on fire either
    
    
    
    
    
        crack me up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    
    cat
    

    Cat-
    
    That's how I got my "HRH" title...a.k.a. Queen Bitch! (-;
    
    HRH

    
    
    
    re .89
    
    
    
    
    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH   :-)
    
    noting can be fun!!
    
    cathy
    

	I think we might all agree on a couple of things here:

	1) Men are not the source of all evil.

	2) Women are not the source of all virtue.

	Now that I've gotten that out of the way, we may now
	(possibly) accept the premise that some women may 
	do things that are worthy of criticism.  There may
	be some folks here who would be horrified to hear about
	a woman who's head of a local Republican Party organization.
	Others might be mad at a woman who attends "Viva Fidel!"
	rallies.

	The point is, Cathy's criticism of some behaviours by
	women is not misogynistic AS SUCH.  A cynic might suggest
	that, since Cathy is a woman, criticism of her is another
	example of such misogyny.  That won't wash, as we know.

	The point  that seems to be generating the most heat here is
	the discussion that might be labeled 

		"Reproduction: Right, Duty, or Privilege?"

	I don't really agree with the whole concept that there is
	a global population problem.  The world could not support
	the current population with 1700s-era farming technology.  But,
	with modern agriculture, the United States is effectively	
	a breadbasket for much of the world.

	Local problems in places like Ethiopia  are generally easily
	traced to totalitarian governments...surely the greatest
	destroyers of human life on the planet.  How else might	one
	explain starving Ethiopia contrasted with tiny, resource-poor
	( and thriving ) Hong Kong ?

	It's pretty easy to see that birth rates level off when 
	a country becomes prosperous.  This is not speculation, simply
	fact.

	The single strongest liberating force for mankind ( and womankind )
	is economic freedom.  Once a people may own property and freely
	dispose of it without crushing taxes, regulations and the
	stultifying weight of oppressive government, a number of things
	happen:

	1) Individuals have more money.  They take care of themselves
	   and their families.

	2) They take care of what they have and what's around them.
	   People living from one cup of rice to the next could not
	   care less that the river is dirty.  Folks with a stake 
	   in the future DO.

	3) Families are planned.  If you're not eking out a living
	   with a hand plow, you don't need 15 kids to help with
	   the harvest.

	As this message is slammed home daily by the events in the USSR,
	it'll become clear to folks everywhere.  

	Steve h

    Cathy,
    
    You seem to have ignored the possibility that there are more than
    two possibilities in that African scenario.  You suggest:  Husband
    comes home, wants sex.  Woman can accede, get pregnant or woman can
    refuse, not get pregnant.
    
    It's not that simple.  For example, a woman who is nursing is unlikely
    to become pregnant.  (This is a Feature.)  A woman who is already
    pregnant isn't going to, ah, pick up a second fetus through sex.
    A woman, even one who is fertile, not pregnant, and not lactating,
    will not necessarily become pregnant through sex.
    
    On the other hand, a woman who refuses her husband his conjugal
    rights, may well be putting her health and even her life at risk.
    I'm sorry (and angry) about this, but that's part of the culture;
    men are in charge, women are there to serve them, and those who
    disobey have earned punishment.
    
    Now, would you refuse your husband intercouse if you knew he would
    break your nose?  Would you insist he use a condom if you knew he
    would break your arm?  Would you continue to refuse if you knew he
    would kill you sooner or later?  What preparations do you think you
    could make to maintain the lives of your children in the event of
    your crippling or death?
    
    When you answer these questions, keep in mind that you might not
    get pregnant from this one act of intercourse.
    
    Oh.  You might consider running away.  When you think about it,
    consider what "Ms." found out:  Only about one in ten refugees is a
    woman.  The disparity comes because so many women who attempt to
    flee are beaten, raped, and/or murdered either by refugee men or
    by army/border guard/guerilla men.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .7 &  .9
    
    Sorry about that!  I did mean Cathy and not Cindi.  
    
    Polly

    
    Ann,
    
    Your points are very valid and I have considered that there are many
    reasons, be they cultural or due to fear of physical retribution.
    
    These are the really really sad "what the HELL do we do" cases. 
    
    I have heard suggestions of providing birth control to these women
    in countries that do not make it 'healthy' for women to say NO, but on
    the other side, I have heard arguments that this is wrong for Religious
    reasons, or mostly, because this is "a plot from the West to
    selectively cull populations of people of other races". The same
    arguments are heard right here at home when discussing the possibility
    of birth control availability for women in poverty who cannot afford
    to keep having children, but cannot say NO because they are litteraly
    afraid for their lives. "Providing this service free to these women can
    only be for the purpose of slowing down the population increase of
    such and such a race or group or whatever."
    
    I do agree that these are the women who cannot ALWAYS say no.
    These are the women who make me SAD. (In case the next note was What
    makes Women SAD?)
    
    cathy
    

    re .92
    
    Would you consider denying your husband intercourse if the you had no
    idea that you COULD do that?  Because a lot of women don't know they
    can "Just Say NO".  And that is something that isn't just limited to
    cultures in the developing world.  Remember spousal rape is a fairly
    new concept even in this country.

    
    .95
    
    right again.
    You are right. 
    SOME women CANNOT say NO.
    
    Some Can and don't.
    These are the ones who make me ANGRY. (there's that word again!)
    
    Cathy
    
    

    
    
    One more point I just thought of based on the last note.
    
    Something that I think is SO important today is teaching our daughters
    to SAY NO.
    
    They, more than anyone else, CAN and MUST say NO. 
    They are, more often than not, the ones who say YES because of
    pressure from peers, or afraid that "billy won't love me anymore",
    or they just don't know HOW to say NO.
    They don't make me angry. They are young. They don't realize what the
    rest of us should, that you CAN say NO and go on living (usually).
    
    We also need to teach our sons that there isn't a prize for the most
    girls they can get in bed before their 17th birthday. 
    
    cathy (who has a daughter AND a son :-)
    

    Well, Cathy, do you understand that your sloppiness (or pick another
    word) in not distinguishing this category of woman has led some
    noters into replying to you quite sharply?
    
    Shifting topic, when you speak of religions or cultures as the
    source of a problem, are you aware that modern religions and cultures
    are all the products of men, male-orientation, and male-thinking?
    There aren't any women in the top ranks of any African governments,
    (and da%n few in our own), or at the top of any major religion, or
    of Operation Rescue, to name an organization in-the-news.  This
    isn't coincidence, it is policy.  In many cases, it is policy backed
    by force.
    
    So, take a look through the layers of behavior behind a phenomenon,
    take a deep breath, think about it all, and *then* comment on the
    phenomenon.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    .98
    
    No Ann,
    
    I still cannot understand, or appreciate "some noters replying to me
    quite sharply".
    Mostly because I would not describe some of their replies as 'sharp',
    but quite rude. 
    
    I would not use the word "sloppiness" in my original note. I hate 1000
    line notes, so I tend to try and keep things to the point and as short
    as I can. I there are questions about my intent, then it would seem
    wise to ASK me what I mean, instead of assuming what I mean and
    reacting accordingly. 
    
    As far as "modern religions and cultures are all the products of men,
    male orientation, and male-thinking", personally, I think that that's
    a cop out that WE have been using for too long. 
    
    I believe that "behind every man there is a woman". 
    I think that history has been full of very strong women in very powerful
    positions. Cleopatra, Eva Braun, Josephine, The Queens of England...
    very strong women in very high places who sold out humanity right along
    with the men of their times. 
    
    I would say that women have played a large role in shaping our world.
    Not always to the advantage of other women. 
    
    But that's another rat hole in itself (that I'm sure we are now on our
    way down..)
    
    Thanks for your reply, Ann.
    Cathy
    

    There have not been many queens of England (let alone Great Britain).
    
    Alice T.

    re .99
    Alice
    
    No there have not been many Queens of England. But isn't that because
    there was usually a boy born first in the family and not because of
    male tyranny?? 
    I could be wrong.
    
    And wasn't it Elizabeth 1 (again I am PROBABLY wrong!) who had Marys
    had whacked off because of jealousy? Her own cousin....
    Had something to do with the Catholic religion vs the newly created
    Protestant one?
    I'll go re read the book!
    
    (side question totally off of the subject: if the KING marries someone
    then they call her the Queen --as in Princess Di may be QUEEN someday)
    but why is Prince Phillip still just Prince and not King since he is
    married to the Queen? I have always been curious about this and this
    seemed as good a time as any!!)
    
    Cathy
    

    I believe it is because he is of a royal family from another country. 
    This protects the English Crown from "falling" into another country's
    hands.
    
    I'm sure it is more complex than that, but I think that is the gist of
    it.
    
    E Grace

>    There have not been many queens of England (let alone Great Britain).
    
 
	Strange that they've had such an impact

	The Victorian era.........

	The Elizabethan era............

	And they reign for such a long time

	I am 37, and a king has not ruled in my lifetime!

	We also have the Thatcherite years and Thatcherism, I can't remember 
	anyone calling it the Wilson years or Wilsonism, or the Calaghan years 
	or Calaghanism.

	I also remeber reading Raisa and Nancy played major roles in the 
	decision-making with their husbands.
 
	and also, I thought the Virgin Mary had quite a major role to play in 
	Religion.

	maybe you have a blind spot to the role women play?

	Heather
	

    RE: .98  Ann B.
    
    > Shifting topic, when you speak of religions or cultures as the
    > source of a problem, are you aware that modern religions and cultures
    > are all the products of men, male-orientation, and male-thinking?
    	
    The price men must pay for being (almost!) solely in charge of
    government, religion, etc. is that they must take responsibility
    for the mess created by the subjugation of women.
    
    It would be preposterous to suggest that they can hold the power
    from us *and* also hold us half responsible for the advantages
    men have gained from this control.
    
    With rights come responsibilities - when women are given equal
    rights, we can share responsibility for the situation that will
    result THEN.  
    
    Hopefully, we can all work together then to make things better for
    us ALL (men, women and children of the planet Earth.)

    in re .101
    
    The only time there have been Queens is because their brother(s)
    died (QEI) or there were no brothers (QEII). Any male born to
    the ruling monarch will suceed to the throne before his sister.
    Both of Priness Ann's brothers are ahead of her in the line
    of succession.
    
    and Elizabeth the first had her cousin beheaded not because of
    jealousy but because her cousin wanted to depose her and put
    a lot of effort into trying to make that happen.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    re .105.
    
    Thanks Bonnie. Good stuff!
    I never even thought of Princess Ann!
    
    cathy
    

    
    re .101
    
    In England, it's the first born male that succeeds the throne.
    Princesses only get a look in if they don't have any brothers.
    
    re. something previous
    
    With respect to African women, it's not just a matter of the fact that
    as has been previously stated, a woman in that situation has no
    opportunity to say no, it's also a matter of economics. They have to
    have large families so that they have children to support them when
    older, children to help work in the fields, fetch water etc etc. It's a
    matter of survival for many people, and pushing birth control is only
    going to be of limited use - what needs to be done is to give them a
    chance to make a decent living to keep themselves clothed and fed, in
    conjunction with promoting birth control, which may make a difference
    in the long run.
    
    What makes me sad is in places like South America where the church
    teaches women that it is a *sin* to use birth control, for which they
    will be damned. I don't have anything against the catholic church, but
    I think it's terrible that it persists with an anti-birth control
    policy when you can see the suffering this causes in some countries.
    
    	Sarah.

    Cathy,
    
    Basically, inheritence is through the male line.  If Pop is king,
    the oldest boy will be king next.  If there are zero boys, and there
    isn't any other way to weasel around it (like Pop's (younger) brother
    is still alive, or left sons, etc.) then and only then will the oldest
    girl will be queen.  Her oldest son will be king after her; the
    `aberration' of a female head of state is corrected at the first
    opportunity.
    
    The spouse of a male ruler is a queen; the spouse of a female ruler
    is a prince consort.  If you're not the ruler-of-record, you don't
    get to be king.
    
    Thus, Elizabeth is queen because her father was king .AND. she has
    no brothers .AND. she is older than her sister .AND. her father's
    brother renounced the throne.  Phillip is prince consort because he
    married the princess who became queen.
    
    Charles will be king because one of his parents is head-of-state
    .AND. he is the oldest male.  Diane will be queen because she
    married the prince who becomes king.
    
    		*		*		*
    
    On Queen Elizabeth I, why don't you compare her to her father and
    grandfather?  They killed EVERY York Plantagenet they could find,
    legitimate or bastard, male or female, in Britain or on the
    Continent, whether or not they were contending for the throne.
    (Mary *was* contending for the throne.)  Henry VII also imprisoned
    Henry VIII's grandmother, another Queen Elizabeth.
    
    		*		*		*
    
    Did you really mean to indicate that you *don't* write what you
    mean?  And that people should send you mail to find out if you
    meant what you wrote?  That they should write you long messages
    so that you can overgeneralize and write short ones?
    
    						Ann B.

    And of course we Brits also had Queen Boudiccea, who gave the Romans
    quite a b*ll*cking!
    
    Yes, E, I think the reason the Queen's hubby is called Prince Philip is
    because he is not British - he's Greek.
    
    I don't know much of the history of the Tudors, but there were
    Catholic/Protestant problems throughout the whole period, not just
    between Elizabeth and Mary. The same things would have happened just as
    much as if they were male. Elizabeth did not see anything positive in
    her strength of personality (as a woman, I mean) - she felt her
    strength must naturally imply she had been born a man! but with the
    wrong body (if I remember correctly).
    
    Don't forget, Elizabeth would never have become queen if her _younger_
    brother hadn't been weak and died. She was older, but her father kept
    insisting that he produce a son (that's why her mother was killed).
    
    Alice T.

    Alice,
    
    From what Ann  Broomhead said, and I recall of my English history,
    I think Philip is Prince because he is the consort of the ruling
    Queen not because he isn't English. Many Kings had foreign wives
    who were called queens.
    
    and Henry's desire for a son not only killed Elizabeth's mother
    but led to him ultimately being married 6 times.
    
    Bonnie

    did you know there was once a Princess Alice?
    
    I don't know anything about her, though, except that she was from the
    same family as our current queen.
    
    Alice T.

    
    re .108
    >did you really mean that..
    
    no, I meant that If you are not clear on a point that someone is trying
    to make, then it is appropriate to ask them to clarify.
    
    And, yes, I meant what I said way back then.        

    
    
    re 104, Suzanne
    
    >With rights come responsibilities-when women are given equal rights,
    >we can share responsibility for the situation that will result
    >THEN
    
    
    Suzanne,
    I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying here.
    I interpret that as saying "since MEN won't GIVE women equal rights,
    then we cannot be held responsibile for how screwed up the world is"?
    
    Is this what you mean to say or am I off base here? 
    
    Cathy
    

    If I remember my "Six Wives of Henry VIII" and "Elizabeth R" (gosh
    Glenda Jackson is fantastic!) and the history of England I read long
    ago, Henry VIII's first child was Mary, daughter of Catharine of
    Aragon (Spain), and their only child.  Henry's passion for a son to
    take the throne after him led not only to his killing off all
    contenders, but to his inventing (in the Catholic world) divorce and
    the Anglican church, and to his marrying 5 other women in the attempt
    to spawn a son.  Elizabeth was his second child, I forget who was her
    mother.  The son was third and weakest.  He ruled (so to speak, he
    never reached adulthood) for a short while after his father.  After he
    died, Elizabeth's sister Mary ruled (Bloody Mary, she did her level
    best to roll England back to Catholicism).  Only after Mary's death did
    Elizabeth come to the throne.
    
    best line from Elizabeth R:  Elizabeth speaking about Mary (Queen of
    Scots) --
    
    "That monarch is first a woman; this woman is first a monarch."
    

	Oh yes, another woman and religion..........
		Queen Elizabeth II is currently the defender of the Faith

	Heather

    I believe Elizabeth I's mother was Ann Boleyn, the first to lose her
    head over Henry.

    The title "Defender of the Faith" that all British monarchs use, has an
    interesting history.  If I remember correctly, it dates back to Henry
    VIII, and was granted by the then current pope (whose name I forget) to
    Henry after he had written a vigorous defense of Catholicism in
    response to some of the early Protestant preachments.  (Again, I forget
    the specifics.)  Anyway, I think it is interesting that Henry
    eventually dumped Catholicism and created the Anglican Church, but
    still kept the title.  Even more interesting is the fact that all the
    monarchs ever since have kept that title too.

    Mike

    Sara
    
    One nit, Henry didn't invent divorce. Divorce tho not as common as
    today definitely existed long before Henry VIII. If you were rich
    enough you paid a bribe diguised as a religous offering and eventually
    a marriage would be annuled. The problem that Henry had was that
    his first wife was the daughter of the King of Spain and the Pope
    was her Uncle. So the Pope was not willing to annul his neice's
    marriage. It is also important to recall here that Spain and England
    were enemies at this time in history.
    
    The grounds that Henry proposed for his requested annulment from
    Catherine of Arragon, were that she'd been married to his brother
    and this made the marriage incestuous. This sort of grounds was
    quite routinely accepted at the time.
    
    Bonnie
    
    who has dragged this out of her memory of college English history
    courses and hopes she's not made any glaring errors.

    re: .99
    
    Cathy, I find your list of "very strong women" to be ironic.
    Eva Braun, Hitler's mistress, was a childlike, not too bright
    young woman, chosen for her docility.  Most historical sources
    believe that Hitler could not function sexually, had a great
    distaste for anything approaching assertiveness in women, but
    was fond of children (providing, of course, that they were Aryan).
    Eva Braun spent most of her time in a milkmaid's costume, hidden away at
    Hitler's mountain retreat, Berchtesgarten.  She was certainly
    not a power behind the throne.  Her role was closest to that
    of pet.
    
    Jospehine was a rather silly women, who influenced fashion for
    awhile, but nothing else.  When Napoleon decided it was expedient,
    he divorced her and remarried a young Austrian princess.
    
    Cleopatra - the Cleopatra you see in the movies - is not based
    on the real, historical queen of that name but on Shakespeare's
    version.  The real Cleopatra reigned jointly for awhile with her
    brother, a little while by herself under the thumb of the Roman
    Empire, and lost what little power she had in an internal Roman
    Empire power play. (Little known fact: Cleopatra was not even
    Egyptian, she was Greek, a descendant of one of Alexander the Great's
    generals.)
    
    As pointed out earlier, there have been few Queens of England because
    of the rule of primogeniture (that is, all goes to the first-born male,
    then the second male.... then the ninth male, and only gets to a female
    if there aren't any males available).  The only Queen of England who
    exercised real political power was Elizabeth I.  Victoria reigned a
    long time but left the governing of her empire to her prime ministers
    (among them Disraeli).
    
    Sue (a fanatical history buff)
      
    

    RE: .113  Cathy
    
    Thanks for asking for clarification.  (Yes, you did misconstrue
    what I wrote.)
    
    "The price men must pay for being (almost!) solely in charge of
    government, religion, etc. is that they must take responsibility
    for the mess created by the subjugation of women."
    
    The whole world does not constitute "the mess created by the 
    subjugation of women."  The mess is a subset.
    
    With rights come responsibilities - if a group of people hold economic
    and political power over another group, they must hold the responsibility
    for the mess created by the imbalance of such power.
    
    "The mess" doesn't include everything in the world, but it accounts
    for much of what makes virtually subjugated groups angry (about their
    subjugation, at least.)  Obviously, there are many other things (not
    involving this specific injustice) that are worth plenty of anger.
    What I'm talking about, though, is the mess resulting from this
    injustice.
    
    It can't be fixed until those in power acknowledge their responsibility
    for it (and take full part in changing it.)  If they can shove off
    responsibility for the mess onto the virtually subjugated groups, then
    there is no impetus to change it.  It becomes more a matter of "You
    asked for this, and you deserve it" (rather than, "Ooops, this was/is
    wrong and we'll work together with you to fix it.")
    
    It's long past time to fix it.
    
    The rest of the problems in the world would also be better addressed, 
    in my opinion, if we could put this behind us and use all our resources
    (men, women, and everyone!!) to work on saving the planet.

    
    re .118
    
    thanks alot for the historical facts!  Great stuff!
    But how bout Marie Antoinette??
    
    Cathy
    

    What about her?  She was a silly woman, an Austrian, married off
    (by her father, I think) to the French king.  She also spent a
    lot of time dressed like a milkmaid.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  She didn't say "Let them eat cake."  But one of her maids-in-
    waiting, upon being informed that the peasants were rioting because
    they could not afford break, protested, "But one may buy the
    daintiest little cakes in the rue de <Mumble> for only a penny or
    two each."

    re.121 
    
    nope.
    
    Marie Antoinette's father didn't say 'boo' about her marriage to the
    grandson of the King of France [who later became king himself]
    
    The architect of the match was Antoinette's mother, the Austrian
    Empress, Marie Therese.
    
      Annie

    Reply to .84, Gugel,
    
    I don't think Cathy is dehumanizing anyone, even unconsciously.
    
    Perhaps it would be good to remind ourselves that humans are animals,
    nothing near the God-in-the-making image that humans seem so
    preoccupied with.
    
    The point is that women (with man's help) can indeed reduce themselves
    to baby factories. Many do it right regularly for economic and
    religious reasons. The Mormon Church, along with the Catholic Church
    mandates this.                                

    Cathy, I had to smile at your reply because my intention was
    not to entertain you with historical tidbits but to point out
    that if you read a lot of history you can't help but noticing
    how little real power women have ever had.  It seems that real
    power can be gotten in only two ways: (1) money - if you have
    a lot or can successfully steal a lot, then you can influence
    enough people to do what you want, or, (2) the voluntary suppport of a
    large number of people.  Women have not had the control of that kind
    of money (there's some statistic that says women control more
    money in the U.S. than men but, if you examine that, it turns out
    they are mostly counting elderly widows, who inherited from
    their husbands).  And women who seek equality with men have certainly
    not had the voluntary support of a large number of people, not yet,
    not enough people over enough time.  Lawd, we women weren't even
    allowed to vote in this country till well into this current century!
    
    Sue
       
      

	I've been seeing a lot of this "women don't have power"
	and "men have always had the power" stuff in this note,
	and I tried to figure out why this rankles.

	I realized that this sounds awfully familiar.  It seems
	that some well-meaning Libertarian folks tried to help
	some people in a REALLY poor urban black neighborhood back
	in the early 70s.  They helped them set up trout-farms
	on the roofs of their tenement buildings, start small
	businesses, use barter, and so forth.  The object was
	to become independent of the "system" that was keeping
	these folks down.

	It flopped miserably.  Why ?

	When they did the post-mortem of the project, they
	found that these folks didn't want to change the system...
	they wanted power IN THE SYSTEM.

	I think this is analogous to the sentiment expressed here
	and in other notes.  Many of the women who are upset
	with the way things are (or have been) want to sit in
	the driver's seat now !

	I guess I always thought that the best way to handle things was
	to get on a different bus ( so to speak ).

	The way I see it ( and the way that more and more executives
	HAVE to be seeing it ) is that by limiting womens' access
	to technical jobs, managerial jobs, executive jobs: THEY LOSE !

	It is crazy to NOT HIRE the best engineer because she's a
	woman.  She might just wind up working for the engineering
	firm across town who's bidding on that crucial contract.  It's
	crazy NOT TO HIRE a capable woman manager, because she could
	manage the competition's company -- and make things very
	difficult !

	My point is that the fossils with the "man's job/woman's job"
	mindset are becoming increasingly irrelevant.  Continuing to 
	be upset about early-1900s mindsets doesn't prepare us for
	the era ten years hence when we'll all be working together
	to get that computer designed, that spacecraft launched,
	that virus conquered, or that business off the ground.

	Very soon, the attitudes that are so disturbing today will
	be as foreign to the executive boardrooms as "reading the
	augurs" would seem today.

	Steve ( who believes that healthy self-interest will be the
		factor that makes the greatest change )

    Reply to 998.125, Steve,
    
    Applause!

    RE: .82  The Doctah

    >Doug brings up what I consider to be a key point.

       "If you land on welfare,[...] you at least have the" 
       "responsibility to *not make the situation any worse*." 

    >And yet that is exactly what is being fought here. The push back is 
    >"you can't tell me what to do. You can't force me to be responsible. 
    >You can't do anything even though you are footing the bill for my 
    >decisions." I happen to think that attitude is completely bogus. It 
    >makes me very angry that people behave that way, sapping other people's 
    >earnings for their own selfish reasons.

    As a reward for being employed taxpayers, we can label such people
    "irresponsible" and condemn them harshly as much as we want...

    ...and they can thumb their noses at us (generic) while they take
    their checks.

    So what good does it do to treat them this way - (it certainly doesn't
    help, does it?)  Maybe the satisfaction of trashing these folks is the
    payment we receive for having escaped their fates.  The price they pay
    for their situation is knowing they're being trashed by taxpayers.

    >So they tend to support, for example, welfare mothers having more and 
    >more children that they have no intentions of even making a serious 
    >efort to support. So what? The gummint will pay. Folks, that's you and 
    >me who are paying. You know, the people who are saying no to more
    >children because we cannot afford them...

    Welfare recipients live well below the poverty line, so it isn't as
    much of a joy ride as it sounds.  The welfare recipients who don't
    work outside the home are just living a much poorer version of the
    traditional American ideal of Mothers staying home to raise their
    kids.  The difference is that they aren't supported by an individual
    man.  They're supported by a government agency.

    So it still comes down to the idea that these women are the scum of
    the earth because they don't have the legitimacy of a husband supporting
    their efforts (so society assumes they must necessarily be horrible
    people, rotten parents, and parasites on the rest of us.)  All because
    they do their "staying home to raise the kids" without being sanctioned
    (endorsed? owned?) by a man.

    Isn't it odd how much stock society puts in whether or not a Mother is
    connected (legally, financially) to a man?  If the man happened to be
    supporting the family on government disability checks, the Mother would
    be the salt of the Earth for staying home (and we'd still feed the kids
    from the money coming out of our tax dollars.)  But what a world of
    difference it would make in how this Mother is perceived by most of
    society.

    Pretty strange.

    Suzanne,
    
    Have you ever lived in an area where statistics indicated that the
    numerical majority of welfare mothers had significant numbers of
    children a) out of wedlock and b) after going on welfare?  I have. 
    It's not pretty.  Sure, they're below the poverty line, but every baby
    they bump out is a check increase that more than compensates for the
    cost of supporting said baby.  (Unless you want to count the cost borne
    by other government agencies, like ADC and HS and Title IX, that is.)
    It's fact, sister, that many of thes welfare mothers have actually
    *admitted* that they've had babies they didn't want, just to get that
    bump in the size of the ol' welfare check.
    
    We are not differentiating here adequately between responsible welfare
    mothers who do their best for their children in a difficult situation
    and irresponsible welfare mothers who are out to take the gummint for
    all they can get.  Or, actually, although Cat and the Doctah are making
    that distinction, you appear not to be doing so.  Why?
    
    -d

    RE: .128  -d

    > Sure, they're below the poverty line, but every baby they bump out is 
    > a check increase that more than compensates for the cost of supporting 
    > said baby.  (Unless you want to count the cost borne by other government 
    > agencies, like ADC and HS and Title IX, that is.)

    They "bumped" their babies out?  Is this some new high-tech form of 
    labor and delivery?  Do you personally know any women (that you like)
    who have "bumped" out their children?

    The monthly check increase for an additional baby can be as low as
    around $38, from what I've heard - have you priced formula, baby food,
    baby clothes and laundromats lately?  We're not talking the kind of
    money that an extra child might generate from an ex-spouse in child
    support here.  (We're talking about an extra buck or so per day.)

    > It's fact, sister, that many of thes welfare mothers have actually
    > *admitted* that they've had babies they didn't want, just to get that
    > bump in the size of the ol' welfare check.

    Would you condemn employed people if I told you I've heard many admit
    that they had extra kids for the good ol' extra tax deduction?  I'd
    bet against it (because it wouldn't fit into a convenient stereotype.)

    > We are not differentiating here adequately between responsible welfare
    > mothers who do their best for their children in a difficult situation
    > and irresponsible welfare mothers who are out to take the gummint for
    > all they can get. 

    The "irresponsible welfare mother" stereotype pops up so often that it
    has become almost synonymous with "welfare mother" (while the "good"
    welfare mothers seem to be described as the ones who only do it for a
    short period of time.)  

    > Or, actually, although Cat and the Doctah are making that distinction, 
    > you appear not to be doing so.  Why?
 
    I'm arguing against the kind of prejudice given to those who stay on
    welfare indefinitely (since I've already indicated that I'm aware that
    far less prejudice is inflicted on people who don't appear to fit the
    stereotype being discussed here.)

    
    	Another sick thing about all this is that married women who work
    	outside the home are often condemned for being too "selfish" to 
    	stay home to raise their children...
    
        ...and welfare mothers are condemned for being too "selfish" to 
    	go to work outside the home to support theirs...
    

    Suzanne,
    
    I think, for me anyway, the reason the "irresponsible welfare mother"
    rankles with me is the impression I get that she is not staying home
    to provide a nurturing environment for her child.  She is either too
    lazy or doesn't have the skills or ambition to obtain the skills in
    order to get a job.  DISCLAIMER: NOT ALL WOMEN ON WELFARE ARE 
    IRRESPONSIBLE.  I mean, really, if the check you get from the gov't
    is more than you can make at say, McDonalds or Papa Ginos or the local
    department store (because your skills set won't qualify you for
    anything else), then, hell, why bust your ass to bring home that check
    when one can be mailed to you?  I'm not saying that the fault lies with
    women, I feel it lies mainly with the govt't beaurocarcies which allow
    blatent misuses to go unchecked (by men and women).  Welfare IMO should
    only be a temporary relief as a means towards helping one get back on
    one's feet, but as you (I think) pointed out earlier, that cycle of 
    poverty is damned hard to break.  Where no or little incentive is 
    provided to help a woman get out into the work place, it can only 
    further damage self-esteem problems and so on.  There is really no
    easy solution to this perception of women on welfare.  I also think
    that many of us were raised with the "you don't get something for
    nothing" cliche being batted around and I think that also adds to
    the perception.
    
    In summary, yes, I get angry about it,, but not at the specific
    women, but the gov't workers who don't follow up and really try to
    help anybody to break the cycle.
    
    Christine

    re .130
    
    Suzanne,
    I don't think that the last few notes are pointing a BAD finger at
    "WOMEN ON WELFARE".
    Being on welfare in somthing that alot of people cannot avoid. I spent
    several months of my childhood on welfare when my Dad got laid off.
    I remember getting boxes of food brought over to the house, along with
    old clothes. It was pretty degrading, I'm sure much more so for my Mom
    and Dad who always worked so hard and were proud to say they 'earned 
    their way'. 
    
    What the 'concern' is, is for those folks on welfare, who have no plans
    to ever get OFF of welfare, but continue to get pregnant. 
    Though it is true that these women may NOT have a choice but to stay
    home and raise the children that they already have, you'd think they
    could learn to NOT HAVE ANY MORE until they can pay for them
    themselves.
    I don't think that this is too much for anyone to ask, for someone else
    to carry as much of their own load in life as they can. 
    If you come on hard times, that's fine. Everyone does at some point in
    their lives, you can't always control your own financial destiny.
    But women CAN and SHOULD be able to control their own bodies,
    especially when they know that they cannot possibly take financial
    responsibility for what they have now. 
    
    And no, I'm not forgetting the other side of this irresponsible
    equasion here: the man who comes along with the "oh baby oh baby" and
    then takes off without a trace....
    But unless it was Rape, these women were NOT victims. They were just
    not very smart, and certainly NOT very responsible.
    
    Cat
    

    re .132
    
    Cathy,
    
    Where do you expect them to learn that?  From their mothers who did the
    same thing?  From their sisters who are in the same mode?  From their
    neighbors?  Most of these women know nothing but life in the welfare
    culture.  This is their reality.  When you live in a reality --
    especially when you aren't exposed to other realities or don't know
    that there's a way to escape from that reality -- you don't see things
    the same way that someone form outside your reality sees them.
    
    Polly

	Folks, there are  another couple of facets that rate 
	examining on this little "welfare mother" gem.

	First, the government social workers have no stake in helping
	someone to "get off welfare."  If they successfully elevate
	large numbers of people up the economic/social ladder, 
	their constituency is eroded.

	Secondly, many government programs ( AFDC being a particularly
	bad offender ) actually DISCOURAGE fathers of kids from hanging
	around.  If the father is there, the check is diminished
	or possibly even discontinued.  The result ?  Unmarried
	mothers run the fathers off.  Too expensive to keep around.
	The kids and our society suffer greatly as a result.
	
	Lastly, mothers who try to elevate themselves by taking on
	a part-time job, saving a little money, and so forth, can
	find their checks cut off....sometimes even slapped with
	criminal charges for "welfare fraud."  Recall the recent
	case where the mother managed to save a couple of thousand
	and was punished for it by the welfare agencies.

	The moral of this whole story ( for do-gooders who want the
	government to provide for everything ):

	"If you want more of something...subsidise it.  If you want 
	 less of something...tax it."

	Nuff said.

	Steve H

 Even though I suspect that you are primarily interested in scoring points,
I'm going to answer you using the premise that your objections to my points
are honest and reasonable.

>     As a reward for being employed taxpayers, we can label such people
>    "irresponsible" and condemn them harshly as much as we want...

 You are completely missing the point here. This is not a case of simple
"labeling" any more than walking up to a carcass and saying that it is dead
is labeling. If speaking without the velvet cushion of euphemism is labeling
than we are on completely different wavelengths and this is undeniably a waste
of my time. In this vein, I will simply state that if you reply to this with 
a long note taking everything to extremes and putting words into my mouth,
I will simply not respond at all (though honest attempts to either alter
my perspective or get me to elucidate on unclear points will certainly
be dealt with accordingly.)

 The fact is that complaining about people who take advantage of the situation
is not the same as condemning them. We have a right, as the people footing the
bill, to complain when we see our money wasted, whether it's on DIVAD,
TVA pork, laws we don't like, or even the ever sacred entitlements. Doing so 
does not place us in a "holier than thou" position, no matter how many people
try to shame us into keeping our mouths shut.

> So what good does it do to treat them this way 

 Treat them what way? How is complaining about excesses a form of mistreatment?

>Maybe the satisfaction of trashing these folks is the payment we receive for 
>having escaped their fates.

 Fine. I'll forgo the payment if I can forgo the payments.

>    So it still comes down to the idea that these women are the scum of
>    the earth because they don't have the legitimacy of a husband supporting
>    their efforts 

 I do not consider this to be the issue. I can provide counter-examples if you
think that will help.

>All because
>    they do their "staying home to raise the kids" without being sanctioned
>    (endorsed? owned?) by a man.

 Again, this is not the issue.

 The Doctah

    	Well, I do see women on welfare as victims - of prejudice.
    
    	It's so easy to use these women as an emotional focal point
    	for gathering support - I mean, who doesn't get angry to
    	think of someone spending our own tax money and possibly not
    	even using it to take proper care of her babies with it?
    
    	Reagan used this method to gain support for his first election
    	as President (with his images of "Welfare Queens.")
    
    	Much of the societal condemning of so-called "irresponsible 
    	welfare women" has its roots in prejudice against women,
    	particularly women who do not follow the ideal of engaging
    	in Motherhood while under the protective wing of a man.
    
    	A Mother supported by a man isn't treated as lazy or sinful
    	for not having the skills to support her children.  Her work
    	as a Mother is sanctioned (because she has an employer - her
    	husband.)

    I'm trying not to say that welfare mothers are scum...
    
    I know that if I were to become a single parent, I would only
    go for aid as a last resort, but certainly as a single parent,
    I wouldn't EXPECT to be a stay at home mommy.  I'm not so sure
    it's an issue where women have been taught they need a man to
    support them (well maybe in part), but there's a lot more to it.
    Such as a lack of sex education (where DO babies come from?!?), 
    youth (in my experience, many wm's are teens) which prevents one
    from getting the experience to earn a living, lack of self-exteem...
    I guess I think a lot of problems with the SYSTEM stem from the way
    our society is run.  Depending on your perspective, I guess it could
    be the fault of men (generic), but I personally don't support that 
    view (although I can understand it).
    
    Also, so edit my last note, lazy is not a good word.  Perhaps
    down-trodden fits better.  I didn't mean lazy in a bad way, but in
    re-reading, it really didnt convey what my thoughts were in an 
    accurate manner.  
    
    re; victims of prejudice-I agree to a point, but in all honesty, I
    have met people on aid who live better than I do.  I resent that, 
    because I work very hard for what I get.  I also realize that this is
    not the norm by a long shot.  I suppose that the attention directed to
    those who benefit from misuse of the system tends to cloud one's view
    to the larger picture (something I have been guilty of but am trying
    to get over).  It's hard not to feel resentment when you feel people
    (men and women) arent doing something to better their situation because
    many of us have never been there and dont have that first hand
    experience.
    
    Christine
    

    RE: .135  The Doctah
    
    >Even though I suspect that you are primarily interested in scoring points,
    >I'm going to answer you using the premise that your objections to my 
    >points are honest and reasonable.
    
    Gee thanks, I guess.
    
    >The fact is that complaining about people who take advantage of the 
    >situation is not the same as condemning them. We have a right, as the 
    >people footing the bill, to complain when we see our money wasted, 
    >whether it's on DIVAD, TVA pork, laws we don't like, or even the ever 
    >sacred entitlements. Doing so does not place us in a "holier than thou" 
    >position, no matter how many people try to shame us into keeping our 
    >mouths shut.
    
    Others also have the right to point out when prejudice is evident as
    the driving force behind societal attitudes, no matter how many people
    try to shame us into keeping our mouths shut.
    
    I'm footing the bill for welfare, too, so I have a right to complain
    that I think the people receiving are being treated so unfairly that
    my money is being needlessly wasted via the harmful effects that
    this prejudice has on them.

    
    There was a Really interesting article in People (TIME?) last week (?)
    about the Governor of Wisconsin (or maybe it was Kansas..?!!!!_;-)
    anyways, the gist of it was that he started a program where teenage
    women who became pregant and quit school we rewarded for going back to
    school. Their child care was taken care of, and they continued to get
    the financial support that they needed. One particular woman, 17 years
    old, had two children. She had quit school and was told that her aid
    would be withdrawn unless she finished high school. She did. 
    This particular woman thought that the program was GREAT! She now has
    an education and a skill. Without it, she said that she would have been
    on welfare forever. 
    So for the participants of the plan, it is a wonderful idea. 
    But, from what I rememberm, the Governor is getting alot of flack in 
    that his plan is discriminatory and takes away that individuals rights
    and freedoms. I wish I had the article here; there were some
    interesting statistics in it, as well as opinions on the program.
    
    Re last couple of notes, to REemphasize my point, I don't care so much
    WHO the heck is on welfare. I just care that these people take some
    responsibility for the fact that they ARE living off the financial
    AID of the community, something that was originally intented to be a
    temporary ASSISTANCE. Knowing that, and knowing that the additional
    $38(?) a month they will get for an additional child, AND knowing that
    that $38 isn't going to buy squat(?), THATS WHEN THEY GOTTA TAKE SOME
    RESPONSIBILITY. Birth control is cheap, if not free...the alternative
    (unprotected sex and the possible resulting pregnancy) is cruel and
    irresponsible.
    
    cathy
    

    I REALLY didn't want to get involved in this discussion but I must add
    my 2 cents....
    
    If it were so easy and there really was more money to be made by
    working for MacDonalds I beleive that people (women)would probably take the
    job over welfare--thats just an assumption. BUt I think that the double
    bind comes in to play when you have to consider that it costs money for
    childcare, so any 'extra' money made over the welfare amount would not
    make up for the cost of day care. So its not as simple as just going
    out and getting a job that pays more than welfare, it has to pay a LOT
    more to make up for the cost of childcare.
    
    The other thing is, it is not only WOMEN who may abuse the system,
    men do this too! I will never forget years ago while at a laundromat a
    young boy/man was talking to his friends about how he wanted to get
    married because then he could double his welfare check!
    He couldn't have been more than 20 at the time. 
    
    hannah

    >But women CAN and SHOULD be able to control their own bodies,
    
    More specifically, women need to control their fertility so that they
    can then exert some control over their lives.  Reliable birth control
    must be made available to women who want it.  This would virtually
    eliminate the problem in a very short time.  And this should be
    followed up with public assistance programs that support at the very
    basic level, those who need support, but a system who's main focus is
    rewarding initiative.  If you have no job, you get food and toilet
    paper and things delivered to your house.  If you get a job and earn x
    amount of dollars, you get some dignity back - you get sent a check to
    help out.  And so on.  The higher the accomplishment, the more dignity
    and respect.  I believe the desire for satisfying work that will take 
    care of one's self and a desire for respect and accomplishment is within 
    everybody and can be encouraged out easily.  I have to kind of agree with 
    Suzanne that there are some basic sexist assumptions about women at the 
    heart of a lot of the reason reliable birth control isn't made available 
    to any and every woman who wants it and therefore why this situation
    continues unabated.  We have this image of inner-city women breeding
    indescrminantly and it's repugnant.  But what image is evoked when we
    think of women, (these and all women), having total and free access to
    reliable birth control?  Are we in reality choosing between two 
    "unacceptable" images of women?  If so, is allowing all these children
    to be born into poverty and subsidizing these women's lives only if
    they head down the drain *really* the lesser of the two "unacceptable" 
    images?  What are we saying when we initiate programs based on the 
    assumption that it is?  What are we saying when we reward a woman for 
    having her 8th child?  In a strictly financial sense, wouldn't we have 
    been much better off paying for a daycare worker to watch her 1 or 2 while 
    she went to work?  Why don't we do that, then?  Among those who have
    the decision-making power, (who are most likely similar in gender and
    race and who most likely hold similar images of "acceptable" female
    behavior), is it ignorance or conscious choice that keeps things the way 
    they are?
                                         
    Sandy

    Cat,
    
    For a woman to avoid pregnancy, she must be on birth control pills
    at $15+/ month, Norplant at $400 for the one-shot, a cervical cap
    at $whatever the doctor visit costs (and learn to install it properly),
    or -- assuming she can predict when her man will want sex -- a diaphragm
    at $whatever the doctor visit costs  (and learn to install it properly)
    *plus* the cost of the spermicides, or a sponge at $1.50 each (and learn
    to install it properly).
    
    Birth control for women is very expensive in this country.  It isn't
    for men -- condoms are so cheap they're given away every day.  (You
    are remembering that a woman may be unwilling to take the risk of
    refusing sex, or refusing unprotected sex, right?)  How large a
    percentage of a woman's income should she be expected to give up in
    order to not have children?  How much food can she take out of her
    children's mouths before she gets called immoral?
    
    You think women should only have the children they can afford.  Fine.
    How to you propose that women be able to afford to not have children?
    
    *My* theory is that a woman should have a little added to her welfare
    (actually, AFDC) check each month that she does *not* produce another
    child.  It should be more than enough to pay for her birth control;
    it should be enough for her to realize that she would be losing money
    if she had another baby.  It should escalate with the passage of time.
    
    						Ann B.

>    Others also have the right to point out when prejudice is evident as
>    the driving force behind societal attitudes,

 I disagree with your assessment that it is simple prejudice at work here. And
I'm not trying to shame you at all; I just think you're wrong. If you look
at any group of people, you'll see some people that work harder and some people
that don't work as hard. It is routine for those working harder to resent
those that do not work as hard, particularly when they are working hard to get
something that the others get without working. This isn't men against women;
it's human nature. When the man on welfare sees the man who inherited millions
from his parents and never worked an honest day in his life get in his
limosine, is his resentment borne out of prejudice? When hard working slave
#1 gets whipped as often and forcefully as lazy slave #2, is his/her resentment
borne out of prejudice? I don't think so. It seems that you make no distinction
between disliking someone because of what they are and diliking someone
because of what they are doing. To me the difference could not be more vast.
To me, the latter does not involve prejudice.

>    I'm footing the bill for welfare, too, so I have a right to complain
>    that I think the people receiving are being treated so unfairly that
>    my money is being needlessly wasted via the harmful effects that
>    this prejudice has on them.

 I'm having a hard time making sense out of this. (Maybe it's because the only
argument I can contruct out of this doesn't make sense to me.) Do you care
to explain?

 The Doctah

Sandy,

	I agree completely.  Can we put you in charge of the welfare program?

Ann,
	Wouldn't it be as simple as a birth-control subsidy for welfare mothers?
(including checkup/counciling)  That, plus a (finacial) disincentive not to 
have additional children might push us in the right direction.

	... or is the real problem that backing (cheap, available) birth control
is political suicide?


						--Doug

    re:-1
    
    exactly what I so ineptly tried to say (the resentment for what is
    done than who one is theory vs prejudice)
    
    Christine

re: .125

Steve,
 Have to admit your comment about women and power, or the absence
thereof, kinda "rankled" me.  You talked about some inner city
group that was encouraged to farm their own fish, etc., then 
barter among themselves. In other words, to stay to themselves and
leave the system alone.  And then - surprise! surprise! - these folks
had the audacity to not be thrilled with this arrangement and to
actually want to have some say in the real, larger society within which
they lived.  You then compared women to this experiment and said
that "many of the women who are upset today want to sit in the driver's
seat!" - the nerve of them! - and suggested that they try "getting
on another bus."  Now, tell me, why should women be willing to do this?

Maybe the problem I'm having with what you said is the difference in 
perspective.  I'm looking at a much larger view than you're talking about, 
I think.  I'm not talking about an individual company here or there, I'm 
talking nationally, at the least.  Women provided a lot of the sweat 
equity that went into building this country.  Why should we never get a 
chance to sit in the driver's seat?  It is my belief that women as a whole will
never get a fair deal until they hold more national political power.  

Sue

    re L. (more national political power)
    
    A quick question: has there ever been a female candidate in the primary
    elections for President in the USA?
    
    Alice T.

    "political suicide", Doug?  
    
    It's been said that women now constitute a voting majority.  Since women 
    are very sensitive to the issue of fertility control and not just from a 
    theoretical perspective, like men generally have had the luxury to choose 
    to be, but from a very personal and very real perspective, would such a 
    program indeed *be* political suicide?  Or is it just *perceived* that it 
    would be political suicide since it would, without question, upset the 
    image of woman that the majority of the traditional voters, (white men), 
    and those in power in this country have come to hold dear?  Basically I'm 
    asking if yet another layer is at work here.  Is no candidate willing to 
    champion this cause because the candidate knows quite well how the "male 
    machine" would react and because said candidate considers the "male 
    machine" to pretty much represent the constituency?  If we are asked to 
    believe that women are a voting majority, (and we are), then why don't the 
    candidates seem to believe it wrt this issue?  Is there some fear some-
    where that women really *might be* such a majority and that if things like 
    this are put to a vote, we, <gasp> might actually vote for things that 
    will shatter the myths - (excuse me, we like more profound concepts when 
    dealing with men's beliefs), "shake the very foundations" of our country?
    How many so-called "women's issues" are ever put to a vote?  Such
    things are decided only by boards and committees that are firmly under
    male control.  Because if women are a voting majority, and if an issue
    like available, reliable birth control is put to a vote, then we can
    pretty much predict which way it will go.  And then what will the men
    in power have to do?  They will have to admit that they are on the
    "outside" of this issue.  That the images and fantasies they hold dear
    are merely that and have little to do with the reality of woman.  And
    that the reality is that unchecked fertility coupled with an image of 
    woman as a sexual toy for men results in the deplorable situation we have
    today.  We glorify the flat belly image and hide her away once the goal 
    of the image is reached - once a man has been there.  We hold woman up
    as temptress, as desirable plaything with narry a mention of the
    consequences.  We look only at the toy aspect of woman and we *blame the 
    women* when the inevitable pregnancy happens.  Who is it really who
    wants "the fun" without any of the "the responsibility"?  The women? 
    Women aren't creating and promoting the images that say a woman coming
    on to a man is ok, (the #1 pervasive image in the country), but the
    image of a woman pregnant because of it is not for mass consumption, (a
    la the hoopla over Demi on Vanity Fair).  Who or what are we really
    "protecting"?  And taken to its logical conclusion, are we therefore
    allowing this deplorable situation to occur so that those white men in
    power can preserve their cherished myths that "good" women are wives or
    virgins and all others deserve what they get?  This is a country that 
    "cares" about children?  That "cares" about women?  Helping a woman 
    control her fertility is the #1 most basic expression of care a country 
    can exhibit.  No amount of people barricading an abortion clinic means
    anything if they don't first demonstrate understanding of the reproductive
    process and of human behavior and then DO something about it in the
    form of assistance with fertility control for those who want/need it. 
    Everything else is just running around tucking in the corners and
    putting out fires in a futile attempt to keep certain myths and
    stereotypes alive.  For *that* your government is letting these
    children and their mothers live in abject poverty.           
    
    Sandy

	RE:      <<< Note 998.147 by VERGA::KALLAS >>>

	Hi,

	I think you may have missed my point.  The folks that
	worked with the inner-city poor made a mistake that I
	also was making:   A number of the women that have
	contributed to this Note do NOT want to change the
	system, or succeed in a parallel system, or work around
	it -- they want power IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

	I believe this is a crucial distinction.  I personally
	feel that this tack is not the healthiest for women, in
	general, but am certainly in no position to persuade
	anyone in particular !

	A rough parallel is Gorbachev's vain attempts to preserve
	the status quo in the USSR.  The route to success is more
	likely to be the junking of the whole hierarchy over there,
	rather than just putting new faces in corrupt institutions.

	I'd like to relate a discovery that shows the sort of
	thing I think holds more promise.  Some years ago, a colleague
	announced that his wife had filed for divorce.  While they
	remained friends, things had not been good for some number of
	years.  As the divorce proceeded, his wife told him that
	she was lesbian, and that she would be making a number of
	changes in her life.  

	He told me how she had brought home a sort of "manual" or
	"directory" of female lawyers, doctors, and providers of
	other services that had been assembled by people with 
	a common view.  He was a bit bewildered by it all, but I
	think that it showed the potential for a movement that is
	"out of the mainstream", if you will, to flourish DESPITE
	an imperfect "establishment."

	Referring back to the failed attempt of the Libertarians
	with the inner-city poor, I believe that looked at it like
	this:  15 well-meaning Libertarians and two or three
	blocks full of poor people cannot dislodge ANYTHING like
	a city, state or federal government.  So, let's see if we can
	do something that falls outside their purview.

	Steve H

    Ok, so I'm only on note .55 of this string, and I'm reading the 
    stuff about pregnancy police, and population control.
    
    Folks, wouldn't it be a nice idea if we could make birth control and
    (in my humble opinion, abortion...but leave that out of the discussion
    if it's inflammatory...bc is enough to start with) available on a
    reasonably easy basis, worldwide, affordable, etc and see how that
    works before we go into mandatory control measures?  There are too many
    controls over information and availability today to judge whether or
    not *voluntary* birth control would be effective!
    
    on another note completely...
    And Denise Hurley, your .48 was very moving.  Thankyou...I appreciate
    your perspective
    
    cheryl

    Well, since so many forms of birth control require a doctor
    to get.....
    
    HRH

    RE: .143  The Doctah

    >I disagree with your assessment that it is simple prejudice at work here.

    Who said it was simple?  It's deeply ingrained prejudice mixed among
    a number of other compelling images.  If Reagan's "Welfare Queen" was
    identified (by more people) earlier as a racist/sexist rallying point,
    for example, it wouldn't have been nearly as successful as it was.

    > And I'm not trying to shame you at all; I just think you're wrong.

    It's no wonder - you changed my argument into "simple prejudice" (and
    lost sight of what I was saying.)  Not on purpose, tho, I realize.

    >If you look at any group of people, you'll see some people that work 
    >harder and some people that don't work as hard. It is routine for those 
    >working harder to resent those that do not work as hard, particularly 
    >when they are working hard to get something that the others get without 
    >working.

    Ok, let me ask you - what do I get for my pay$$ that welfare women get
    for free?  Did they all buy a new house this week?  I did (my closing
    is tomorrow.)  Do they make enough to send a child to college?  I do.
    Do they have weekly money set aside for stock purchasing? How about
    vacation and a retirement plan?  I have these.  Do they get to work 
    with wonderful high-tech equipment and do something stimulating in an 
    exciting business like computers?  I do.

    What do they have for free that I have to pay for?  Housing, meals and
    whatever other few things they can eek out of their small sustenance?

    Am I honestly supposed to resent them and be jealous that they can
    live far, far worse than I do (but for free?)

    I'm not jealous.

    When I see the folks who inherit millions from their parents, or
    whatever, I'm not jealous of them either.  They have their own
    junk to worry about, I'm sure.  

    I like my own small world (I like it quite a bit right now,
    especially) - I only wish everyone else could be happy, too
    (whether they are on welfare, on an inheritance, or work for
    a living like I do.)

    Sandy -
    
    While women constitute a majority of voters, they do not represent a
    monolithic voting bloc.  This may be part of why reliable, available,
    inexpensive-to-free birth control as an election issue is perceived as
    political suicide.
    
    There is a subset of women who truly, honestly believe that the most
    important thing a woman ever does is have children.  That this ability,
    which is uniquely hers as a woman, also defines what her roles in
    society ought to be.  Very few of such women work here (and I am not
    one of them).  Some of them are white, middle-to-upper class women. 
    And they are the women of the Moral Majority, and Operation Rescue, and
    a host of other "life-style police" type organizations.
    
    It is my perception that any issue which deals with human sexuality in
    American culture is political suicide - and not along male/female
    lines.  If only it were that easy!  Instead, it splits out along lines
    of religious belief and lifestyle choice.  We don't, today, even share
    common language and concepts between camps on these issues.
    
    There are a host of current political issues which have their roots in
    widely divergent world-views of what is "proper" and should be
    encouraged / allowed / tolerated / condemned by society and government. 
    Some of these intertwining issues include childhood sexual education in
    schools, birth control availability for teens, the role of welfare/AFDC
    in supporting children, legality of abortion, how to treat homosexuals,
    the "right" way to do adoption.  Most of the issues we discuss in this
    file.  And there is a strong and growing component of the body politic
    that is convinced that these issues should be resolved in ways that
    reduce the range of acceptable choices.
    
    Alison

Alison,

	Thanks.  I agree with you about 'the way it is.'

Sandy,

	I don't know your background, but I lived in Nashville for four years
and I have a good idea how liberal the northeast is w.r.t. some other parts of
the country.  If the pro-birth-control faction really has a voting majority,
why are we losing ground?  I honestly wish it weren't political suicide, but
I'm afraid it still is.


						--Doug

	I believe Shirley Chisolm was on the ballot in some primaries.

						Tom_K

    OK, I got kneed in the rib-cage once too often not to respond...
    
    [if anyone reads this as 'man bad' they probably haven't seen sunlight
    in _years_ ... I'm talking specific [but not named] individuals that
    I've encountered]
    
    [to begin, I've never been on welfare, I schooled myself on a
    trust-fund and scholarships, schooled my husband on my inheritance,
    learned some pretty damned efficient lean-time survival skills, but
    thankfully never had the need to resort to welfare]
    
    However, in the course of my stint at a domestic violence crisis center
    I met many people, mostly women, who'd had to deal with the welfare mill
    --- some that, goddess forgive me, I put into it.
    
    Most of the women who came to the center had never been on welfare,
    would rather die that go on welfare, but would not sacrifice thier
    children to slow starvation on a point of pride.  The average number of
    children that they had was 2.6.  About 2/3 were employed outside the
    home, but their income was not sufficient to support _them_ let alone
    their children as well. The other 1/3 did not work outside the home,
    but were entirely supported, until they bolted in fear of their lives,
    by their abuser. With precious few exceptions, these women were
    hard-working individuals who didn't want to be a burden on anyone.
    
    Child support, as most will agree, is frequently in arrears.  Let me
    just say that when the person charged with paying support has been used
    to using the wife and kids as punching bags, that the probability of
    delinquent child-support payments goes up drastically -- enter AFDC and
    the children are fed, the government bears the burden of collecting the
    support, and we the taxpayers pay instead of the delinquent father. Not
    fair at all, but not the mother's fault.
    
    Our welfare system is pretty pissy.  Many of these women were forced to
    choose between their jobs and their entitlement checks. If they worked,
    they got bupkus in entitlement, not a curtailed amount, BUPKUS.  Heck,
    if the government set a subsistence level stipend and subtracted from
    it the amount that they were bringing in by their hard and honest
    labour, they would have been thrilled to pieces.  But, no.  It was all
    or nothing.  Where is the incentive to work and train and strive if
    you have mouths to feed. Comes a time when pride just doesn't feed the
    children.
    
    Then there's medical coverage.  In the absence of private medical
    insurance [or a family fortune], medi<mumble - I always get -care and
    -caid confused> steps in.  However, the gap between the coverage and
    actuals costs is substantial [don't we know that from our own lovely
    private medical insurance -- 'reasonable and customary' my Aunt
    Bridget!].  Because of this gap many doctors will not take medi<mumble>
    patients as these patients are unlikely to have the spare cash to cover
    it.  Solution?  These women rarely received other than emergency
    medical treatment and held off taking their children in longer than
    was advisable -- a trip to ER where the meter _starts_ at ~$75-100 and
    there's often a premium charge for all supplies and procedures, add in
    the doctor[s]' fees and you have a truly astronomical bill --
    medi<mumble> covers emergencies -- that the good old taxpayers get to
    pay.
    
    I resent the very _hell_ out of what the welfare system takes out of my
    pocket. But after meeting _hundreds_ of mothers on welfare of one form
    or another over the years I can't find it in myself to resent them. In
    very real ways, dependence upon public assistance is like being
    addicted to pain medication -- you get it when the need is there, but
    there has to be a sane way of getting off it when the need is gone. 
    Our welfare system is designed in such a way that it feeds the
    addiction.
    
      Annie

    RE: .157  Annie
    
    >I resent the very _hell_ out of what the welfare system takes out of my
    >pocket. But after meeting _hundreds_ of mothers on welfare of one form
    >or another over the years I can't find it in myself to resent them.
    
    Exactly the way I feel!!
    
    I especially resent that the government wastes so much of my money in
    bureaucratic BS (and in aid to foreign countries whose leaders use it
    to fund their own lifestyles while their people starve.)
    
    The only thing that makes it half-way acceptable to me is the fact that
    human beings (Mothers and children, not selfish rulers who soak the US
    for their personal bankrolls) get at least SOME of my money.

    
    bureaucrats gotta eat too.
    
    they're at least as deserving as welfare mums..

    
>    *My* theory is that a woman should have a little added to her welfare
>    (actually, AFDC) check each month that she does *not* produce another
>    child.  It should be more than enough to pay for her birth control;
>    it should be enough for her to realize that she would be losing money
>    if she had another baby.  It should escalate with the passage of time.
    
 
	Don't add it to the walfare check, give free contraception and advice
	to any woman.

	No stigma attached to the free contraception and advice, and also, 
	it's not something that can be "spent" on anything else.

	And it's not just the people on welfare that could do with this free 
	advice and contraception, some youngsters who are afraid to talk with 
	their parents could do with it too.

	Heather

    Re: .157
    
    >if the government set a subsistence level stipend and subtracted from 
    >it the amount that they were bringing in by their hard and honest
    >labour, they would have been thrilled to pieces
    
    Me, too.  I just cannot understand why they haven't done it already. 
    And now they're talking about workfare.  Why?  This approach has more
    benefits than workfare and less cost.  But I guess we've got to be as
    draconian as possible with these people.  After all, they haven't an
    ounce of responsibility in them, so we've got to _force_ them to be
    responsible (or at least to behave like responsible people, but without
    the power to make choices that will let them really be responsible).

    Re: .99
    
    >I would not use the word "sloppiness" in my original note.
    
    Well, I would -- but that's because I've seen dozens of brangles caused
    by the same imprecision you have demonstrated.  If you care to, you can
    take comfort in the knowledge that you are not the only person who's
    been flamed like this.
    
    When I started noting, I was out of college.  After spending four years
    polishing my mind, I was full of notions about how things should be. 
    Then I found Womannotes.
    
    Quite honestly, I had no idea how life was really like for a vast
    majority of people.  I had had very little exposure to what could
    happen and what had happened and what people lived through and though
    and felt.  It was a shock, quite frankly.  But finding all these 
    experiences and all these perspectives was probably the best thing that
    ever happened to me.
    
    All these people had so many interesting things to say, things I never
    thought of before.  I got whacked a number of times because I was
    careless, because I didn't realize how my words would affect people,
    because I didn't realize who was out there listening to me.  I had to
    listen myself, to find out who these people were.  It wasn't until I
    knew about their experiences and values that I could understand why I 
    had set them off.
    
    Probably the most important thing I have learned about noting is that
    there are _people_ out there reading what I write.  Once I learned
    that, I could learn how to write without getting jumped on.

    RE: .143  The Doctah

    >>I'm footing the bill for welfare, too, so I have a right to complain
    >>that I think the people receiving are being treated so unfairly that
    >>my money is being needlessly wasted via the harmful effects that
    >>this prejudice has on them.

    > I'm having a hard time making sense out of this. (Maybe it's because 
    > the only argument I can contruct out of this doesn't make sense to me.) 
    > Do you care to explain?

    The system is set up so that women on welfare are penalized for almost
    any attempt they make to improve their situations.  The cultural
    attitude toward these women is one of contempt, so the system is set
    up to make sure they are held to a certain level of poverty (if they
    are receiving welfare payments.)  Thus, if a woman gets a part-time
    job that could lead to acquiring skills for full-time work later, the
    system makes sure she is rewarded with a net loss in income for her
    efforts (which reduces her chances of making such stepwise moves off
    the welfare rolls.)

    This is a waste of my money.  If a woman on welfare had the chance
    to make a bit extra by working parttime, she would experience the
    fact that her efforts can make her life better.  It would provide
    an incentive to keep going.  Instead, the system makes sure that
    she can't benefit in any way by taking steps away from welfare
    (putting her in an all-or-nothing situation instead, which is far
    more likely to ensure that she stays on welfare.)

    If the cultural attitude towards these women were different, we might
    make some progress towards finding ways to allow women to make these
    stepwise moves away from welfare.

    	Although I know a number of people here were raised in families
    	with low incomes, I wonder how many people here know what it's
    	like to be an adult raising a family well below the poverty line.

    	When my son was a baby and small child, I was a "single head of
    	household" who supported us on an income that was so far below
    	the poverty line that I got 100% of my withholding back (plus
    	"Earned Income" credits from the IRS.)  This meant that they
    	gave me back every penny withheld from my checks *PLUS* added a
    	bunch of money to my refund that I hadn't even paid (because we
    	were so poor.)

    	We also qualified for the rock-bottom price on childcare that was
    	rated on the ability to pay (a concept that doesn't seem to exist
    	in many places but was standard practice where we lived, thank
    	goodness.)  So I had Ryan in good quality daycare that I could
    	afford.

    	We lived in one-room apartments and our only furniture was a
    	mattress/box_spring and a port-a-crib (at floor level.)  Later
    	we also got a small table for eating.  When Ryan grew out of
    	his crib, we bought futons (and I sewed decorative slipcovers for
    	both of them.)

    	My parents couldn't help us financially because it would have
    	amounted to tax fraud (since I was filing as head of my household
    	with no other income.)  My parents and I did allow that they could
    	buy clothes, toys and story books for Ryan, though (and my Mom often
    	had a spare bag of groceries lying around when we would visit that
    	she insisted we take home with us.)

    	Our one-room apartment was filled with Ryan's toys (we hung them
    	from the walls and set up play areas where most people put the
    	rest of their furniture.)  I was going through 4 years of college
    	during all this, and I did my homework on the floor while Ryan
    	played around (and over :)) me.

    	It was a time of crunching poverty for us, but we were happy.
    	We had hope for the future (my college education.)  Quite a few
    	people told me I'd never make it - but I graduated with a B.A.
    	when Ryan was 5 years old.  Ryan is 20 now, and my biggest year
    	with Digital (gross income) is 2000% more than what I supported
    	him on during those early years.

    	Remembering what it was like to live with so little income, I
    	don't know how I could ever have handled it if I hadn't had the
    	aspect of hope for a better life.

    	Our culture seems to delight in squelching such hope from the
    	lives of women on welfare - and it makes me angry.

    Re: .163
    
    Suzanne, the system is not "set up" so that a welfare mother working
    for part of her income experiences a net monetary loss.  It is set up
    so that she stays even -- you bring in X dollars, we subtract X dollars
    from your welfare.  Admittedly, it often happens that things balance
    out to a loss because of inequities in the childcare situation (from
    which you benefited).
    
    One might suppose that a gain in one's self-respect for having
    exercised the desire to make something of oneself could in some way
    offset the pain of the monetary loss; that loss, after all, if one is
    persistent, is temporary.  On welfare, you're on a fixed income (or a
    decreasing one, if balancing the Federal budget becomes more important)
    unless you pop out more babies to get a bigger check -- whereas on your
    own, earning a real wage, you have upward mobility, however little it
    is.
    
    Whe I got married, I was earning little enough that I qualified for
    federal income assistance for housing.  I was well below the poverty
    line, and I supported a wife and two kids.  We had a furnished
    apartment at first, because we found one cheaper than the payments we'd
    have to make to buy even Goodwill furniture.  We had no car -- couldn't
    afford to own one.  (Eventually, my father sold me one for a dollar.)
    
    This is not to belittle what you and Ryan went through -- it was good
    and creative, and I'm impressed by your persistence in furthering your
    education, which course I did not elect -- but you're not all that
    rare.  Many others did it, and are doing it, and just don't say
    anything about it.  THOSE are the ones who get off welfare, bcause
    their pride in themselves is great enough that they cannot be satisfied
    taking a handout.  There are plenty of the other kind, too, who
    complain bitterly and loudly while they stand in line for that handout.
    This whole bloody discussion's anger, initiated by Cat's remarks, is
    targeted at THOSE people, not the ones who are determined to succeed
    despite the system's weaknesses.
    
    If you (generic you) don't like the system, CHANGE the system.  IN THE
    U.S., ANYWAY, YOU *ARE* THE SYSTEM.
    
    -d

    -d,
    
    I'll say right now that I have not read much of either 992.* or this
    string.  But you pushed a button for me.
    
>   THOSE are the ones who get off welfare, bcause
>    their pride in themselves is great enough that they cannot be satisfied
>    taking a handout.  There are plenty of the other kind, too, who
>    complain bitterly and loudly while they stand in line for that handout.
>    This whole bloody discussion's anger, initiated by Cat's remarks, is
>    targeted at THOSE people, not the ones who are determined to succeed
>    despite the system's weaknesses.
    
    One of my earliest encounters with feminism was reading the following
    in the "Quotation of the Day" in some issue of New York Times, back in
    the early-to-mid seventies:
    
    "Equality is when a female schlemiel makes as much money as a male
    schlemiel."  -- Ewald Nyquist, Commissioner of Education, N.Y. State
    
    I believe that in a fair welfare system, the _average_ recipient would
    be enabled to climb out of poverty.  But if the system is constructed
    so that only the extraordinarily determined can do so, then the system
    is unfair and wrong.  And if the system is wrong, then I can't
    understand criticism of those who aren't determined enough to escape
    successfully.  I can't understand criticizing them for not escaping,
    nor do I expect them to change the system.
    
    Please note that I said _if_ -- I'm not sure whether or not the welfare
    system we've got helps or just traps those it's supposed to be helping.
    
    Bob

    RE: .165  -d
    
    > THOSE are the ones who get off welfare, bcause their pride in themselves 
    > is great enough that they cannot be satisfied taking a handout. 
    
    A system that does everything it can to make sure that most welfare
    recipients come nowhere close to having pride in themselves is working
    at cross purposes, though, if this is the ideal.
    
    > There are plenty of the other kind, too, who complain bitterly and 
    > loudly while they stand in line for that handout.  This whole bloody 
    > discussion's anger, initiated by Cat's remarks, is targeted at THOSE 
    > people, not the ones who are determined to succeed despite the system's 
    > weaknesses.
    
    We have a system that makes it as difficult as humanly possible for
    welfare recipients to succeed, then viciously damns the ones who
    don't make it.
    
    What a waste of our money (and their lives.)

    Bob,
    
    I really believe that anyone who *really* wants to get off welfare can
    do so.  But it does take determination, because, quite frankly, it
    simply becomes easier not to.  The following quotes from the
    Curmudgeon's Dictionary may serve to illustrate the point.  Bear in
    mind the author's generally misanthropic and misogynistic turn of mind,
    and concentrate on the quotations he includes.
    
        socialism, n.  A form of government whose leaders recognize the
        impossibility of raising all its people to the same standard of
        living; it therefore regulates their lives so as to equalize their
        wealth and thereby reduce them to the same level of poverty and
        dependency.  Possesses the dubious virtue of self perpetuation. 
        See welfare.
        
            The more control, the more that requires control.  This is the
            road to chaos.
        
			- Frank Herbert, "The Dosadi Experiment"
    
        welfare, n.  A system, glorious in principle but ghastly in
        practice, by which a government taxes its wage-earning populace in
        order to dole out the money to those unwilling to engage in gainful
        labor.  See socialism.
        
            Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral
            disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. 
            To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a
            subtle destroyer of the human spirit.
            
            		- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, message to Congress, 1935

    RE: .168  -d
    
    > I really believe that anyone who *really* wants to get off welfare can
    > do so.  But it does take determination, because, quite frankly, it
    > simply becomes easier not to.
    
    It makes no sense to hold this up as an ideal then to have a system
    that does everything it can to make this nearly impossible for most 
    welfare recipients.
    
    > Bear in mind the author's generally misanthropic and misogynistic turn 
    > of mind...                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Exactly my point.  'Nuff said.

    What would be enlightening to this audience is to have a discussion
    about welfare with welfare receipients.  Not electronically, but face
    to face.  
    
    Any discussion by a group of professionally employed adults with I.Q.'s
    average to genius and incomes over the average for the area is
    fictional.  It continues to astound me that some of us cannot see that 
    some people do not share the same skill sets and abilities that they 
    take for granted.
    
    When and if the system acknowledges that making a dent in poverty and
    it's symptoms requires some innovative programs maybe we will begin to 
    solve the problem.
    
    
    I don't know the answers...but a few thoughts come to mind...some of
    which have been suggested...education, incentives, support systems,
    adequate housing, welfare developmental plans with bonuses for
    achievements.....
    
    When you write your next check, envision the individual who cannot
    write legibly, cannot add and subtract and if those conditions weren't
    present imagine a balance of 30% less than the bills they are holding.
    
    

    
    	Thanks, Joyce!
    

    Yes, Joyce, imagine the person who cannot write legibly -- or read the
    instructions on hir welfare forms -- I mean the one who dropped out of
    school because it's not cool to be smart...
    
    I admit that there are those who were forced into their present
    situation by circumstance -- but if they are not capable of developing
    their skill sets through dint of good old hard work, maybe what we need
    is really a caretaker system to ensure that they -- and others --
    receive *fair* distribution of the wealth that is given to them.
    
    (I, of course, can say this with impunity  :-)  being a person who has,
    with no college education, reached a respectable and well-paid position
    in a profession reserved -- if you read the rules -- for college
    graduates.  Yeah, you read it right.  I'm cheesed at whiners.  Even
    those who are whining in others' behalf.  Enough is too much.  Look at
    my check stubs and see how much of what I earn by my own effort goes to
    help those who *cannot* help themselves  -- I choose carefully where it
    goes and who administers it.)
    
    -d

    RE: .172  -d
    
    >Yes, Joyce, imagine the person who cannot write legibly -- or read the
    >instructions on hir welfare forms -- I mean the one who dropped out of
    >school because it's not cool to be smart...
    
    It's too bad they aren't here to receive these cheap shots themselves,
    eh?  (Yowch!)
    
    >I admit that there are those who were forced into their present
    >situation by circumstance -- but if they are not capable of developing
    >their skill sets through dint of good old hard work, maybe what we need
    >is really a caretaker system to ensure that they -- and others --
    >receive *fair* distribution of the wealth that is given to them.
    
    Sure - this would cost far more money than we're spending now.  Sounds
    like a plan <sarcasm intended.>
    
    >(I, of course, can say this with impunity  :-)  being a person who has,
    >with no college education, reached a respectable and well-paid position
    >in a profession reserved -- if you read the rules -- for college
    >graduates.  Yeah, you read it right.  I'm cheesed at whiners.  Even
    >those who are whining in others' behalf.  Enough is too much.  
    
    It's quite admirable that you made it without a college education, but
    I'm stumped as to what this has to do with resentment (being "cheesed")
    at those who haven't been able to accomplish what you've done.
    
    Not only that, but your resentment sounds a lot like "whining" to me.
    
    >Look at my check stubs and see how much of what I earn by my own effort 
    >goes to help those who *cannot* help themselves  -- I choose carefully 
    >where it goes and who administers it.)
    
    So do I.  I'm cheesed that my money is wasted on the system's efforts
    to make sure we take out plenty of dehumanizing resentment against
    people on welfare (and I regard this as an appalling waste.)

 Like -d, I am annoyed at those who are on welfare because they simply cannot
be bothered to show up consistently enough to retain a job, lack the requisite
skills to hold a job because they were too "cool" to stay in school, or 
otherwise are where they are out of indolence and sloth. Unlike -d, I don't
believe that the system is reasonable; to wit, the system is not working. 
(Working would have to be defined as providing _temporary_ assistance as opposed
to open ended support.)

 The system is apparently controlled by those with a marked self-interest in 
keeping people on welfare without end. I cannot imagine how else we could
arrive at such a situation. I know some "welfare mothers." It is nearly
impossible to get off the system; numerous difficult to negotiate obstacles
are placed within your path. One of the biggest is health care. If you have
a job (any job), you aren't eligible. So if you have to choose between getting
health care for yourself or your child and working, you simply cannot afford
to choose a job. Stupid!

 I am angry at two classes of people; the lazy who live off the efforts of
the productive members of soceiety, and the administrators and drafters of
wlefare policy which makes it difficult for those that want to be productive
to break free of the bonds of welfare. Right now, I'm not sure who aggravates
me more...

 The Doctah

    a quick rebuttal...I to have made it without a college education in an
    area where most of my peers have masters degrees.  I also was on
    welfare for a year and a half.  
    
    But I do not criticize those I left behind, because I am aware that my
    I.Q. is considerably higher than the average recipient.  My health, my
    experiences, and the exposure to a better way of life is also
    different.
    
    I have long been a proponent of more understanding around anti-social
    behaviors and the why's and wherefore's of the welfare mentality are
    among the areas that researchers are studying.
    
    I personally consider the attitude of some of the fortunate towards
    welfare as 'whining'.  Rather than investigate and come up with any
    concrete resolution for solving the problem they complain and carry on
    about the burden of the poor on them personally.  Some of the greatest
    people on earth have found working with the poor an inspiration.  I
    only wish I had the courage to give up my cushy job for such a
    worthwhile occupation! 

    I was a single mother with no recognizable skills twenty years ago when
    there were considerably fewer resources available to people in my
    situation.  And, unlike many of you have said of yourselves in this
    file, I don't have an "above average or near genius I.Q.";-)
    
    What I did have was a set of parents who had raised me to believe that,
    while there was no shame in taking help when you needed it, it was your
    responsiblility to yourself, and to society, to do whatever was
    required to get on your feet.  This included the responsibility to give
    back to the community which had helped you, when you were able.  Whether
    that was money, in the form of taxes or contributions, or effort as a
    volunteer, it was part of one's role as a member of a civilized
    society.
    
    Everyone's circumstances are different, of course, but my patience is
    stretched, like many of those who have responded in this string, by
    those who are willing to take without feeling a need to make a
    contribution.

    
    It saddens me to see people who dropped out of high school
    characterized so negatively, re the two recent cheap shots
    by noters (-d and doctah) who are degrading such people with
    smart-ass remarks like "oh, they just thought they were too
    'cool' to stay in school, so I don't care what the hell
    happens to them now since they were so stupid when they were
    16 years old".  Don't try to second-guess people's motives, when
    you don't even know who you're talking about!  (If you do know
    someone in this category, please tell us about the individual
    whom you have in mind, before you go on again with such crude
    dehumanizations of people!)
    
    I'll argue that if the educational system gave some kids a real
    reason to stay in school and that they could see a benefit,
    they'd stay in school.  But let's face facts: some school
    systems are just so shitty, and some schools are outright
    *dangerous* to be in and go to.  Some neighborhoods are so
    poor and there are no jobs, even for high school graduates!
    
    Think about it, -d and Doctah.  But, please, take your
    goddamn cheap shots on poor people outta here!!  If you have
    a real point to make, make it.  But please do so without the
    judgments and the dehumanizations.
    

    .177  You had parents and a value system...assets that the
    disadvantaged might not have.
    
    As I said in mail this morning, the issue and problem of welfare, the 
    poor and poverty so often is clouded by the smokescreen of the cheater.
    
    There are cheaters everywhere in society, they are not found
    exclusively amonst the poor.  
    
    And the folks that don't live up to their potential are everywhere. 
    What about the college dropouts who take huge grants and never complete
    their education?  What about the employees of corporations like Digital
    that do not work their forty hours but milk the system because they
    know they can get away with it.
    
    The problem of the poor and the issue of poverty is significant in this
    country.  We have failed to understand what contributes to it and we
    have failed to institute programs that alleviate it.  And yet each time
    in private debate or public forum the issue and/or problem is discussed
    the greatest percent of the discussion centers around the cheater, or
    the individual that does not live up to their potential.
    
    If we were to take all the dollars that go to welfare and determine
    what percentage of those dollars were unearned and then take all the
    dollars paid in salary to Digital employees and determine which of
    those dollars were unearned (not benefits, but goofing off time) I
    suspect you would find that the percentage was pretty much equal. 
    
    If you want to deal with cheaters deal with that personality on a macro
    basis, imagine what life would be like if folks did not cheat on their
    taxes, if businesspeople did not cheat the consumer, if employees did
    not cheat their employers...welfare cheaters are small potatoes...go
    for the big stuff!

Re: .178

Excuse this if I'm missing the mark, but you sound defensive.

Ellen, I took *no* cheap shots at people who drop out of school.  I
named no names specifically to avoid imputing motives to individuals.
The number of people who dropped out of school because it isn't cool to
be smart, or who dropped out because it isn't fun, or who dropped out
because they didn't see the utility, is too big to ignore.  Calling
remarks that address that very real fact cheap shots is turning a blind
eye.  I admit freely that the system is faulty -- but the percentage of
people who make it through despite the system's faults is too great to
allow anyone to conclude fairly that it's all the system's fault.

Giving a handout -- instead of a hand UP -- to the people who choose not
to make it is, in my opinion, perpetuating their belief that there is
such a thing as a free lunch.  If dropouts want the hand up, let them
enroll in programs that offer the education they threw away.  Some of
these programs, run by PLUS, are even *free*.

I myself know more than one person who did avail hirself of that
opportunity, got off welfare, and did very well in society.  However,
I shall refrain from naming *their* names, too, in order to remain
evenhanded.

-d

Re: .180

Welfare cheaters are small potatoes, Joyce, except that "for want of a
nail a shoe was lost..."  Welfare cheaters impose an incalculable cost
on all of us, becasue they:

o   Take the money

o   Do not return fair value to the society upon which they feed so
    parasitically

o   Require an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy to administer their free
    lunch and to ferret them out

o   AND, THE BIG ONE:  SET ROLE MODELS FOR THEIR CHILDREN, WHO ARE
    LIKELY TO FOLLOW IN THEIR FOOTSTEPS

The lst of these points is the one that hurts the most.  The children of
welfare -- or ANY OTHER -- cheaters will in their turn perpetuate the
fraud simply because they never learn a better way.

-d

re: Martha Walker...

	Why can't you go to college now?  After all, DEC pays for it
	so you wouldn't need financial aid!

	Karen

    
    re .180, Joyce:
    
    It is interesting that people seem to go into outer orbit
    when they hear about a welfare woman who has another baby to get
    $38 a month more in a welfare check, and ignores someone like
    Charles Keating who is costing us BILLIONS - by this one man's
    actions alone!  Now tell me - which one of these two people
    should I be angry at?  Go figure.
    

    Thanks Ellen, 
    
    -d  none of us really lives up to our true potential and in so doing we
    impact the rest of society.  
    
    And we all cheat in one way or another.
    
    The attitudes you have expressed and the examples that you hold to are
    the excuses are the reasons that we as a society have failed to deal
    effectively with the problems of the poor.
    
    I am going to start a new note... 

>    It is interesting that people seem to go into outer orbit
>    when they hear about a welfare woman who has another baby to get
>    $38 a month more in a welfare check, and ignores someone like
>    Charles Keating who is costing us BILLIONS 

 Just because you weren't listening when we complained about Keating doesn't
mean we weren't annoyed. Maybe it just didn't push any of your hot buttons...

    
    ok..so in keeping with my first point (however old and misunderstood it
    was!) I made yet another observation the other day.
    
    Does it seem that ALOT of military families have their fair share of
    kids? I mean >3 or 4?
    These are folks who for the most part CANNOT afford children, let alone
    three families worth. 
    They are not a burden on the welfare system (as far as I know they
    do not qualify for welfare, though their income IS poverty level in
    some cases).  But though they CANNOT afford it, they continue to have
    children. Birth control to Military and Military Dependants is free. 
    
    So, why do these people have more children than they can afford?
    
    Cathy
    (I'm ba-ack:-)
    

    Re .187-
    
    Several of my grandparents made their living from various fields
    in the military (or suporting the military).
    I think they had their kids because they loved each other and they
    enjoyed having sex. I think some of them had a lot of kids because they
    enjoyed the warmth and comfort of big families.
    There is also an additional factor in my grandparent's case however.
    
    As an African American of that genertion, there was very little
    that ANYONE could do that allowed them to make significant sums
    of money.  Any job was good enough.  After that, you did what you
    had to do to get by.
    
    Cindi

I actually read all replies here...and I shouldn't jump in as I will simply
get stomped on, but what the heck...

FACT:

the National Geographic Society (of magazine fame) has been funding a study
for the last 20+ years on the encrouchment of desert into arable lands
worldwide.  The speed of encrouchment has INCREASED almost 40% in the last
13+ years.  The primary problem is overpopulation of the arable lands and
the eventual denudement of all permanent vegetation through demands for
firewood for cooking, and land clearing for crops.  We have learned in these
last 20+ years that trees determine, in large part, the amount of rainfall
we get in an area.  Remove the trees and you stop getting rain.  Point our
reality cameras to the African Sudan and you see desert where arable land
was, and many, many starving children.

Some independent monitoring of what happens to the children who are almost 
starved to death, but manage to survive indicates that the problems these 
people have now aren't nearly what they will be in 15 or 20 years....you see,
hese children have been robbed of noticable percentages of their natural 
intelligence and problem-solving skills, their ability to learn and understand
consequences of their actions by this starvation.  Will these children be 
able to participate in the long range planning and implementation necessary 
to reclaim the desert that their progenitors have created by having too many 
babies that survived?  It is not considered likely.  

Probable consequence:  more starvation and eventual loss of most arable land 
in the Sudan into sahara-like desert.  Are the politicians ANYWHERE talking 
about this?  Of course not, Binky, because if they DO, then it follows that 
they must address the problem...and it will cost BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO EVEN 
GET A GOOD BEGINNING.  And it WON'T ADDRESS WHAT WE CAN/MUST DO TO 
KEEP/PROTECT THE CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN STARVED INTO STUPIDITY FROM HURTING 
THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN EVEN WORSE.  How can you protect the children 
of a stupid human?  How can you expect the children to grow into strong, 
normal children without the stimulation they need when infants.  The most 
obvious problem that has arisen in families where the parents are "mentally 
challenged" is that the infants of such parents are deprived of stimulation 
and they, in turn, will be limited in THEIR intelligence.

Why do you think some humans on this planet have decided to remain without
children....I cannot answer for all, but I do know that I and many others
I've met choose to remain childless because we are D&mned sure that man will
reproduce the species, and probably the planet, into complete and total
destruction.  Do I think people have the "right" to have babies -- it is,
in my opinion, moot.  If we do not REVERSE the current rate of population
growth, the whole game is ALREADY WIRED.  At least my generational offspring
will not be there to die with them.  And, quite frankly, I don't buy the
"God will provide" argument as this diety of such great renown has noticably
failed to provide for the Sudan, Bangledesh, etc....even though the 
missionaries of all the Christian faiths have been busy as little bees for 
some time in these areas...

ANOTHER UNSETTLING FACT:

The Chinese government has taken it in the shorts for demanding that women
abort if they get preggers with a second baby...draconian measures to control
population growth.  Well, while you are so outraged at their cold, calculating
measures, chew on this:  The Chinese government KNOWS that, with current
technologies available ANYWHERE IN THIS WORLD, the Chinese people are going
to begin to starve in approx. 25 years.  That is when they figure the 
population will grow beyond the ability of the Chinese to feed their people...
even with trade with other nations.  It takes people to unload the ships and
distribute the food.  They do not feel they will be able to move enough food,
fast enough, to prevent starvation.  This fact is gleaned from a special on
PBS about current Chinese culture.  It is backed up by study in my local
library in which I searched out opinions of several experts on that part
of the world.  They are sitting on a time bomb for which the period of time
to defuse the bomb IS ALREADY PAST.

A FINAL FACT:

The rainforests are disappearing, at the rate of hundreds of acres a day...
and they are perceived by science to be the primary oxygen producers of the
planet earth, as well as a veritable cornucopia of undiscovered medical 
miracles.  Why are they disappearing?  Because the very R.C. nations that
contain the rain forests have some of the greatest population growths of
any nation in the world...they are crowded there, and they are hungry...

And we still publish glowing reports of women who bear and raise 20 children...
as if this is some kind of accomplishment.  No, I don't think that any woman
who has lots of children is horrible, nor do I want her children eradicated,
but I do think that each of us should look at the primary characteristic
that defines a cancerous cell from a healthy cell:

	   reproduces far in excess of the resources needed to support
	   this burgeoning life...eventual result being death of the entire
	   organism

and, perhaps it is time we stopped praising ourselves so smugly for being
perpetually fertile and started looking for ways to educate ourselves that
there is NO TIME LEFT.  Control population now, or it will be controlled
the hard way.  I sincerely hope that all the children born now live long
and healthy lives...I also sincerely hope they are not nearly as fruitful
as their parents were.

    So, I take it that you are angry at the male-dominated governments
    and religious organizations of this world, which have ignored this
    problem since the warnings of Malthus?
    
    						Ann B.

    re .186, Doctah:
    
> Just because you weren't listening when we complained about Keating doesn't
>mean we weren't annoyed. Maybe it just didn't push any of your hot buttons...
    
    Well, I sure didn't read you complaining about it here in
    womannotes.  Because it's not here to read.
    
    (If I'm wrong, please show me your note.)
    

 May I apologize for reacting emotionally to your note. The only time I recall
complaining about Keating in here was in a note that I subsequently deleted 
after it was pointed out that the string had been ratholed and was no longer
of interest to women, so I suppose it's pretty unreasonable of me to expect you
to have seen it. Mea culpa.

 I still believe your attacks on -d and myself to be unfair, but my sarcasm
didn't improve the situation. Sorry.

 The Doctah

    
    re .192: No problem (-:
    
    BTW, I wasn't attacking you and -d for not being angry at
    Charles Keating.  It was over what I felt was an unnecessarily
    degrading characterization of a class of welfare recipients.
    Note: it was your use of such characterization, and nothing
    else.
    

    
    re .190  Ann B.
    
    Ann, who the HELL cares whos' fault it is or who we can blame for the
    mess that the author in .189 detailed.
    
    Can we (as women) ignore the problem because it 'wasn't out fault'?
    No, so WHO CARES who's fault it was??
    
    So lets take some responsibility today, and stop worrying about who
    caused the problem yesterday. 
    
    Cathy
    

>    So, I take it that you are angry at the male-dominated governments
>    and religious organizations of this world, which have ignored this
>    problem since the warnings of Malthus?
    
actually, until said this way, I never thought of the problem as a "male
dominated" one, but simply as one in which we (the entire human race) have
all participated by refusing to understand that there is no elegance or
glory in producing children that will simply die later of starvation...but,
yes, I DO blame the religeons of this planet for their disregard for the
sanctity of the lives of future generations...the children who die NOW
because nobody cared 150 years ago that they might.

	TYGON::WILDE, you've been reading Club Of Rome stuff
	again (it looks like) !

	The idea that there must be some sort of global,
	governmental hand that enforces arbitrary childbearing
	standards gives me chills.  Governments have repeatedly
	proved that they take these little encouragements and
	turn them into tyrannies ( see the 1913 income tax, never
	to exceed 2%; see Hitler, 1933; see the Bolshevik
	revolution, 1917; see the current Chinese "peoples' republic" ).

	I feel I must address your worries one at a time.  They
	are commonly repeated by fans of Malthus.....and they
	are inaccurate.

	As to deserts encroaching on rain forests, who owns these
	rain forests ?  Do the owners owe you the existence of
	them ?  Do you owe your paycheck to a Brasilian laborer ?

	The changing face of any given country's landscape does
	not mean that the situation will always remain at its
	WORST possible state.  Look at the formerly arid areas in
	California, that are now periodically flooded with water
	to grow rice, for heaven's sake.  Look at what Israel has
	done with huge areas of rocky desert....they now have
	fertile farmland.

	The US midwest was a great, windswept plain, but now is
	effectively a breadbasket for much of the world.  We even
	pay farmers NOT to grow food, too.

	The point is, the predictions you transmit do not take into
	account anything more advanced than the status quo.  If
	China is growing enough food for its billions now, using
	manual labor and 13th century agriculture, why, what could
	they do with our technology and hybrid plants ?  What could
	they do if they freed their people to produce, buy and sell
	as equals -- not chattels ?

	Ethiopia is the country a number of folks point to when
	discussing the "starving children" problem.  But Ethiopia's
	delightful government forcefully moved groups of people
	into the desert, out of their homes, to start good ol'
	Marxist "collective farms."  The "why" didn't get discussed
	much on the news....the "how" did, though.

	Keep in mind, folks, if you invite government to interfere
	with your neighbor's life and property, you must assume that
	it will come to interfere with yours someday soon.

	Steve H

  Re: .-1

  Steve,

  I infer from your note that you do not believe there is any upper
  limit to the number of human beings this planet can support.

  If I'm wrong in that inference, then just what is your estimate of 
  that upper limit?

  JP

    	We're probably seeing more complaints about welfare mothers (and
    	the extra $38 per month they're costing us) than Charles Keating
    	because these women are easy targets and a great rallying point
    	(ala Reagan's "Welfare Queens.")
    
    	P.S. -d, by the way, since you didn't go to college (and I did,
    	despite having to do it while supporting and raising a family
    	by myself in poverty) - can I assume that you simply thought you
    	were too "cool" to do it?  (Personally, I wouldn't assume this
    	about you, but it sounds as if you would have us make this sort
    	of assumption about others with less education than ourselves.)

>  I infer from your note that you do not believe there is any upper
>  limit to the number of human beings this planet can support.

	Now you're getting there !  In terms of 12th Century
	agriculture, it could probably support many fewer people than 
	exist in the US today.

	In terms of 1990s agriculture, probably many more than
	exist today....and not in "Soylent Green" conditions, either.

	If we learn in the next century only half of what we learned
	in this one about agriculture, we should be able to feed
	everyone handily.

	The problem is that the biggest drains on the environment
	occur where life is cheap and freedom is nonexistent or
	scarce.  Where people have economic and individual freedom,
	they tend to be healthier, control their birthrates 
	voluntarily, and care about their environment.  They
	also develop all kinds of new ways to feed, clothe and
	shelter themselves.

	You want to prevent overpopulation in, say, Red China ?

	Then push your government to apply a bit of pressure to the
	dictators that keep the Chinese people in thrall ( maybe
	limit the champagne toasts to free-world heads of state ).

	Steve H

    Re: .198
    
    Actually, Suzanne, I did start college.  About midway through the first
    year I discovered that I did not after all want to be an electrical
    engineer, which was what my parents had convinced me I should be.  I
    did not want to attend a snazzy expensive men's engineering college,
    which is where my uncle had convinced me I should be.  I hastily
    retrenched, got into some junior- and senior-level humanities courses,
    became thoroughly hated by the juniors whose French was no match for
    mine, and ended my college career forthwith.
    
    My brother tried very hard to convince me I should go into the Navy as
    he had done, but that didn't work out, either.  About a year and a half
    after leaving school I married the woman I had met while at school,
    took a job as a grossly underpaid draftsperson for a fast-food
    equipment manufacturer, and proceeded from there to raise a family.
    
    And no, I don't suggest that you (any "you") make any general
    assumptions about people who did not finish school.  But when I know
    individuals who admit in so many words to me that they dropped out
    because it wasn't cool, I think it safe to consider that such was the
    reason they did drop out.  When I have heard and read of others who
    similarly describe their actions, I consider it a safe bet that those,
    too, did drop out because it wasn't cool.  'Nuff said.
    
    -d

re: .197, etc.

you didn't quite read what I wrote.

First point, the encrouchment of non-arable desert onto arable land is a fact
that has a whole bunch of scientists around the world REALLY WORRIED.  It is
something that has been known in scientific circles for over 20 years, and 
there are, indeed, methods worked out to "reforest" the land.  However, they
take in excess of 100 years to complete.  The problem becomes obvious - too
much time.  To reforest the land, you must slowly revegetate the land, starting
with low-laying desert bushes, which then in turn begin the slow process of
"knitting together" the soil and producing an arable top-soil.  Scientists have
been working on this issue for over 25 years and they pretty much understand
the process, but they haven't figured out how to speed it up.  Plants must
grow, decline, decay, and then be replaced with stronger plants, and all of
this must be irrigated regularly until trees actually get thick enough to
start attracting rain...approx. 100 - 130 years estimated to final, self
maintaining forest.  This isn't a pet theory from some 19th century economist,
this is scientific fact.  As you seem to feel the scientists will come up
with a miracle cure for this problem, perhaps you can give them some advice
on it, because they haven't hit paydirt yet.

Second point, ownership of the rain forest isn't in my mind even at issue...
the FACT is that if they disappear, there are, again, a bunch of scientists
who think the quality of the air ALL HUMANS ON THE PLANET get to breathe
will decline very rapidly.  Who knows, they might be wrong....but I certainly
DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE...and I do know their theories are based on some
pretty heavy duty, well understood, natural scientific principles...like where
oxygen comes from, AND WHERE CARBON DIOXIDE GOES.  If there was not such
pressure for land on which to grow food for lots of hungry people in the
countries which have rainforests, perhaps we would have time to negotiate
a manner of payment to the governments of these countries to keep the trees
there....some groups are trying.  However, the reality appears to be that
the need for enough food will force destruction of the trees before the
negotiations can become reality.  IN FACT, the rainforest lands are very
poor soil and cannot support agriculture for but a few growing seasons before
the soil is just completely exhausted, so the demand to cut down even more 
trees is that much greater.  Science isn't finding a solution to this one
very fast either.

Third point, China's population problems are not going away, nor will the magic
of science fix this one either...you see, China completed a head-count a few
years back, and found, to their dismay, that they had miscalculated before...
they seem to have nine million more heads than they had expected to have.
I'd like to think that the government over there will become unrestrictive
and open very soon, and that the rest of the world will then pour resources
into the country to help alleviate the problem they know is coming, but I
don't believe in the tooth fairy and I'm having trouble buying this one too.
Besides, it HAS been a long time since the last miracle and that is what it
will take to avoid some level of famine for the Chinese.  Modern technology
can certainly limit the amount of famine, but not avoid it entirely.

FINAL point, this is another one I got from PBS, and a Cousteau special a
few years back....Haiti is dying.  Yes, I mean the entire island.  The
land is just about completely denuded of trees for firewood....the topsoil
is running off the island into the ocean around the island and killing the
reef around the island -- and that is driving down the fish population.
Meanwhile, the population is stillg growing, and getting hungrier, and the
catholic missionaries are still telling the Haitians to have more babies.
Although, one nun did admit is was "a little hard to explain to non-catholics".
I've heard estimates of less than 50 years for the island to be UNINHABITABLE.
That may have been too harsh...it is probably more like 100 to 150 years for 
the island to become truly barren of arable soil and incapable of supporting
life.

Science can probably figure out how to feed and take care of the CURRENT 
head count of this planet....that, I'll give you...but, the population is
growing as we speak...and I'm not able to believe in magic, and
that is what it will take to keep up with the needs we will face in 50 or
100 years unless we not only stop population growth, but REVERSE it...and most
sadly, some minority groups are beginning to see attempts to stem the tide
as "racial genocide" (quote I read in U.S. News and World Report) and they
are refusing to espouse birth control within their groups.  I believe that the
tendency to see racism in any attempt to control population growth may be the
death knell of this planet.  If I was a parent, I'd be campaigning very hard
for space exploration and insisting my child focused on the sciences in
school.

    Malthus, Thomas Robert.  1766-1834.  English economist who formulated a
    theory that population tends to increase faster than the food supply,
    with inevitable disastrous results unless the population growth can be
    checked.  This phenomenon can be seen in nature, in such species as
    lemmings (clearly) and deer (less obviously because of a greater
    predation rate).
    
    -d

    
    Steve,
    
    Have you ever seen the Star Trek episode where there was a planet
    that had cured all disease and no one ever died? They had lots of
    food and never got sick. Great. But the problem was that there was
    physically not enough room for all of these people. They were crammed
    like sardines into a can. It was a miserable existance. The people
    wished for death to free them from this horrible existance.
    
    If we assume that every EGG has the RIGHT to live a life as a human
    being, then ok, population be damned. Those 'possible future'
    human beings have every right to space on this planet. More
    realistically though, it seems that there is more to life than 
    having food to eat. Quality of life is important as well. Should we
    have as many human beings on the planet as we can squeeze out enough
    food for if it means making a lousy quality of life for most of them?
    Even if there WERE enough food for twice as many people as there are
    right now today, does that mean that the planet can support that much
    more human waste and tearing down trees to build houses and cars on
    the road and all the other things that come along with ONE human being.
    
    How would it be if there was no where on this planet to go to get away
    from people? Would you like to live in Hong Kong and have to squeeze
    your way among millions of other people every day of your life? Since
    you live here in Colorado, I would assume that you like the small
    population and the quality of life. 
    
    I think that we need to consider the quality of life that these
    children have/will have before we can say that the planet can support
    a larger population. 
    
    No, I'm not saying (for those of you who love to twist everything)
    that MY quality of life is more important that some childs right to
    live.
    But if we cannot provide a decent life to those people who already
    inhabit this planet, will it get any better to assume that, since we
    CAN SUSTAIN more people, lets get more people?
    LIfe really SUCKs for the better percentage of human beings in the
    world. Wouldn't it be RESPONSIBLE (I know lots of you hate that
    word...) to take care of the immediate problems before making it 
    worse? 
    
    Steve....is this a 'men' thing????!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :-) ararar<-JOKE!! ;-)
    
    cat
    
    
    

    in re .199
    
    Actually citizens of developed nations have a much bigger impact
    on the environment, since they use up far more of the world's
    resources, and produce more polution.
    
    Bonnie

  Steve, since you believe there is no upper limit to the number of humans
  this world can support, there really isn't much point in discussing
  these issues with you.

  I'm a dyed-in-the-wool technologist, too, and I agree that we might
  someday develop the technology to support 10,000,000,000 people in
  the style to which western civilization has become accustomed.  I
  just don't believe that we have enough time to develop that technology
  before one or all of the Four Horsemen arrive.

  JP

  P.S.  Do you know where the Fertile Crescent is and what it looked
        like, 10,000 years ago?  Do you know why it looks the way
        it does today?

well John I hope you're wrong but I think you're right.

Sara

p.s. another ex -- whatever happened to "the cedars of Lebanon"?

The dodo.  The passenger pigeon.  The eider duck.  The quagga.  The
aurochs.  The ivory-billed woodpecker.

Steve, are you aware that passenger pigeons were once so numerous that
a *single* flock of them formed a black carpet in the sky, obliterating
the sun above, over an area of several hundred square miles?  Are you
also aware that they were blasted out of existence in a span of less
than 50 years by humans?  No species is an island; kill one off and you
destroy others, too.  What other species died as a result of that one
extinction?

Almost (and maybe still) the California condor, the bison, and the
black-footed ferret.  And the bald eagle, symbpol of our vaunted
American freedom to rape the world in any way and to any degree we
see fit.

It is estimated that one species disappears every day.  How much longer
do we have until there's nothing left but hungry, crowded humans?

We did not inherit this world from our parents.  We are borrowing it
from our children.  If we have any that survive...

Excuse me, I think I'm depressed enough already.

-d

It sounds to me like Steve is thinking in terms of what *could* be, and
others are thinking in terms of what *is*.  

I agree with Steve that, given the resources and the desire, we could do
very well indeed with what we have.  We have *lots* of technology that is
very seldom used.  However, I think it is currently unrealistic.  To get 
us *all* moving in the right direction, there would be many battles to be
fought first (witness the way the American auto industry has put down 
attempts to utilize new fuels/energy_methods, etc).  If enough folks are 
willing to do this, we could get there.  Until such time as enough people 
*are* willing to fight, though, I believe Steve's view is unrealistic.

      Carol

    Even with technology, there are the basic laws of physics that indicate
    that for every technological innovation there will be side-effects; if
    history says anything those side effects tend to be more on the
    environmentally negative side than not.
    
    I see many of the problems stemming from the basic fact that people
    take up space and create needs for more inputs (food, air, water) and
    generate more outputs than the environment/technology can handle
    (sewerage and other, more harmful, wastes).
    
    Unless you disregard quality of life, I don't think that this growth
    rate is sustainable and hasn't been sustainable for some time.  It just
    hasn't caught up with us yet.  And I think that technology by-and-large
    will become a significant part of the problem, not the solution.
    
    Jim

    
    more thoughts on .197.
    
    California grows rice?! They "periodically flood their fields", and now
    they can grow rice..this is supposed to be good?  Where does that water
    come from; and if there's so much of why did the Bay area recently have
    to institute extrememly strict measures to ration water?
    
    Atleast 75% (and my memory says 95%) of California's water is used to
    encourage agriculture in a farming zone that is semi arid.  The water
    is taken from as far away as Nebraska.  A problem is that the
    agriculture industry is proppoed up by antiquated water rights laws
    that encourage irresponsible use (such as rice farming) California is
    doing just fine.. for the moment.  By Colorado, Nebraska, and those
    'useless' states of Utah and Nevada (no lie! I saw that in an article
    on places people will live) are starting tosay "hey! find your own
    water. we need ours!  And we do. Our populations is growing. Maybe we
    can learn from California's mistakes. 
    
    Technology helped our Plains grow more food.  Recently there was an
    article in the Denver Post about the return of the Dust bowl to the
    Great Plains; It anthromorphized the Plains into a great  being
    that just resisted the efforts of technology to make it green.  There
    was strong evidence to point to Technology as one of the culprits in
    the new dust bowl.  Many sad personal stories of farmers who came with a 
    dream and several generations later left with not much besides dust in 
    their mouths.  
    
    Technology has created many strains of grains that are disease
    resistant... for today's bugs and bacteria.  There is growing concern
    that the emphasis to use these new strains is creating a homogenous
    gene pool that is *seriously* at risk should a bug come along the gene
    poool is not protected against.  This is true not only for grain but for
    virtually *all* foods and *animals* that are a part of the green revolution
    for the industrialized world.
    
    Technology may help. But *I Think* what the original note in this topic
    was saying is that we have to consider ourselves as a part of a large
    world than our own block, city or country.   
    
     

    Just what do you deep thinkers think would happen if the US stopped
    growing more food than we could eat and reduced our energy consumption
    to a level that produces goods only for ourselves.

    	The fist thing is you might as well make Africa a parking lot. The
    people will starve. Eastern Europe will get real hungry too. 

    	We are the bread basket of the world!

    		Simple solutions from simple minds.


    		Wayne

    RE: .174  The Doctah

    > Like -d, I am annoyed at those who are on welfare because they simply 
    > cannot be bothered to show up consistently enough to retain a job, lack 
    > the requisite skills to hold a job because they were too "cool" to stay 
    > in school, or otherwise are where they are out of indolence and sloth. 

    Does this mean that you are *not* annoyed at people who have better
    reasons than these for being on welfare?  Do you even have compassion
    and/or understanding for these other people?  Great, because your
    descriptions (above) don't apply to anyone I've known on welfare.  
    I'm glad you have better feelings for these particular people than were
    evident before.

    > Unlike -d, I don't believe that the system is reasonable; to wit, the 
    > system is not working. 

    Agreed.

    > The system is apparently controlled by those with a marked self-interest 
    > in keeping people on welfare without end. 

    The system is controlled by people who make welfare recipients' lives
    as miserable as possible in order to appease the many people in our
    society who harbor resentment (in varying degrees) for those who take
    what they consider "hand-outs."

    The fact that this process keeps people on welfare LONGER than they
    might have been on it otherwise is a side-effect.

    This is one of the points I've been trying to make all along - it
    costs us taxpayers MORE MONEY to treat welfare recipients as badly as
    the current system treats them.  It's a waste of OUR MONEY and THEIR
    LIVES.

    RE: .200  -d
    
    > And no, I don't suggest that you (any "you") make any general
    > assumptions about people who did not finish school.  
    
    Good.  Then we can discount all the statements you've made so far
    that appeared to imply that your generalization could be applied to 
    many people on welfare.
    
    > But when I know individuals who admit in so many words to me that 
    > they dropped out because it wasn't cool, I think it safe to consider 
    > that such was the reason they did drop out.  
    
    Fine.  Bring it up when you talk about these individuals, but let's
    refrain from including this as a generalization about people on welfare.
    
    > When I have heard and read of others who similarly describe their 
    > actions, I consider it a safe bet that those, too, did drop out because 
    > it wasn't cool.  
    
    Again, it pertains to these individuals (but falls flat as any kind of
    generalization about people on welfare.)
    
    > 'Nuff said.
    
    Agreed.

    
    Ok, *now* you've hit my hot button!
    
    In talking about technology and farming and feeding the world, just
    look to the newspapers--not the headlines, you won't find it there..
    look in the back of the paper.  There you will find quiet stories of
    how midwest farmers in america are turning *away* from technology and
    reverting to the methods of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers:
    organic farming.
    
    In the drought that we had a few years ago, the farmers that were
    suffering from it took notice of the few that were *not*.  They
    discovered that -all- the farms that were organic had little if no
    effects from the drought.  Why??  Because their land had become
    *naturally* drought resistant through organic measures.  All the rest
    of the farmland couldn't withstand the lack of rain because their soil
    was -depleted-, not enough of it to conserve what little rain was
    recieved.  Since 1940 the amount of topsoil (dustbowl taken into
    account) has decreased by more than 50%!!  How??  Through the use of 
    "modern technology" which gave the farmers chemicals to control bugs
    and "marks" on their fruits and vegetables, and fertilizer to get
    "bigger and better" yields from their crops to help feed the world.
    What has that gotten us??  Why we now have the majority of the
    "breadbasket" addicted to chemicals!!  The whole of the midwestern soil
    has become a "drug addict"!!  In fact, for the most part *all* of the  
    US is addicted to chemicals--case in point, how many of you out there
    use "Chemlawn" or some such "crap" on your lawn???  And if not, how
    many of you follow the "recommended" regiment for their lawns?  You
    know, fertilize this, weed kill that, turf build this, do this thing in 
    the spring--this other in the fall, buy, Buy, BUY all *our* chemicals!!
    You *really* need them to have a "green, weed free lawn"!!!  Says
    who???  For goddess sake, **grass** IS a weed!  If it's in your garden 
    patch, don't you pull it out??  We do all this "stuff" because we've
    been indoctrinated by the chemical companies to use their products, and
    now it's just a habit--which is fine by them.  We're --killing--
    ourselves with chemicals, and paying them handsomely to do it to us,
    too!  I find that so ironic. ;-\
    
    We need to get away from all this and care more about putting back into
    Mother Nature as much or more than she gives us.  The only way to do
    that is through organic methods.  I mean, for goddess sakes, do you
    know what the scientists are planning for us next??  They are trying to 
    produce **square** tomatoes so that they will pack and ship better!!
    Isn't that just "special"??!!??  But how the h**l to they --taste--,
    you turkeys!!???
    
    Isn't technology wonderful??  Even some communities are realizing that
    organic methods are a solution to waste management problems.  Here in
    Springfield for the past few years, the DPW has asked the public to
    place leaves in biodegradable paper bags and has picked them up
    seprately (sp) and dumped them all together in *huge* piles next to the
    waste mgmnt plant.  They compost there naturally for less than a year, with the
    the DPW turning the piles 3-4 times within that time.  In the spring,
    the piles have become rich, dark brown, *natural* fertilizer which the 
    city use in it's parks and the meridians on the roadways, the rest is 
    given *free* to city residents who can come and haul it away.  All of
    this save the city $15-20 *thousand* each year!!  And it also reduces
    the amount going into the dump by about 15-20%!  Organic methods at
    work for practical solutions.
    
    Whew, enough soapboxing for today!
    
    Debbi 
     

>    	The fist thing is you might as well make Africa a parking lot. The
>    people will starve. Eastern Europe will get real hungry too. 

	Well, Eastern Europes problem is not that they can't grow stuff, it's
	that 70% is lost because they don't have the technology to transport and
	preserve it.
	
	Also, Western Europe has mountains of loads of stuff, which we keep 
	giving away because we are so efficient at farming, and we produce 
	much more than we can consume.

>    	We are the bread basket of the world!

	I completely disagree

	Heather

    re.216 it isn't technology that's needed for transport - trains
    are pretty low-tech by modern standards. It's _profit_. Nobody
    is going to haul all that food without a profit motive. (For 
    that matter, nobody will do much of _anything_ industrial
    without potential gain.)

    Eeeh, I don't think making a profit or not has been an issue in Eastern
    Europe for quite a while.
    However, trains may be pretty low-tech, the whole process of building
    railroads going to places where they are needed and havening trains
    etc. at the right place at the right time *is* pretty high-tech.
    
    Charles

>    Does this mean that you are *not* annoyed at people who have better
>    reasons than these for being on welfare? 

 Of course.

>Do you even have compassion and/or understanding for these other people?

 Ditto.

>    The system is controlled by people who make welfare recipients' lives
>    as miserable as possible in order to appease the many people in our
>    society who harbor resentment (in varying degrees) for those who take
>    what they consider "hand-outs."

 I disagree that this is a goal; I believe it is a side effect.

 The Doctah

	Boy, talk about looking at the symptom and not the disease:
	the discussion about the volume of human beings expanding
	faster than the speed of light in 800 years is just
	too much !

	Prefacing a discussion with :  "Assuming unlimited food...."
	immediately makes the argument irrational.  My point is not
	that we may support quintillions, rather, that there is no
	problem that requires the paralyzing hand of government to
	intervene in decisions about childbearing.

	As I stated before, the countries where birthrates are 
	out of control invariably have oppressive governments,
	little or no private property, and little freedom.  
	Modern, free ( what we'd call "Western", though this
	definition is being stretched as prosperous Japan becomes
	more "Western" ) countries' birthrates are stabilized; some 
	are even in decline.

	If you'd like a more practical intervention in international
	affairs for the explicit purpose of controlling third-world
	birth rates, send the CIA or whoever into Ethiopia, China, etc.,
	to foment a 1991-Russian-style revolution.  If the Chinese 
	people knew they weren't destined to be peasants forever, and
	had a shot at freedom and economic prosperity, their 
	birthrate would stabilize, too.

	The deforestation issue is hardly an emergency worthy of 
	all the hand-wringing that's going on here, either.  Many
	folks don't know that Great Britain was once covered by forests.

	It was settled over a couple-thousand years, and the forests
	were pushed back.  Now, it is largely green fields, interspersed
	with small areas of forests.  Hardly a desert, in any case.

	It'd be sad if EVERY South American rain forest were mowed down,
	but, in truth, this is not likely.  If the people there can 
	be persuaded that keeping them intact is in their best
	interest, they will retain them.  If the folks here consider them
	so valuable, why don't they shell out a few millions ( billions ?)
	and buy one to preserve ?

	What ?  Don't have the available resources to actually own something
	you'd like to control ?  What a concept !

	It'd be nice to control Armand Hammer's huge land holdings in
	Florida, but it would be immoral to control them at the point of
	a gun, don't you agree ?

	I guess my points are (for the last time):

	1) Birthrates stabilize under conditions of freedom.

	2) Ability to feed/clothe/house a given number of people
	   historically requires fewer resources as technology advances.

	3) Technology only stagnates when its advancement comes under
	   the control of the dead hand of government.

	Steve H (who is a fan of the most subversive document in the world,
	         the Declaration of Independence)

      Can someone provide a polite word to describe people who trust
      government? I cannot find a printable one.
      Can someone provide a polite word for someone who does not know what
      government is doing.
      I keep hearing that we do not wish out fertility to be controlled by our
      governments.
      Think a little before you read any more. because you are too *LATE*.
      
      You got it.
      The only difference is that our control in in the west is *NOT* towards
      negative birth rate 
      but... TOWARDS POSITIVE... Smart people need not read further.. 
      
      Now for the slower members, In most countries, (even in the US) some
      money is deducted from your earnings every month/week/pay period. now if
      you compare the net earnings from two people with the same gross income,
      one has 5 children, you will find a difference in what we call the
      bottom line. The disposable income of the person with 5 children is
      higher than the person with 0 children. Now remember we produced those
      kids because pleasure /satisfaction / biological desire etc etc etc..
      Unless the state wishes us to make babies why should they make it
      easier, by that I mean cheaper for us to do something which we are all
      doing for our own personal reasons.
      Most European countries give a sum of money when you produce a child.
      Most European countries give a sum of money each month to child owners.
      Most countries provide primary education for children free of charge.
      In Europe university education is free.
      Wait for it Heather.. Britain is the only country (that I know of) to
      tax people for having children (over 18).
      Wise up, our government is controlling our fertility just as surely as
      the Chinese. The tools are the same. The setting is just different.
      Rgds
      
      Now some smart guy said this (it could even have been me). If you wish
      to control or influence someone you are lost if he knows that you are
      doing it. Most people do not know that they are being controlled. If you
      still do not believe me, how many people out there would be willing to
      give up the tax allowances and other goodies. This would make the having
      of children a completely free decision.
      Part of the free decision would also mean that you would have to have the
      child in your 10 day (for the US) (in Europe we have up to 60 days)
      holiday period, planned at the convenience of the company. If you wished
      to have your job waiting when you came back... 

    RE: .219  The Doctah
    
    >> The system is controlled by people who make welfare recipients' lives
    >> as miserable as possible in order to appease the many people in our
    >> society who harbor resentment (in varying degrees) for those who take
    >> what they consider "hand-outs."

    > I disagree that this is a goal; I believe it is a side effect.
    
    We can agree to disagree, of course.  :-)
    
    FWIW, I'm not suggesting that the people in the welfare system say to
    each other "Let's make these folks miserable" or anything - but as a
    form of appeasement (to those who resent welfare,) they agree to watch
    welfare recipients like hawks and to make sure that no penny gets by
    them (unless it's done illegally.)  This ends up being a dehumanizing
    process that conveys distrust and contempt (and resentment) which in
    turn result in low self-esteem.  Getting off welfare becomes that
    much more difficult, then.
    
    Once, when the auto mechanics goofed and forgot to put back the bolts
    (or whatever) that secured my engine - every time I changed gears, my
    car would try to do an internal belly-flop (I would check the rear view
    mirror to see how much of my engine I'd dropped onto the road.)  :-}
    
    When I went to get them to fix what they'd done, I purposely avoided
    making them feel like sh!t for their mistake - and they apologized all
    the more profusely and gave me all sorts of bennies for my trouble
    (more than were required) probably MOSTLY because I didn't take the
    opportunity to make them feel bad.
    
    Human nature is funny.  If we treated welfare recipients with a bit
    more respect (and offered honest help in making their lives better)
    we might see more people get off welfare sooner.
    
    (In my next note, I'll describe a program I heard about on the news
    a few months back that seems to be WORKING in this regard...)

    This is terrible, but I don't remember all the details of this program
    (I saw it as a feature on CNN several months ago, I think) - if anyone
    else remembers this, perhaps they'd be willing to help me out:
    
    A commercial (profit-making) company in NYC (I think) is making a business
    (money!!) from getting people off welfare.  They take welfare recipients
    and put them into very short-term (but intense) training for specific
    jobs and then FIND these folks jobs fairly quickly (with follow-ups that
    help insure that the new workers are not just "left out in the world"
    without emotional support.)
    
    The state agrees to send the welfare payments to THIS COMPANY for a given
    period of time (months, not years) in exchange for losing someone off
    the welfare rolls.  The company makes a profit, the people on welfare
    change to being employed (with help getting and staying there,) and
    the state knows that the individual's welfare payments will only continue
    for a limited time (until the agreement with the company is finished.)
    
    The idea of the company being profit-oriented is pure genius - the folks
    at the company are highly motivated to treat welfare recipients well
    and to do everything possible to ensure their success.
    
    The word at the end of the feature was that it's working (it's only a
    start, of course, but it's WORKING.)  If true, I think this is WONDERFUL!

    re: .215
    
    You don't scuba dive, by any chance, do you?
    
    John H-C

LOVE this stream...some ideas are bouncing around here!

re:  welfare recipents treatments/cures/opinions

before returning to Digital 10 years ago, I worked for several years for a
non-profit Center for Employment Training.  I worked their antique computers
and set them up on more modern equipment for tracking their clients (those
folks considered "unemployable" by the state and considered "permanent"
welfare recipents) and the training methods that worked vs the unsuccessful
methods.  In my spare time, I also helped train office workers in office
English, office math, and computer user literacy.

We were working with, in the words of one Social Worker, "the bottom of the
barrel".  At no time did I meet or hear about a client that was lazy
or unwilling to try.  Most of our clients were in need of counseling to
understand that they were WORTH something, that they COULD learn, and that
it was NOT A FAILURE to make a mistake.  It took longer to train these people
because they needed to know skills we all take for granted...like reading
clocks, writing checks, understanding enough math to figure out how much they
could spend for food/clothes/transportation and still pay rent.  The needed
to learn how to dress, fix their hair, brush their teeth.  They needed to
learn all the things that you may have learned from a mother or father...often
their father was totally absent, and their mother was handicapped by ignorance
and/or drug/alcohol abuse.  They needed to learn how to approach a problem
and determine reasonable solutions....because no one had encouraged them to
THINK through a situation.  Their whole lives had been spent shutting up and
following orders in the welfare system.  They came from home where THIS WAS
THE RULE FOR SEVERAL PRIOR GENERATIONS.  Think about that.  They had no
point of reference for a healthy, assertive approach to life.

So, we taught them how to read, write checks, read clocks, find public
transportation, add up and manage their budget, negotiate for an apartment,
pay rent on time, shop for healthy food, buy decent clothes and shoes, and we 
trained them for jobs.  They were NOT told at the start of the program how 
long they could take to learn. They WERE told they should stay as long as it 
took for them to learn.  And they learned...and my students gained self
confidence, began to use "regular" English with comfort and dexterity, and
began to feel like SOMEBODY.  They learned to use a computer terminal as a
part of their jobs.  Before my eyes they became people like my parents, my
best friends, my co-workers here at Digital...in fact, one of the students
at the CET became my co-worker here at Digital and has grown into a very
talented and valued employee.  She is one smart cookie!

The only reason I left the CET program was because I had to - Reagan was
elected and funding for our program dried up.  I was laid off.  Then Digital
hired me back.

If you have not worked with these people everyday for a few years, you don't
know what they are like, you don't know their abilities and skills, and your
criticism of them as "deadbeats" and "welfare mothers" is obscene.  You have
not earned the right to criticise these people.  And, I'd be willing to bet
a great deal of my much greater current salary that you would have not
criticism of them at all if you knew anything about them.  I do know them
and they are the hardest working, most determined people in the world when
they get even a little break.  I count the years spent working at the CET
to be the best experience of my life, during which I met some of the finest
human beings on this planet.  Drop the criticisms based on ignorance and
distance from the problem - I really do expect more of you.  Walk in the
shoes of the forgotten for awhile before you decide to throw them away.

    
    	RE: .225
    
    	Right on!!!!
    

	CET, huh ?  Let me tell you about MY experience with
	the CET program.

	I used to install and fix large commercial fire alarm
	systems.  One installation I was responsible for was
	a CETA job training center and attached dormitories.

	It was incredible.  We received about a call each week
	from the center, and found smoke detectors missing,
	some actually set on fire....IN THE DORM ROOMS.  The
	facilities were what you'd have to call "low-bid modern",
	but were clean and intact initially.

	6 months after the first "clients" were moved in, graffiti
	dominated the walls, waste cans were kicked in, rotting
	garbage was visible in the hallways and rooms, and
	smoke-stains from lighters being held to the ceilings
	were evident in most rooms.

	They had false alarms due to malicious operation of pull
	handle activators several times each week, as well.

	What was the benefit for these idiots ?  A "paycheck"
	while they were in "training", free room and board, 
	and all the havoc they could create.

	There may have been folks there who were earnest, but
	it was easy to see that being cool was what most of
	these people were interested in.

	Steve H

Re: .225

Right on!

One of the thing you hit upon, in so many words, is that a lot of the people
who are considered "deadbeats", "unemployable", etc. got that way as a
result of bad (or absent) parenting.  As you said, you often had to teach
these people things that all of us take for granted.  They are not "bad people"
for not having learned these things; many of them simply had never been TAUGHT
them!

What it TAKES to turn such people into productive members of society is
to practically bring them up all over again.  It takes a special environment
and VERY special people to do this.

Many of the people who complain about "deadbeats" seem to believe that
irresponsibility in an adult is a totally willful act; that they're behaving
that way because they WANT to behave that way, and that they can decide at
any time to "shape up" and become responsible, productive members of society.
What .225 points out so eloquently is that irresponsibility is often NOT a
conscious decision; rather, it's often the result of people's NEVER being
brought up with the tools to become productive and responsible.  Indeed,
often not taking any initiative is a survival mechanism.

Re: .227

You're right; often government programs are an absolute mess and don't
work worth a d*mn to solve the problem they were intended to solve.
This doesn't mean that the concept behind the program is flawed; rather,
it means that that particular IMPLEMENTATION leaves much to be desired.
As I said about .225, it takes really rare and special people to make
programs like CET work.  Such people are rarely attracted to government
work.  They're also rarely selected for those jobs that can use them...

--jim

    well Excuse poor polite little old me.  Mr. Hall in the interest of
    valuing differences I will affer to ask you to walk on over to my cube
    in the networks team.  
    
    Set flame thermonuclear!!!!!!!!
    
    
    
    
    I AM ONE OF THOSE DEADBEAT CETA ALUM'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    I am also one of those "dreaded" High school dropouts, a teenage
    mother, have had a child, GASP, out of wedlock in the last 6 years,
    live with an unemployed male.  However I do seem to be making it quite
    well, thank you very much.  Yep from no job skills above borderline
    clerical to a CDP certified network specialist in 11 years.  CETA
    worked for me and several other people you may run into in this
    building.  
    
    Please when you flame about "those worthless, unmotivated CETA grad's,"
    that the majority of us have taken our educations and run with it.
    
    Set flame back down to low
    
    Oops, I guess I can get a littl hot around the collar.
    
    Meg 

    Congratulations, Meg...
    
    It is good to know there are other alumni from 'welfare' and it's
    programs that have made it.
    
    I guess I have also.
    

    
    Meg, you've shown us once again - from your own personal
    experience - how destructive, unfair, and false negative
    stereotype generalizations are.  (I believe it's called
    Prejudice.)
    
    Not that I expect anyone who's guilty of doing this in this
    file to learn anything from you.
    
    Sigh.  How did I get to be soooo cynical?  Reading the jerks
    in womannotes for 5 years hasn't helped.  At least the jerks
    change every year or two - we must be doing something right!
    

    Re .231: But we're a better _class_ of jerks.
    
    ;-}
    
    -b

re: .227

correction:  our program was CET, it was, in some ways, like CETA, BUT NOT
EXACTLY LIKE CETA.  In fact, we took some of the CETA rejects as our clients.

For the record, we didn't see such destruction as you describe, nor did we
see theft.  What we saw were people who worked the butts off for a chance at
a better life.  I learned a great deal from them...in fact, I think I'm a
much better person for knowing them.

	M_EVANS,

	I did not slight you in any way, nor did I state that
	people who attended government programs for job training
	are worthless.

	I reported what I saw at a "model" government job-training
	program.  Whether that applies to anyone that participates
	in this conference, I don't know.

	Despite the occasional success story that may emerge from
	government programs of this type, I think it would be easy 
	to prove that the programs are largely wasted money.

	It's rather like reducing speed limits nationwide to 5 mph.
	You might save a few lives, but the ancillary costs would
	be astronomical.

	Steve H

	P.S.  For those who may be offended by my stated positions, the
	      reason I submit them is so that there may be a
	      viewpoint heard here that isn't a continual scream for:

		1) More government
		2) Less economic/individual freedom
		3) Fewer human beings ( and the self-hatred this lament
					suggests ) 

    I suggest you quit while you're behind.

>>>>>		3) Fewer human beings ( and the self-hatred this lament
>>>>>					suggests ) 


What a ridiculous leap of logic!!!  Hoping that humans
reduce their reproduction rate in order that we have a fighting chance to
improve the standard of living for every human is NOT AN INDICATION OF
SELF-HATRED.  Gawd I hate it when people start throwing around 
pseudo-psychobabble like this!!!  Hating the way a great majority of the
world's population is forced to live is a LIFE-AFFIRMING SENTIMENT...I want
the babies of this world to stop dying before they've lived long, full lives
crammed with laughter and joy.  I simply don't believe we can see this happen
unless WE, THE PEOPLE, start controlling our birth rate.  Governments out there
are desperately trying to solve the problem, as in China, because they see
the future...Nobody likes their methods, but many are aware of the root
problem that spawned their attempt at a solution.  WE need to start educating
ourselves that the TIME TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM IS NOW.  No more pie in the
sky, "don't worry, it'll all work out" promises.  Clearly, it isn't "all
working out".....significant numbers of human beings are dying out there!
They are dying because they don't have what it takes to live, as in food,
shelter, protection from the elements.  Saying repressive governments are
the total cause of this ignores the reality that the "deserts" that these
governments are driving their citizens to DIDN'T USED TO BE DESERTS - THEY
USED TO BE ARABLE LAND.  Arable land stripped bare by the demands of a
population explosion coupled with primitive, but existent, medical care
that kept many more alive than in times past...and by primitive farming
practices that depleted the land of resources BECAUSE THE LAND COULD NOT
BE ALLOWED TO LAY FALLOW FOR A SEASON - THE FARMERS NEEDED MORE FOOD TO
FEED THE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE.

Saying that improving the economic conditions of third world countries in
order to stop the population explosion begs the question of just HOW we can
hope to implement such a solution when the arable land in places like Africa
and India is shrinking...and the only known way to recover the lost land is
to re-create green belts, areas that are not allocated to farming, and which
must not be harvested to eradication for firewood, when the population in
these countries HAS ALREADY DEMANDED ENOUGH RESOURCE THAT THE LAND IS ALREADY
DE-NUDED OF FOREST.  IF the population continues to grow, we cannot hope to
set in place the long-term solutions which will allow the countries on these
continents to feed their people and grow crops for trade - the first step 
towards a better life-stle is, of course, giving them something they can
use for trade.  Without the basis for high-technology already in place, we
cannot turn them into hi-tech manufacturers like Japan...first, we have to
get them to a stable economy based on what they CAN do....grow crops for
trade..then, with education for the citizens, they can begin to build their
technological base.  But first they must be able to feed themselves and
save their children's lives through a stable food supply and enough trade
product to buy the technologies they need for medical/dental/educational
requirements.  Or, we can turn them into 'slave labor' for the hi=tech
manufacturers such as we have done in many places....of course, the countries
populations have to be relatively healthy for THAT to work...starving folks 
aren't capable of a lot of labor....and that isn't cost effective, regardless
of how little we are willing to pay.

>      Wait for it Heather.. Britain is the only country (that I know of) to
>      tax people for having children (over 18).
 
	I have discussed this at length with you, and can see you still don't
	understand the current community charge system for collection money
	for local service. I will try again:

	Once people are 18 they are treated as adults in Britian, and under 
	the current local charges, have to pay 20% of the full amount, approx. 
	56 pounds a year towards local services, if they are still studying.

	This is the case with your son, you choose to pay for his lodgings and 
	food and beer and many other things, but refuse to pay his community 
	charge.
	That's your choice, and he aught to be grateful that you are paying
	any of it, many 18 year olds in this country take holiday jobs and
	some part-time work if they need extra financing.

	If, as a parent, you decide to pay another adults charge, that's up
	to you, however, YOU ARE NOT CHARGED FOR HIM.

>      Now some smart guy said this (it could even have been me). If you wish
>      to control or influence someone you are lost if he knows that you are
>      doing it. Most people do not know that they are being controlled. If you
>      still do not believe me, how many people out there would be willing to
>      give up the tax allowances and other goodies. This would make the having
>      of children a completely free decision.
 
	I have a free decision.

	I don"t want children. I don't have children.
	I don't get a tax allowance.
	How can you say that the government, or anyone, has controlled this
	decision?

	Heather

    >brief but informative FLAME<
    
    First, I'd like to comment on how RUDE I think some of you folks can 
    get just cause you don't like someones opinion.
    This is SUPPOSED to be a place where folks can DISCUSS ideas and
    opinions like mature adults without being told where to cram a
    sock, or called a jerk. 
    Looks to me like there are ALOT of jerks in this conference, but if the
    only opinion good enough for you is your own, or your clones', then 
    I'd say you're limiting yourself greatly. Sad for you; sad for those
    really trying to DISCUSS opinions/facts.
    
    >end of brief snit<  on to more hot and heavy opinions:
    
    Secondly, Meg, it's great to hear that all is right with the world from
    your perspective. I'm sure you worked very hard. 
    You are a success story. There are ALOT of success stories. 
    
    That doesn't mean that everyone on welfare is good and honest and hard
    working and only needs a break. That's the same logic that says that
    all criminals are really good and honest and wonderful deep down.
    Fine, YOU take em home. 
    There are large quantities of folks living off of the rest of society
    NOT because they are sad and down trodden the world has not given them
    a fair shake. And there are those who don't deserve to be thrown in 
    with that group. 
    By the same token, there are large numbers of NON welfare types who
    are parasites on the planet and will take and take, not stopping once
    to think about what they're doing (those %@^%^&%$^@ who are wiping
    out elephants for their ivory come to mind, as do the corporations
    responsible for dumping raw sewage and deforestation)....
    
    There are BAD people in EVERY walk of life.
    There are BAD women and BAD men.
    There are BAD poor people and BAD rich people, and BAD Blacks and BAD
    Whites and even those who prey on DEC because management doesn't have the
    &&%$$%$ to fire them.
    
    I sure get tired of "THINKING I'M HEARING YOU SAY" that all those poor
    folks on welfare would do anything to get OFF of welfare, or all those
    POOR folks on some government training program are the salt of the
    Earth if only they could get a break. 
    Hard to believe, but, no really, the world isn't only full of nice poor
    people and selfish middle class/rich folks....
    
    
    (But they STILL shouldn't have kids that they can't afford to
    support..!)
    
    Cathy
    
    (I still like you Steve, you pond skum you....:-)

    RE: .238  Cathy Pitt
    
    > First, I'd like to comment on how RUDE I think some of you folks can 
    > get just cause you don't like someones opinion.
    
    Cathy, you use the "FLAME ON" qualifier yourself, so you should know
    that electronic discussions have the capacity for heat at times.
    
    > This is SUPPOSED to be a place where folks can DISCUSS ideas and
    > opinions like mature adults without being told where to cram a
    > sock, or called a jerk.
    
    When you're prepared for this type of exchange, let us know.  I'm
    sure we'll be able to accomodate you.

    RE: .234  Steve
    
    > P.S.  For those who may be offended by my stated positions, the
    > 	    reason I submit them is so that there may be a
    >	    viewpoint heard here that isn't a continual scream for:

    >		1) More government
    >		2) Less economic/individual freedom
    >		3) Fewer human beings ( and the self-hatred this lament
    >					suggests ) 
    
    You don't need to scream and wail about these things any longer, Steve.
    
    It's obvious that you've misconstrued much of what's been said here so
    far, which I'm sure will come as a great relief to you.

    
    
    Suzanne,
    
    You win.  Since you prefer to treat notes discussions as a forum for
    your attacks on PEOPLE instead of ideas, I will not address or even
    read anything that you write in the future. It is interesting to note
    that probably the last 10 notes you've entered in this one note in
    particular have not contributed to the discussion, but rather you chose
    to pull out someone elses paragraphs and make particularily sarcastic
    comments to that person on how they choose to note. 
    I don't find this interesting and am tired of wading
    through your little attacks to get to some point of interest that I
    would like to discuss.   
    
    So go ahead, pull our one or two of my sentances, tell me how stupid I
    am and how well informed/educated/always right you are, and we'll be
    done with it. Otherwise, there are other people here who have some
    really interesting opinions and ideas to discuss. Please stop taking
    up my time (and others who have also been chased away by your personal
    attacks) and discuss the subject at hand, and NOT how stupid the rest
    of us are. 
    
    Sorry to the rest of the noting community for this little snit. I just
    couldn't take it anymore.......  :-(
    
    Cathy (of course)
    
    Ok.....go ahead.......
    

    
    
    
    reply to myself to save some time and get on with it:
    
    
    Cathy
    Re your last>>>>><<<<<
    
    I didn't hear anyone actually CALL you stupid. Perhaps you are
    suffering from INTERNALIZED STUPIDOGOMY.
    
    There. It's done.
    Now can we get ONE with it already?
    
    Cathy   

    	Does anyone recall what planet we're on this week?  I'm looking 
    	around the Universe out here, and nothing at all looks familiar.
    
    	By the way, I've been doing some checking to see if I can find
    	out more about the program I mentioned in .222 and .223 (re: the 
    	profit-oriented company getting people off welfare in NYC.)
    
    	If this program is still working, it would be a definite sign
    	of hope for taxpayers who have increasing concerns about how 
    	the money is spent (and to those whose lives could be improved
    	significantly by moving off the welfare rolls.)

    	Something else I've been meaning to bring up...
    
    	When I hear it stated that people shouldn't have children they
    	can't afford - it sounds contrary to the idea of population
    	control (as if everyone on the planet should have as many kids
    	as they want as long as they DO have the money for them.)
    
    	What about the depletion of our planet's resources?  If everyone
    	on Earth had all the kids they could possibly support, we'd be in 
    	far more trouble as a planet than we're in now.
    
    	So why does the burden of population control seem to fall on the
    	shoulders of the poor (as if they are responsible for the dangers
    	of over-population simply by having children without much/any
    	money)?
    
    	If we're truly concerned with over-population, then the RICH should
    	be admonished for having more than 1 or 2 children EVERY BIT AS MUCH
    	AS THE POOR (even if rich parents could afford to support 1000 or more 
    	children.)

    
    Cathy, it's ironic to hear you railing against other folks
    in this conference acting immaturely and attacking your
    replies in an unfair manner.
    
    *You*, and *only* you, were the one who used the vulgar and
    dehumanizing characterization of some women as "popping out
    babies every 9 months".  To this characterization I took
    (and continue to take) offense.  I mentioned this in a previous
    reply, but you didn't reply or take it back.
    
    It seems to me like you expect that everyone else should play
    by some set of "etiquette" rules that you yourself don't feel
    you have to follow.
    

    
    Hello Gugel (you didn't leave your first name).
    
    I am sorry if you didn't appreciate my use of the term "popping out
    babies every 9 months".  I don't see it as vulgar or dehumanizing
    as I TOO am of the female gendar, and having had two kids of my own,
    I'd pretty much describe the act as "popping out babies"!  :-)
    
    I did not attack anyone for their opinions in this conference, amd
    what you call 'against other folks' was simply an attempt to get
    SOME people to stop picking out specific ideas/opinions/sentances
    of specific individuals and to get on with the discussion at hand.
    Apparently, my attempts failed.
    
    But that's ok too. You don't have to like my opinions or even how I
    choose to state them. If we all weighed everything we said before
    saying it so as not to offend someone, no one would be saying much
    of anything.
    (By the way, I am not offended by the insults or personal attacks, I
    just find them boring and detracting from the topic.)
    
    Cathy
    

    
    .245
    
    >'popping out babies every 9 months'
    
    Why should Cathy 'take back' her comments, if this is how she perceives
    'continuous pregnancies'.  After all Cathy is entitled to her opinion
    as you yours.                            

    	RE: .247
    
    	The whole point is that Cathy's "ideas" on the topic at hand
    	were attacks against a group of PEOPLE (human beings she
    	described using terms some/many of us considered exceptionally
    	insulting.)
    
    	It's ironic that she now characterizes our defense (of her attacks
    	on PEOPLE) as attacks on PEOPLE instead of ideas.
    
    	If she has the right to characterize poor women as "popping out
    	babies every 9 months," then any of us has the right to comment
    	about how offensive we might find her remarks.
    
    	Her being female does not give her special priv to attack women
    	as a group (any more than Judge Thomas's color should give him
    	special privs to set back the Civil Rights movement via his 
    	appointment to the Supreme Court.)

>    	If she has the right to characterize poor women as "popping out
>    	babies every 9 months," then any of us has the right to comment
>    	about how offensive we might find her remarks.

 She did not characterize poor women as "popping out babies every 9 months."
That's something you did when you attempted to polarize discussion by rewording
her reply. The Venne diagram that would arise from her notes is absolutely not
the same as the one that would arise from your above comment. 

 And, frankly, I can't see a single reason why you cannot attack her message
without attacking her. Do you really feel that your case is so flimsy that
you must rely on attacking the messenger rather than the message?It seems to
me that you should have no problem whatever using your superior debating
skills to cut through the arguments to the bone, without resorting to personal
attacks and hyperbolic distortions of the original message. If what she said
is so outrageous, you ought to be easily capable for exposing them as such
by expressing where the mistake(s) lie without attacking her as a person or
exaggerating what she has said. N'est-ce pas?

    
    Steve (you pond sludge, you :-)
    
    whether we "assume unlimited food" or not is NOT the question. 
    I believe that human beings REQUIRE X amount of square footage in order
    to maintain not only a 'quality of life' but their sanity. 
    Look what happens when you stuff too many people into too small an
    area, where they have no where to go to 'be alone'. 
    They get nuts. They kill each other. 
    If you put too many hamsters in a cage, they will eat each other until
    the number is managable. Humans are not much differant.
    
    So assuming X square footage to maintain a peaceful existance limits
    us to X number of people. That is NOT even taking into consideration
    available and LIMITED resources. 
    
    Ok, so now that we can say X people is the limit based on square
    TOTAL square footage, then we can throw in there USABLE or even
    DESIRAB:E square footage. 
    
    If no one wants to live in the desert, then we've just cut down our
    available square footage and our "comfort zone number" is unbalanced.
    Too many hamsters in one cage. 
    
    So, taking all of these things into consideration, it seems clear
    that the Earth CANNOT support a greater population than it is already
    supporting. 
    
    So, we HAVE to take some responsibility and NOT assume that just
    because I like lots of kids and have always wanted a big family, that
    I have the RIGHT, as a human being sharing the limited space and
    resources of this planet, to do that. 
    
    Not just poor people, not JUST anyone, ALL of us.
    
    Cathy
    Well Steve? Wake up steve...was that your forehead I just heard banging
    against your keyboard???!!!
    
    Cathy

    RE: .249  The Doctah
    
    >She did not characterize poor women as "popping out babies every 9 months."

    Ok, I'll admit you're right about this.  She said we should be mad at
    "WOMEN" (as a group) - NOT "poor women."  She was attacking our entire
    sex, not only those without money.  Thanks for the reminder.
    
    > And, frankly, I can't see a single reason why you cannot attack her 
    > message without attacking her. 
    
    My replies have been REWORDED into attacks against her, Mark.  I have
    nothing against Cathy herself - I don't write long replies in here telling
    everyone that her replies are (in general) a bunch of &$#%^%$ and that I
    don't intend to read them anymore.  I notice that you haven't objected
    to her saying this, though (I wonder why.)
    
    > It seems to me that you should have no problem whatever using your 
    > superior debating skills to cut through the arguments to the bone...
    
    Thanks for the compliment, Mark.  When people lack adequate return to
    such skill, it's often easier to claim the skillful one is simply
    launching a personal attack.  It's part of the risk of debating.  :-}
     
    > If what she said is so outrageous, you ought to be easily capable for 
    > exposing them as such by expressing where the mistake(s) lie without 
    > attacking her as a person or exaggerating what she has said. N'est-ce pas?
    
    Your excellent powers of observation would be put to better use if you
    noticed which persons are screaming and railing (and calling themselves
    and others "stupid" and "pond scum") the most - then ask yourself why
    you join their railing while those under attack stay relatively calm.

	Ok, Cath.,

	Well, we really can't state that there is some number of
	square feet/human that has been determined to be the minimum
	required for human happiness.  That is the crux of it.

	Some people are happy in the city.  There are folks who
	think New York City is the be-all and end-all of happy
	existence.  Others feel claustrophobic on less than 20
	acres.

	We can't really compare humans with hamsters 'cause the
	hamsters:

	1) Can't reason
	2) Can't adapt
	3) Can't modify their environment

	I maintain that there is no population crisis, that any localized
	problem caused by distorted markets/incentives is self-correcting,
	and that we all need to drink a beer and relax just a bit....

	Regards,

	Steve H

>    	If we're truly concerned with over-population, then the RICH should
>    	be admonished for having more than 1 or 2 children EVERY BIT AS MUCH
>    	AS THE POOR (even if rich parents could afford to support 1000 or more 
>    	children.)

you betcha!!!  I think the Kennedy clan is prime example of breeding gotten
ENTIRELY out of hand and we know they can afford them!  It simply is not
justified to have more than 2 children per couple...in fact, I'd like the
world to start thinking, as the Chinese are already attempting, in terms
of 1 child per family.  I'm an only child and I don't see THAT condition
as being the root of any of my neuroses - other things, yes, but not being
an only child.

    	RE: .253
    
    	Something I'd like to clarify about my reply - I'm not saying that
    	I personally condemn anyone for having more than 2 children - my
    	desire for "choice" (for one thing) prevents me from embracing
    	the "only 1 or 2 children per couple for all people everywhere"
    	stance.
    
    	I'm saying that it is contrary to "over-population" arguments to
    	insist that the poor are creating the problem by not being able
    	to 'afford' more children (since planetary resources are more
    	the issue wrt over-population than the ability to 'afford' to
    	support children.)

	To all,

	It's Ok.  The 'pond scum' thing is just a verbal
	raspberry.....Cathy sits just over the partition
	from me !

	Steve H

    
    	Steve, as long as it's clear to you and everyone else that 
    	your friend Cathy is the ONLY ONE insisting on calling you 
    	names like "pond scum" - then fine.
    
    	No one else here has made any such implication.  Cathy's
    	use of "insulting labels" for you is purely her own choice 
    	and has no bearing on what anyone else in this conference
    	thinks of you.
    

    
    re .249, Doctah:
    
    I really didn't want to rathole this, but since you seem to
    think I'm making this up:
    
> She did not characterize poor women as "popping out babies every 9 months."
>That's something you did when you attempted to polarize discussion by rewording
>her reply.
    
    Here is Cathy's reply .8 from this topic:
    
>    It angers me that PEOPLE keep popping out babies like there's no reason
>    not to.  And since WOMEN are the ones walking around pregnant for 9
>    months, ...
    
    And here's her reply .64 from this topic:
    
>    I said that I was angry at women who keep "popping out babies" because
>    they would not take RESPONSIBILITY to NOT do that.
    
    I am obviously NOT making this up or putting words in her mouth!
    
>And, frankly, I can't see a single reason why you cannot attack her message
>without attacking her.
    
    I think you were talking to Suzanne here and not me.  But if you
    were, I don't believe I've "attacked" anyone.
    
    I expressed anger in a couple of the earlier replies because I
    thought her notes were about any woman (like my mother) who had
    more than 2 children.  I heard Cathy explain she didn't mean
    people who could afford to have kids (though I think I've been
    hearing differently from her in later replies).
    
    Then I got to thinking why her notes still rubbed me the wrong way.
    And I realized (and brought it up too) - that it was the language
    she used and what seemed to me to be the dehumanizing way she
    characterized uneducated, poor women who had lots of children.
    

    \
    
    Yeah Steve...but I can GUESS at an approximate square footage that
    would work for MOST people.
    Take any 5 people out of this notes file and make them live in the same
    room for two days. 
    
    They'd (we'd) kill each other!
    This is the same kind of diverstity you're talking about when you talk
    about a large population forced to 'live' together in similarily
    cramped quarters. 
    
    People from differant backgrounds with beliefs and rituals at opposite
    ends of the spectrums, some of which actually go against the strictest
    beliefs of others. 
    Melting pot doesn't even begin to describe what we're 'pouring' into 
    cramped quarters. 
    
    I can't agree that human beings are so differant than hamsters because
    of our ability to adapt. We can adapt when we WANT to to SOME
    conditions, like putting up a door when it gets cold out. But more
    important than physical conditions, are psychological conditions. 
    ex. If I am a devout Christian, and living next door to me is someone
    who is a satan worshipper, how can I adapt to that? (please don't
    rathole on this, I just pulled one case out of the basket to make a
    point).  Some people 'adapt' better than others. Being merely human
    animals, adaptation is not always the easiest way to take, or the
    way that we choose.....
    
    at any rate, this is kinda steering into left field! 
    
    You are right (ahhhh!). It would be difficult to determine what is the
    minimum required square footage for humans. 
    But I'm sure that Hong Kong is NOT a good example!
    
    Maybe we can get together over some cheap ice cream and solve this
    insignificant problem! (oh, and if I have in any way offended you here
    Steve, GREAT!!!  :-)
    
    Cathy
    

>   If you put too many hamsters in a cage, they will eat each other until
>   the number is managable. Humans are not much differant.
    

Cathy, it's a nit, I know, but you can't put female hamsters in the same cage;
the females are territorial and will fight.  (I saw one die a horrible death
from the injuries.)  Even when mating them, you have to put the female into the
male's cage, or she will attack him.  Also, females have been known to kill 
their offspring if the nest is disturbed. Now males are 'sposed to be able to 
share a room in peace and harmony.  Don't know how a cage full of males would
react to overcrowding - I wonder if they kill eachother in the night in the
pet stores, they seem pretty quiet, daytimes!

Humans seem to be able to live in quite crowded conditions (most of them, 
anyway -- I like the wide open myself) as long as there is enough food.  Look
at Japan, for example.  Very densely populated, lots of food, little crime.

You have to find another broad brush, I think.

>    Ok, I'll admit you're right about this.  She said we should be mad at
>    "WOMEN" (as a group) - NOT "poor women."  She was attacking our entire
>    sex, not only those without money.  Thanks for the reminder.

 She qualified her statement such that a reasonably objective person would not
conclude that the entire gender was being castigated. Indeed, several did.

>    My replies have been REWORDED into attacks against her, Mark. 

    	"Congrats.  You're a hero.  You tried to tell the evil, nasty
    	women off (distinguishing yourself as not 'one of us.')"

 etc. That has not been reworded into a personal attack. It is a personal 
attack. In my opinion, it was unprovoked.

>I notice that you haven't objected to her saying this, though (I wonder why.)

 I believe she is reacting to your attacks. Telling her not to react to
attacks seems to be exactly what men have done to women for eons and I won't
do it even if it would make a friend happy.

>When people lack adequate return to
>    such skill, it's often easier to claim the skillful one is simply
>    launching a personal attack.

 And sometimes when people claim a personal attack is taking place, a
personal attack is taking place...

 And BTW, I am hardly railing.

 FWIW- I don't believe that Cathy's resorting to personal attacks (even in 
defense of herself) was the right way to go, any more than I think your
resorting to personall attacks was the right way to go. If, indeed, you
believe that it was ok to resort to personal attacks because you feel that
she was attacking all women (and thereby putting you on the defensive), how
can you believe that resorting to her methods (which you openly deplore)
is taking the high road? Or is this "win at any cost"?

 the Doctah

>    You are right (ahhhh!). It would be difficult to determine what is the
>    minimum required square footage for humans. 
>    But I'm sure that Hong Kong is NOT a good example!
    
however, I think we all need to consider very seriously whether we would 
truly wish to consign any human being to live in the MINIMUM amount of
space necessary for life.  IMHO, if we get to the point of talking 'minimum
square footage' in my lifetime, I WILL take measures guarenteed to make 'my'
allotted space available to others...this is NOT a life I choose to lead.

>    I said that I was angry at women who keep "popping out babies" because
>    they would not take RESPONSIBILITY to NOT do that.

>    I am obviously NOT making this up or putting words in her mouth!

 Ellen-

 Do you agree that there is a difference between "poor women who pop out babies
every 9 months" and "poor women pop out babies every 9 months"? The former
speaks of a subgroup of poor women; the latter describes all poor women. This
seems to me to be most clearly a case of "if the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to
force it then complain it doesn't."

>    I think you were talking to Suzanne here and not me.  But if you
>    were, I don't believe I've "attacked" anyone.

 Several of your notes struck me as personal attacks. That doesn't mean they
were, objectively, personal attacks. They struck me, an idividual noter,
as such.

>    And I realized (and brought it up too) - that it was the language
>    she used and what seemed to me to be the dehumanizing way she
>    characterized uneducated, poor women who had lots of children.

 You did bring this up. I seem to recall that you attacked her first, and then
what she did that you objected to second. I have no desire to go back and pick 
out the things that you said that give me this impression unless you think it
would lead to fruitful dialogue.

 the  Doctah

    re .257 (Ellen)

    I think the Doctah's comment was focusing on the word "poor"
    (which Cathy was not emphasizing) rather than "popping" (which she
    did use).

    re condemning people with lots of offspring (Suzanne et al)

    There's a difference between making blanket condemnation against
    specific people and expressing feelings about responsibility. 

    I'm willing to say that I believe the only really responsible way
    to proceed with human population is for each individual to do no
    more than self-replacement ... which is another way of saying that
    I believe that people who have more children than that are being
    less than "pro-active" in protecting the world against
    overpopulation.

    People who exercise their choice to have large families today are
    (it seems to me) putting the world on a path along which choice
    will by necessity be removed or seriously constrained somewhere
    down the road. Choice carries with it responsibilities, and
    responsibility has degrees. If everybody always drove without
    endangering anybody else, there might never have been traffic
    laws. In my eyes (FWIW), the more someone goes beyond the
    "procreation for replacement" level, the less responsibly they're
    acting. I don't view this as "condemnation", but it certainly can
    be viewed as "sliding scale disapproval" (on which the Kennedies
    get very high disapproval marks).

    This has nothing to do with rich/poor or the ability to afford
    children. It has everything to do with the certainty of the
    overpopulation crisis, the beautiful farm I grew up on being
    covered with chintzy garrison colonials (may a meteor take out
    Kendall Park, N.J.), and rush hour on Rte 3.

    
    re. 253
    
    I think having only one kid per family would be an extreme.
    Imagine not having any uncles, anuts, cousins, nephews and nieces...
    no siblings, gosh, it will be soooooooo lonely.
    My daughter is an only child and I think she certainly misses out on
    things.
    The Chinese govt. is doing a cruel thing, in my opinion, to 
    control population. A lot of baby girls were killed or put up
    for foreign adoptions because if they can only keep 1 child,
    most Chinese want to keep a boy, not a girl. A lot of women was
    forced to have abortions, second and third trimester abortions.
    This is my hot button since I am a Chinese and a woman. 
    I think some parts of the world are over populated, no question about it,
    but this Chinese thing about 1 child per family is not the
    solution - IMO, it is a irresponsible and inhumane manipulation
    by the government.
    
    
    
    Eva

    RE: .260  The Doctah
    
    > She qualified her statement such that a reasonably objective person 
    > would not conclude that the entire gender was being castigated. Indeed, 
    > several did.
    
    When women object to societal behavior that has negative affects on
    women, we're accused of castigating/hating MEN as a group - yet when 
    someone says explicitly that we "should be mad at WOMEN" as a group, 
    a reasonably objective person wouldn't take it as a comment about 
    "WOMEN as a group."
    
    I see how that works now.  Very clever.  :-}
    
    > I believe she is reacting to your attacks. Telling her not to react to
    > attacks seems to be exactly what men have done to women for eons and 
    > I won't do it even if it would make a friend happy.
    
    God, Mark - you're doing this to me (right here and right now) because
    of MY reaction to her attacks.  Open your eyes, man!  :-}
    
    > And sometimes when people claim a personal attack is taking place, a
    > personal attack is taking place...
    
    When I'm personally attacked, though, you seem to feel that it can be
    justified (as a "reaction") - why is that?  Is it my political stance
    that affects your judgment on this point?
    
    > And BTW, I am hardly railing.
    
    You "joined the railing" (as in "joined the people railing") - sorry
    if I was unclear about this.
    
    > FWIW- I don't believe that Cathy's resorting to personal attacks (even 
    > in defense of herself) was the right way to go, any more than I think 
    > your resorting to personall attacks was the right way to go. 
    
    "Even in defense of herself" - where was the "even in defense of YOURSELF"
    for me?  The original notes about "WOMEN" as a group were written weeks
    ago - a lot of personal attacks against me personally have been written
    since way back then.  Forgot, eh?
    
    > If, indeed, you believe that it was ok to resort to personal attacks 
    > because you feel that she was attacking all women (and thereby putting 
    > you on the defensive), 
    
    My remarks described the phenomenon of a member of a group launching
    negative stereotypes about the GROUP as a whole (in this case, WOMEN
    as a group.)  My description pertained more to the dynamics of this
    phenomenon (in order to discredit the negative stereotypes) than it
    pertained to Cathy as a person, whom I don't know at all.
    
    In the heat of defending against her launching of negative stereotypes
    about WOMEN as a group, I told her it made her "a hero" in the eyes of
    some (because THAT is the dynamic I was describing.)  I'm sorry if she
    (and you) took calling her "a hero" as an unprovoked attack.  I can
    only presume that you both missed the point I was trying to make.
    
    > how can you believe that resorting to her methods (which you openly 
    > deplore) is taking the high road? Or is this "win at any cost"?
    
    Hey, I didn't complain about her attacks on me until I was accused of
    attacking her by people who skillfully refrained from noticing or
    commenting about her attacks.  She can attack me all she likes - it
    won't help her argument at all.  :-}
    
    I disagree with her political stance and I'll stand firm on my disagreement
    even if you spend the next 10 years accusing me of everything under the
    sun.  It won't change anything either.

    
    ....and what's more, I don't like Cathy's use of punctuation....
    
    Cathy's evil twin....
    
    

    
    .261
    
    (sorry, I don't remember your name!)
    
    You may have misunderstood my use of the "minimum square footage"
    ILlogic!  
    Steve feels that there MAY not be a limit to the number of human
    beings on the planet if we talk about resources. I was trying to 
    introduce what I believe to be a physical (space wise) limitation 
    that may or may not have been considered. 
    
    I wold not propose that we can 'allocate' X square feet per person.
    I would agree that I am one of those "not happy on less than 20 acres"
    kind of folks. 
    
    Hope this clears up my point. 
    
    Cathy
    
     
    
    

    	While I'm not suggesting that we allow the population of our planet
    	to swell to dozens of billions (or whatever it would take to make
    	live intolerable for all of us) - I'd like to point out that "space"
    	is not as big an issue as "planet resources."
    
    	My parents live in a 36-story condominium near Waikiki in Honolulu
    	that houses over 500 families on the space that would normally
    	hold about 6 single-family dwellings.
    
    	We could make the space (by moving vertically - above or below
    	ground) far easier and longer than we could find the resources
    	to keep the excessive numbers of people alive.

>    
>   	We could make the space (by moving vertically - above or below
>    	ground) far easier and longer than we could find the resources
>    	to keep the excessive numbers of people alive.


	Again, we're projecting 1990 knowledge, but some future
	era's population boom.

	It doesn't follow that nothing new will be invented, say,
	100 years from now, but that population will grow at some
	horrifying rate.

	Think about what a typical, well-educated city-dweller
	would have thought in 1891 if you suggested the following
	would occur within 100 years:

	1) A family of 5 or 6 could manage a farm of thousands of
	   acres -- with machines, not slaves or laborers.

	2) Space flight would be so routine that people don't go
	   out of their way to read about the latest launch.

	3) Polio, smallpox, the venereal diseases(of the day),
	   appendicitis, tuberculosis all would be either eradicated or
	   quickly curable.  Severed limbs would be routinely re-attached.

	4) Most people (even the dirt-poor of the day) would own
	   conveyances capable of covering distances of 100 miles
	   each hour !

	You would have been considered either a harmless idiot or a
	dangerously insane person !  Any of these were just inconceivable!

	I believe if one is going to make projections, one must
	project ALL relevant trends forward....not just the ones
	that align with a certain political agenda...

	Thanks,

	Steve H

>    The Chinese govt. is doing a cruel thing, in my opinion, to 
>    control population. A lot of baby girls were killed or put up
>    for foreign adoptions because if they can only keep 1 child,
>    most Chinese want to keep a boy, not a girl. A lot of women was
>    forced to have abortions, second and third trimester abortions.
>    This is my hot button since I am a Chinese and a woman. 
>    I think some parts of the world are over populated, no question about it,
>    but this Chinese thing about 1 child per family is not the
>    solution - IMO, it is a irresponsible and inhumane manipulation
>    by the government.
    
    
Eva,

as I have said, I believe the Chinese government is not behaving in a humane
manner, but I do believe that their REASON for the attempt to diminish the
Chinese population is REAL...and I fear that other governments will feel 
compelled to try such incentives unless we take care of population increases
in other ways.  Yes, it is nice to have aunts and uncles - and I have them,
they just aren't my blood relatives, but my parents' life-long friends.  WE
humans must get away from the idea that our children are somehow deprived
if they don't have siblings, etc. BY BLOOD.  I have two women friends who
are, in every sense of the word, my sisters.  We have life-long bonds, and
they are both beloved of my mother as well...we just aren't related by blood.
I also have my 'big brother' Dennis...and a veritable herd of 'regular
brothers' from my family's years in drag racing - our pit crew members are
still my family and will always be.  I believe we need to start REDUCING the
world population.  IMO, the critical point has already been passed.

The realities are this;  we, the citizens of countries hold our governments
responsible for providing certain services -- and we must pay for these
services.  If any country's population grows unchecked, at the maximum rate
possible, then only the wealthy will be able to provide for their families.
The rest of the citizens will live an increasingly lower quality of life...
with poverty and famine the eventual result.  Our farmers can only grow so
much food per acre - even in the USA - and the more people there are, the
fewer the acres of land available on which to grow food.  In any finite
space, in any country with borders, this reality will evenually lead to 
famine.  In countries with less arable land, the famine comes as fast as
other countries find they cannot keep up with the needs of their own 
population AND export food to needy neighbors.

    RE: .269  Steve
    
    > I believe if one is going to make projections, one must
    > project ALL relevant trends forward....not just the ones
    > that align with a certain political agenda...

    Are you talking to me?
    
    What "certain political agenda" are you suggesting I was trying to
    support by mentioning the use of vertical space?
    
    My reply wasn't part of ANY political agenda at all.

    Suzanne,
    
    Well, he certainly wasn't talking to *me*!  I've already pointed
    out that no matter what technology we assume, our *current* birth
    rate is going to hit an insurmountable limit in less than a thousand
    years.  
    
    I didn't mention preferences in that note, or methods.  I think we'd
    all vote for a lowered birth rate and for not-an-increased death rate,
    but just how is that cat going to be belled?
    
    						Ann B.

  Say, whose political agenda is it that says we should ignore issues of 
  population, resource depletion, environmental degradation, incipient 
  famine, loss of arable land, the greenhouse effect, and rising sea levels?

  I'll give you a hint -- their motto is "business as usual."  Or is it
  "don't worry -- be happy."

  JP

>  ........................................................ issues of 
>  population, resource depletion, environmental degradation, incipient 
>  famine, loss of arable land, the greenhouse effect, and rising sea levels?

	wouldn't be THIS political agenda, would it ?

	Nawwwwwwww....

	Steve H

    
    	RE: .274  Steve
    
    	It's a "certain political agenda" to even RAISE THE ISSUES???
    
    	Yikes - 
    

correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that to raise issues of
concern is simply that...to declare that a certain policy/political party
will CORRECT these issues is a "political agenda".  I am guilty of having
a political agenda because I do believe that population control is part
of the solution to the problems, but I think that those who simply throw
out ideas to chew on are innocent of the "crime" of which they are accused.

besides, to have a "don't worry, it'll all work out" approach to the problems
seems to be a political agenda in itself...sounds slightly "republican" to
me......8^}

    A short term solution to the Malthusian problem is to move to the
    oceans.
    
    Self-sustained floating cities and villages could house billions on the
    oceans and employ billions in the construction.
    
    Ecological concerns would have to be addressed. All water would have to
    be scrubed and recycled. There could be no waste either.
    
    But the species has some experience in this already. Nuclear
    submarines, of which I have some experience, have lead the way in a
    limited form of selfsuffiency.
    
    If you've ever seen a super carrier, like the America or the Eisenhour
    (sp?) you've already seen a small floating city capable of sustaining
    2500 people. If all the area devoted to storage of armenment were
    converted to hydrophonic areas I imagine that a big ship could
    reasonable sustain a large number of people.
    
    And let's not forget the research going on in BioSphere II. All that's
    learned there can be applied directly to floating cities.

  Re: <<< Note 998.274 by CSC32::S_HALL "Wollomanakabeesai !" >>>

  Steve,

  If you are making a point, I don't understand it.  Why do you believe
  it is some nefarious scheme ("political agenda") to raise these
  issues but something more benign when the administration works to keep
  these issues safely buried?  Acid rain?  Needs more study.  Greenhouse
  gases?  Needs more study.  And quash even obviously necessary changes 
  because those changes might reduce the profits of some well-connected 
  campaign contributor.

  A clean environment costs money.  But if the people of this country had not 
  dragged the government to the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, the eastern
  seaboard might look an awful lot like the industrial areas of Eastern
  Europe.  I think it was money well spent.  And if you figure out what
  it will cost to clean up behind the former Iron Curtain, it was a
  bargain.

  JP

	Howdy,

	There's nothing wrong with worrying.  Heck, you can
	worry about your cat's latest case of hairballs, but
	when the "concern" extends to imposition of government
	power to "correct" the "problem", then I take notice.

	Seems like the folks that are really worried about 
	"global warming", "overpopulation", and such always 
	want the government to handle it:

	1) Restrict use of chemicals.
	2) Restrict use of internal combustion engines.
	3) Restrict use of electricity.
	4) Restrict (or utterly close down) nuclear plants.
	5) Restrict modern farming methods.
	6) Restrict timber harvests.

	For each "restrict" there's also a "ban" in the wings, it
	seems.  If these folks had their way, we'd be living in 
	a country very like Soviet Russia, and we'd be scratching
	out a living with hand tools and oxen...or would use of oxen be
	restricted too, as "cruelty to animals" ?

	I don't want to live in a feudal society.  I like the things
	our technology affords us:  vaccines, modern antisepsis in
	surgery, rapid transportation, fruit from tropical countries
	at the local store, CNN, a warm secure house, the ability
	to work at something other than subsistence farming, the
	ability for someone other than an aristocrat to afford or
	dabble in art.

	None of the above are possible in a feudal society, and 
	that's the end result of the environmental doomcriers' 
	policies.

	Regards,

	Steve H

Re: .279

> For each "restrict" there's also a "ban" in the wings...

That is not intrinsically a bad thing.  Banning DDT isn't a stupid idea,
it's an idea that allows species such as bald eagles, which were being
eradicated by DDT's weakening of their eggshells, to survive.

Start thinking about what kind of environment you want.  Reply .277
proposes that the solution is to move to the oceans.  Go right ahead
and move to the oceans, but don't ask me to move with you.  I like the
feeling of dry land under my feet, thanks.  And I like seeing mountains
and rivers and trees and meadows. 

Reply .277 also points out that for hir solution to work, there could
be no waste.  Water would be scrubbed, everything recycled.  What, for
petesake, is wrong with doing the same thing ON LAND??  If we started
now, with everybody buying in. we could probably save the world...

Steve, it is *your* position that feudalism is the inevitable result of
the environmental doomcriers' policies.  Prove it.  Prove that our
present birthrate is infinitely sustainable.  In the face of Ann
Broomhead's numbers, you're gonna have a rough time of it.  Fact is that
if we allow each person now living 32 square feet to live in, we can
*all* fit into a neat square only 169 miles on a side.  This space
allotment is what several hundred thousand people living in Bombay,
India, presently have.  Except that they only get it at night, because
it's on the streets and they have to take their possessions with them
during the day.  You can have my space, thanks, I won't be wanting it.

Your insistence that everything is just fine and that technology will
save us is precisely what got us into this present ozone-depletion/
greenhouse mess in the first place.  "It's great, make millions and sell
'em, and let tomorrow worry about the ill effects that we can't detect
with today's technology."  Freon.  Agent Orange.  DDT.  Nuclear power
plants.  Red Dye No. 2.  And on and on and on.  Don't worry, be happy.

Pfui.

-d

    
    C'mon, Steve.  You know that government can (and should, IMO)
    do a number of things to *encourage* certain behavior (the use
    of tax levies, tax breaks, subsidies, and lack of subsidies
    comes to my mind immediately) *without* having to talk about
    "restricting", "banning", or "censoring".
    

    Interesting perspective, Steve (she said diplomatically)
    
    I do not believe that concerning myself with the environment and other
    such issues assumes a certain solution to the problems with those
    areas.  Rather, it expresses simply that, concern.  I hope that
    expressing concern will lead to dialogue and exploration of
    alternatives to deal with these problems.  Alternatives, not
    alternative.  And perhaps the government, individuals or industry can
    devise a means to respond to the problems that can simulataneously
    improve our quality of life and address the problems.
    
    

    RE: .279  Steve H.
    
    Well, I have to admit that in my (turns out to be) sheltered little
    life, I've never seen an actual person (instead of a corporation)
    argue against taking measures to keep from completely trashing our
    planet.  
    
    I must also admit to being totally stunned by the rationalizations
    now visible in the "as long as we're making money and having fun,
    let some other generation worry about the way we destroy Earth in
    the process" AGENDA.
    
    > I don't want to live in a feudal society.  I like the things
    > our technology affords us:  vaccines, modern antisepsis in
    > surgery, rapid transportation, fruit from tropical countries
    > at the local store, CNN, a warm secure house, the ability
    > to work at something other than subsistence farming, the
    > ability for someone other than an aristocrat to afford or
    > dabble in art.
    
    Here's a type of paranoia that I hadn't seen before:  the belief
    that people who want to save the planet are part of a conspiracy
    to abolish ALL technology and send us ALL back to dirt farming
    for a living.
    
    > None of the above are possible in a feudal society, and 
    > that's the end result of the environmental doomcriers' 
    > policies.
    
    No wonder you think that even raising environmental issues constitutes
    an "agenda."  Raising these issues may mean trying to find solutions to
    problems (but you've convinced yourself that it's all really a plot to
    kill CNN, etc.)
    
    I like CNN, too.  I'd also like future generations to refrain from
    spending their lives cursing us all for trashing our planet so badly
    that it takes hundreds of years to fix it (if it's possible at all.)
    
    I'm especially surprised to see a bunch of us techno-weenies accused
    of plotting against all technology.  Geepers, why would any of us plot
    something that would abolish noting?? :-)  Let's be real.

    
    After reading Steves notes, and physically attacking him in his cube(!)
    for what I *read* to be what Suzanne read, I think I *may* have
    some what of a better understanding of what Steve was trying to say!
    
    This is what I *THINK* Steve means (??!!)
    
    We ARE trashing the planet.
    We DO have to STOP trashing the planet.
    Government is NOT the entity who should be responsible for that.
    
    Part of our discussion went like this:
    
    "But Steve (you pond skum!), the Rain Forests belong to ALL of the 
    inhabitants of the planet Earth, not just to the peoples of X country"
    
    "But Cathy..:-) if we try to tell those people to NOT cut down OUR
    trees, which they do for survival, they WON'T listen to us. They have
    no reason to".
    
    Sadly, he's right. 
    
    What he DID suggest was to make it in those peoples best interest to 
    leave the forests alone. 
    An example he sited was the one of Elephants, how in all African
    countries but Kenya, the elephant population is in real trouble.
    In those countries, the elephant is a protected (by government) 
    species. In Kenya, the PEOPLE are reposponsible for the Elephants
    that they "own". They understand that if they let the elephant
    population die, they will have NO source of income. (Cold, but a
    reality for those folks). SO since it is in their best interest to
    protect the Elephants, and it is not a government control, or worse
    yet some foreign RICH PEOPLE government control, they are becomming
    part of the solution. Apparently, Kenya has a thriving Elephant 
    population.
    
    Anyhow, I *THINK* that Steves biggest concern with all that we've
    'discussed'(!) to this point is "GOVERNMENT" responsibility in these
    areas (human reproduction control, ecology problems etc.)
    
    So, this is just my attempt try and get Steve out of hot water!!!!!!
    
    Cathy
    

    RE: .284  Cathy
    
    > Anyhow, I *THINK* that Steves biggest concern with all that we've
    > 'discussed'(!) to this point is "GOVERNMENT" responsibility in these
    > areas (human reproduction control, ecology problems etc.)
    
    Let's just hope he realizes that many/most folks here have written
    strong statements *AGAINST* "government responsibility" for human
    reproduction control.
    
    As a proponent of "choice" myself, I am totally 100% opposed to any
    form of government control over when, how many or how few children
    women have.
    
    I do realize that the conservative view (including George Bush) is
    that there should be FAR MORE government control of women's reproductive
    lives.  My view is that the gov't should stay OUT of women's wombs.

government SHOULD stay out of reproductive issues.  And, if the public takes
control of the population problem BEFORE it becomes a critical national issue,
the government WILL stay out of reproductive issues -- except for the abortion
thing, of course.  If we fail to take responsibility for population control
through education and other voluntary means, however, it is not impossible
that we end up facing much more stringent government intrusion. Even in the USA.

I really do believe the politicians of today BELIEVE that they can just tell 
women to STOP HAVING ABORTIONS and leave the rest of our reproductive life 
alone.  HOWEVER, as the government of the nation seems determined to establish
the right to tell a woman she MUST CARRY A PREGNANCY TO TERM, it isn't a great
leap of logic to forsee a future where, when there are too many mouths to feed
and not enough food, that government might look at the precedent established
by this ban on abortion as the justification for establishing laws that
govern WHEN A WOMAN CAN BECOME PREGNANT and WHEN A WOMAN CAN CARRY A PREGNANCY
TO TERM.  After all, one kind of control of the reproductive organs of women
is much like another, no?

In fact, if population FELL darastically for some reason, it isn't 
inconcievable that the government might decide that women HAVE TO GET PREGNANT
AND HAVE BABIES.

All sounds too bizarre?  Unrealistic?  Consider this:  The assumption that
the establishment of governmental control over whether a woman may abort a 
pregnancy is ALL that the government will choose to control in our lives,
is based on the premise that future governments will operate with restraint
in these matters rather than use the traditional practice of law which 
relies upon precedence in order to establish legal limits.  Legal precedence
has been traditionally used to determine what laws may be enacted by
the congressional bodies of our government IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE POWERS OF 
GOVERNMENT.  By this strategy, if the Supreme Court establishes the right 
of government to control abortion, the precedence has been established that 
the government has a vested right to enact laws which control any/all aspects 
of human reproduction.

Provided the government is still largely populated by religeously-grounded
politicians, the religeous special interest groups get what they want and
abortion is banned.  Perhaps birth control will be banned as well - I have
heard that this is the true agenda of some groups.  However, should the
pendulum swing away from religeon, then the same precedence that so pleases
the religeous-right at the moment could be used to establish laws TO MANDATE
BIRTH CONTROL and/or ABORTION should the governing bodies of this nation
deem necessary.

A double-edged blade, indeed.

> In fact, if population FELL drastically for some reason, it isn't 
> inconceivable that the government might decide that women HAVE TO GET PREGNANT
  =============
> AND HAVE BABIES.

    I love puns.

	During a lull, I have been reading the years of WOMANNOTES
	missed for many reasons, one of which is the SOAPBOX
	attitude of a few PsITA.

	This note, concerned with limiting the number of children,
	gives me a major flashback to the 60's and early 70's.

	I haven't read one argument for or against limiting
	human offspring in this note which wasn't made almost
	30 years ago.  Fascinating!  

	We made a lot of mistakes in the 60's and our society is
	paying a hefty bill as a result of those mistakes.  One
	of the major mistakes we made - and continue to make IMO -
	is believing scientist can predict the future an acceptable
	degree of accuracy.

	The scientists told us a few years ago AIDS could not
	be transmitted through kissing.  There are now documented
	cases of AIDS being transmitted through kissing.  (This
	is not a dig against AIDS or the unfortunate among us who
	have contacted AIDS.)

	The scientist told us drinking more than 1.5 ounces of
	hard liquor a day was injurious to our health.  The
	scientists now say two and three times as much hard
	liquor a day appears to good for us - provided we aren't
	alcoholic, etc.

	The scientists told us X treatment for high blood pressure/
	cholesterol was good for us.  A recent study suggests X
	treatment is in fact bad for us.  (Those who received
	no treatment lived longer and healthier lives ON AVERAGE
	than those who received the treatment.  The medical
	profession is still reviewing the findings and have little
	to say.)

	The list can go on and on.  The bottom line is simple:
	we have been very bad at predicting the future in relation
	to the health of our species.  How crowded can the planet
	become before it is overcrowded?  I have no idea AND neither
	does any other person in the world save those who speak
	in generalities and deal with gross numbers:

		"A population of X would result in each person
		 have less than Y sq. feet of standing space
		 and the world will be overpopulated."

	Some people believe one of the needs of our species is
	to evolve both physically and intellectually.  Darwin
	argued about the impact of nature on living organisms
	- the organisms adapt or their species is killed off.
	
	Possibly, the threat of over population will result in
	our moving off into the universe to inhabit other planets?
	Possibly this is our destiny.

	Possibly, the threat of over population will result in
	our moving into the sea?  	Possibly this is our 
	destiny.

	Possibly, our species is suppose to over populate Earth and
	kill itself off to make way for the next species in the
	evolutionary chain?

	I didn't know in the 60's - though I thought I did, and I
	don't know now.  And neither does any other living person.

	To present arguments against people being free to have
	children is absurd and, IMO, ignorant.  I made many of these
	arguments back in the 60's and worked hard to assure people
	would not be able to have children.  My stupidity enabled
	me to have the answers.  

	Douglas

	ps: I was born to a poor family - on and off welfare.  Which of
	    my siblings should not have been born?  All of us have
	    achieved financial security.  None of us has ever been on
	    welfare.  All of us are tax paying members of our societies.

	    Rather than slam people on welfare, how about coming up 
	    with some creative ways of helping these people improve
	    their positions.

	pps:  Global warming and depletion of the ozone layer as a 
	      result of human action?  Interesting idea(s) but all
	      we really know is there is a hole in the ozone layer
	      and it has been growing in recent history.  We don't
	      know how big the hole is suppose to be or if it has a
	      cycle of expanding and contracting.  We believe the 
	      world is warming but we don't know how warm the world 
	      is suppose to be and we don't know if the current warming
	      trend is an abnormality of a natural cycle.  

	      Our KNOWLEDGE of the world's climatic experiences is
	      extremely limited when compared with the age of our
	      world.

	The scientists told us a few years ago AIDS could not
	be transmitted through kissing.  There are now documented
        cases of AIDS being transmitted through kissing.
    
    Name your sources!!!!
    
    D!

      Which planet are these notes coming from,
      With the exception of the UK government all western governments provide
      incentives to have children.
      They range from, Cash payments at birth to full university financing. In
      between child owners usually get tax allowances on income clothing etc..
      etc... On the other hand they also vary from allowing abortion to
      putting mothers and doctors (not the fathers) involved in jail.
      The only difference between the western system and the chinese is the
      degree.
      Rgds,
      Stephen

whoa, stop right there!!!

I have not encountered ANY connection between kissing and
transmission of AIDS in any respected scientific publication, nor in any
mainstream news publication.  Nor, for that matter, has the PBS reports
on AIDS mentioned such a transmission.  This is not, in my opinion, valid
information.  I would very much like to know your source for that piece
of data as the Center for Disease Control does NOT document any transmission
methods other than BLOOD TO BLOOD CONTACT and SEMEN TO BLOOD CONTACT.  Clearly,
kissing does not fall within these parameters unless both parties have
open, bleeding sores in their mouths - and even then the transmission would
be very unlikely as the BLOOD MIGHT NOT BE MIXED- AIDS is simply not that 
easy to catch.

With the hysteria associated with this disease, I feel it is most important
that you list your sources for any such information.

    And while you're at it, I'd like to see the documenting evidence on the
    efficacy of 4+ ounces of alcohol.
    
    					andrew

    I deleted my note .291 since it was pointed out to me that it might be
    found offensive by some Christian Scientists (?). That was not my
    intention in the least, but to avoid confusion and angry feelings, it's
    gone! :-)
    
    re .228 (let me try again).
    
    Douglas (it's been so long it forget now!)
    
    Are you suggestion a 'non intervention' approach to the 'care taking'
    of this planet? Are you suggesting that science cannot predict the
    future and perhaps what we are doing/have done possibly fits with the
    'grander scheme of things' and 'what will be will be'?
    
    That is what I  understood you to say. Is this what you mean?
    If so, where then do you seperate the 'what will be will be' with
    'lets change things or make things better'?  
    
    Perhaps the human race is 'intended' to die out from a great epidemic
    (assuming that there IS a "plan" for humanity). Then should we bother
    with AIDS research? If we DO find a cure, are we 'interfering with
    "the plan"? 
    
    How do we know when what we're doing is part of 'the plan' and when it
    is not?  Given that, how can we say that we should NOT worry about the
    ozone layer or overpopulation or the rain forests etc?
    
    Cathy
    
    

    damn!! that last was ref .288 (sorry..I'm tired and it's Friday!!)
    
    cathy

    
    Douglas - 
    
    
    so since we don't know nuthin', we shouldn't do nuthin'????
    
    
    Hmmmmm.... I think I'd rather at least TRY.
    
    Jamd
    

	Sources:

	AIDS passed through kissing:	Boston Globe	about 2 month ago
					WCVB/WBZ/WHDH

	Alcohol intake:			Boston Globe	within the last month
					All local TV News Programs
					All major network news programs

	You can argue all you want against the above.  I don't mind.
If they are correct, I have acquired a bit more knowledge.  If they
are incorrect, I have a bit more erroneous information committed to
memory.

	I don't know what the future holds in store for us or for
our species.  I believe we should continue to do our best to make
our lives as comfortable as possible provided we understand the
costs associated with the comforts.  We should continue efforts to
find cures for all illnesses.  We should continue efforts to
understand our universe.  What we shouldn't do is assume X is a
truism simply because it is the current 'comfortable conclusion'
supported by a percentage of the scientific community.  (According to
an article in the NY Times earlier this week, there are scientists
who strongly believe we don't know with any degree of accuracy how many 
years have passed since the fall of the Roman Empire - it is being
argued our current 'scientific belief' is off by more than 500,
1000, or more years.  Christ 'walked among us' as few as 900 years
ago!)

	I am not suggesting anyone do anything concerning AIDS, the
Ozone layer, birth control, or anything else.  I am simply stating how
amused I was to read arguments in favor of removing the individual's
choice to have X number of children.  I was amused because the arguments
in favor of this, IMO, absurd stance are the same arguments I used in
the 60's and 70's.

    
    What's going on here??  DWILLIAMS and PITTS, with the AIDS info from
    the planet Zentar??  Sheesh...
    
    DWILLIAMS, you have taken one well-known fact, twisted it around, blown 
    it up and generalized it to spread hysteria.  This isn't a crime, but it 
    should be.
    
    Fact:  HIV has been found in miniscule amounts in saliva (we've known
    this for years).
    
    Fact:  More than a quart of saliva poured into an open wound would be 
    required to even have a chance of possibly infecting another person.
    
    Fact:  There have been NO REPORTED CASES IN OVER 10 YEARS OF ANYONE
    ACQUIRING HIV THROUGH KISSING (or even biting).
    
    Got it?  Good.
    
    	deb

re: Deb's rebuttal

Thanks - it saved me the typing.  Before it comes up, I'll also add,

	FACT:  HIV virus is detected in miniscule amounts in tears of
		those who are infected with AIDS

	FACT:  Nobody has ever contracted AIDS by being cried on.

	FINAL FACT:  AIDS IS SPREAD BY DIRECT BLOOD-TO-BLOOD OR SEMEN-TO-BLOOD
		     CONTACT.  PERIOD.  NOT ANY OTHER WAY.  

thankyou, Deb and ::wilde (yes, I *should* know your first name by now; apologies!)

actually I think the misinformation is from fearful scapegoaters and 
hate-mongers, but that's just my opinion.

    re: several back
    
    No, I didn't reply here to get the .X00 reply --

    I'm sorry, but when I ask for documentation, I don't mean mass media
    reports, I mean documentation: real, creditable, verifiable evidence,
    from impeccable sources.  News reports do not meet those criteria.
    
    					andrew

 tygon::wilde goes by the name of plain old

			D (no !, no ', no ")

or, when cornered, I answer to Dian (no E) -- my mother spells it that way and
I try to humor her...she does have her own power saw, you know.  8^}

    ...then shouldn't your p-name be "why am I not yet a Dragon?"?
    							 ^
    
    I am sooooo embarrassed.  I shoulda knew that'n.  D, in person I tell
    folks that I am terrible at names, and that I will forget theirs unless
    I tell them that I will forget it, in which case I will remember.
    (Should this have gone in the Rules note?)  Anyhow.  Consider yourself
    told...
    
    =-}
    
    Sara
    

    Their was a report on CNN a couple of weeks ago where some aids
    researcher was reporting that it appeared that "deep Kissing" could
    transmit the HIV virus and cause infection but that more research would
    be needed to positively conferm this and that research was proceeding.
               

    
    noone is in a position to say positively that it can or can't be
    passed in a certain way, only that there haven't been any proven
    cases of it being passed in a certain way. 
    
    to do so is is to take the debate out of the realm of science and into
    the realm of dogma.
    

>    noone is in a position to say positively that it can or can't be
>    passed in a certain way, only that there haven't been any proven
>    cases of it being passed in a certain way. 
    
AIDS has been a named, recognized disease for well over 10 years.  During this
time, enough attention has been focused on the disease, and the caregivers
and family members of this afflicted to have some very concrete evidence of
how this disease may/may not be transmitted.  The trials/tests for this
illness have included many hundrend thousand afflicted subjects and many more
hundred thousand caregivers and friends and family.  It is safe to say that
AIDS is NOT an easy disease to catch - if it was, virtually all medical
personnel in San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles would be afflicted
and/or dead.  In fact, the incidence of medical personnel contracting this
disease through contact with afflicted patients is so low the figure even
surprised the Center for Disease Control.  Their assessment is that blood to
blood or semen to blood (and even this may be more because of microscopic
tears in tissue which allows blood to blood contact than because semen comes
in contact with blood) contact is the ONLY VIABLE MANNER IN WHICH THE VIRUS MAY
BE TRANSMITTED FROM ONE HUMAN TO ANOTHER.

Consider, for a moment, how many of the spouses of afflicted humans HAVE NOT
BEEN INFECTED WITH AIDS, even though unprotected, normal sexual contact
occurred for YEARS PRIOR TO THE DIAGNOSIS OF THE DISEASE.  These people prove,
beyond any level of doubt, that very specific exposure must occur before this
disease is transmitted.  Rather than finding MORE ways in which this disease
is spread, I postulate that the scientific community will eventually surmise 
that the ONLY WAY THIS DISEASE MAY BE TRANSMITTED IS THROUGH BLOOD TO BLOOD 
CONTACT.

There is a large contingent of far-right-conservatives who would dearly love
to turn the AIDS disease into a reason to legally isolate and incarcerate
homosexuals.  These people include, sadly, some who are in the scientific
fields.  There have been several attempts to bring such bogus scare tactics
to the surface in the past.  They have been just that, bogus.

    
    well, to say that you postulate that someday they will be able to
    say conclusively that blood or semen are the only vectors
    is not the same as saying it is absolutely so, now.
    
    oh, and nice shot at conservatives. maybe they can all be totally
    demonized by election time. 
    
    and to think that its the activists that accuse conservatives of 
    politicizing aids..
    
    

>>>>>                       <<< Note 998.308 by TENAYA::RAH >>>

    
>    well, to say that you postulate that someday they will be able to
>    say conclusively that blood or semen are the only vectors
>    is not the same as saying it is absolutely so, now.

MY WORDS ARE:

Consider, for a moment, how many of the spouses of afflicted humans HAVE NOT
BEEN INFECTED WITH AIDS, even though unprotected, normal sexual contact
occurred for YEARS PRIOR TO THE DIAGNOSIS OF THE DISEASE.  These people prove,
beyond any level of doubt, that very specific exposure must occur before this
disease is transmitted.  Rather than finding MORE ways in which this disease
is spread, I postulate that the scientific community will eventually surmise 
that the ONLY WAY THIS DISEASE MAY BE TRANSMITTED IS THROUGH BLOOD TO BLOOD 
CONTACT.

PLEASE NOTE:

I postulate that the ONLY vector for transmission of this disease is BLOOD.
I DO NOT POSTULATE that semen or blood is the transmission vector.  The
Center for Disease Control, and all published scientists who have spent more
than one year researching AIDS, are CONVINCED that BLOOD AND SEMEN are both the
transmission vectors for the transmission of this disease.  THIS IS NOT MY
PREMISE OR IDEA, BUT THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC OPINION ON THIS DISEASE.  MY 
OPINION IS that AIDS is so seldom transmitted by heterosexual contact - and I 
mean MULTIPLE YEARS worth of sexual contact between spouses - that there MUST
be something else at work here.  I FEEL that the real issue may be NOT THE
SEXUAL CONTACT, BUT WHETHER THE SEXUAL CONTACT IS SUCH THAT IRRITATION OCCURS.
Irritation from excessive friction, etc. is actually a condition in which
microscopic tears in the delicate skin of the penis and the female sexual
organs may have occurred.  IF THIS POSTULATION IS TRUE, THEN THE REAL MEANS 
OF TRANSMISSION MIGHT VERY WELL BE BLOOD-TO-BLOOD CONTACT ONLY...RATHER THAN 
THE CURRENTLY PRESUMED BLOOD-TO SEMEN CONTACT.  I am not a scientist, but
I do think.  I still feel there must be more information wanted to explain 
why so few heterosexual contacts result in infection IN THIS COUNTRY AND OTHER
WESTERN NATIONS.  Again, I realize that the heterosexual rate of infection
is roughly the same as the homosexual rate of infection in African nations - 
and I think we need to explain why this happens as well.  

HOWEVER, no statistic points to ADDITIONAL vectors of infection - if this 
were so, there would be an INCREASED RATE OF INFECTION in the general 
population - WHICH IS JUST NOT HAPPENING.  The only segment of this society 
showing increased rates of infection are gay teenagers (who admit they are 
not taking precautions), and IV drug users (and their offspring who are 
born with the disease).
    
>    oh, and nice shot at conservatives. maybe they can all be totally
>    demonized by election time. 
>    
>    and to think that its the activists that accuse conservatives of 
>    politicizing aids..
    
MY WORDS ARE:

There is a large contingent of far-right-conservatives who would dearly love
to turn the AIDS disease into a reason to legally isolate and incarcerate
homosexuals.  These people include, sadly, some who are in the scientific
fields.  There have been several attempts to bring such bogus scare tactics
to the surface in the past.  They have been just that, bogus.

PLEASE NOTE:

"a large contingent of far-right-conservatives" are not implied to be all
conservatives, nor have I indicated, in any way, that I feel conservatives
are BAD.  I have specified a group of far-right-conservatives who behave
in a certain manner vis a vis homosexuals and AIDS.  PERIOD.  I get very 
tired of you putting words into my mind SO STOP IT!

    
    stop what? 
    
    is this a topic with only one approved viewpoint?

    Why, Robert, I thought you could read better than that.  The full
    request was ~stop putting words in my mouth~.
    
    							Ann B.

    in re .309 and high rate of infection among heterosexuals in
    Africa.
    
    I've heard of several possible reasons for the high rate of
    infection among heterosexual persons in Africa. These include:
    
    High rate of sexual partners
    High rate of untreated STDs with concomittant sores.
    Inadequate medical supplies resulting in reuse of needles
    Inadequate screening of blood supplies.
    
    I had also heard that the practice of female circumcision could
    also spread AIDS but subsequently found out that AIDS infection
    is not prevalent in the areas that practice this.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
    p.s. There was a small article in the Boston Globe a few weeks ago
    indicating that a virus identical to the human AIDS virus was
    isolated in african monkeys.

    There was a theory about 5-6 years ago that the AIDS virus in humans
    originated in Africa from people being bitten by these infected
    monkeys.  No one ever followed up on it, it seems -- the "conspiracy"
    theory is much more popular.
    
    ~ginny