Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    
    
    Or, "feminism is perceived as..."
    
    Is this a "Myths vs Realities" note?
    
    kath

   
    Re Note 22.1977 (Cindi Barber-Mingo)

>>    Also- is this to be the general consensus opinion about the
>>    whole sordid affair:
    
>>    Women should be able to say whatever they want, to whomever
>>    they want, however they want, as long as they do not express
>>    even secondary negative references to the feminist movement,
>>    their leaders, or their associative tactics?  This is to be
>>    done in an effort to free the supressed woman, as long as
>>    she does not question the agent that gave her her freedom,
>>    the movement.
  
    This is not how I feel at all.
    
    Negative references to the feminist movement - I can think of lots of
    negative things about the movement (depending on how you define 
    _the_movement_)  for starters, I think the movement has practically 
    ignored issues of race and class within the women's movement.  I'd
    like to talk about this.  But I'm not comfortable hearing, "all feminists 
    are mean" or "feminists treat 'their own' worse than any man ever did."
    I don't think there are grounds for assertions like that, and so I 
    challenge them - I think my challenge is valid, and I don't see how I'm 
    suppressing anyone's voice when I say that I don't think feminists are mean 
    or treat women badly.
    
    Negative reference to their (the women's movement's) leaders - well, there
    are lots of leaders.  And I admire a great many of them, though I'm certain
    there are things for which they could be criticised.  For example, 
    sometimes I think that the scholarship is poor in some feminist essays.  
    I'd like to talk about that.  But I don't want to talk about whether or not
    Gloria Steinem is a "3-bagger" (said in another file) or if Andrea Dworkin 
    is angry because she hasn't been able to land a man (I actually don't even 
    know Andrea Dworkin's orientation - I simply assume that she is lesbian.)
    
    Negative reference to their "associative tactics" - I don't know what you 
    mean by this.  But I think you see my main point.  I think the feminist 
    movement, like any political movement, has weak spots, places where it 
    could improve.  I would be happy to read/talk about these.  But I'm not 
    comfortable hearing accusations levelled at this amorphous group called
    "feminists" when those accusations are, in my view, untrue.  With regard to 
    male bashing, I think it is wrong, and I've never seen it included in any
    feminist platform.  For the most part, the more woman-centered a woman is, 
    the less energy she spends thinking about men (I think this makes some men
    (and some women) angry, this indifference); it's my experience that 
    the most angry words about men come from the women who are involved with 
    them.  I think in this file, there are 2 different kinds of anger, but both 
    get labelled as "male bashing:" 
       1.  I see generalized anger expressed (by feminists) toward male 
           domination of women.  For example, women have been kept down for 
           years both by the male-dominated/created legal system and by the 
           threat of male violence.  While not all men are violent and not all 
           men work to keep women down, all men benefit by the domination of 
           women.

       2.  I also see more personal anger expressed (by straight women, some of 
           whom do identify as feminist and others of whom do not identify as 
           feminist) toward individual men or intended to be about a man in 
           their life but expressed generally.  For example, a woman is mad at 
           her ex-husband but what comes out is, "men are irresponsible, and 
           they never put the seat down."
    
    When the second kind of anger is expressed in that (unfairly) general way,
    I think men (and women, too, for that matter) have every right to be angry, 
    and I would hope that they would call the speaker (author) on it, 
    preferably using "I language," so that the speaker understands how her 
    words hurt the injured party.  But the first kind of anger, the political
    analysis of a system (patriarchy) that has kept women down and from which 
    all men do benefit at least indirectly (the same way that I, as a white 
    woman, benefit from racism), I don't see that as male bashing.  But the two
    get rolled together and hurled at feminists as an example of their 
    unfairness and their willingness to engage in (another favorite charge of 
    mine) reverse discrimination.  I don't see it that way.  I'm willing to 
    talk with those who do see it that way, but I'm not likely to change my 
    mind unless there are concrete examples for me to look at.
    This is not a requirement or a command; it's an invitation.
    
    Justine

    Feminism is to me-
    
    The noun given to describe the practice of the advancement towards
    equality and self determination for members of the female sex.
    
    Boons of feminism-
    In my opinion, to date, the movement has allowed for modifications
    in the areas of abuse/battery, rape, single female parenthood/day care,
    and some career options.
    
    Banes of feminism-
    >:-< 
    At Columbia, individuals who wished to be accepted and considered
    among their peers as feminists were often pressured to wear black,
    even if they did not look good in it.
    >:-< over.
    
    Seriously though, since there are no natural indicators which 
    insure that one is indeed attempting to advance the goals of 
    feminism, some of the restrictions enforced externally and internally
    to indicate the propesity are unusual.

    re Justine, I found your reply very interesting.  (I found Cindi's
    interesting, also.)  I was especially interested in your description of
    the two types of anger you've seen displayed by women in this file (and
    elsewhere I imagine).  
    
    I know I've expressed both types of anger, and it's because I'm
    interested in both agendas.  I'd like to see all women have the same
    opportunites as men, and I'd also like to see myself, and a lot of
    other straight women I know, have happy, long-term relationships with
    men.  
    
    I think this is an issue that separates straight feminists from
    Lesbians because the impression I get, anyway (maybe I'm wrong?) is
    that most Lesbians could be perfectly happy in a world without men,
    whereas I would probably go insane from boredom.  (To me no woman is as
    much fun to be with as an attractive, interesting man.  I love my women
    friends, and I *love* my FWO Book Group..:-)...but, we all have our
    priorities.)
    
    So, if I get angry over the way I've been treated by a man in a
    personal relationship, it's because men matter to me.  I would like
    straight men and straight women to find ways to treat each other better
    and have happier, more equal, more fair relationships.  To me this is
    part of feminism.  I think that in the past, a lot of men treated
    women badly in personal relationships, and got away with it because
    men were the ones running society anyway, making the laws, and the
    rules.
    
    So, I think that it's important that straight women feel that they can
    vent their anger at certain men, sometimes, because it's a big part of
    our lives.  I have learned (to say the least) not to generalize at
    times like this and make it seem that I'm bashing all men.  (I really
    have no desire to castrate anybody, let alone the entire male, world
    population, nor do I hate all men, in general.  At this moment I don't
    feel hatred for anyone, as a matter of fact, and I've also felt very
    angry at certain women before, too.)  But, sometimes straight women
    feel that we've been treated like shit by the men we care about and it
    helps to be able to discuss it.
    
    Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm a feminist or not.  I know that I believe
    in equal opportunities for males and females, and I believe that most
    of the world has pretty much been run by white males.  But, sometimes I
    don't think I've been politically active enough, or tough enough to
    really *be* a feminist.  I'm definitely not woman centered, I guess,
    because I've definitely spent a lot more of my life thinking about men
    than I have other women.
    
    Lorna
      
    
    

    I am a heterosexual feminist. My definition of feminism jives with 
    Charles'. 
    
    There is nothing to me more insulting than to have my feminism
    questioned by lesbians or my sexuality questioned by people with a 
    more traditional agenda because of my feminism.
    
    I remember having a group of women managers come and speak to us about
    the task force they were creating to help women break from middle to
    upper management. I was an accounting clerk at the tme making about
    18K. I had to laugh. I wondered if I'd ever make 20k+ and these women
    were trying shatter the glass ceiling with paper planes.
    
    Kate 
     

    
    I think I gave this topic a bad title oringally (feminism is/feminists
    are...), so I've changed it to "What's wrong with the feminist
    movement?"  We do already have a note or 2 on defining feminism, so
    I'll move the notes that talk about that there.
    
    Let's use this string to talk about the weak spots of the movement,
    what makes us mad, frustrated about it, etc.
    
    Justine

Let me take a stab at a few things I have learned about "personal activism" and
also about "hanging out on the extreme."

I agree that feminism can be "thought, word, and deed."  Many have progressed
through all the stages; many will choose only one or two stages; unfortunately,
*I* believe that more will not even choose to think (sigh....).  I believe that
it is true that all kinds of people - in whatever stage/state - are needed to
get a grasp on the situation and/or to come through with some changes.

For me, a better understanding of "hanging out on the extreme" is needed.  I know
this sounds terribly simplistic, but....There are people out on the extreme
because they believe that any equality movement will go exactly nowhere if no
real impetus is applied.  Let me try a concrete example:

	Let's suppose I am talking with someone who does not even think about
	equality or worse thinks women should "stay in their place."  I say,
	"well, you guys have had it so good for so long, that I think women
	should get all the jobs, all the pay raises, and all the promotions
	for the next 10 years.  In fact, I think men should not even be allowed
	to apply, and that they should be kept from any high level business
	meetings or decisions."  Well, guy says, "That's not fair!  Why should
	women get things just because they're women?  It should be based on
	who is best for the job!"  Booooiiiiinnnnnnnnkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!

Guess what?  If you didn't hit some of us smack in the face with a 2x4, we
wouldn't even think at all.  Now, you may think that's a stupid example - yes,
I have SEEN the scenario many times - but it is an example of an extreme behavior
producing thought where none was present before.  Violence, in my opion, is an
extreme expression taken when extreme behaviors have not worked.

My whole point is that, IMO, there are places for all levels of "thought, word,
and deed."  We do need to try to understand what is behind each level and why
there is even a need for that level to exist.

<my personal anger>

The whole idea of casting women into the "angry feminist mold" or saying things
like you can criticize anyone in this file as long as she isn't a feminist is
in *my opinion* childish, simplistic, and extremely insulting.  I suppose many
of you must think I'm an "everything basher" by now.  I do try to reason, but
I will not be silenced by your "boomerangs."  You may try to give me a sense
of misproportion, of guilt, or of insensitiveness, but I will not take those
things.

<anger off>

Barb

p.s. Justine, thanks for your insightful note.

    I think saying "what's wrong with the feminist movement" is like a
    discussion that I heard/read (can't remember where) Malcolm X was
    invovled in in the 60's.  People asked him "What do you think about the
    colored problem?" or something like that.  He said something like "I
    don't think there IS a colored problem, however there IS a problem with
    white racism."
    
    I don't think there's anything WRONG with the feminist movement at all! 
    I think there IS something wrong with how it's perceived, how some
    people attempt to lump us all into the "castrating lesbian
    glass-chewing feminist bitch" mold and then disempower us by telling us
    all we need a good #uck, and that we should all be kept pregnant and
    barefoot in the kitchen.  I guess one prime weakness I see in the
    feminist movement is our INFINITE PATIENCE with the process of
    explanation, and our INFINITE ABILITY to be trapped into castigating
    ourselves for not making nice so the opposition will see it our way if
    we treat them gently and don't disrupt their universe.
    
    I see the problems with the feminist movement as being trip-ups in the
    way we respond to anti-feminists.  
    
    -Jody
      

    
    Last night I was driving home late (around 11), and I heard a "Fresh
    Air" interview by Terry Gross on National Public Radio.  She was
    interviewing (oh, no the name is floating away) -- Cynthia Heimlich (?)
    (She writers for the Village Voice and Playboy - please tell me the
    right name if you know it - don't worry, I'll think you read the
    Village Voice :-).  Terry introduced her as a "feminist comic and
    writer" who writes about dating and shopping when you're over 40.  So
    I settled in for some good feminist humor that I thought would also
    raise my consciousness about straight feminists.  I expected to be
    educated, enlightened, and I hoped, entertained.
    
    Well, one of the first questions Terry asked her, was about how she
    thinks the "feminist" label is perceived (especially at Playboy),
    and what was practically the first thing out of this "feminist's" mouth?
    She said, "Well, ever since Andrea Dworkin reared her ugly head,"... we
    feminists have had a hard time....  I was outraged!  What a hateful
    thing to say.  I tried hard to listen to what she had to say after
    that, but her words were tainted for me.  She was talking about how to
    be a feminist, you have to have hair 1/4" long, wear jeans, and carry
    an ouzi in your purse {of course, she got it wrong, we don't carry
    purses :-) }  "Can't a woman have long curly hair and like men and
    still be a feminist?" she asked.  Yes, of course, is my answer.  And I
    hope we call eachother on it when any of us ever suggests otherwise,
    but I'm not sure you can be a feminist and express such hatred for
    women who are different from *you*, i.e., women who don't have long,
    curly hair and/or like to date men.  You can't have it both ways.
    We are all women.  I am a woman, and I look like a woman - because I'm
    a woman, so this is how a woman can look! (Stolen from someone I heard
    interviewed by Margo Adler)  
    
    I shouldn't treat my sisters who love men with disrespect, but they
    shouldn't treat me with disrespect because of whom I love (or HOW I
    LOOK!) either.
    
    It's true that there has been some backlash in response to the radical
    women in our movement (Andrea Dworkin, for example), but is the hatred
    that some men (and women) express toward feminists *her* fault?!  I
    think not.  She might be an easier target, but let's not forget that
    the misogyny so safely expressed toward Andrea Dworkin (or other
    radical feminists -- Molly Yard?) could just as easily be expressed
    toward any woman - that's what misogyny is - general hatred of women.
    
    Justine

Jody, I would disagree.  Well I think you are write that a lot of the 
problems with feminism really come from outside, I think the movement itself
has some problems.

I think it *is* true that feminists and feminism often put a lot of pressure
to conform on its ranks.  Yes, some women (you and me and us, of course :-)
can resist that pressure just as we resist pressure frm the rest of society
to conform to *its* expectations but it takes strength and work.

I think there are a lot of people who think men and women should be equal
but feel let out of feminism because they don't conform to the feminist way
of thinking.

I've talked before about "feminism" vs. "Feminism". "feminism" is the belief
in equality, as simple as that.  I would imagine most women and maybe eve
most men fit that.  "Feminism" is The Movement.  It is a *culture*, and like
any culture, it has its ups and downs. It evolves and changes.  At one time
I didn't feel any identification with Feminism. Now I do - but I hope that
doesn't make me blind to its faults.

D!

    (based on the possibly mistaken assumption that Dworkin is a lesbian)
    
    I guess the cold true reality is that some people who want to be
    feminists are homophobic. The equality that they want is for straight
    women, not lesbians. My mom's kinda like that. She draws a huge
    distinction between the two. And it doesn't really surprise me.
    Some issues that lesbians have, straight women don't have, and vice
    versa. Just as some issues are unique to black women, I'm coming to
    learn about some issues that are unique to some Asian women.  Not
    everyone is big enough to think globally. Some people will always
    refuse to admit that "all women" includes some subsets that they don't
    like. Some people think "all women" or "all people" means "all people
    like me". And then they don't have to even think about the others, much
    less recognize the harm they do in not thinking globally.
    
    Just part of human nature. Somewhat sad, very real.

>She was talking about how to
>    be a feminist, you have to have hair 1/4" long, wear jeans, and carry
>    an ouzi in your purse {of course, she got it wrong, we don't carry
>    purses :-) }  "Can't a woman have long curly hair and like men and
>    still be a feminist?" she asked.  Yes, of course, is my answer.  And I
>    hope we call eachother on it when any of us ever suggests otherwise,

I agree with you, Justine, that you don't have to have 1/4 inch long hair
and wear jeans to be a feminist.  However there *is* a feminist standard
(although I don't think 1/4 inch hair and jeans is it, unfortunately ;-) -
it isn't that you are told you "aren't a feminist" if you don't conform.
The pressure is much more subtle.  The same way you aren't (usually) told
"you aren't an American" if you *do* have 1/4 inch hair - instead, society
puts on subtle pressures like - presents all your role models as having
a certain type of behavior and look; it is harder to find dates and friends
if you don't meet the "norm"; you are stared at and sometimes even 
ostracized.

So I think that a woman can refuse to fit the Feminist norm (frankly,
having long curly hair and liking men doesn't mean she doesn't fit...maybe
"wear panty-hose and four inch heels and lipstick" is a better description
of a woman who doesn't fit the Feminist norm) and no one will tell her
she *can't*, or that she isn't a feminist.  Instead it will just be a certain
amount of funny looks, of assumptions about her attitudes, of ostracization,
which will make her feel *uncomfortable* as a Feminist who doesn't fit
the norm.

>    It's true that there has been some backlash in response to the radical
>    women in our movement (Andrea Dworkin, for example), but is the hatred
>    that some men (and women) express toward feminists *her* fault?!

I don't think the problems with Andrea Dworkin (and I speak of her in terms
of a political figure and what she stands for, not her as a *person*, here) 
isn't because of any "backlash" she may or may not have caused.  Radicalism
will always be met with resistence...and I think radicalism is crucial to
any movement.  I don't think there is anything wrong with Andrea Dworkin's
*methods*...

But I disagree with her cause.  And I think there are a lot of "feminists"
out there who don't consider themselves "Feminists" because Feminism has, to
a large degree, taken Dworkin to its bosom.  She (again, I am using her
as an embodiment of the sub-movement which she leads/is part of) *has*
effected the direction Feminism has taken - and I believe she has taken it
in a less-good direction.

So she is not at "fault" for feminist-haters - feminist-haters will find any
excuse.  She might, however, be at "fault" (a horrible word, not very accurate
but I can't think of a better one) for the direction Feminism has taken which
has left many feminists behind.

D!

ditto, D!

when I was pregnant with my first child, and working full-time as a software
engineer, there were lots of stereotypes applied to me.  Some are the ones a
feminist might expect to come up against -- pregnant women are treated
differently from the rest of us, even by me (protector of pregnant ladies...:-)
 -- but the one that sticks out in my mind is this.

I was talking about my post-natal plans with a (male) engineer, aged about 50.
He was pleased to hear that I was planning to go back to working full-time after
my baby leave, because it 'sends the wrong message about women engineers' for a
woman to delay or decline to return to work after a baby.

This bugs me.  I should be able to choose what is best for me, myself, as a 
woman, as a mom, as a person.  I don't live my life to send political messages.
I don't want to make my choices based on anything other than what will work best
for me and mine.

I definitely feel that I would have been frowned upon, had I decided to stop
working as an engineer for a lengthy period of time, or permanently.  I know
that women were not taken seriously in the work force in the 50s, the 60s, 
because we were all supposed to be June Cleaver.  But it seems that the other
extreme was reached in the 80s, that we must either be willing to put career
above all, or else that we must run ourselves ragged trying to have/do it all
(the Superwoman syndrome).

It may be due to mis-communication, or it may be deliberate, but the belief
is out there that Feminists frown upon women who make more traditional choices.

Sara

    My biggest complaint with the feminist movement is that it has been
    almost exclusively comprised of issues concerning white, upper-class
    women with professional jobs.  While I definitely think that white,
    upper-class women, with high IQ's should have equal opportunity with
    men in becoming corporate VP's, doctor, lawyers, pilots, etc., I would
    like to see the feminist movement try to do more to help the many women
    who are still working in traditionally female field, such as clerical,
    child-care worker, receptionist, waitress, sales-clerk, etc.  While
    professional women, both black and white, often earn the same as their
    male counterparts, secretaries and other clerical works are still paid
    far less than truck drivers, plumbers, electricians and carpenters
    (especially white males).  I would like to see more emphasis on helping
    working class women with average IQ's and SAT scores.
    
    I guess what I would really like is a sort of socialist/worker's rights
    movement combined with a feminist movement.  So far it seems that the
    emphasis in feminism is in making sure highly intelligent,
    well-educated women have equal opportunities with men (and I support
    that).  But, I'd like to see some even verbal support for the rest of
    the women who are still basically living the same life-style they would
    have been living without feminism (financially anyway - birth control,
    and legal abortions have helped everyone).
    
    Lorna
    

    
    What baffles me about the feminist movement is the same as what
    baffles me about any movement...
    
    Once any group reaches a "critical mass", it seems to *divide*
    on the basis of it's differences rather than *unite* on the
    basis of it's similarities.
    
    These factions then seem to put their energy into internicene
    fighting rather than making things happen - for themselves,
    or to produce a change in the view of the rest of the population.
    
    The feminist grouping is extremely broad - it could cover 
    women of all creeds, colours, beliefs, orientations, life-styles...
    And in the strength of all those women lies the power to change
    the world.
    But instead the movement divides and subdivides into smaller
    and smaller "special interest" groups until it's impossible to
    agree on an objective(s) and so to get anything *done*.
    The straight women and the gay women could separate, the black
    and the white,the men and the women, the pc and the non-pc, 
    the man-lovers and the man-haters, the Greer supporters and non-Greer 
    supporters, long hair and short hair, image conscious or not - whatever. 
    This weakens the whole movement in the eyes of the those it seeks
    to influence as it gives a public image of a disorganised, bitter 
    bunch of extremists. And, of course, the media doesn't help to
    alleviate this impression. Neither does the feminist label, IMO.
    
    I have heard that it is natural for groups to splinter like this -
    members need a sense of "belonging" which is impossible in a
    huge group. But if we need to splinter surely it is possible to
    do this in a constructive manner?
    
    'gail
    
    
    

    
    That sounds like pressure to conform to the male model. ENGINEERS don't
    take time off from work, certainly not to have children...
    
    The message that women can do things differently but equivalently is
    going to be one of the big challenges. Moreover, it IS true that the
    time you miss is time that other engineers are gaining in professional
    experience. And even in MY eyes, I can understand that an employer
    would want:
    	a.) the person with the most experience 
    	b.) the person who is less likely to leave in the middle of a
            project.
    
    I'm not quite sure whether its NOT true that these things make a
    difference. And as an employer, I might lean toward someone who seems
    most likely to stay on the job without interruptions. You'd have to do
    a lot of compensating for me (as employer) to overlook several 2 year
    absences from the work-force.
    
    So, if *I* think women have to be better to be as good, its small
    wonder that others do.
    
    Somebody PLEASE help me change my headset!!! :-) 

    re 807.8

    <...how some people attempt to lump us all into the "castrating lesbian
    <glass-chewing feminist bitch" mold ...

    phew
    for a moment thought that reply was aimed at me

.8 -

I agree with Jody - there's not anything "wrong" with feminism; but there's 
plenty wrong with how it's been being received. I couldn't believe the
following passage it a note written by man I know: 

      "I am angry.  About the deteriorating environment.  I remember
      in 1959 when I visited LA, I complained about the smog.  It has
      gotten worse.  And the crime.  And the ghastly car accidents.
      And the stress of life.  And so on.  How do you think I feel about 
      the reduced male role in the modern world?  Women conductors and
      women ministers and women doctors and women writers?

                                 I look back in anger..."

I didn't know what to say. All I could think of was Montreal...

D.                  

    Re: 807.7-
    
    Just to clarify:
    I asked the question- Is this to be the stance?
    
    I guess your answer is no.
    
    However - you are clear that it was a question and not an
    indictment Yes?
    
    I'm trying to avoid the misconceptions.
    The question was not meant to invoke anger, but to place the
    proposal on the table. 
    
    Just me, clarifying my objectives.
    
    Cindi

    
    I keep thinking of an analogy to criticisms of democratic forms of
    government, like the U.S. government, for example.  You can talk
    about the problems inherent to "democracy" - inefficiency or a danger
    that the needs of the individual will be ignored in favor of the needs
    of the larger community.  OR you can talk about the problems with this 
    (U.S.) government, or leaders in it.  It frustrates me when I complain about
    George Bush's alliance with Noriega, and people tell me, "You don't
    like democracy, go to Russia!"  Huh?  What does one have to do with the
    other?  Can't I complain about our government without being accused of
    hating democracy?  
    
    When we talk about feminism, I think the same kind of thing happens.
    There's the concept of feminism (which I think is fair and good and
    not exclusionary of anyone).  Then there are feminists who may or may
    not sometimes fall short in their attempt to live up to feminist ideals.  
    But when they (we) fall short, why blame feminism or all feminists?  I
    don't blame Thomas Jefferson for Reaganomics!  
    
    I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wish folks would say, "How
    UNfeminist of you to suggest that I'm selling out by shaving my legs!"
    Instead of, "See, feminists hate women who shave their legs."  
    
    D!, can I borrow the labrys Peggy passed on to you?
    
    The goddess values all women's choices (-)
                                            |
    
    Justine
                                        

    Can someone tell me who Andrea Dworkin is and what her stance is? I've
    gathered that she is a radical feminist. But that's just another label.
    
    manisha

    If the question is now "What is wrong with the feminist movement"
    my response changes.
    
    I do not know what is wrong with the Feminist movement.
    
    I have only watched it externally, and or lived it vicariously.
    In college the real "movement" members were often excusively
    attendants of the "Woman's" division of the university (Barnard).
    The majority of the women in the newly dual sexed College division
    were excluded from the bulk of the planning and purpose meetings.
    They were called on for support for rallies (Take Back the Night,
    and the Lavender activities), but were not, rank and file requested
    for the FWO groups. The same is true regarding minorities and that
    institution.  For shows of strength, the minority groups were called
    to lend support.  In general, however, we were not even advertized 
    to, or informed about when the meetings were.
    
    Although, within the then predemenantly male schools of engineering and the
    college, I was considered a strong proponent of the women's equality
    issues.  But then... that title was automatically granted to women
    who were "breaking up" the old boy college training ground.  By example
    I have been told "If you wanted to deal with those Feminist things,
    why didn't you go to Barnard."  And one of my highschool professors
    insisted that I must have gone to Barnard, because of his perspectives
    on my propensities- but none of this qualifies me to meaningfully
    dialog on the Movement itself.
    
    As a child, I remember being taken to the shelters for battered women,
    bringing clothes and food, and playing with other children that had
    just lost their homes to violence.  When I start brining the things
    and offering my skills towards building these homes myself, then
    I feel I will have joined at least one aspect of what I perceive
    as the movement.
    - or - 
      when I am strong enough to support individuals on the rape/abuse
    hotline I will also qualify personally as a member of the Movement.
    Until then...
    On this I will take the watcher's stance.
    
    How I interact with feminists, I am however, qualified to discuss,
    and will do so in REAL FEMINISTS.
    
    Cindi

fact:

Andrea Dworkin is an active feminist working to illegalize pornography.  
She originated (I think) that concept that pornography doesn't *portray*
violence against women but *is* violence against women by it's very 
nature.  She has written a number of books (whose names, of course, escape
me right now) and sponsored a number of anti-obscenity laws.

opinion:

While I have never actually heard *her* say this, some of her adherents
believe that *any* sort of penetrative sex is violence against women...

I classify Andrew Dworkin and her "dworks" with the other what I call
anti-sex activists.  I think she is wrong and I think she is steering the
Feminist Movement away from real issues, and is doing real and measureable
damage not only to Feminism but to society.

D!

 <I couldn't believe the following passage it a note written by man I know: 

      "I am angry.  About the deteriorating environment.  I remember
      in 1959 when I visited LA, I complained about the smog.  It has
      gotten worse.  And the crime.  And the ghastly car accidents.
      And the stress of life.  And so on.  How do you think I feel about 
      the reduced male role in the modern world?  Women conductors and
      women ministers and women doctors and women writers?

                                 I look back in anger..."

<I didn't know what to say. All I could think of was Montreal...
    
    What earthly good does it do to associate that oaf's remarks with
    the massacre of female engineering students in Montreal?
    
    Even to use it as a metaphor distorts communication so badly, that all
    one is going to see from most males is either anger or ridicule.
    
    So it becomes a tool -intended or otherwise- for alienation NOT
    rapprochement. 

More on Dworkin...

here is an excerpt from anti-obscenity bill she drafted with Catharine 
MacKinnon:

"Pornography is a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination 
based on sex that differentially harms women. The harm of pornography
includes dehumanization, sexual exploitation, forced sex, and social and
sexual terrorism and inferiority presented as entertainment.  The bigotry 
and contempt it promotes, with the acts of aggression it fosters, diminish
opporutinities of equal rights..."

and her definition of pornography:

"1) pornography is the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women
through pictures and/or words that also includes one or more of the
following: (i) women are presented dhumanized as sexual objects, things or
commodities; or (ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy
pain or humiliation; or (iii) women are presented as sexual objects
who experience sexual pleasure at being raped; of (iv) women are presented
as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically
hurt; or (v) women are presented in postures or positions of sexual 
submission, servility or display; or (vi) women's body parts - including
but not limited to vaginas, breasts or buttocks - are exhibited such that
women are reduced to those body parts; or (vii) women are repsented as whores
by nature; or (vii) women are presented being penetrated by objects
or animals; or (ix) women are presented in scenarios of degradation,
injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in
a context that makes these conditions sexual.

2) the use of men, children or transsexuals in the place of women in (1) above
is pornography for the purpose of this law."

D!

re: .33
>    What earthly good does it do to associate that oaf's remarks with
>    the massacre of female engineering students in Montreal?
 
    Because THAT is a main root of misogyny.
       
>    Even to use it as a metaphor distorts communication so badly, that all
>    one is going to see from most males is either anger or ridicule.
    
    Why are you speaking for most males?
    
>    So it becomes a tool -intended or otherwise- for alienation NOT
>    rapprochement. 
    
    In your case, perhaps.  Please do not generalize to the global.
    
    -Jody
    

    I think that saying 'most men' is a reasonable judgement.
    
    One helluva lot more reasonable a judgement than your comments about
    me.
    
    From my point of view there aren't more than a half dozen to a dozen or
    so women in this conference that seem close to the caricature in .8
    (wellm, maybe 13 or so)
    
    It's _often_ the case that the most vocal members of a movement are also
    the most 'far out'.
    People who I would characterize as 'Jacobins' (c.f. 685.2). 

    I think the 'Jacobins' in this conference are the only ones who cause
    problems. And except for their likely positive contribution as
    cheerleaders i don't think they do much good for the Women's Movement. 

    Where it gets to be a general sort of issue is that the main-stream
    folks in the conference sort of adopts these folks and defends them
    even though you realize that it isn't productive for the conference or
    even for the Jacobins themselves.

    
    .33 -
    
    I wasn't trying to do any particular "good" in making the association of
    the man's remarks, with what happened to the women in Montreal. It's
    simply that that's what went through my mind: this seemed to be a
    similar example of a male who is apparently very angry about any gains
    made by women; and who associates them in his mind with other instances
    of "environmental deterioration", like ghastly accidents, crime, and smog.
    What am I to think? Suppose his anger got out of hand? Suppose he had a
    gun?
    
    I was surprised that anyone still thinks like this, or maybe more
    accurately, I was surprised to see such an anti-woman, misogynist view
    explicitly spelled out.
    
    D.  
         

>    I think it's unfair to characterize Dworkin as an "anti-sex activist".
>    She is not anti-sex.

I knew you would.

I you knew I would disagree.

You will notice that I put that part under the "opinion" section of my note
rather than "fact."

I think the root of dworkinism is puritanism.  I think it is no coincidence
at all that the far left (Dworkin) meets the far right (Helms) on the
issue of sex and pornography.

I think traditional pornography presents women as beings whose purpose is
sexual pleasure for others.  I think dworkinism and fundamentalism portray
women as chaste and sexless.  I think the actuality lies in between, and
that *neither* side encourages women to express their natural sexual sides
that have remained repressed for so long now.

D!

    
    Well D!,
    
    I agree with what you say about how porn presents women; I doubt
    seriously if Dworkin presents women as you say, but I'd be interested
    in seeing the evidence for your view.
    
    A few months ago in Ms. Magazine Dworkin wrote a report on a recent trip to
    Israel, and was disturbed by many aspects of the position of women
    there, including a genre of pornography she hadn't known of before,
    Holocaust pornography, in which female victims are shown in settings that 
    evoke trains and showers...from what she said and the way she presented the 
    material, it was pretty hard (for me) not to sympathize with her views 
    about that.
    
    I'm not familiar with her views on penetration though. Someone told me
    that her view of rape is that *any* encounter that is not initiated by
    the woman is rape. If that's accurate, that *is* going too far!
    
    D.
                                     
    Kottlerism & Carrollism? I like it...or maybe, Diana and the Dorians?
    [barbarian invaders y'know  ;-) ]

Someone pointed out to my that by entering my two notes on Dworkin 
consecutively that I might be misinterpretted as thinking that I was using the
bill excerpt as a defense/support of my position against Dworkin.  That
is not the case - I entered the excerpts from the bill soley for informational
purposes, for Manisha and anyone else who might not know who Dworkin is.
It was *not* intended to prove or demonstrate anything. I have my own opinion
of dworkinism, and I will defend it, but I'd rather do it in the pornography
note rather than here, to avoid ratholing...

D!

    
    D!, I would agree that Dworkin (and other opponents of pornography)
    is A LEADER in the feminist movement, but I don't think she is _the_
    leader.  I think it's possible to identify as feminist and be say,
    strongly pro-choice but think that Dworkin is going too far.  I don't
    think you have to embrace every plank in the feminist "platform" to
    be considered a feminist.  In fact, I think disagreements, like the
    ones we have here, help to refine and shape feminist vision and action.
    
    Justine
    
    ps  Here we are well into Volume 3 of Womanotes, the 42nd reply to the
    807th note, and this is almost the first time that I have felt that we
    were really WOMANnotes...  Women talking, agreeing, disagreeing,
    explaining, clarifying, sharing...  about women's issues....  Don't let me 
    ruin it by calling that out... this is great.

    
    Justine, then it makes all the more sense that someone connected with
    Playboy would try to discredit Dworkin, even with underhanded tactics.
    
    

    
    
    RE .18
    
    	Well she is a comedian. Maybe she was poking fun at the subject.
    
    bonnie

    It had been my impression that Dworkin argued in her book "Intercourse"
    that penetration is inherently an act of violence against women.  I
    haven't read the book, so this is second hand and it could be that I
    heard wrong; or perhaps she did write that, and was engaging in some
    sort of hyperbole that only those in her camp understand.  Has anyone
    actually read this book?  Perhaps someone can shed some light.

    -- Mike

haven't read it, but can't agree with the comment as reported here.  It just
makes no sense in the real world, nor in any ideal world I'd be comfortable in.

    Actually, if one can say that Dworkin is a "leader" in the feminist
    movement, then I'd suggest that this is symptomatic of what is wrong
    with feminism.
    
    First, its my opinion that Dworkin hardly represents the mainstream, be
    it "feminist" mainstream or otherwise.  By "feminist" I mean "women
    seeking equality for women."  If this is true, then to say she's a
    leader of a feminism when in fact she's a leader of a fringe minority
    of that movement only causes people to see the more radical side of
    feminism.
    
    What this leads to, which is my second point, is these splinter groups
    being viewed by "outsiders" as representative of feminism.  Since
    these splinter groups are negatively viewed as extremist, that
    allows outsiders to draw the conclusion that all feminists are
    extremists.
    
    Its very similar to the undertone that feminism sometimes has that
    "men are the enemy."  Which leaves black women feeling a bit isolated
    since they need/want black men as their friends in fighting
    discriminate/oppression by whites.
    
    Jim

>I think it's possible to identify as feminist and be say,
>    strongly pro-choice but think that Dworkin is going too far. 

Of course.  I'm living proof that it is possible.

My point wasn't that it isn't possible but that it is discouraged.

Very seldom have I ever heard *for* *real* anyone say "You can't be a 
feminist if you <x>" where <x> is a non-conformist viewpoint or action.
More often it is just a matter of pressure from other Feminists *not*
to be/do <x>.  That is, <x> isn't used so much to define feminism as
it is a Feminist norm that is to be "aspired" to...

I'm not really sure this "pressure" thing is a flaw of feminism, per se.
Rather, I think it might simply be an inherent aspect of any culture - to
define a "norm" and then value the people in that culture according to
how close they are to the norm.

The norm in the patriarchy is middle-class white anglo-saxon protestant
able-bodied straight male.  In truth, the majority of people in Western 
culture do not fit the Western norm.  Perhaps "norm" is a bad word - maybe 
"ideal" is better.  Or "archetype".  Anything fitting the MCWASPABSM archetype 
is encouraged - anything that deviates is discouraged proportionate to 
how far it is from the norm.  "Discouragement" can take the form of
discrimination, ostracization/shunning or out-right violence.  For instance,
in Western culture, women fail to meet the ideal by being female, and they
are discriminated against and are the victims of violence.  

In my experience, the Feminist culture uses ostracization/shunning as its
primary means of enforcing (or encouraging) its members to behave and appear
in a particular way.  Obviously (at least to me) that is far preferable to
violence.  I'm not sure this is "bad" per se.  It might just a truth of
group dynamics.  But I do see a lot of people (myself, in the past) who
don't identify with Feminists because they don't fit the norm and don't
want to feel ostracisized.  As I said, not fitting the norm doesn't mean you
*can't* be a Feminist, just that you will be made to feel uncomfortable to
varying degrees.

The MCWASPABSM norm in Western culture is well established and understood.
Volumes and years of Feminist thought has gone into identifying and debunking
the archetype.  The "norm" in Feminist culture is not so well identified - 
I'm not sure what it is. I think a lot less energy has gone into studying
the Feminist culture than the Western culture; the patriarchy for the most
part has no interest in studying Feminism, and Feminism itself is too busy
studying to Patriarchy to study itself.

D!

>    What this leads to, which is my second point, is these splinter groups
>    being viewed by "outsiders" as representative of feminism.  Since
>    these splinter groups are negatively viewed as extremist, that
>    allows outsiders to draw the conclusion that all feminists are
>    extremists.

But this is the point Jody made - this [people viewing extremists are
representative of feminists] is not a "problem with feminism" but a "problem
with non-feminists."  While this tendency may *cause* problems for feminism,
it isn't a problem that Feminism itself has caused, nor is it one they 
can fix.

(Some would argue that they could "fix" the problem by getting rid of their
extremist faction, but that is a symptom cure - the problem of people
generalizing from extremists to the whole movement still exists; and I 
contend that radicals/extremists are vital to any movement and that cutting
out the radical fringe, even in the interest of improving Feminisms image,
will cripple the movement.)

This same sort of thing applies to the Gay Rights movement as well.  There
is a radical fringe (ala Queer Nation, ACT-UP, etc) which many people 
outside the movement mistakenly generalize as being representative of the
movement as a whole.  there are many both within and outside of the movement
who think that to aleviate this problem, the radicals should stop being
radical.  I say that is a symptom cure and won't do any real good.

D!
 

    More correctly, it's a problem with reporting. The typical 
    feminist who quietly states, "We're for equal pay for equal 
    work" gets a nod and a yawn from the press. The fringe feminist
    who says, (something on the order of) "Men are no good, sex is 
    a crime against women" sends those same reporters running to 
    their typewriters. Sensationalism sells newspapers and magazines.
    

re: .43

>    Justine, then it makes all the more sense that someone connected with
>    Playboy would try to discredit Dworkin, even with underhanded tactics.

   So you feel that Cynthia Heimlich(?) is from Playboy first, and a feminist
   only as a distant second?  Remember the context of this: she has just been
   called a feminist, and is now asked about the feminist label and what her
   peers at work read into it.  So by saying, in effect "well, they think of
   this image created by Andrea Dworkin, and because of that I don't get
   taken seriously as a feminist", she's trying to *discredit* Dworkin?

   I don't see it.  She never said anything against Dworkin's work itself,
   just frustration at the effects Dworkin's highly publicized works have
   had on people's perceptions of *her* as a feminist.  She is arguing that
   Dworkin's work has led her coworkers at Playboy to create a stereotype 
   of a feminist, which she is then expected to adhere to ("or get off this 
   feminist kick, dear").  OF COURSE she's angry and frustrated.  But I
   absolutely do not see how this translates to a hate of women on her part,
   any more than it translates to a hate of women on Dworkin's part.  I
   don't even see how she is maligning women who fit the "Dworkin stereotype".

   The odd thing is... doesn't Andrea Dworkin have long curly hair?  (Or do
   I have her mixed up with Starhawk?)

        Sharon

    

The person who writes for Playboy is Cynthia Heimel. She's the author of
"Sex Tips for Girls." I admit I was greatly put off by that book because of its
title and didn't read it until a friend whose opinion I respect greatly
suggested I read it.

I now give it as a gift to almost anyone I know that doesn't own it. It is
bitingly hilariously funny. I like Cynthia Heimel, and I'm almost tempted to
subscribe to Playboy just to read her column.

However, anyone who equates Cynthia Heimel with a Playboy apologist clearly
hasn't read her.

>   That sounds like pressure to conform to the male model. ENGINEERS don't
>   take time off from work, certainly not to have children...

This one did - eight weeks in fact. However I sympathize with what the doctor
was saying. There is a stereotype in the business world that women are not as
reliable workers as men because they get pregnant and sometimes don't come back.
How do we fight this stereotype? Words aren't enough. It's sad that this puts
an additional burden on professional women who get pregnant, but thats part of
our struggle for equality. Think of the sacrifices that the feminists before
us had to make.

As for whats wrong with the feminst movement? Well I think the fragmentation
and factionalization is unfortunate. I believe there is a vocal minority of
feminists who are in fact anti-sex, and I believe that feminists are getting
sidetracked into peripheral issues instead of focussing on sexual equality. I
found it very discouraging when ERA failed to get ratified. I think shifting
the fight to the states was a good tactic, and I think we're making progress.

	-- Charles

    I have taken a break from my career. After going to college full time
    while working full time I got my degree and then worked for 5 years in
    the accounting field.
    
    I now work 3rd shift as a lead computer operator so that I can spend
    more time with my kids. I like the technical field. There sure is lots
    to learn about VMS and hardware etc all.
    
    The point of this babbling is that I chose the business field. I worked
    hard and my career was moving forward. ( How do we spell yuppie?)
    Because I didn't want to have my kids raised by someone else I decided
    to jump ship for a while. I'm sure the stresses of the "suit life" will
    still be there when I'm ready. It is also true that my business skill
    sets are more constant than the technical ones of say an engineer. I
    mean technology changes so fast that a software engineers skill sets 
    may become obsolete before an accountants, for example. Or so I hear
    from some engineers.
    
    To me, my kids are most important. This does not diminish my capacity
    as a worker. To the contrary. My income is most important, not only to
    me but to my family as well. 
    
    My old manager, who was also a working mom, gave me a book to read
    after I gave birth to my son. It was called The Superwoman Syndrome.
    This book shoots holes in the myth that we, the woman of today can be
    all things to all people- worker, mother, daughter, chief cook and
    bottle washer, chaiffeur, councellor, peace maker, lover, wife etc,etc.
    We have to channel our energies,choose our courses and even pick our 
    fights very carefully. 
    
    The feminist movement has fought hard to allow us freedom of choice. I
    just wish the movement and it's participants would support all of us in
    our choices.
    
    Kate 
    
    
    

    
    re .25  
    'ren... I THINK it's 'ren.. still learning names here....
    
    How to change your mindset that if YOU were in the employer's shoes
    you would want the person with the most experience and least likely to leave
    for months on end...
    
    
    Think long term. 
                   
    Remember that the first few years of a person' life are the
    most important of their entire life in terms of setting their values
    their dreams and their expectations.  Remember that not all skills are
    learned out of a book, nor are skills necessarily lost when the person
    takes on other responsibilities.
    
    (here's the radical part)
    You as an employer are responsible for *not only* the success of your
    company (your factory/your office/your department, etc) as it relates
    to today, you are responsible for the *long term* development and success
    of your {fill in the blank}. 
    
    TRUE. your metrics *today* do not reflect anything *other* than a focus
    on today, or this quarter, but the handwriting is on the wall. 
    Demographically, over the next 15 years, the available labor pool will 
    *force* companies to consider people as long term assets, rather than
    highly substitutable commodities.  WHO are you going to hire? Consider
    your open mindedness TODAY as insurance for a better workforce
    tomorrow. 
    
    
    (in my opinion)
    In our U.S. society we currently have an extreme focus on the short
    term.  Economically (ie as compared to Japan) it's demonstrably a
    disadvantage. Can bucking the trend be done?  My guess is yes.  My *guess* is that
    managers who have a long term focus will eventually be much more
    succesful than their fellow managers who focus myopically on today
    only, or only on their dept.  The tradeoff might be that it takes
    longer to be recognized as successful, and (IMO) we are geared to
    quick, short term results. 
    
    and, since it's in this topic, think as a feminist... No, don't hire
    women because they sit instead of stand, hire those people who have a
    more long term view of humanity.     
    
    Jamd
                            

    
    I'm trying. Really.
    
    I picture the old days, when there was job security, and some people
    stayed in the same job for 10-20 years, and you went to them for things
    'cause they'd seen EVERYTHING at least once before, they could tell you
    about way back when, when whozeewhatsis tried that and what a fiasco it
    became because s/he didn't remember to do X or Y...
    
    You are right. Companies AND people in the US do not think long term.
    Companies are doing more and more tag/temp/contract employees because
    they are cheap, and individuals do company hopping because its
    lucrative. Here in Hudson, I heard that a GOOD layout designer is best
    obtained through contracting. Somebody else pays for his/her
    experience, and once s/he has it, you hire him/her. And yeah, you pay
    $20-40 per hour, but YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRAIN THEM! So, I see a trend in
    companies being less and less willing to invest in employees and
    employees being less and less willing to stay with a company.
    
    Okay, let's say I think long-term. I'm going to train this employee.
    I'm going to educate this employee. HOW DO I KEEP THIS EMPLOYEE???
    The more I do, the more marketable s/he is! How do I ensure loyalty?
    What carrot can I use without going broke... Or do I use a stick? For
    every bit of education, there is a contract for time owed to the
    corporation, or the education must be paid for?
    
    At the same time... what can I do if my prize employee gets
    incapacitated in the middle of a project? What about LONG-TERM
    incapacitated!?! ON PURPOSE! I think that's the thing I'm still
    struggling with. Nobody goes out and tries to break a leg, or get
    cancer, or become a paraplegic. But some people Do go out and get
    pregnant. And some people do want to stay home once the child is born.
    THAT WAS MY ***INVESTMENT***. 
    
    If I were an employer, I would be tempted to mix some sticks with the
    carrots. I want the employees I train to STAY. Now insurance will cover
    the broken legs and even the paraplegics, but it won't cover someone
    who chooses motherhood over employment. So, I would say that anyone I
    educate owes me. And that would be a contract - if you default the
    time, you owe me money. As a carrot, I would offer leaves of absence
    that would grow as your length of employment grew. A person with 10
    years in the company might be entitled to 1-2 years leave. Maybe even
    with benefits (not pay).
    
    But that's as far into the future as I can see. As a technical
    employer, I know that if you leave the field for 5 years, you're
    OBSOLETE. Sure administration and management don't change, but
    engineering does. Science does. That's why I kept sending you for
    training.
    
    So, its still hard for me to see bringing in someone who is virtually
    coming out of semi-retirement over someone else who is fresh from an
    up-to-date competitor. 
    
    I don't see it as a gender issue. But I do know that when you throw in
    reality, there will probably be more women with gaps in their careers
    than men. I still don't know how to handle that one.
    
    BTW, my knowledge of the Japanese is that they virtually FORCE women
    into this semi-retirement at around 35, assuming that they should be
    with their families. It is the providers, who must now constantly
    provide for families, that the companies want. So, I guess there's
    merit in hiring single women with families...
    
    Yeah, I know, that last line doesn't sound too good. But it may be
    true.

    The radical nutcakes get too much press.

                                   L.J.

    People repeat themselves to often.
    
    D!

    re:'ren (a few back) Women in the workforce.
    
    It seems as though women are always going to be an important portion
    of the workforce. 50% of women with year old babies work full time.
    In a fairly stable economy, I mean one without drastic unemployment,
    working mothers are needed.
    
    Since women will always be the childbearers some accomodations must be
    made to lure them back into the workforce. Highly trained professional
    women have left because they could not find adequate day care provisions.
    Many would have gladly returned after a year's leave but weren't
    granted the leave. 
    
    You know what would be nice? I'd love to see a date and time set when
    all mothers with dependant aged children walked off their jobs. I'm
    talking all at once, now. In every city and every town across America.   
    
    And while we're at it we'll go on strike from the child rearing and the
    house cleaning. We'd all go on vacation to the south of France although
    I doubt we'd all fit.
    
    This country would be paralyzed. Boy, that's be a hoot!
    
    Maybe someday.
    
    Kate
    

    re .59, I'd like to see it, too.  If something were really done about
    the daycare problem for working mothers then I'd be convinced that most
    men don't think taking care of kids is women's work.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE .55 'ren....
    
    It ain't an easy one, is it?
    (where to start... and how to keep my own thoughts straight)
    
    Long term usually means it gets worse before it gets better. (Hmmm
    feeling cynical today, are we?) 
    Think about the environmental movement.  In the early 60's it was a
    phenomenal step forward to have "keep america beautiful" trashcans
    around, even while we were, on the whole, digging ourselves deeper,
    faster, every year. A few days ago, I saw, On *SESAME STREET* a brief
    skit on conserving water while you brush your teeth.  Kids are getting
    a message about the fragility of the environment that my generation,
    at that age, wouldn't have dreamed of.  My housing development is
    jumping on the boat w/ many other areas out here, and getting
    into curbside recycling. two years ago, neither I nor my neighbor would
    have even considered touching that gooky can so we could put it in the
    right trashcan.  Today, we're building nifty 4-compartmented trash
    receptacles so we can do it easily.
    
    We're still not thinking long term, but 1) we're thinking a smidgen
    longer-term, and 2) the handwriting on the wall is getting clearer.
    
    Point?  Change comes slowly, so don't lose hope.  The long term goal,
    or one of 'em, that I read in your note, was "how do I make sane,
    humanistic mangerial decisions, how do I optimize my work and keep my 
    job/keep competitive? 
    
    You make some really good points.  Tough points.  I think you're on track 
    with the "carrots and sticks" idea. MCI does it already.  If you take 
    training, and you leave within 1 year after it's completed, you must pay 
    back the company.  Tandem allows a leave of absence after some period of 
    time, so the employee can re-charge.  The miltary trades eduction for
    enlistment time.
    
    I need to sign off for awhile, but I'd like to try again later. 
    This is convoluted, but idealistic me says there's an answer or a start
    of one, in here somewhere.. 
    
    Maybe we should move this elsewhere?
    
    Jamd
               

    re:.58
    
    I'd love to respond, but I'm ignoring women right now.
    
    Doesn't that sound misguided and futile?  I mean, all women are
    not alike.  But what the heck.
    
    Here's the smiley face so you know I'm not serious.  :-)
    
                                L.J.