Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    How do you mean, Patricia?  Sounds to me like that malady you so
    often exhibit - that predisposition, common among women and especially
    those on a Liberal religious crusade, to exaggerate, to misunderstand, to 
    blow out of proportion, to emotionalize that which is not inherently
    complicated, or in this case, that which is not meant in any way to be
    offensive.
    
    I fully concur with Knox concerning the "monstrous regiment" resulting
    from women in religious leadership.
    

"Can we agree to disagree, Patricia?  I don't need to keep trying to convince
you that you're wrong, that the feminism that you have become entangled in is
a satanic deception, that the "wisdom" of feminism, which is based on bitter
envy and self-seeking, is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil, and where it is
found there is confusion and disorder and every evil thing (James 3:14-16)."

"   considering some of the ideas brought forth here by yourself(Patricia),
    Cindy, and  others are, with all due respect, quite foreign to logic and
    critical thinking. "

    And I stand by it, and I will not relent.  Example three is a SHAM and
    will always be a sham as far as I'm concerned.  
    
    You cannot throw a hissy fit everytime somebody states something that
    is MISPERCEIVED as non gender neutral.  We would live in a world of
    anxiety, fear, and paranoia.  Your usage of example three is an
    indicment on you.  It is bazarre to refer to this as sexism.  There are
    plenty of men who can't think critically either.
    
    -Jack  

  "  You cannot throw a hissy fit "

	Jack, you should quit before you fall further behind.

	I will agree that example three, on it's own, didn't seem like a sexist
remark. That was until later on when you said that you were only directing it
at Cindy & Patricia.


Glen

    Hiss - 1. A sharp sibilant sound similar to a sustained.  2 An
    expression of disapproval or contempt conveyed by a hiss.  3. To make a
    hiss.
    
    The American Heritage Dictionary has defined this gender neutrally. 
    Since you have made the accusation, it is up to you to prove otherwise.
    
    -Jack

    Glen, it might be best if you don't get involved.  It most certainly
    was directed at Cindy and Patricia...but it had absolutely nothing to
    do with their gender.
    
    -Jack

    
    Give it up, Jack!
    
    You've a snowball's chance in hell of changing Patricia's mind or even
    getting her to acknowledge a reasonable complaint.
    
    jeff

    Well here is the thing I'm trying to show.  There has been a lurking
    demon found in every reply I've made...including this one I'm sure.  
    I think this will stand as a monument as to how ridiculous Political
    Correctness has become.  
    
    I simply refuse to walk on egg shells here.  I will seek reasonable
    instruction on such matters but I will not give in to the nonsense that
    is being propogated in society.  I'll see them in the welfare line
    before I do it and as you know, I have a snowball's chance in hell of
    ever doing that.
    
    -Jack
    
    

This isn't political correctness, Jack.  It's a refusal to allow sexist
statements to go unchallenged.

				-- Bob

    Like...hissy fit Bob?  I would venture to say that if example three
    were posted in womannotes, it wouldn't be considered a sexist remark. 
    I just might do this as an experiment!
    
    -Jack  

ZZ    It's a refusal to allow sexist
ZZ    statements to go unchallenged.
    
    This statement implies that I am a slow learner.  It is proven that
    young girls learn quicker than young boys.  Therefore, this is a sexist
    remark.

	Jack, .7 is a great noun description. The verb #2 description, "To show 
disapproval by hissing" might be the more accurate one, though.


Glen

ZZ     Jack, .7 is a great noun description. The verb #2 description,
ZZ    "To show disapproval by hissing" might be the more accurate one, though.
    
    Right, and since hissy is an adjective in my usage, and since both
    genders can and do hiss, then it is not a sexist remark!

Jack,

I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with the term "hissy fit", but
my impression when I read it was that it was the sort of thing you might
say in reference to a woman and not to a man.  Maybe because "hissy"
sounds like a cross between "sissy" and "hussy".

				-- Bob

    
    Please remember in these discussions that perceptions are very real 
    to those doing the 'perceiving'.  
    
    Jack, you perceive you have no intent to be 'sexist' or derogatory.
    You know your heart and intent.
    
    However, from someone elses view, the perception is that some of 
    words spoken are 'sexist' or derogatory or belittling.  That is 
    do to the frame of reference to the person reading those words.  
    That stance is valid as well. 
    
    It really doesn't hurt anyone to take into consideration where others
    might be when we write or speak.  I have a reputation for speaking 
    what is on my mind.  And I have really hurt folks without intending 
    to.  My first reaction is 'they should KNOW my intent is not to hurt
    but to speak what I see as the truth'.  That is due to me putting MY 
    feelings first.  But I have found that folks here my 'opinions' a 
    whole lot better when I try to speak or write in a manner that is not
    offensive to them.  And many times I still offend.  But not so often
    as when I don't take into consideration how folks like to be treated.
    
    Would I tell a male that he is having a 'hissy fit'?  Yes, depending
    on who it is.  It all depends on the audience.
    
    A former boss of mine tends to use what I have perceived as sexist 
    terms.  I have spoken to him VERY directly about it.  He was astounded
    that I interpretted his terms as sexist.  He did not intend to be.  His
    colleagues use the same terms and do not perceive them as sexist. 
    However, they invariably have female customers point out their use of 
    some terms as sexist.  So they have some choice--continue to use these
    terms which they do not consider as sexist OR find terms that convey 
    the same message but are not perceived as sexist by most of the women
    who hear them.  
    
    Will it hurt these folks to change some common terms in their speech?
    Probably not.  Will it help their communication with most of the women
    they interact with?  Absolutely.   
     
    I still reserve speaking straight and from the heart with folks that 
    I know prefer to communicate in that manner.
    
    Mary Jo 
    

    Well noted.  I still think it would be good however, if people wouldn't
    intentionally look for a demon anywhere they can find it.
    
    I work with a woman who told me the other day that all men are
    perverts.  Now I know this person but I also know that I feel
    comfortable enough with who I am to withstand such overt remarks of
    sexism.  Because I am this way, I expect others in kind to have the
    same ability and confidence in who they are to be able to do the same.
    
    Her remark about men wasn't even a fleating moment of care.  I know all
    men aren't perverts and therefore statements like that simply don't
    bother me.
    
    -Jack

    
    RE .3
    
    I don't agree with the charges leveled in example 3, but neither do I
    agree with the charge that it is sexist.
    
    Eric
    

    
    
    > You cannot throw a hissy fit everytime somebody states...
    
    Speaking of hissy fits.... :^)
    
    Eric
    

    
    Re .5

    The term "hissy fit" is sexist? I thought of it as a whiny tantrum;
    childish perhaps, but not feminine. 
    
    Eric
    

    
    re Political Correctness
    
    Claims of eschewing political correctness, are usually used as an
    excuse to be rude or vulgar.
    
    Eric

    Right.  Political Correctness is an overused term at times.  I thought
    it was appropriate for example three however, because sexism simply
    wasn't there.  I was speaking in regards to two intelligent
    individuals...who happen to be women.
    
    Now here's an example.  I was going to say two intelligent, well
    rounded individuals, but didn't say it for fear it would be politically
    incorrect to call women "well rounded".  See what I mean?
    
    -Jack

    	I don't see any of the three examples as being sexist.  Oh,
    	those at whom the first two comments are directed could certainly 
    	think so, but those statements are carefully qualified in their
    	focus, and are NOT directed at women in general.  And the third
    	statement?  Others say the same thing as I do.  I'll go even one
    	step further and suggest that those who take offense at that one
    	are merely looking to be offended.  (Whether male or female.)  
    
    	Regarding the first two, even if I disagreed with the statements, 
    	I can still see that they are directed to a specific ideology and 
    	not to women in general.  This alone spares them from being sexist.  
    	Their accuracy, though, is the clincher.  Truth cannot be sexist.
    
    	Call me sexist for speaking my mind.  I don't care.  I could
    	have done the easier thing and simply held my tongue and let
    	others take the heat.
    
    	Did anyone expect a different answer from me?  :^)

    
    Re.last
    
    Joe, 
    
    How can you *possibly* think that at least example 1 is not sexist?
    
    > common among women and especially those on a Liberal religious 
    > crusade, to exaggerate, to misunderstand, to blow out of proportion, 
    > to emotionalize ...
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    Let me pose this question to you and please answer objectively.  The
    mere fact that Example three was posted shows that the poster is guilty
    of the same practice I am accused of.  Taking something I said,
    misreading it, then drawing a conclusion based on a faulty premise to
    stand for the world to see?
    
    Be honest now!  I call a spade a spade when I see it, you can do it
    too!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1182.26 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Be honest now!  I call a spade a spade when I see it, you can do it too!

	And don't think no one noticed that you only refuted #3 in your note!

    As Spocks wife stated...
    
    Specify.

    Example one and two are blatant sexism.  It hard to believe but I guess
    not surprising that some would not see the sexism.
    
    Example three is a bit more subtle.
    
    It plays on the same stereotype.  Men are Rational/logical:Women
    woman are emotional.
    
    It follow along right behind the more blatant example.
    
    It singled out Two woman and only women.
    
    The charges i.e. Cindy and I are are not using reason/logic are
    vague and unfounded.
    
    And of course Jack jumping up and down claiming I was taking a hissy
    fit just reinforced the whole argument.
    
    Of course posting a note as an example of sexism can hardly be
    considered taking a "hissy fit"
    
    I suspect the amount of time it takes for people to identify example 3
    as a sexist statement, is an accurate measure of how sensitive a person
    is to gender stereotyping. 
    
    (Steve, I am sorry to say, you probably don't even get on the
    chart!)
    
    

    
    Patricia,
    
    If Jack's note were addressed to me, a reasonable facsimile of a man,
    would it have been sexist? The question is did Jack make the statements
    he did *because* you and Cindy are women? Jack says no. 
    
    What would be a non-sexist way for Jack to call a woman's statement
    illogical or irrational? Once I have that information I'll be able to
    understand your viewpoint better. 
    
    Eric

    People prejudge all sorts of things for a multitude of very good reasons.  
    (flat brown tomatoes are not going to taste good, dump trucks will get 
    lousy mileage and days in december are cold).  When it comes to people, we 
    tend to do the same thing, however wrong it may be (short people are not 
    good basketball players, people with low IQs will not make good engineers, 
    blind people are not good workers). 
    
    People prejudge others on the basis of the color of their skin, their
    political affiliations, their religion or lack thereof, the language(s)
    they speak, their marital status, their IQ, their height, their weight, 
    their weeknesses, their ethnicity, their strengths, even the dammed car 
    they drive.  Now you tell me that people prejudge people on the basis of 
    their gender.  So what.  Everyone falls victim to unjustified 
    discrimination.  Being a white, non-handicapped male, I'm victim of
    legal discrimination in the form of affirmative action.  So what. I go
    about my life, vote when the time comes, and hope for the best.  I'm
    also half Polish.  And when I hear a "dumb-pollock" joke I either
    ignore it or laugh if it's funny.  Life's too short for anything else.If 
    people are "REALLY" getting hurt, that's another matter.  All in all, we 
    haven't got a lot to really complain about if our bellies are full and 
    our backs are dry.
    
    -dave
    
    

    Well Patricia, for your information.  Your sensitivity to the
    stereotyping has lead you to draw the wrong conclusion.  Hissy fits are
    gender neutral, trust me.  Men are prone to think illogically, trust
    me.  You just Assumed I was being sexist because...
    
    1. I directed my remark at two people who happed to be women and
       happened to be in the fray of the discussion.
    
    2. You assumed I live by this law that men are rational and women are
       emotional based on what you said here...
    
    ZZZ  It plays on the same stereotype.  Men are Rational/logical:Women
     
     I defy you to provide a pointer where I have ever implied this.  I
    have stated that men and women are not alike; however the above has
    never come from my lips!
    
    -Jack  

    My question to Cindy still stands.  Was Example three a case of
    somebody drawing an incorrect conclusion?
    
    Patricia, I am NOT trying to pick on you here.  You may have
    justifiable reason for feeling the way you do.  I am telling you
    however that your example three is misread and incorrect!  The
    conclusion I hope to make is that among OBJECTIVE adults, we are ALL
    open to the fallacy of making faulty premises based on what we read.
    Misinterpretation is available to all who misinterpret!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I have no doubt that you number three is sexist.  In the context of the
    conversation, in being addressed soley to cindy and I and your use of
    the terms.  I fully understand that you don't see it.  That your
    subconscious attitudes about women lead you to that conclusion.
    
    I also have no doubt that rationally you know that men are just as
    capable of taking a "hissy fit" as women.  I do not hear you using that
    phrase with women.
    
    Eric an example I could give you was the Jeff's comments to you about
    not spilling your guts was gender stereotyping.  The implication was
    that spilling one's guts is not a "manly" thing to do.  It is a very
    subtle form of criticism geared to reinforce men acting like "men" and
    women acting like "women".
    
    

ZZ    I have no doubt that you number three is sexist.  In the context of the
ZZ    conversation, in being addressed soley to cindy and I and your use of
ZZ    the terms.  I fully understand that you don't see it.  That your
ZZ    subconscious attitudes about women lead you to that conclusion.
    
    Well then I'm afraid I must take exception to your putting me in a box
    like this.  Cindy and you were the only ones included in my retort
    because you and Cindy were the ones I was speaking to...nothing more.
    I can't help this and when I'm speaking to you, or to Cindy, then I
    would expect Eric or Glen or whomever not to consider themselves being
    addressed in the dialog.  That would only make sense.  
    
    For what it's worth, I;ve referred to Glen as a pain on more than one
    occasion.  Somebody might see this as a stereotype toward nagging wives
    or mother n laws, yet I said it to a man.  Your putting terms like
    hissy fit and what not into a stereotype category is quite subjective
    on your part wouldn't you say?
    
    -Jack

    I found all three sexist, #3 because women are consistantly treated as
    childlike in many sexist cultures.  
    
    I don't care who wrote them, if it had been another woman who wrote
    those notes,  I would still find them sexist.  
    
    the level of denial from some participants in this file is incredible.
    
    meg

             <<< Note 1182.25 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>

>    How can you *possibly* think that at least example 1 is not sexist?
>    
>    > common among women and especially those on a Liberal religious 
>    > crusade, to exaggerate, to misunderstand, to blow out of proportion, 
>    > to emotionalize ...
    
    	Because the author specifically singled out the "liberal religious
    	crusade".  And, frankly, such 'crusaders' often tend to misunderstand
    	because of their crusade's mindset and focus, and they blow things
    	out of proportion for the same reason, and when discussing those
    	things that they misunderstand they are often overly emotional...
    
    	From my side of the fence, these things are obvious.
    
    	To be fair, I fail to understand such crusaders' reasonings for
    	abortion (for example), and I don't deny that the issue can make
    	me emotional -- sometimes overly emotional, and I'm sure that I
    	emphasize the gruseome brutality such that you might consider it
    	blown out of proportion.
    
    	It's all a matter of perspective, and my perspective does not
    	see any of the three examples as sexist.

    ZZ    the level of denial from some participants in this file is
    ZZ    incredible.
    
    Meg, my main concern here is intent, to which Patricia addressed this,
    and I understand what she is saying.  However what appears reasonable
    to me is that it is not overt and it is not intentional.  In the true
    context of what I said, my intent has absolutely anything to do with
    how I feel toward women.
    
    Another big fallacy regarding mislabels is this notion that anti
    abortion people like myself surely must want to be this way so as to
    control the decisions of women.  Nonsense of course; I'm a big advocate
    of birth control as you know.  It is just an example of an assumption 
    that feminist' seem to make toward men like myself.  
    
    Meg, not to rathole but I'm curious.  Do you believe Paula Jones is
    right in suing the president?  Your answer will reveal agenda and
    agenda is a big part of what drives peoples thought process, especially
    toward sexism.  In other words, Chief Justice Thomas in your eyes might
    be a rabid sexist.  I'm curious if you would extend President Clinton
    the same courtesy.
    
    -Jack

    
    > The implication was that spilling one's guts is not a "manly" thing to
    > do. 

    If that is the implication, I missed it and still do. 

    I can't help but wonder if we're seeing a sociological example of the
    Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. That is, the closer we get to
    analyzing the meaning of someone else's notes, our personal measuring
    processes affect the output. Something to think about anyway.
    
    Eric 

    
    > I don't care who wrote them, if it had been another woman who wrote
    > those notes,  I would still find them sexist.  
    
    Ok, but my question is, if Jack's comments were made to a male noter,
    would you still find it sexist. If not, then isn't it sexist to say one
    must use different language when addressing women as opposed to men?

    Eric

    PS. FWIW, I'm not on a crusade or anything; I just find this discussion
    interesting and *very* educational.

    Eric,
    
    Yes it stil would have been sexist.
    
    Some people like to dehumanize people by calling them some negative
    term, generally used stereotypicaly toward a group which has been
    historically oppresed.  Certain people (and they know who they are)
    have used stereotypical female sayings against male noters in this and
    other files.  They are dehumanizing women, as well as attempting to
    dehumanize their particular, percieved enemies by doing this.
    
    It is much the same when a person refuses to use a persons real name,
    preferring to dredge up another person, thing, or whatever,
    historically dehumanize others.  
    
    meg

    
>    Eric an example I could give you was the Jeff's comments to you about
>    not spilling your guts was gender stereotyping.  The implication was
>    that spilling one's guts is not a "manly" thing to do.  It is a very
>    subtle form of criticism geared to reinforce men acting like "men" and
>    women acting like "women".
 
    Patricia, you're way over the top on this one!!!
    
    You really should get out more.
    
    jeff   
    

    
    re .41

    But I think *sometimes* we confuse something that is simply rude with
    something sexist. You see, if Jack's comments are sexist, then we have
    emasculated our ability to communicate, making it impermissible to
    criticize the logic, sensitivity, or appropriateness of any statement
    woman's statement, because that, by definition, would be sexist. I
    would expect then that statements like "typically male response" or
    "overbearing male hierarchy" would be equally impermissible.

    I think charges of sexism, like charges of racism, should carry great
    weight and the sting of a righteous rebuke. Unfortunately, the more we
    use these terms on banal examples (example 3) rather than just
    superlative ones (example 1), we bleach them down to meaninglessness.
    Or worse, political code words like "family values", or "political
    correctness."
                                                                    
    If I say to a woman, "Methinks thou doest protest too much" I could be
    charged as a sexist, suggesting that this woman is overreacting in
    typical female fashion. If, on the other hand, a woman says to me,
    "Methinks thou doest protest too much" then she is sexist for
    suggesting I am being relentless and unyielding and refuse that a woman
    could be right, in typical male fashion. In reality we are just two
    people who are protesting too much.

    Eric
    

ZZ    Certain people (and they know who they are)
ZZ    have used stereotypical female sayings against male noters in this
ZZ    and other files.  They are dehumanizing women, as well as attempting to
ZZ    dehumanize their particular, percieved enemies by doing this.
    
    And obviously you are speaking about me Meg.  I already told everybody
    here about the "Senorita" incident.  My remark to Topaz would have been
    equated to, "you throw like a girl".  Although not meant maliciously, I
    understood the implication after it was pointed out.  Therefore, you
    are beating on a dead horse.
        
ZZ    It is much the same when a person refuses to use a persons real
ZZ    name, preferring to dredge up another person, thing, or whatever,
ZZ    historically dehumanize others.  
    
    Yes, you mean like my use of the name "Evita" for our first lady. 
    Again I was asked not to use it and I stopped so again we are beating
    on a dead horse.  I have this little problem with Socialism and am
    trying to get over it; unfortunately without success.  It has nothing
    to do with her gender but with her ideology.
    
    I'd still be interested in your opinion about Paula Jones in contrast
    to Anita Hill.
    
    -Jack
    

    Amazing but true, Ted Koppel on Nightline in a dialog with his guest
    used the term, "sissy fit" to describe Newt Gingrich' response to
    President Clinton at a meeting.  
    
    At least I used the term "Hissy Fit" as a gender neutral term.  What do
    our readers this of this?  It seems to me Koppel proved that sexism is
    an ingrained part of our culture if the term is really sexist.  He used
    it on National Television quite openly.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Like a lot of things, that has nothing to do with the gender of a
    person.  Using terms that deny a person's humanity is not gender
    specific, although it is a technique which has been used to put women
    in a seperate category from the human race, it has been used on people
    of color, people who are in leadership places and other people of many
    categories. 
    
    Neither Paula nor Anita have had their day in court, and the testimony
    of Anita Hill's supporters was timed to coincide with a national
    basketball final, so they weren't covered live, unlike Thomas and his
    supporters.  One could wonder there, but I am sure there was no
    intention to do that to her on a conscious level.  Paula will have her
    chance once Clinton is out of office, if she still chooses to press her
    suit.
    
    meg

    I realize that.  What I want to know Meg is that if Paula Jones wins
    this case and Clinton is without doubt found guilty, will you show
    equal disdain for him as you may have for Clarence Thomas?  It would do
    you well to have this because oppression is oppression!
    
 ZZ    people who are in leadership places and other people of many
 ZZ    categories. 
    
    Meg, over in Great Britian, they sell toilets with the the Queen's
    picture in it.  They sell ash trays and spittoons with the queens
    picture in it.  Over there, they have a somewhat less respectable
    opinion of authority than we do over here.  Having a picture of Hillary 
    on the inside of a commode would bring the roof down with the NOW
    groups and every other women's organization here in the states.
    
    I have heard that here in America, the conservative right has a far too
    rigid view of sex.  Likewise, would it be fair to say that women in
    this country have a far too rigid attitude toward "hate speech", based
    on what I told you about Great Britian?
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    Hate speech is hate speech, and contributes to the more violent world
    we live in in this country.  Faces on toilets is not hate speech, there
    is a picture of the person.  However, making references about a person
    that are less than humannizing is another matter.
    
    Do you realize that psychotics that murder have depersonalized the
    person to the point where the victims become only objects that hurt
    them?  Listening to the people who inspired the murderer of Rabin, and
    those who have murdered blacks, uppity women, gays, and yes clinic
    workers and the way the depersonalize these people makes me wonder why
    some people don't think before they open their mouths.
    
    meg

    
    
    Yet you vehemently support the dehumanization of the unborn child, Meg,
    which has led to over 30 million innocent deaths in the USA.
    
    jeff

    jeff,
    
    At least I don't consider women to be nothing more than uteruses with
    legs, pregnancies to be a punishment from a diety, and resulting
    children to be bastards and evidence of "deplorable behavior"  Remember
    that for 30 million abortions there were 30 million women whose lives
    were changed forever because of an abortion, and at least another 30
    million whose lives were changed forever because of carrying to term. 
    Many of them have been demonized in this country in the last year, for
    doing what was right, carrying to term, and raising their children the
    best they know how.  Or do you deny that people have used the terms
    "welfare Queen" toward women who are staying at home trying to give
    their child the critical grounding only a parent can in the early
    years?
    
    If you haven't been a woman's shoes on a tragic decisions,
    don't judge, but we can take this to a pro-choice topic.
    
    

    
    > ...there were 30 million women whose lives were changed forever
    > because of an abortion,

    This assumes there are no women who had more the one abortion... but I
    won't say that your assertion is illogical or emotional or anything
    like that. :^)

    > If you haven't been a woman's shoes...

    Well that leave me out; I've never been anyone's shoes. :^)

    Eric

    PS. I realize I have no room to chuckle at someone else's typo's,
        but...

Excuse me, the term 'hissy fit' is short for 'hysterical fit';  'hysterical' 
comes from a Greek root, 'hyster', meaning 'womb'.

Last time I checked, wombs were pretty much specific to the female sex...

D. 

    Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know and apparently nobody else
    here did either, otherwise it would have been brought up before.
    
    I thought it was a word for hiss...like a cat!

           <<< Note 1182.50 by CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors" >>>
    
>    At least I don't consider women to be nothing more than uteruses with
>    legs, pregnancies to be a punishment from a diety, and resulting
>    children to be bastards and evidence of "deplorable behavior"
    
    	This is precisely the kind of statement that I label as 
    	hysterics -- and I am on record as having done so to both
    	male and female noters.  I will not step down from this
    	position out of concern for political correctness or any
    	other such reason.
    
    	Meg, you do nothing but appeal to undue emotion with such a
    	statement.  You are addressing the extreme of the extreme.
    	I will not deny that SOMEONE supports this, for we can find
    	someone to support anything in this bright, broad world.
    	I can also find you women who believe that men are nothing
    	more than sperm providers, but I recognize that they are
    	also the extreme of the extreme, and eventhough I see your
    	views as extreme, I do not associate that very extreme
    	statement with you.
    
    	But on a regular basis I see you relying on statements like
    	the one I quoted from you to make your arguments.  I will
    	continue to call you on them, and will not back down from
    	labeling them as hysterics, for that is what they are.  
    	Political correctness and personal indignance will not change
    	the meaning of the word.

    And referring to my statements as hysterics will not get me to change
    my mind in any way, shape, or form on who you are.
    
    meg

    	Sadly, Meg, I believe that nothing I can do or say will change
    	the way you see me.  But at least by posting .53 I have made
    	myself clearer to others.
    
    	I'd rather be true to myself than concern myself with a brick 
    	wall I cannot climb.

    
    I too found all three sexist.
    
    Dolores

| <<< Note 1182.49 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Yet you vehemently support the dehumanization of the unborn child, Meg,
| which has led to over 30 million innocent deaths in the USA.

	Apples and oranges, Jeff..... but nice try.

    I hope people reading this see that 100% of the woman responding and
    about 30% of the men responding found all three examples sexist.
    
    Each person can interpret these results any way they want.  Anyone who
    is at all interested in communications between the sexes should
    understand that the difference is significant.

ZZ    I hope people reading this see that 100% of the woman responding
ZZ    and about 30% of the men responding found all three examples sexist.
    
    Let's get back to example three again.  I really believe this needs
    further discussion.
    
    Patricia, you never really gave a satisfactory answer.  Your
    consideration of example three being sexist is really not of
    consequence.  What TRULY counts is the intent of the writer, that being
    myself.  
    
    Again, you are doing what Cindy accuses me of on a regular basis.  You
    are reading example three, making a faulty premise, and therefore
    drawinf a faulty conclusion on what you THINK you are reading.  I'm
    telling you this, not merely suggesting it but telling you.  The only
    way you can justify otherwise is if you think I'm a flat out liar.
    
    -Jack

    "All women should be barefoot and pregnant and at home taking care of
    the kids."
    
    "Women are inferior to men."
    
    "Women are too emotional to vote."
    
    "Women should not have careers outside of homemaking."
    
    "Women are emotional and illogical."
    
    The above are sexist comments.  Please note how far removed they are
    from "your argument is illogical" (in response to a female noter), and
    "your argument is one of emotionalism" (again, in response to a female
    noter.  I've used both of these in response to men noters, and so has
    Jack, which shows what a complete deflection that the response of
    "sexism", to these notes, really is.
    
    Just MAYBE, the *argument* in question *IS* illogical?  Just MAYBE the
    argument in question *IS* one of emotionalism?  Nah...it's all sexist,
    right?  Even though it is the *ARGUMENT* that is being ridiculed, not
    the noter, personally.
    
    I suggest that we all turn out sensitivity meters down a bit. 
    Personally, I find the constant repetition of anti-patriarchal vemon I
    see in this and other conferences to quite possibly motivated by
    sexist logic, and in some cases, outright sexism.  Do I go raving
    around the conferences that said individuals are promoting sexism?  No. 
    In my opinion do I see *some* of these arguments as sexist?  Yes.
    
    Though I see some hypocrisy surrounding this issue of sexism and those
    that are constantly bringing it up, I normally do not comment.  In this
    one instance I feel compelled to comment briefly my view on this.
    
    PC'ness is a rather insidious form of censorship.  It is a way
    to temper free speech to conform to some unobjective standard set up by
    activist groups, who for some reason, are alwasy offended by something
    or another.  
    
    Personally, I have not brought up the sexism I have
    seen by others because I feel that by using the PC catch-word "sexism",
    I will only contribute to such censorship- and I refuse to even make
    the attempt at censoring someone's speech to conform to *MY* personal
    standards.  After all, offense can only be taken if you allow yourself to be
    offended.  
    
    It seems to me that many people go out of their way to be offended, and
    though I find this particularly aggrivating when trying to carry on a
    discussion with them, it is their right to take offense at whatever
    they like- no matter how silly. 
    
    As a general 'state of the US' comment, I find that this nation is full
    of touchy, high-strung folks who are ever looking for ways to be
    offended- and at ways to regulate their viewpoints as *the* standard in
    which we all must live by.  I refuse to be censored by anyone, but I
    especially refuse to be censored by a bunch of whiney idjits who have
    nothing better to do than to find offense at every turn.  To them I
    give the following advice: 
    
    Words can only have an effect on you if you
    let them.  The best way to promote change isn't censorship, but by
    *example*.  Christ said this to Christians a very long time ago, and he
    (of course) was absolutely correct.  Be the light and salt of the
    earth, and others will marvel at you and wonder what makes you special
    and/or different.
    
    
    
    -steve

	Steve, if one thinks one is being emotional, that alone does not make
it sexist. Why one thinks one is being emotional can.

	If one has always lived with sexist sayings, mainly due to how things
were as you were growing up, the person saying the words may not mean it to be
sexist, but it still can be.

	An example of this is, "You throw like a girl!" Commonly used towards
a guy with a weak throwing arm. The person who is saying the phrase may not
even have in their minds that they are doing anything sexist. They may just
think that they are saying a phrase that they grew up with. But guess what? The
phrase came from a time where women were perceived as not being able to throw a
ball as well as a man, and that anyone who can't throw hard is throwing like a
girl, which for some reason, a woman is not as good as a man. That is an 
insult, PERIOD. 

	Now the person who said it may not have thought it that way, but I
think you have to take into accountability how the phrase(s) were brought into
this world, and the intent they had then. When you do that it is very clear to
see that sexism is alive and well, even if one doing the talking doesn't think
about it while they say it. To say you throw like a girl implies that women
can't throw as well as men. This is a lie. It also implies that a man who
doesn't have a strong throwing arm, is a lesser human being. 




Glen

    I hesitate to get into a discussion on this matter as what is usually
    seen by myself is a regular inconsistency on the part of those stating
    sexism.  This is why I ask the tough questions such as...
    
    Is Paula Jones justified like Anita Hill was?
    
    Is Bill Clinton on the same playing field as Clarence Thomas?
    
    Is the million man march as sexist as the Promisekeepers?
    
    Is the muslim faith as sexist as the Catholic Hierarchy?
    
    Now I have asked these questions repeatedly here in this conference and
    let me tell you, the silence has been deafening or the answers have
    been 99% ambiguity.
    
    I personally have no problem with loyalties, I believe there is some
    honor to this.  What really perturbs me is when principle takes a back
    seat to loyalty.  It is then that the "whiners" as they are labeled,
    indict themselves as unreliable and are therefore not taken seriously.
    
    I sincerely hope that people are reading this and hearing it.  If
    sexism is in fact a disease of our society, then let's knock off the
    subjective thinking and put credit where credit is due.  
    
    -Jack

    
    re .59

    > Each person can interpret these results any way they want.  Anyone
    > who is at all interested in communications between the sexes should
    > understand that the difference is significant.

    I understand the differences are significant, but so were the
    differences between the black and white community regarding the O.J.
    verdict. Whites claimed racism, Blacks claimed justice. As you yourself
    have said we all bring our own set of biases and/or blinders when we
    judge something, whether it's Scripture or a comment in notes. That's
    why I stated in .39

         "I can't help but wonder if we're seeing a sociological
         example of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. That
         is, the closer we get to analyzing the meaning of
         someone else's notes, our personal measuring processes
         affect the output. Something to think about anyway."

    The differences you cite may be because men and women *generally*
    view things from their sociological gender perspective. 

    Now speaking of interest in communication, I'd still like to get the
    answers to a couple of questions I asked earlier.

    From .30

         "What would be a non-sexist way for Jack to call a
         woman's statement illogical or irrational? Once I have
         that information I'll be able to understand your
         viewpoint better."

    From .40

         "Ok, but my question is, if Jack's comments were made to
         a male noter, would you still find it sexist. If not,
         then isn't it sexist to say one must use different
         language when addressing women as opposed to men?"
          
    Meg suggested that Jack's statements were out-and-out sexist,
    whether made to a man or a woman, by a man or a woman. My only
    conclusion is that the words illogical and irrational are by
    themselves sexually derogatory. Please clarify if I'm wrong.

    As I said before, I'm not on a crusade, rather I am looking for
    insight. I can clearly see the sexism in the first two examples, but
    I simply don't understand the underlying gender issue in example
    three, Jack's comments. 

    Please, please help me understand.

    	Eric

    Glen:
    
    Insults are insults, and termilonlogy which was in vogue a few years
    ago can certainly be considered derogatory and should be avoided if at
    all possible.
    
    In regard to example three, the use of the word illogical, is a gender
    neutral term, it was USED as a gender neutral term and there is nothing
    in this world that would make me stop using it.  
    
    -Jack

re Note 1182.61 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     As a general 'state of the US' comment, I find that this nation is full
>     of touchy, high-strung folks who are ever looking for ways to be
>     offended- and at ways to regulate their viewpoints as *the* standard in
>     which we all must live by.  

        Even so, Steve, you are welcome to participate here!

        Bob

re Note 1182.63 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

        And have you stopped beating your wife?

I see the "hissy fit" thing as resulting from momentum.

When you hear ideas expressed in a particular way for a while, you don't
expect a sharp departure from the pattern.

I tried to look up "hissy" in my dictionary, but there was no entry.

But in addition to denotations, words also have connotations.  It's hard
for me to see "hissy fit" being applied to demonstrations of discontent
expressed by an Arnold Swartzenegger or a Jean Claude Van Damme.  A Bruce
Willis, maybe.  :-)

Shalom,
Richard

    Bob:
    
    I stopped beating my wife at checkers some time back.  I was never able
    to beat her at chess.  As far as confrontational incidents, ho ho....
    I don't dare!  :-)

Repost of the alleged sexist remark.
    
ZZ    "considering some of the ideas brought forth here by
ZZ    yourself(Patricia), Cindy, and  others are, with all due respect, quite 
ZZ    foreign to logic and critical thinking. "
    
    Notice I said, "and others".  This would presume these others are all
    women.  Secondly I stated, "With all due respect".  One would normally
    presume the intent to be honorable.
    
    -Jack

    
    > It's hard for me to see "hissy fit" being applied to demonstrations of
    > discontent expressed by an Arnold Swartzenegger or a Jean Claude Van
    > Damme. 

    Those guys don't have "hissy fits," they "go ballistic." The difference
    has to do with physically acting out. For a good example of hissy fits,
    look back at last week's "dialog" between Congress and the White House.

    :^)

    Eric
    

ZZ    look back at last week's "dialog" between Congress and the White House.
    
    Yes, as mentioned by Ted Koppel, an authority in journalism and
    eloquent in language and communication protocol.  Koppel used the term
    "sissy fit" to describe Gingrich' reply to the president!
    
    -Jack

    Eric:
    
    Notice how the string got mysteriously quiet the last few hours?
    
    This is what I mean!
    
    -Jack

    
    > Secondly I stated, "With all due respect".  One would normally presume
    > the intent to be honorable.
    
    "With all due respect" is usually what one says when they don't respect
    another's opinion. :^) 
    
    Eric

    
    > Notice how the string got mysteriously quiet the last few hours?
          
    Actually, I assume that, unlike me, other people have better things to
    do while on the job. :^)
    
    Eric

    Jack,
    
    Something being sexist, rascist, or homophobic has nothing to do with
    intent.  It has to do with what is said and how it is understood by the
    audiences that hear the statement.
    
    Everyone of us was brought up in a sexist, rascist, and homophobic
    world.  Our communications will be sexist, rascist, and homophobic
    unless we make a conscious effort to be anti-sexist, anti-rascist, and
    anti-homophobic.
    
    Much of the time remarks are made which the speaker does not
    consciously know to be sexist, etc.
    
    The assumption that being emotional is bad and being rational and
    logical is good is a sexist assumption.  Healthy people are well
    balanced  in regard to reason and emotions.  Both reason and emotions
    are two elements that make us human.  THe assumption that women are
    emotional and men are rational is part of that sexist dicotamy.
    
    Jack your statements assumes.
    
    1.  That logic and critical thinking are good and that the opposite to
    logic and critical thinking is bad.
    
    2.  You then erroneously accuse that my ideas and Cindy's ideas.
    lack logic and critical thinking.  Now Cindy and I just happen to be
    the only two women that note here frequently.  It was no coincedence
    and no accident that you happened to identify the only two frequent
    women noters for your derogatory statement.  I have no doubt that your
    filter which directed you statement at the two of us is subconscious,
    but it still is a well evident filter.
    
    I find your comments sexist for both reasons.
    
    a.  that you singled out two women and only two women for not being
    logical or thinking critically.
    
    b.  Your statement makes the assumption that logic and critical
    thinking are more important than feelings.
    
    The evidence that I find most convincing is A.  others may find B. more
    convincing.  Both A & B do work together.
    
    I am not going to discuss this any longer.  
    
    
    As I see other examples of sexist language, I will post them here.  I
    prefer to let the note itself speak for itself.
    
    If nothing else, I might give 70% of the men in here some better
    insight into how I as a woman hear common messages.  That 70% of the
    male population cannot dismiss the fact that there is agreement among
    the women here regarding how the statements are interpreted.
    
    What you do with that information is entirely up to you.   

 ZZ   I am not going to discuss this any longer.  
        
 ZZ   As I see other examples of sexist language, I will post them here. 
 ZZ   I prefer to let the note itself speak for itself.
    
    So in other words, you are going to act as judge, jury and accuser. 
    You are going to foist an accusation on whomever without
    accountability.  Patricia, this is not only UnAmerican but it is one of
    the most irrational and irresposible things I have ever seen you do. 
    And you can put that in your pipe and smoke it!

    Yes everybody, I said IRRATIONAL.  No need to thank me!

    Those guys don't have "hissy fits," they "go ballistic."
    
    
    Example five

    
    Even how anger is shown is stereotypically different between women and
    men.

>>    I hesitate to get into a discussion on this matter as what is usually
>>    seen by myself is a regular inconsistency on the part of those stating
>>    sexism.  This is why I ask the tough questions such as...

	No you ask what you perceive as tough questions.  Whether or not 
	anyone chooses to asnswer you is their business.  I get tired of
	spitting into the wind, nor do I feel you are genuinely interested
	in this as anymore than a solitary intellectual exercise.
    
>>    Is Paula Jones justified like Anita Hill was?
  
	On this you were answered by me.  Niether has had a fair hearing
	regarding their allegations.
  
>>    Is Bill Clinton on the same playing field as Clarence Thomas?

	See above.
    
>>    Is the million man march as sexist as the Promisekeepers?

	Yes
    
>>    Is the muslim faith as sexist as the Catholic Hierarchy?

	You addressed this to Patricia.  However, from my limited
	knowledge of Islam, and how it is practiced at this time,
        Yes.  Given the common roots of Islam, and Chistianity it
	should come as no surprise.
    
>>    Now I have asked these questions repeatedly here in this conference and
>>    let me tell you, the silence has been deafening or the answers have
>>    been 99% ambiguity.
  
	It is difficult to answer a question directly requested by one noter
	to another noter.  As I am not in Patricia's or anyone elses head
        but my own, I hesitate to answer when a question is directly asked
        of one noter, as I can't speak for hir.
  
>>    I personally have no problem with loyalties, I believe there is some
>>    honor to this.  What really perturbs me is when principle takes a back
>>    seat to loyalty.  It is then that the "whiners" as they are labeled,
>>    indict themselves as unreliable and are therefore not taken seriously.
    
	And you are looking at a crop of people running for office who
	should be disqualified if you truly follow the doctrine regarding
	choosing leaders from Paul's letters.Face it one person's loyalty
        is another's total hypocracy.  

>>    I sincerely hope that people are reading this and hearing it.  If
>>    sexism is in fact a disease of our society, then let's knock off the
>>    subjective thinking and put credit where credit is due.  
  
	Jack,  Sexism is pervasive in our society and also quite subjective.
	Just as one woman or man's harrassment is anothers' flirtation, so
	one woman may call attention to a sexist phrase or attitude, where
	another will write it off as hopeless to point out, and another 
	may no even see it.  However, you will notice ALL of the female
        respondants found the three examples as sexist, and nearly a
	third of the male respondants also found the statements sexist.  

	Continuing to try to justify your own statements gets wearing, but 
	really when it is pointed out over and over, and people still prefer
	to deny that some people find something offensive and continuing to
	use the offensive language after it has been pointed out is 
	bordering on harrassment.  However, I will just say it is operating
	from a standpoint of willful blindness.

	meg

   ZZ     It was no coincedence
   ZZ     and no accident that you happened to identify the only two frequent
   ZZ     women noters for your derogatory statement. 
    
    By the way, this statement presumes I am lying and is therefore hate
    speech by nature.
    
    

  >  As I see other examples of sexist language, I will post them here. 
    
    >I prefer to let the note itself speak for itself.
    
    >If nothing else, I might give 70% of the men in here some better
    >insight into how I as a woman hear common messages.  That 70% of the
    >male population cannot dismiss the fact that there is agreement among
    >the women here regarding how the statements are interpreted.
    
    >What you do with that information is entirely up to you.   
    
    
    Jack,
    
    Read my note.  I am not trying to play judge and jury.  I am posting
    notes that I think are sexist as a representation of what one woman
    hears when reading these notes.  I'm doing this because I am aware that
    it takes a sensitivy process to recognize subtle forms of sexism.  I am
    on a journey to be anti sexist, anti rascist, and anti homophobic. 
    That is not to say that I never say anything that is  sexist,
    rascist, or homophobic.  It is but a journey and an intent on my part.

Note 1182.79

>    Those guys don't have "hissy fits," they "go ballistic."
        
>    Example five
   
>    Even how anger is shown is stereotypically different between women and
>    men.

Indeed.  And I think Eric is to be commended for identifying it.  Men are
no less prone to emotion, but are much more likely to resort to force in
reaction to stimuli, such as during a traffic altercation.

I saw a wonderful movie last week, "How To Make An American Quilt."  It
has been labelled 'a woman's movie.'  Why?  No helicopters or automatic
weapons.

Shalom,
Richard

    re: .34
    
    That one is a Hall of Fame note.  One question before I make my
    nomination official, though:
    
    Jack, did she adequately read your mind?  (you must be honest)  
    If she didn't, I will have to withdraw my nomination.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    re: .48
    
    
    Now we move from "sexist" to "hate speech".  Interesting.
    
    
    -steve (just trying to keep up; no comments regarding the lack of
    connection between "sexist" and "hate speech" will be forthcoming in
    response to this particular note, though I reserve the right to bring
    it up at a later time when I am fully caught up in this topic  8^) )

    Steve:
    
    It all boils down to this.  I understand her position that our culture
    is inherently sexist.  As mentioned, one of my colleagues here stated
    that men are perverts.  She stated this in a general sense, as if we
    are born that way.  For myself, I find these remarks totally non
    threatening and meaningless, i.e. forgotten five seconds after
    mentioned.  I am comfortable with who I am and am secure in my ability
    to function and be who I am.  Unfortunately this makes me incapable of 
    empathizing with women or men who require you to walk on egg shells.
    
    Regarding your question, it would seem I am being called a liar here.  
    
    -Jack

    
    Re.33
    
    Jack,
    
    I'm just back in and reading .33 (out of .84 responses - the remaining
    still unread).  So I may have missed critical ensuing dialog.
    
    Having said that, I personally think that Example 3 is ambiguous enough
    to not be completely sexist, and yet I agree with (I think it's
    Patricia's) comment too that the way it appears, it indeed can be
    borderline and taken either way.  That one is between you and her to
    figure out.  However, there is no question in my mind that Example 1 is
    a definite case of blatant sexism...based on both the comment itself
    and the person's track record from preceding years.
    
    Cindy

    re: .50 (Meg)
    
>   At least I don't consider women to be nothing more than uteruses with
>   legs, 
    
    And are you saying that Jeff (or perhaps someone esle) does?
    
>   pregnancies to be a punishment from a diety,
    
    Again, who thinks this?
    
    
    -steve

    re: .66
    
    Que?

                                                           
    Re.60 (and .3)
    
    Jack,
    
    Having now got as far as .60...
    
    >quite foreign to logic and critical thinking
    
    It is true that my first time through college, I did not take any
    philosophical or critical thinking-type courses.  However, I did take a
    lot of math and science courses where we worked through logic, truth
    tables, and so forth.
    
    But I found that I lacked the terminology that one would find in the
    philosophical approach, so two years ago I took Philosophy 101 at
    Rivier College, which is their Intro. to Informal Logic course. 
    Fascinating how, even though it paralleled the math and science logic
    that I'd taken some 18 years earlier, the language used was much
    different.
    
    Anyway, my grade for the course was (of course), an 'A'.  Because of
    this, I know there is nothing inherently faulty with my 'logic and 
    critical thinking' ability.  It just doesn't happen to match your
    outcomes.  Rather than simply acknowledging this though, you resort to
    your statements that attempt to find fault with our processes, which at
    least in my case is in fine working order according to independent
    verification by a very capable college professor who has been teaching
    the subject for several decades now.
    
    Is Example 3 blatantly sexist?  No.  Is it indirectly sexist?  Yes. 
    Did you intend for it to be this way?  Probably not (and this is where
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your intent.)  
    
    You see, as a woman, I have heard this same tired argument before -
    that women aren't logical and tend to be more emotional than critical
    thinking (ad nauseum).  So if a man's opinion varies from a woman's
    opinion, this is a very typical comeback.  Obviously, having never
    been a woman, it would be hard for you to know this...so you'll just
    have to trust me that it happens and it happens a lot more frequently 
    than you realize.  This may assist in explaining some of our reaction
    to it.  Now, knowing this, can you see *our* perspective?  
    
    Back to my earlier college days for a moment...I didn't particularly
    do all that well in some aspects of the Applied Circuits course that 
    I took, but the one section that I excelled in was the Logic section.
    So much so, in fact, that I still remember receiving a 96 on that
    particular exam.  I was not looked upon favorably by the rest of the
    class (all men, with the exception of 1 other woman) because this meant
    that the grades couldn't be applied to the curve.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Jack, 
    
    I can empathize with your situation.  I too have an uncanny lack of
    PC'ness that usually gets me into trouble.  Walking on egg shells has
    never been my forte'. 
    
    I guess I will have to repeal my nomination for Meg's note, since it
    would seem that she misread your mind.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    As a side note (meant in good humor), I can't seem to get Monty
    Python's Holy Grail out of my mind.  A particular scene that spring to
    mind when I peruse this topic is when King Arthur meets up with the
    peasant pulling a cart.  The part that keeps replaying over and over is
    the ending of that scene, when the beggar is yelling "help! help! I'm
    being repressed!!".  A great scene that always brings a smile to my
    face.  8^)
    
    Well, I find it amusing, anyway.  8^)
    
    And no, I'm not calling anyone a peasant!  8^)
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 1182.70 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Notice I said, "and others".  This would presume these others are all women.  

	Why? Men and women have written in here.



Glen

    Unless I am mistaken it was Patricia who has the response in .34 that
    you were going to nominate.  Or do we all look alike in notes?
    
    meg

| <<< Note 1182.73 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Notice how the string got mysteriously quiet the last few hours?
| This is what I mean!

	Ahhh...so if people are actually working, they are really only doing so
to not answer your questions. I see you're back to making conclusions not based
on fact, but what your own imagination allows you to dream up for reasons.


Glen

    re: .94
    
    Sorry, I did mean Patricia.  And yes, you all do look alike in notes. 
    8^) 
    
    
    -steve

    re: .95
    
    I notice you are responding to Jack, but ignoring his questions. 
    Interesting.
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 1182.91 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>


| I can empathize with your situation.  I too have an uncanny lack of
| PC'ness that usually gets me into trouble.  Walking on egg shells has
| never been my forte'.

	Anyone ever wonder how being concious of what you are saying is always
turned into pcness, walking on eggshells? Is being concious of what you are
saying really that bad?



Glen

    
    Re.64
    
    Eric,
    
    Only up to .64...what occurs to me is that there is a great difference
    between calling someone's 'logical and critical thinking' processes as
    faulty, verses simply referring to just one (or more) *examples* of
    such things.  One is going after the person, the other is making
    legitimate comments on a particular (or set of particular) remarks
    made.
    
    For example, in the case where I went back and showed Jack where he had
    made false assumptions, and therefore his conclusion was also false -
    that in no way was critical of his own thinking processes...rather that
    that particular argument was flawed.  Whereas Example 3 was a really
    broadbrush approach against my own 'thinking process' itself, and I 
    didn't appreciate that very much because I try very hard not to do 
    that to him or to anyone.  
    
    Cindy

	Steve, Meg already addressed them.

Z    Anyway, my grade for the course was (of course), an 'A'.  Because of
Z    this, I know there is nothing inherently faulty with my 'logic and 
Z    critical thinking' ability.  It just doesn't happen to match your
Z    outcomes.  Rather than simply acknowledging this though, you resort to
Z    your statements that attempt to find fault with our processes, which at
Z    least in my case is in fine working order according to independent
Z    verification by a very capable college professor who has been teaching
Z    the subject for several decades now.
    
    Cindy, this is without doubt the argument which holds complete merit! 
    You took what I said and argued your point gender neutrally.  I have a
    deep respect for that and I concede that you may in fact have the
    ability to think critically and logically, better than I for sure.  I
    understand how certain terms can be taken as sexist; but I have little
    patience when fear interferes with normal discourse.  Suddenly a gender
    neutral issue has become a gender issue and I'm sorry to say I have a
    hard time respecting it; because it is not germane to the discussion.
    It becomes a foreign element, kind of like red tape.
    
    -Jack

    
    Re.72
    
    >Koppel used the term "sissy fit" to describe Gingrich' reply to 
    >the president!
    
    And just because your sister pinched you, Jack, doesn't give you the
    right to pinch her back!  Figuratively speaking here, of course.
    
    (That *was* a pretty 'common' statement from Koppel...I would expect far
    better from him...and I *DO* expect far better from you! (;^)  Maybe he
    just had a bad hair day...or his makeup person did a lousy job...y'know 
    those male talking head journalist types <---deliberate reverse semi-sexist 
    comment here (;^) - do *not* take it seriously!)
    
    Cindy

    Well, Glen, I am always conscious of what I say.  In most instances, I
    take great care in picking out the appropriate word.  If the most
    appropriate word is "illogical", I will use it.  "Illogical" is gender
    neutral no matter how you try to spin it.  Calling an argument
    "illogical" (rather than the person) insures that it is not gender that
    is in question, but the *argument*.
    
    I'm sorry if people can't see this simple fact.  I will not censor 
    myself from using perfectly neutral language.  I'm sorry that people
    use all manner of rationalizations to turn this into a "bad" word
    (this, in effect, is PCness).
    
    
    -steve

    
    Re.81
    
    Jack,
    
    >this statement presumes I am lying 
    
    Well, I can see how you might interpret it this way.
    
    >and is therefore hate speech by nature.
    
    Whoa!  Where the *heck* did *this* assumption come from!?!  I find this
    conclusion based on your assumption to be totally out in left field and
    in no way even close to reality here!
    
    That *conclusion* to me, seems to be completely irrational and
    illogical.  Unless somewhere in your mind you have added the hidden
    assumption that "lying = hate speach".  
    
    	"Patricia presumes that I am lying."
    	("Lying is hate speech." <--thought in Jack's mind)
    	"Therefore Patricia assumes that I am guilty of hate speech."
    
    HUH!?!?!?!?!
    
    Cindy
                          

Z    Ahhh...so if people are actually working, they are really only doing so
Z    to not answer your questions. I see you're back to making conclusions
Z    not based on fact, but what your own imagination allows you to dream up for
Z    reasons.
    
    No Glen, I was just making the observation that nobody was answering my
    questions, that's all.  
    
    I'm kind of reminded of that funny movie, Trading Places.  When Eddie
    Murphy gets arrested at the beginning in the club, he yells, "Is There
    A Lawyer in the House???!"  Immediately all the members turn away from
    him and start reading, talking, acting like he isn't there.  Sometimes
    this is what this conference is like.  Ooops...got to go now, got alot
    of work to do.
    
    I'm sure Glen, that you are feverishly engineering product on this
    Monday before Thanksgiving and just plain straight out.  Give me a
    break!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Some of us work hotlines, and my shift was the 6:am to 12pm this
    morning.  Leaving me little spare time to respond to you, although I
    extracted you note imediately and answered it on a "time permits"
    basis..  Amazing how you found another way to take care of your
    attention needs by swearing you were being ignored.  I have a child
    who uses this technique when I am on the phone.
    
    meg

ZZ    Whoa!  Where the *heck* did *this* assumption come from!?!  I find
ZZ    this conclusion based on your assumption to be totally out in left field
ZZ    and in no way even close to reality here!
    
    OF COURSE it's way out in left field Cindy!!  Of course it is!  I hope
    I made a point here.  A term or a phrase is only as sexist as the
    receiver sees it.  That is the bottom line here, regardless of how a
    word was used in the past.
    
    The evolution of speech does not mean categorizing words as no no's,
    simply because they applied to demeaning women in the past.  Example:  
    Hysterical is a perfectly good word, and well accepted in our society. 
    The naysayers would have you think differently.
    
    -Jack

    Meg:
    
    That's fine, I just know from previous experience that my queries are
    answered alot faster when they don't require objectivity or somebody
    putting their allies or beliefs on the line!
    
    -Jack

    
    FWIW, my .79 was an obviously failed attempt at humor. 

    However, since the point is raised, I think crime statistics support
    that anger, or rather the reaction to anger, *is* generally different
    between men and women. 

    Eric

                                                         
    Re.107
    
    Jack,
    
    Yes, personally I rather see the 'hysterical' and the 'mon' thing as
    being the very same thing.  Word origin - esp. when one is not aware of
    it - doesn't matter much.
    
    Though unfortunately 'hysterical' is used more often to describe women 
    then men (even without the origin bit)...so on that basis alone, I'd 
    recommend you consider finding another word to use in its place if you
    want to improve your intergender communication skills.
    
    Cindy

    
    re .87
    
    I am pretty much in agreement with you here, Cindy. Given what you and
    others, as a people, not as a women, have entered here I now understand
    where you see the ambiguity.
    
    Eric

                              
    Re.101
    
    Jack,
    
    I can see your point.  In fact, once I made a completely innocent
    remark to someone 'different' from me, and truly meant it as a
    compliment.  But in an instant, she 'went ballistic' and was all 
    over my case with comments that had absolutely nothing to do with
    my intent. 
    
    What finally stopped her was the completely dumbfounded look I had
    on my face, and my total lack of response to everything she was
    accusing me of.  Finally she regained her composure, and then we
    had some less heated words about it.  
    
    What ended up happening is that I did come to see where she was 
    coming from, and she came to own her 'past stuff' as her own and 
    to see that my intent was indeed nothing like what she had 'heard' 
    and 'assumed'.  And I realized that what she had been through in the
    past is probably a common thing to other people who were like her 
    who have obviously had similar experiences for the very same reason,
    so wisely I have never committed that (totally innocent) mistake again
    out of my newfound sensitivity in that area.
    
    We actually became good acquaintences after that - probably better 
    than we would have been otherwise.  So it ended in a positive 
    experience.  But it might not have, had I responded immediately, 
    defended my position and tried to invalidate hers.
    
    Cindy  

    
    Re.109
    
    >FWIW, my .79 was an obviously failed attempt at humor.
    
    Yours wasn't note .79, Eric.  (;^)
    
    And thank you for your support!
    
    Cindy

    
    re .90

    > Anyway, my grade for the course was (of course), an 'A'.

    What a sexist thing to say! It assumes that because you are a woman you
    "of course" got an 'A'. I shows the inherent devaluing of life
    experience versus the supposed "value" of formal education.  

    :^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^)

    How one man *might* view a statement as sexist. I, however, am not that
    man.

    Eric

    
    Re.114
    
    Ayup!
    
    Cindy

    
    RE .99

    Excellent note, Cindy. 

    For anyone interested, there are plenty of examples in this conference
    where *I* have been called illogical and irrational. I think it's more
    of a liberal/conservative thing than a male/female thing.

    Patricia,

    You make some good points about the balance we as humans must strike
    between emotion and rationality. We should think with our hearts as
    well as our heads. It is equally bad to be out of balance in either
    direction. 

    Eric

    
    Re.116
    
    Eric,
    
    >I think it's more of a liberal/conservative thing than a 
    >male/female thing.
    
    Now I hasn't even thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense!
    
    Cindy

    
    > That *conclusion* to me, seems to be completely irrational and
    > illogical. 
    
    I thought it was determined, by Meg I think (maybe others), that
    calling people irrational and illogical was sexist.? :^)   
    
    Jack is just acting emotionally, sure, but you're denying him full
    personhood by predudicially valuing logic over emotion. :^)
    
    I'm being silly, of course.
    
    Eric

	Steve, you say that you pick out your words carefully, yet you also say
you don't want to walk on eggshells, or put up with pcness. Why bother to pick
your words carefully then? How can you do both?

| <<< Note 1182.105 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| No Glen, I was just making the observation that nobody was answering my
| questions, that's all.

	Then what did you mean when you said, That's what I am talking about"?
I mean, from the onset it looked like you were talking about people not
speaking up when you feel they know someone else is wrong. If that isn't the
reason, then please explain that part of your note. If it is the reason, then
what you just said above is contradicted, isn't it?



Glen

ZZ    Then what did you mean when you said, That's what I am talking
ZZ    about"? I mean, from the onset it looked like you were talking about
ZZ    people not
    
    Glen, please provide a pointer.  I looked and couldn't find this note.
    
    -Jack

      Hi,
    
        I just thought I'd mention that:
    
        I find #1 as definitely sexist,
       
        I am unsure of #2 because I do not know what Jack's meaning of
        the term "feminism" is.
    
        I am unsure of #3 because I don't know if when Jack referred to
        Patricia and Cindy, he saw them as representative of 'your average,
        run of the mill woman' or saw them as entirely specific persons.
    
    							Tony

      re: .90
    
      Hi Cindy,
    
        In response to what you said about women and 'being more emotional'
    
        What is your take of the findings of several thousand Brigg's-
        Myer's tests?  One personality trait is divided into the categories
        of feeling/thinking.  It all rides a continuum.  In other words,
        a person isn't just 'thinking', but may score 30 with it and
        another may score a 10 'feeling.'
    
        Anyway, 60% of women score as feeling and 40% of men score as
        feeling.  40% of women as thinking and 60% of men as thinking.
    
        I believe women, on the average, are more feeling-oriented.
    
        Does this make me sexist?  My reliance is results from a test!
    
    						Tony
    
        (one who scored as a fairly high 'feeling')
    

ZZ    Patricia and Cindy, he saw them as representative of 'your average,
ZZ    run of the mill woman' or saw them as entirely specific persons.
    
    Tony, I saw them as two specific individuals and could have said the
    same thing about two men.  Example two isn't mine by the way!
    
    -Jack

    Re.123
    
    Tony,
    
    I don't think it's so much 'feeling vs. thinking', as it is a negative
    thing when 'feelings' are given a bad rap over 'thinking'.  And, add to
    that the percentage of people who are primarily 'feeling' (women), and 
    the sexist frame of reference is unfortunately built in by default.  
    Especially when it's pointed out that a woman is guilty of lack of logic 
    or critical thinking...and thereby being judged by the typical 'male' 
    scale in terms of, say, Myers and Briggs in this instance.  
    
    Is it wrong to express oneself in a 'feeling' way over a 'logical' way?  
    To many in this conference, it does seem to be the case.
    
    I am personally extremely intuitive (or 'feeling', if you prefer).  So 
    much so, that in other circles one might even refer to me as 'psychic'. 
    And yet, realizing this - and also being forced into it by the
    necessity of a world preferring the intellectual over the intuitive - I
    have taken it upon myself to also develop that smaller-yet-present part
    of me that is 'intellectual', if only to survive in the 'intellectually
    dominated' world as it is defined (chiefly by men).
    
    In an ideal world, we would all function with both halves of our brain
    working in synch together.  That is the most powerful of all.  In fact,
    I personally know former Apollo astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, and he is
    doing work in this particular area - to synch up the hemispheres so
    that we can all use our brainpower to the maximum extent.  I met with
    him for an hour last February and he went into some detail to describe
    the process and what is possible.  It was a pleasure communicating with
    him, because I could literally feel him communicating both to/with my
    intellect and to/with my intuition.  
    
    When you get really good at intuitive communication, you can literally
    'exchange mind pictures' with each other.  I've done this across
    thousands of miles, using email to verify the images, or at least the
    content of the meaning of the image.  (Some people call it 'psychic' -
    I prefer to just think of it as an untapped resource that most people
    aren't aware they even have, because of the world we are trained and
    raised in.)  It can be a fun party trick to exchange images with
    someone who can also do that, and start to giggle about the same thing
    and leave everybody else in complete puzzlement.
    
    Yesterday in fact, I did that with a friend of mine from India who
    speaks Gujarati to me.  We have a close intuitive connection, so when
    she speaks at me in Gujarati, I pick up on the images she's conveying,
    and respond as if I knew exactly what she was saying (from the words). 
    Now, sometimes I do know the words...but most of the time I don't.  So
    when she asked me - in Gujarati - if I had counted the money in the 
    envelope, I responded, "Oh, I forgot...hold on..." and left the room. 
    (In my mind was the money envelope.)  Next to her I could hear one of 
    the younger fellows who had dropped his jaw, say, "I've *got* to learn 
    that language!"  He thought I understood her words!  (;^)  We're now
    achieving a fairly good success rate at it.  This is using both the
    intellectual (word) and intuitive (mind pictures) communication.  If it
    were intellectual (word) only, there is no possible way I would be able 
    to understand her, since I only know about 10 Gujarati words.
    
    She and I have done this for about 2 years now, with lots of people 
    around, and it's been quite fun! (;^) 
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.123 add'l
    
    Tony,
    
    >(one who scored fairly high on 'feeling')
    
    I'm not surprised.  (;^)  Especially having known you and your notes
    over the years.
    
    Cindy

| <<< Note 1182.121 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZ    Then what did you mean when you said, That's what I am talking
| ZZ    about"? I mean, from the onset it looked like you were talking about
| ZZ    people not

| Glen, please provide a pointer.  I looked and couldn't find this note.

	Jack.....  .73

      Hi Cindy,
    
        Boy, I don't know what to make of your take on what intuitive
        is!  That sounds supernatural even!
    
        Just an fyi...the Briggs-Myers had a separate pair (aside from
        thinking/feeling) termed sensing/intuition.  So, their terminology
        was such that intuition and feeling (as they used them) are
        different things.
    
        My intuition score was extremely high by the way!
    
        Thanks for you comment on not being surprised.  I like who I am!
        (Aside from being a sinner, that is.)
    
        I've always felt quite a sensitivity from you which I think is real
        nice.
    
    							Take Care,
    
    							Tony

    re: .116
    
    >I think it's more of a liberal/conservative thing than a male/female
    >thing.
    
    Bingo.

    Glen:
    
    I can honestly tell you I can't remember why I wrote, "this is what I
    mean". 
    
    -Jack

	Oh well.....

    Went to the cafeteria and had this horrible experience.
    
  -  Kelly, could you see if there is any skim milk?
    
    - Forget it Jack, no way!!!
    
    - Aww come on...I'll be your best friend!
    
    -Will you pay me for it?
    
    -Sure I will
    
    She walks back to get it and comes back.  I meet her halfway.
    
    -Where's my money?  (meaning I had to pay her just to get it).
    
    -Uhhhh....I have to go to the bank.
    
    - Yes, TYPICAL OF A MAN!!!!!!

    You poor fellow.  I think you need a hug, you innocent victim of overt
    sexism.   I think you should file sexual harassment charges.  8^)

    I thought about it but she works for Seilers food service.  They are
    not within personnels jurisdiction!
    
    

    
    Hi Tony,
    
    >Boy, I don't know what to make of your take on what intuitive
    >is!  That sounds supernatural even!
    
    Only depends upon what your definition of 'natural' is.  (;^)
    Edgar Mitchell has a wonderful quote that goes something like - 
    There are things in the universe which are not miracles, but
    simply things that we are currently ignorant of that our current
    science cannot explain.  We must strive to fill those gaps of
    ignorance. (Wish I could find the quote - it's one I'd like to
    put on my all.)
    
    Thank you for your kind words, too.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Good so in that case, we can remove example 4 that I was blindly
    accused of.  Hissy fit IS gender neutral.  Corroberated by a dictionary
    and Microsoft.

      Hi,
    
        I kind of think the main problem really wasn't sexism, but rather
        was insensitivity.  I guess I'm a little more sensitive than most,
        but I would have abstained from using 'hissy' because it phonically
        seems to connotate slanders more often pointed in the feminine
        direction (sissy being a term used against guys who act like
        'fems') and hussy not being such a good word either.
    
        I would not have used the word.
    
        So we don't know the heart.  We don't know the motive.  God does.
        Let Him judge.  Thank God He's the only judge.  *But*, if sexism
        was not implied, insensitivity was still there.
    
        Truth not spoken in love is still sin.  When anyone 'bludgeons' 
        anyone else with factual truth, they are not serving Christ.
        Its just not His style.  Its not agape!
    
    							Tony

    I don't know, Tony, Christ seemed to bludgeon a few pharasies with the
    truth in his day.  8^)

    
    re .139

    ... but then again he *was* the Messiah. Perhaps we should not be so
    quick to assume that we, as sinners, can act with the same degree of
    moral and spiritual authority as God.

    Eric

    PS. Tony, I agree, there is no excuse for acting uncivil, just because
    there is a disagreement.

    .136
    
    Except that words have connotations in addition to denotations.
    Dictionaries provide denotations, but not always connotations.
    
    Richard
    

      re: .139
    
      Hi Steve,
    
      Actually, I was anticipating, and waiting for, someone to mention
      this.  And I already had a response fashioned in my mind!
    
      When Jesus communicated, you saw more than words.  You saw His
      countenance.  What do you think Jesus' face looked like when He
      cried out, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I would have gathered you 
      as a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing!"  I believe
      there were tears there.  I'll bet they could see that love.  (And
      check out the context of this, i.e. His words that preceded these
      words.)
    
      Yes, Jesus called the pharisees many things, but communication also
      involved inflection, tone, countenance.  I have to believe that they
      also saw infinite love *poured out for them* even in the midst of 
      this chastening.  After all, Christ cried out on the cross, "Father
      forgive them for they do not know what they do!"  
    
      For God so loved the world that He gave His Son to the world.  Jesus
      died for the pharisees.
    
      When you see the cross, you see the express image of the Father and
      God doesn't change.  Sin will condemn the lost in the end (not God).
    
      Anyway, with this communication mode that is letters on a CRT, we
      are lacking so much of what was there when one saw Jesus communicate
      in person.  Thus, I believe, we must strive to make up the lack as
      much as we can with the words we use.
    
      It is precisely this striving that we often really fall short in
      (I believe).
    
    							Tony

    
    re .141

    True enough, Richard. The main reason for entering the definition I
    found was because Meg was entered her etymology of the word 'hissy'.

    The problem with some words and phrases is the ambiguity of their
    connotations; when a word or phrase connotes something to one group,
    but not to another. In these cases we can do one of three things: yield
    to those who scream the loudest, or fall back on the denotation for
    consensus or calmly discuss feeling, experiences and ideas.

    I don't want to give up using the phrase 'family values' just because
    conservatives have crafted a narrow connotation of the phrase. I don't
    want to give up the identity of 'Christian' just because I don't
    conform to the conservative connotation of what a Christian is. And
    likewise, I don't want to give up using descriptive language just
    because some liberals have assumed a negative connotation for these
    phrases.

    There is, of course, room for discussion. I use Ms. instead of Mrs. as
    the default title for a woman, married or otherwise. I tend to use the
    suffix -person instead of -man, even though the German root means
    'person' and not 'male'. At some point, however, we reach a level where
    some people in the offended community use what I call "shut up"
    phrases to stifle and discredit those with whom they disagree. A "shut
    up" phrase is a charge that the other person is 'anti-family' or
    'sexist' or 'anti God.' This I react to, maybe over-react to,
    viscerally.

    Peace,

    	Eric

    Eric,
    
    So how committed are you to creating an environment in which women and
    men are treated as equal and both women and men feel listened to and
    valued?
    
    My assessment of the men in this community based on responses here.
    
    33% state that men should be the leaders and women the followers. These
    men have no problem enterring overtly sexist material because they
    believe it to be true.
    
    33% state women and men should be treated as equal,
    but don't seem to believe that there is a problem, or if they do believe
    that there is a problem, they don't want it to impact them.  They state
    that  subtle forms of sexism are not real.  Hissy is not a derogatory
    term that relates mainly to women, and that there is nothing wrong with
    trying to shut up noisy women by calling them irrational and illogical.
    
    33% seem to understand the problem and seem willing to make a personal
    committment in support of the equality of the sexes.

    
    > So how committed are you to creating an environment in which women and
    > men are treated as equal and both women and men feel listened to and
    > valued?
    
    I think I'm very commited to creating such an environment. How do you
    think I measure up?
    
    Eric

>    I think I'm very commited to creating such an environment. How do you
>    think I measure up?
    
    1-33  Overtly Sexist believe men should be leader
    34-66 Believe theoretically in equality.  Think some are seeing more of
          a problem than exists.
    67-100  Committed to a world of equality.
    
    Eric, 
    
    Using my own very subjective ratings based only on the notes you
    entered in this string, I would put you in about the 55-60 percentile
    as defined above.
    
    You seem very willing to be active in erasing overt sexism, but you
    don't seem to me to want to listen to suggestions of subtle sexism. 
    Since you refuse to see subtle forms of sexism, you cannot effectively
    do anything about it.
    
    Jack's two notes in my opinion were subtle forms of sexism.  the
    other two notes were overtly sexist.  Hissy fit, was much more overt
    than example three.   Example three seems to be sexist.  If I did not
    know Jack or if the note was in a  context different than the one it
    was in, then it may not have been sexist.  
    
    I assume that regular participants in this conference know the context
    in which we have discussing these issues for a long time.
    
    Eric, this is just my opinion, because you did ask for it and some
    indication of how I came to that opinion based on your notes in this
    string.  I fully realize that this string may not fully represent
    anybody.
    
                                  Patricia

    Bob Messenger and Glen Silva did not ask, but based on this note (as
    well as other notes)  I put them in the top 10 pecentile regarding 
    sensitivity to gender issues and support for equality.
    
    Bob and Glen, I hope you accept this as the complement it is meant to
    be.
    
                                         Patricia

    
    Patricia,

    Thanks for your comments. I appreciate knowing how I am viewed by
    others. Given what I know of you through your notes, I think you pegged
    me correctly (55-60)... from your frame of reference. In my mind that
    makes me a flaming moderate :^) I can live with that.

    I'm not offended, but in the spirit of equality, I think this statement
    is a form of subtle sexism, given your examples of what constitutes
    subtle sexism:

    > ...but you don't seem to me to want to listen to suggestions of subtle
    > sexism. Since you refuse to see subtle forms of sexism, you cannot
    > effectively do anything about it. 

    You assume that because I am a man I "don't...want to listen" and
    the I "refuse to see." It seems it is not possible that I simply
    don't see everything in same light as you do, I must be cast as
    being actively resisting full equality of women. This, to me,
    from my male perspective, is akin to calling a woman's views on this
    issue emotional.

    I would have preferred this wording...

    "...but you don't seem to agree with the suggestions (examples) of
    subtle sexism. Since you don't see subtle forms of sexism, you
    cannot be effective in changing it."

    Do you see how this statement illustrates our differences without
    implying that I simply don't care.

    Peace,

    	Eric 

    Eric,
    
    I do see how your rewording is much better than the way I worded it.
    
    However the reason that I assumed that you weren't listening was not
    because you are a man, but because you did not take serious the fact
    that 100% of the women saw things one way and only 30% of the men saw
    things that way.  you then equated that with the schism regarding the
    OJ Trial.  How I heard that note was a not really caring that 100% of
    the women saw a subtle form of sexism which you and other men did not
    see or agree with.
    
    But you are right.  I do see you as a flaming moderate :^)
    
    
                                     Patricia                              
    

    
    In this case, I see you as the self-described flaming moderate, Eric. 
    (;^)  Here are some thoughts from another female participant to add to
    Patricia's comments...
    
    Because I do a lot of work with diverse communities of people, I try to
    be as moderate as possible and give them the benefit of the doubt.  One
    time I remember two years ago being in a meeting where there was a
    group of men all ages 40-70 and of another race and culture than I am. 
    The only suggestion I made was to consider changing the wording in
    their materials from 'mankind' to 'humankind' so as to be more inclusive. 
    One of the men (and I don't know who it was) replied, "Why...because it
    will bother the women?", and everyone else kind of chuckled.  
    
    At this moment, I had many options.  I could have reacted and launched 
    into what might be classified (unfairly) as 'feminist diatribe'.  I
    could have simply calmly explained my position.  Or I could have
    remained silent.
    
    I chose to remain silent.  Why?  Because at that moment I was basically
    an unknown, unproven entity to them, and I still had the massive job
    ahead of me to earn their respect (which, after several months of hard
    work, is what happened).  I knew also that as they would come to know 
    the real me, they would realize I genuinely had their best interests at 
    heart, as was only trying to help them to be more generally accepted by 
    people like me (my race and particularly my gender).
    
    In the end, the wording was changed, and they did it themselves without 
    my ever suggesting to them again that they consider changing it.  (;^)
    
    So when I, personally, suggest to the men here that they may consider 
    changing their phrases because it would make them more effective at 
    cross-gender communication, it is because I genuinely have your best 
    interest at heart.  Whether you choose to or not is up to you.
    
    Cindy

>    1-33  Overtly Sexist believe men should be leader

But this has nothing to do with women priests and bishops.  Priests are not
leaders; they are servants.

/john

    I tried to explain that spiritual leadership is an exercise in
    footwashing.  But I won't dwell on that.
    
    -Jack

    all one needs to do is watch the footage of the pope and one realize
    that servant stuff is crap.
    
    The Pope dresses and carries himself like a Monarch.  The people that
    meet him, bow to him and treat him as a king.
    
    I have seen many clerics in my life.  I have never seen one polish
    someone shoes or wash their feet.
    
    The catholic church is overtly sexist in excluding 1/2 its members from
    positions of leadership based soley on gender.  The councils that make
    all the decisions for the church are exclusive men's clubs.
    
    No rational person buys the baloney about servanthood as a
    justification for sexism.

>    I have seen many clerics in my life.  I have never seen one polish
>    someone shoes or wash their feet.
    
The Pope does.  My priest does.

/john

re Note 1182.154 by COVERT::COVERT:

>                                        -< You refuse to see the truth, Patricia >-
> 
> >    I have seen many clerics in my life.  I have never seen one polish
> >    someone shoes or wash their feet.
>     
> The Pope does.  My priest does.
  
        Do they do it as part of a ritual (e.g., Holy Week) or do
        they do it just because somebody's feet needed washing?

        Bob

    Most likely as part of a ceremony.  I've seen my priest wash feet. 
    I've seen my bishop wash feet.  I also know my priest has helped repair
    a toilet and stack wood.  

    Patricia:
    
    Then there are apparently alot of spiritual leaders out there who need
    a lesson in humility.  Just because the Pope or others don't take upon
    themselves your percetion of servitude, it DOES NOT negate the words 
    Jesus spoke to you and me...servitude is the right thing to do and is a
    part of the role you plan to take for yourself.  Without it, you are
    out of the will of God.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    What you fail to see, is in the example of Jesus' life we get a great
    model.  The learning comes from interacting with the scriptures and
    truly letting the scriptures speak for themselves to us.
    
    Blindly following or blinding mimicking any one particular action
    recorded about Jesus leads only to dead ritual.
    
    Real humility comes from a respect for every living and non living
    thing that exists.  When we give every aspect of the Universe its true
    respect we can feel nothing but humility in the face of the immenseness
    of Creation.
    
    Your taking out of context one particular act of Jesus and using it as
    a club is first of all very unhumble, and second of all sacreligious.
    
    The message that you ought to be interested in is How do you, Jack
    Martin exhibit humility in your life.  Not trying to preach to me or
    anyone else, how I must show humility.  The only way any of us has any
    hope of changing the world is by changing ourselves.

  Hi Patricia,

    I thought of a neat analogy which I want to pose to you.  The purpose
    of the analogy is to hammer down the notion that authority does not
    equate to superiority.

    I have one relative in my family who we can say is a bona fide genius
    and I wish I could say I'm blood-related to him, but I'm not!  He's 
    my ma's sister's husband.  Anyway, my Uncle Horace (what a name, huh?)
    is an engineer and has always done extremely well.  Horace is an intro-
    verted man and has no inkling to want to manage people or have a job
    which includes interacting with people a lot.  He just goes on with his
    engineering work.

    He has always had bosses and I am pretty sure he was actually usually
    more valued than they and made more money.  They had the roles and res-
    ponsibilities that are germaine to supervising people.  Horace's bosses
    authorized Horace though Horace was the more important employee in the
    company.

    The same can be said with sports teams.  Coaches authorize to players,
    but it would be hard to find someone who would find Phil Jackson to be
    'superior' to Michael Jordan.  Yet, Phil Jackson tells Michael Jordan
    what to do.

    What I have just done is illustrate two real-life examples which prove
    that the idea that authority implies superiority cannot be a universally
    valid principle.  It simply cannot.

    You seem to stress this concept.  You insist that if, in a marriage 
    relationship, one person is given authority, that person is (on that
    basis) considered to be superior.  In real life, I don't see this to be
    the case *at all*.

    I am a Bible-believing Christian and believe the Bible places husbands 
    as the head of families.  I appreciate Bob Fleischer's counsel that 
    this is not necessarily a universal application.  That in some cases, 
    the woman should be the head.

    Regardless, you insist upon a flow of logic which I find refuted in real
    life time and time and time again.  That being that whoever is in authority
    is on that basis, superior.  (Or assumed to be so.)

    I reject that flow of logic.

    Now, I don't know that I have ever exercised authority.  I've always asked
    what my wife thinks and I've never insisted on anything - ever.  I think
    I typically acquiesce to what she thinks and over the years I have grown 
    to acknowledge to my wife that there are plenty of things she does better
    than me and that I appreciate her helping me with things especially those
    things she does better than me.  One thing sometimes being mechanical apti-
    tude!

    But, there could come a time where agreement simply cannot be reached and
    I will agonize with what my role should be and I may fall back on the
    holy word of God and decide, "I've got to make this decision."  Not because
    I'm better than my wife, but simply because I have been given a certain
    role by my Maker and who am I to disobey Him?

    So I suppose this places me in a 'low index', but thats OK.

							Tony

    Tony,
    
    There are many things that middle class
    white men who worship the bible find convenient.
    
    Justification of there own superiority is one of them!

    
    Just to tie up some loose ends from last week.

    re .149

    > However the reason that I assumed that you weren't listening was not
    > because you are a man, but because you did not take serious the fact
    > that 100% of the women saw things one way and only 30% of the men saw
    > things that way.

    But you also have said that whether a statement is sexist or not is
    determined by the perception of the listener/reader and not the
    intentions of the speaker/writer. You have said that a statement can be
    sexist even if the originator didn't intend offense. So, like Jack,
    despite your protests, your statements were indeed sexist despite your
    explicit objection that that was not your intent. :^)

    I am asking you to see -- if you don't already -- that it is *possible*
    to mistakenly hurl the accusation of sexism at a noter who is merely
    being abrupt and/or terse. I am uncomfortable with the notion of
    'subtle sexism.' I prefer to call such statements ambiguous and ask for
    clarification.

    > you then equated that with the schism regarding the OJ Trial. 

    Only as an illustration that as humans we view situations -- statements
    and actions -- differently based on our frame of reference and with
    whom we identify. I intended no further analogy.

    Eric,
    
    I am having difficulty following your train of thought.  Which of my
    statements do you think are sexist?
    
    Subtle forms of sexism and rascism are unconscious ways in which we
    respond to situation.  ways which each of us is probably unaware.  I
    learned in a workshop on rascism that for something to be sexist of
    racist, two things are need.  One is the overt or subtle ways in which
    stereotypes lead to decision making.  The other is the power position
    to impact and oppress the non dominant group based on those
    stereotypes.
    
    I believe that each one of us owns are own behavior.  Dialogue and
    feedback such as in this note can help any of us unable to see our own
    patterns.  I would hope that after this discussion if you were on the
    verge of picking out two women in a mixed group and attributing to them
    characteristics which might be considered stereotypical, a red flag
    would wave inside your head causing you to think about your reaction. 
    As I believe that you are a person who wants to treat everyone fairly,
    that second of reflection may be all you need to trigger a different
    intentional response.

Re: Note 1182.160
    
    Hi Patricia,
    
     As your reply was directly to my own, I am making the assumption that
     you are classifying me with your reply...
    
    >There are many things that middle class white men 
    
     That sounds like me.
    
    >who worship the bible 
    
     I hope I worship the God of the Bible and not the Bible.  Do
     you really know this about me?
    
    >find convenient.
    
     Do *I* fit this, Patricia?  Do I find this convenient?  Do you
     really know this about me?
    
    >Justification of there own superiority is one of them!
    
     Am I trying to justify something?  Am I trying to see myself as
     superior?  Do you really know these things about me?   (Did you
     really read my reply?  Where was any talk of self-superiority?)
    
     I shared my viewpoint that I thought much of the problem was
     insensitivity.  One characteristic of insensitivity is making
     negative assumptions about groups of people (or individuals).
    
     Your reply, in terms of magnitude of insensitivity per number
     of total words, I perceive to be one of the most insensitive 
     things I have read in this entire string.
    
     I feel you do your cause quite an injustice.  You look too much
     like the 'wrong' you declare to want to correct.
    
    						Tony
                               

    	You know, Patricia, you keep harping on the same thing over
    	and over again, and if I didn't know better I would accuse
    	you of deliberately trying to insult Catholicism and some other
    	organized religions.
    
    	I used to get angry by your entries.  Now I just feel sorry
    	for you for the blinding feminism that has infected your
    	judgement.  Others who often tend to support you are now
    	trying to gently show you that you are crossing a line of
    	good manners, but you just dig in your heels (is that a
    	sexist phrase?) and defend your sinking ship.  I choose
    	to be blunt and tell you that your notes as of late reflect
    	poorly on you.  Reverse sexism is no better than the sexism
    	you attempt to point out.

    	Great, Patricia, your statement shows that you understand my
    	support of 'the three examples' you posted in the beginning
    	of this topic.  You seek to deny me the very behavior you
    	just crowed about (through sexist slurs, no less).
    
    	And your last reply merely deminstrates that feminist blindness.

    Joe,
    
    I'm not acting very lady like am I.
    
    Stating a position, holding that position, and calling crap, crap. 
    
    I don't even shut up when men like you insist that I am wrong!
 
                                               Patricia

Well Patricia,

I for one consider your notes models of insight and courage, and I very 
much admire them and have learned a lot from reading them.  

Of course, I'm one who's so blinded by *my* feminism, I can't see a thing.

Through a screen darkly,

Dorian

    I don't insist you shut up.  In fact, I have hopefully encouraged the
    opposite.  What I find to be getting old is that you are seeking out
    some sort of bad guy here.  Because I am middle class and because I
    used the word irrational toward you, I am therefore sexist.  And by the
    way, I did notice your cute little inference in the Genesis 6:3 note. 
    The one on how only a rational person would follow the teaching of the
    J Tradition.  I'm glad I was able to douse that myth.
    
    -Jack

Potentially SEXIST REMARKS CAPITALIZED AND ANNOTATED
    
     	You know, Patricia, you keep <HARPING>(subtle) on the same thing over
    	and over again, and if I didn't know better I would accuse
    	you of deliberately trying to insult Catholicism and some other
    	organized religions.
    
    	I used to get angry by your entries.  Now I just feel sorry
    	for you for the <BLINDING FEMINISM THAT HAS INFECTED YOUR
    	JUDGEMENT>(overt).   Others who often tend to support you are now
    	trying to gently show you that you <CROSSING A LINE OF
    	GOOD MANNERS>(subtle), but you just <DIG IN YOUR HEELS>(subtle) (is that a
    	sexist phrase?) and defend your sinking ship.  I choose
    	to be blunt and tell you that your notes as of late reflect
    	poorly on you.  Reverse sexism is no better than the sexism
    	you attempt to point out.
    

    Actually, good manners would be attributed to the frailty of men and
    not women.
    
    -Jack

    
    I'm sorry, Patricia. I sometimes make the false assumption that people
    can read my mind. :^)

    This is the subtly 'sexist' statement I am talking about. The CAPS are
    mine only to highlight the areas I'm concerned about.

    > You seem very willing to be active in erasing overt sexism, but you
    > DON'T SEEM TO ME TO WANT TO LISTEN to suggestions of subtle sexism.
    > Since YOU REFUSE TO SEE subtle forms of sexism, you cannot effectively
    > do anything about it.

    This statement presumes the male stereotype that I see women's concerns
    as unworthy of my time and consideration. Men are stereotyped as
    insensitive, particularly to issues that do not directly affect them.
    It is akin to calling women irrational and illogical. 

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not mad, I'm not offended, I'm just pointing
    out what I see from my particular perspective. I'm not trying to
    protract an argument, I'm simply trying to articulate my view point;
    something I have apparently done poorly.

    Peace,

    	Eric 

    	.169
    
    	Patricia -- you prove my point.

	Come on, Joe.... why can't you address Patricia, instead of throwing
words at her? I'm so happy you feel sorry for her. I just wish it was for
something on the reality plane.


Glen

    Glen,
    
    Don't you find it amusing that Joe, a man who has never shown one iota
    of good manners is here is chastising me for my lack of good manners.
    In the same note, Joe applauds himself for being blunt!
    
    Of course young girls are constantly given the message that the most
    important thing for them is to be sweet and ladylike and have good
    manners.  The message that boys are given from the same age is that it
    is important to achieve and to win, to begin that climb up the pyramid
    of success.
    
    But of course, there are some in here who think I am really stretching
    to point out the correlation.
    
                                   Patricia

re Note 1182.164 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	I used to get angry by your entries.  Now I just feel sorry
>     	for you for the blinding feminism that has infected your
>     	judgement.  

        Assuming that Patricia is blinded (which may be a safe
        assumption -- we are all human, we are all blind in some
        ways), is it possible that she is blinded not by her
        "feminism" but by the sexism she has witnessed?

        "who did sin, this woman, or her parents, that she was born
        blind?"

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    I will speak in generalities since this appears to be a hot topic for
    alot of people.
    
    What I see in many ways is a form of McCarthyism displayed amongst
    women who have a passion for feminism and women's rights.  I see .169
    as an example of somebody being put in a box.  This person is
    guilty...no ands, ifs, or buts.  It doesn't seem to matter what intent
    is, that's it!  What feminists fail to see is by pointing out these
    subtle alleged sexist remarks, they are in FACT drawing a distinction
    between the sexes and are therefore breeding a disparity between men
    and women.  I never saw "hissy fit" as non gender neutral; however,
    since it has been pointed out to me, the term hissy fit cannot be used
    toward another man.  The rules have been set and if Newt Gingrich
    throws a hissy fit, I can't say he threw a hissy fit lest I rattle
    cages.  I just feel it has fallen into the realm of nonsense...the
    whole thing.  I believe it makes the women's movement look more
    incredulous.  
    
    -Jack

    
    Could someone explain to me why 'digging in your heels' might be 
    considered gender specific?  I have always related this analogy to 
    steer wrestling, calf roping, and goat roping.
                                                  
    Thanks. 
    
    Mary Jo

    Perhaps digging in your heels is not a sexist remark.  That was one I
    was not so confident in but since Joe himself thought it was sexist, I
    added it to the list.
    
    There is a difference however regarding how the concept may be applied
    to women and men.  Sort of if men dig in there heals they are tenacious
    and if women dig in there heals they are irrational.

| <<< Note 1182.174 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

| Don't you find it amusing that Joe, a man who has never shown one iota
| of good manners is here is chastising me for my lack of good manners.

	It is ammusing, but the lack of good manners seems to follow him
everywhere. 

| In the same note, Joe applauds himself for being blunt!

	I thought that was sad, actually. 

| Of course young girls are constantly given the message that the most important
| thing for them is to be sweet and ladylike and have good manners. The message 
| that boys are given from the same age is that it is important to achieve and 
| to win, to begin that climb up the pyramid of success.

	I think he applies it further than just with women. But that's just my
own opinion.



Glen

    Jack,
    
    Knowing that men fall within one of the three groups that I identified,
    I suspect that the men in the first two groups can benefit from seeing
    explicit examples of sexism.
    
    When I read your notes there is much that I find totally illogical and
    irrational, yet you single Cindy and I out as writing illogical and
    irrational notes.
    
    When I read Joe's notes, I see little that represents good manners.  He
    has said a number of times that he does not care how he comes across to
    the noters in this conference.  That to me is a blatant example of bad
    manners, yet he accuses me of having bad manners.
    
    I do put both of you in that third group of men who have stated openly
    that you believe that family leadership should be determined by gender. 
    Both of you are blinded to the stereotypes and assumptions embedded
    deeply in your communications.  I am not going to change either one of
    your minds.  You see me as a stubborn irrational women digging in my
    heels over nothing.  So be it.  I accept that.  
    
    If however 1/3 of the men I deal with are like you, blinded by
    stereotypes and assumptions and totally unable to see your own
    deficiencies and yet both on a mission to point out to me just how
    wrong my way of thinking is, perhaps the other 2/3 of the men reading
    this file can begin to understand how much of this nonesense a woman
    like me has to put up with.
    
    With the second group of men such as Eric, He and I can both benefit
    from the dialogue between us.  I can better understand his perspective
    and he can better understand mine.
    
    Men like Bob Messenger and Glen Silva who are committed to being allies
    to women in our struggle for equality learn how to better support us
    through the interchange.  I get a better feeling that there truly are
    liberated men who support the equality of all people and thus feel a
    bit more hopeful of continued change until every person is ultimately
    accepted as a whole human being rather than being pigeonedwholed into
    boxes because of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation.
    
    That is why I did in my heels.  You and Joe both provide great examples
    of sexism and denial.  I don't need to be judge and jury.  All I need
    to do is highlight the examples.  And then watch the two of you in your
    "hissy fits"!

      re: Note 1182.163
    
      Hi Tony,
    
        Hi!
    
      Did anyone respond to your note?
    
        No!
    
      Why not?
    
        I don't know!
    
      OK, thanks.
    
    						Tony

      Thanks, Patricia,
    
        I try to adhere to the will of God as expressed in the Bible.
        I thought you might discern that the leadership thing, which
        I believe is stated in the Bible, is something I am uncomfortable
        with.  Given this, I certainly, at least, cannot be using the
        Bible to support my own desires (at least not in this case).
        (It seemed like you were saying I want to be a leader and thus
        use the Bible in order to support a previous desire.  That is
        simply not the case here.)
    
        If actual real life scenarios cannot help you see that the
        leadership/superior connection is not universally applicable, 
        then I don't think that anything can.  
    
        As an engineer, I take stock in data.  The analogies I gave were
        actual data and you did well to steer away from trying to refute
        them.
    
        I'm not mad by the way.
    
        Again, thanks for replying.
    
    							Tony

    Tony, I like you.  I think you are a nice guy.  I however disagree with
    many of your theories and assumptions.  Many of the ideas you seem to
    get real excited about are issues that don't really concern me.  I
    don't respond to those issues.
    
    I responded to your note to me and you became angry at my response.  My
    way of dealing with  anger is to give the space and let the anger
    clear.
    
    I can respond to your note to me.  I don't really  care to argue the
    points.  We have argued the points ad infinitem.  You and I will never
    agree.  But here is my response anyway.
        
    >Hi Patricia,
    
     >As your reply was directly to my own, I am making the assumption that
     >you are classifying me with your reply...
    
    >>There are many things that middle class white men 
    
     >That sounds like me.
 Yes I was responding to your note.   
    >who worship the bible 
    
     >I hope I worship the God of the Bible and not the Bible.  Do
     >you really know this about me?
   
    Since I believe that God is not directly reflected in the Bible, I
    believe that anyone who looks in the Bible alone to understand the
    characteristics of God is in fact worshipping the Bible and not
    worshipping God.  The Bible becomes a magical Icon that cannot be
    challenged.  I have further concluded that the assumption of the
    innerrancy of the Bible is not only false, it is also dangerous,  and in
    fact leads to evil.  It leads to a divisive and negative way of thinking
    about people and events.   Those are my beliefs.
    
    >>find convenient.
    
     >Do *I* fit this, Patricia?  Do I find this convenient?  Do you
     >really know this about me?
    
    All American's have been taught that it is better to be a leader than a
    follower.  I believe men who use the excuse that they are the leader
    because the bible says so, do find it convenient.  No matter how benign
    the leader to the subordinate, leadership based on Gender alone is
    wrong.
    
    >>Justification of there own superiority is one of them!
   
    Regardless of how many times men tell me it ain't so, I continue to see
    the leader and the superior one as closely aligned terms. 
     
     >Am I trying to justify something?
    
    Yes, you are using the Bible to justify the leadership of men.
    
    
    >  Am I trying to see myself as superior? 
    
    Your note stated that if you and your wife did not agree then you would
    have use your God given responsibility to establish the course of
    events.  In a case of a serious disagreement, you will, based on your
    understand of the bible, assert your choices over the choices of your
    wife.  You see that your choices will have the superior claim.
    
    
    > Do you really know these things about me? 
    
    I only know what I read
      (Did you really read my reply?
    
    Yes i DID.
    
    >  Where was any talk of self-superiority?)
   
    You talked of male leadership.  I don't support the separate but equal
    premise.  As I stated above, in a case of a serious disagreement, you
    have stated that you see it to be your responsibility to assert your
    choices over your wifes choices.  You see that your choices have a
    superior claim to those of your wife.
    
     
    > I shared my viewpoint that I thought much of the problem was
    > insensitivity.  One characteristic of insensitivity is making
    > negative assumptions about groups of people (or individuals).
    
    
    
    > Your reply, in terms of magnitude of insensitivity per number
    > of total words, I perceive to be one of the most insensitive 
    > things I have read in this entire string.
    
    > I feel you do your cause quite an injustice.  You look too much
    > like the 'wrong' you declare to want to correct.
 
    I see these two replies as being angry replies.  You were hurt by my
    short brief reply.  The arguement that men should be the leaders over
    women simply because they are men is to me an obnoxious, evil argument.
    If you support and defend an argument that I considered obnoxious and
    evil, you will get a angry response.
    
    
    That is about as honest as I can get.  You asked for a response Tony. 
    I guess I am insensitive to the claim that men are the natural, God
    ordained leaders.
    
    
                                 Patricia
       
    						
                               

      How in the world did my reply get before yours???
    
      					Tony
    
      P.S. I think you're nice too!     :-)

    I think .182 is mine.  Patricia, I had a gem of a masterpiece for you
    and lost it.  Must be divine intervention! 
    
    In short, I let my lifestyle speak for myself.  I've been married ten
    years and Michele has made most of the big decisions in our home.  The
    "D" word doesn't exist in our home and the system works well for both
    of us.
    
    Re: illogic.  I have no doubt I have stated illogical things in here. 
    Hasn't everybody?  I admit when I'm wrong; I wish others would do more
    of that.  Apparently illogic is based on the filters of the reader,
    since our faiths are so vastly different.
    
    -Jack

    Well, I guess .182 was Tony's.  It ws a ghost reply on my terminal for
    a few minutes.
    
    -Jack

    I had a word backwards in my note so I extracted it, and reentered and
    corrected it.  Tony, you must have started your response in between the
    time I hit the delete note and reply.  Therefore our notes are now in
    the reverse order.

    
    re: .162

    > I would hope that after this discussion if you were on the verge of
    > picking out two women in a mixed group and attributing to them
    > characteristics which might be considered stereotypical, a red flag
    > would wave inside your head causing you to think about your reaction. 

    Hmm. I would hope that after this discussion if you were to pick out
    two men in a mixed group you would not presume them to be sexists. :^)

    Eric 
    

    Eric,
    
    I assume all of us to be sexist because we were all socialized in a
    sexist culture.  I see each one of us at a different point on a
    continuum in our endeavors to overcome the stereotyping that was
    ingrained in our beings.

	I know I am sexist. But I am working on that. :-)

    
    Wow. It just dawned on me that this is very similar to saying "we are
    all sinners." In the case of sexism the sin would be bearing false
    witness, I suppose.

    But even though we are all sinners, that doesn't mean we are always
    sinning -- that *everything* we do is sinful. I do not see everyone as
    a murderer or liar or adulterer, just because they are, as humans,
    capable of sin. Likewise, I do not see every criticism, or comment
    (rude or otherwise) made by one gender to another as sexist.  
    
    Eric

    Yeah but that commandment doesn't count!

    Bingo Eric!
    
    
    And the systemic sins  i.e. sexism, racism,classism etc are original sin. 
    Passed on from generation to generation.
    
    the individual goal is to be more intentional about are words and
    actions and move toward the point on the continuum where we are more
    egalitarian in our actions.

    
    I follow what you're saying, Patricia, and I agree with your statement
    as far as it goes: that the -isms are original sins. It's not the
    particular -ism that are the root, but rather the pride, and ego and
    lack of humility we humans possess. The need to define an Us vs. Them
    identity (Freud talks about this in Civilization and its Discontent.)
    is basic to human organizations. Sexism, racism, etc. are just the
    sinful means by which we manifest the sinful nature of Pride (by
    'pride' I mean the idea that my group is inherently better than your
    group).

    But (yes here comes my big but :^) ) I think it is equally sinful to
    put words into another person's mouth when the intent was not there.
    Just as it is wrong to falsely claim superiority over another, it is
    wrong to falsely claim oppression under another. We must be watchful on
    both fronts. 

    Peace,

    	Eric

    Gee Eric,
    
    Just when I thought I was getting somewhere!(:-)
    
                                   Patricia

    
    Patricia,

    Did I make sense to you in my first paragraph at least?

    Eric

    Eric,
    
    You made sense, sensing the reaction from this group here, I almost
    hate to open the rathole that many feminist theologians understand the
    sinfulness of pride, ego, and lack of humility as belonging to Male
    theology.  The understanding of women theologians and psychologist is
    that all to often women lack enough of an Ego.  That women to often
    define their own self worth in terms of others.  So pride is not alway
    sinful.  But aside from that rathold, I was ok with your first
    paragraph.
    
    I may have unnecessarily interpretted your but statement personally. 
    My reaction is when do I put words into others mouths, I only highlight
    the words that others use.  And how do we expose sexism and racism for
    what it is without calling it what it is.
    
    I really do love that quote from Mandela.
    
    
    "We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.  It
    is not just in some of us;  it's in everyone.  And as we let our own
    light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the
    same.  As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence
    automatically liberates others."
    
    That offers a different perspective of pride.
    
    More important than anything settled or not settled, this dialogue has
    been beneficial.
    
                                         Shalom brother,
    
    
                                         Patricia

    Well, since we are on a sensitivity mission, let me put in another pov:
    [upper case used to identify the object of my comments]
    
    re: .160
    
>    Tony,
        
>    There are many things that MIDDLE CLASS
>    WHITE MEN 
    
    This is classist, sexist, and racist... you pick out a very
    specific group for your charge.  In reality, what you see as
    "convenient" for this group, applies to many others well outside your
    unobjective perameters.
     
>    WHO WORSHIP THE BIBLE 
    
    Non-sequitur.  No one has demonstrated, at least in this topic, worship 
    of the Bible- only a following of its text. 
    
>    find CONVENIENT 
    
    I read Tony's note and I find nothing to suggest that he
    finds leadership as even being PREFERABLE, much less a convenient
    rationalization for his wanting authority.  You are making up the rules 
    as you go along, it would seem.
    
>    JUSTIFICATION OF THERE OWN SUPERIORITY is one of them!
    
    Which is obviously NOT what Tony was trying to do in his note.  If 
    anything he made it clear that he does not consider a Biblical leadership 
    role as a SUPERIOR role.  He has gone out of his way to give real-life
    examples to get this point across, but you refuse to listen (my
    impression, I'm not trying to read your mind here).
                                             
    ***             ***               ***            ***            ***
    
    You not only put Tony in a box of your own making, a position he
    clearly shows is not true (unless you want to call him a liar), but you
    do so with the widest of brushes that not only paints Tony, but singles
    out all "middle class white men" for some strange reason.  I can assure
    you that there are many who share Tony's position on Biblical
    leadership who are not white, middle class, or even of the male gender.
    
    
    -steve

    Let's try another one.  I call this reading someone's notes through
    one's own filters.  We all do this from time to time, so it may be a
    good idea to point out miscommunication when we see it.
    
    re: .165
    
>    Joe,
    
>    I'm not acting very lady like am I.
 
    Joe wasn't responding to you because of any perceived gender
    action/reaction as you seem to imply.  You are either misreading his
    note, reading it through heavy personal filtration, or you are
    deliberately twisting his response into a sexist one (which ironically
    is the very thing that Joe was pointing out to you).
       
>    Stating a position, holding that position, and calling crap, crap. 
 
    So, you alone define what is crap?  I think not.  You certainly state a
    position and hold to it, though.  I give you credit for that.  But just
    maybe, in this *one* instance, it is you who are responsible for the
    crap?  At least try and consider that it is *possible* that you can be
    wrong from time to time.  I personally think that this is one of those
    times.  This "subtle sexism", specifically where it has been determined
    that none is intended, is a red herring of emmense proportions.  To me,
    it seems to be going out of one's way to be offended (an opinion
    obviously not shared by all in here).
       
>    I don't even shut up when men like you insist that I am wrong!
 
    What about when women insist you are wrong?  (like in another
    conference I've seen you participate in)  You seem to ignore women just
    as much as men in discussions of sexism and the like.  It would seem
    that you are using the fact that Joe is a man as an excuse to further
    your sexism crusade.
    
    It really isn't about sexism at all, is it?  It is about ideologies. 
    Your ideology says that Bible fundamentalists are inhearantly sexist
    because they follow the "patriarchal" Bible.  You refuse to see that
    the Bible does NOT declare one gender's defined role as being SUPERIOR. 
    You refuse to see the inference that the woman's defined role may be
    MORE important over all than the male leadership role. 
    
    Take your blinders off, Patricia.  Quit making up excuses to create an
    environment of "us and them".  If there are any overt, intentional
    sexist remarks towards the women in this file (to "put them in their
    place", etc., just because they are women), I will be right there with
    you to denounce that particular note, and chastize the author.  
    
    I do believe in equality between genders.  Equality does not always
    mean "the same", nor does it mean that God did not design us each for
    different roles.  Different roles, no matter how much you state
    otherwise,  do not equal inferiority or superiority- only different.
    
    
     
    -steve

    Steve, 
    
    fortunately the supreme court deemed a long time ago that "separate but
    equal" is a lie.
    
    As a student I am taught that when I write something I should be very
    aware that I am writing as a white, middle class, heterosexual woman. 
    Because that is my background there are lots of assumptions that go
    with that background that cannot be overlooked.  THere is a whole set
    of shared experiences that those within that group most likely share
    with me while others don't.  I must be very aware that my experience as
    a woman is different than the experience of a black woman, a hispanic
    woman, a third world woman, or a lesbian.
    
    That is the sense in which I use the term white middle class men. 
    White middle class, able bodied, straight men  for the most part have not
    had the opportunity to feel the sense of oppression that all black men,
    women , gay men and Lesbian, third world men have felt.  Those who have
    never experienced oppression are slightly handicapped when it comes to
    understanding what oppression is all about.
    
    

    Patricia,
    
    I think my irony was lost on you.  [Oh well.]  Whether you realize it or
    not, you just made my point for me.
    
    In any case, "separate but equal" is a non-sequitur- especially
    considering the legal nature of this phrase.  Do you realize that this
    first sentence of your note takes a Biblical view (men and women have
    differing roles) and denounces it by an unrelated SCOTUS decision?  Do
    you look to SCOTUS for your moral guidance or for your role in life?  I 
    would hope not.  
    
    Another reason I call it "non-sequitur", is that "separate but equal"
    is a far cry from "different Biblical roles".   The phrase in
    question refers to legal rights.  Biblical roles are voluntary (and will
    only be followed by those who believe the Bible is God's word).  There
    is no legal pressure to follow the Bible's outlines for our lives.  To
    bring up a SCOTUS ruling, in this instance, is quite out of place.
    
    
    -steve                       

    Patricia:
    
    Currently our State run University of Massachusetts funds a African
    American newspaper, an African American student union, and a number of
    other organizations taylored for people of color.  In the argument of
    separate but equal, do you see merit in this?  I see a black student
    union as definitely separate and racist.
    
    -Jack

    The silence is back!!

    HI JACK.  HOW ARE YOU THIS AFTERNOON.

    Steve,
    
    I don't need to prove anything to you.  I am quite comfortable with my
    position.  All rational people who are familiar with the Bible and not
    blinded by their faith in THE BIBLE acknowledge the patriarchal nature of
    the Bible. 
    
    One of the great theologians of Unitarian Universalism, James Luther
    Adams challenges all of us to create not only a priesthood of all
    believers but a prophethood of all believers.  I take that challenge
    serious.  I pray for wisdom to discern what is good and what is evil. 
    I then pray for the courage to stand firm for that which is good and
    against that which is evil.
    
    Sexism is evil.  Sexism robs 50% of humanity of their full personhood. 
    Sexism robs the world of the additional services that could be
    performed if all were encouraged to be the best they could be.  Sexism
    robs the Roman Catholic Church of a large number of able leaders at a
    time when many local Roman Catholic Churches are failing because of
    lack of leadership.
    
    I acknowledge that I look at these issues through the filters of one
    middle aged, white middle class heterosexual women.  Each of us look at
    every situation through our own filters. 
    
    I look for and value feedback regarding all my actions including my
    noting.  I reserve for myself the responsibility for determining how
    my thoughts and actions will be changed by the feedback I receive.  I
    have received some great feedback from some of the women in Yukon. 
    There are many areas where I have great agreement with them.  There are
    some areas where my belief in an authority higher than the Bible allows
    me more flexibility and more courage to confront sexism than they are
    allowed at least openly in Yukon which requires a creed of strict
    loyalty to every word of the canon.
    
    I will continue to be an occasional voice there.  I will continue to
    study and learn and practice being strong and articulate in those
    things in which I feel a great passion.  I appreciate the feedback you
    provide, the challenge you create, and the opportunity to stay very
    steadfast in my beliefs in spite of criticism.

    Jack,
    
    I've answered that very question many times before.  Because I know
    what it feels like to be part of an oppressed group, I also understand
    and respect the desirability of people of color to meet alone in groups
    with other people of color.  I am a member of a small woman's
    spirituality group.  I encourage men to be parts of intimate men's
    groups as long as one of the purposes of the group is not to practice
    how, learn, or be encouraged to oppress others.  It is critical that
    men learn how to trust and be intimate with other men.  The survival of
    humanity depends upon it.

    > Sexism robs 50% of humanity of their full personhood. 
    
    This is a sexist remark. It assumes that only one gender is the
    oppressed and the other the oppressor. This simply is not the case.
    
    
    Eric

    By the way, is "people of color" considered protocol these days?  I
    used it a few replies ago and one just can't tell from year to year.
    
    Patricia, I agree that it is good for groups of diversity to get
    together and build one another up.  Student Unions however are funded
    by Tax dollars and ARE separate.  If they had a white student union, my
    guess is that you would be up in arms over this.
    
    -Jack

    Eric,
    
    Your point is well taken.   Although men are the dominant group and
    women are the subordinated group, Sexism does in fact rob both women
    and men of their full personhood.  The loss to each though is very
    different.
    
                             Patricia

      re: .198
    
      Hi Steve,
    
        I really *appreciated* your reply and you understood my position
        perfectly.
    
        I did not seek to be the leader.  Without scripture as a guide
        and should my wife and I have had some irreconciliable
        disagreement, I suppose I would have offered to flip a coin!
    
        I did not seek to be superior.  I don't even think I am superior!
        Perhaps I don't know my heart and someday God can tell me I was
        seeking superiority, but if so, I am not aware of this.  (Perhaps
        Patricia was given an 'inside-look' at my heart.)
    
        Steve, thanks again very very much!  Someone took my reply, 
        added commentary, and did not contradict my intended meaning one
        iota!
    
        By the way...would you be willing to be my editor??!   ;-)
    
        I basically have two main thoughts...
    
     1) There are real-life occurances where leadership does not imply
        superiority.  Michael Jordan does what Phil Jackson tells him to
        do.  But, you can bet if the Bulls have to let one or the other
        go...Jackson's gone!
    
        This does not necessitate that leadership cannot imply superiority
        in some specific applications.  It DOES necessitate that the 
        reasoning (that leadership implies superiority as some sort of 
        universally applicable axiom) is necessarily flawed.
    
        Patricia has not proven a plank in her argument.  It remains
        proofless and thus holds very little validity for me.
    
     2) Why people say the things they do is a matter of the heart.  What
        one may perceive as sexism may in fact be blind insensitivity.  As
        its a matter of the heart, only the ability to see the heart itself
        can conclude correctly on the matter (without any chance of being
        wrong).
    
        One can even witness a person who uses sexist remarks repeatedly,
        however even this cannot insure the necessity that some remark 
        used was sexist, it just raises the probability.  We do not know
        the heart!!!
    
    						Tony
                                

    And as an addendum, the bible supports the notion that man is an
    incomplete being alone.  Therefore, superiority is a non sequitor.
    
    -Jack

    The Bible does not say that a man is somehow "incomplete" without a mate.
    
    Richard
    

    Correct.  I was speaking in terms of the equality of a husband and wife
    in a marriage.  One is not superior to the other.  
    
    -Jack

    
    > Your point is well taken.

    Actually you missed my point and supported it at the same time in your
    note. My point is that it is sexist to say that men are *the* dominant
    group and women are *the* subordinate group. My point is that men can
    and are the object of sexism in numerous cases. I reject the binary
    thinking of "man bad, woman good" that is often the focus of
    discussions on sexism. Any attempt to *force* an identity onto a person
    based solely on their gender is wrong. 

    Your point, however, that both genders lose in all cases of sexism is
    valid. 

    Eric  

      re: -1
    
      I'm going to side with Patricia on this one Eric.  Patricia
      was thinking collectively while you were thinking individually.
      Thus, it was incorrect to assume she meant it applied in all
      cases individually.
    
      As a generalization, the group that is males is the dominant group
      while the group that is females is the subordinate group.  Using
      a generalization, as such, does not suggest the inference that
      in individual cases there cannot be sexism where males are 
      subordinate/females are dominant.
    
    						Tony
                  

    
    But the very idea of generalizations applied to sexes has been charged
    sexist! If Jack say that women are emotional it is sexist, but if
    Patricia says men are dominant over women, that is not?!  Apple and
    Oranges, perhaps, but the goal of equally rights is to treat these
    apples and oranges as equals... at least to the extent that they are
    both fruit. 

    I'm not denying the truth in what Patricia said. Generally the men of
    the world have made great effort to keep women subordinate to them in
    politics, management and other leadership roles. I'm just pointing out
    where I see different rules being applied when it comes to deciding
    what is allowed to be called "sexist." Given what has been said in this
    note string, I thought that something could be sexist when it evoked a
    stereotype (usually negative) about an identifiable group. I thought
    that something could be sexist based solely on the perception of the
    audience, no matter how accurate or benign the speaker is. 

    The harsh words Patricia has for "men" makes me uncomfortable...
    perhaps as uncomfortable as she is made by Jeff's patronizing and
    harsh words about "feminists." 

    Eric
                                                             

re Note 1182.215 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI:

>       I'm going to side with Patricia on this one Eric.  Patricia
>       was thinking collectively while you were thinking individually.
>       Thus, it was incorrect to assume she meant it applied in all
>       cases individually.
>     
>       As a generalization, the group that is males is the dominant group
>       while the group that is females is the subordinate group.  Using
>       a generalization, as such, does not suggest the inference that
>       in individual cases there cannot be sexism where males are 
>       subordinate/females are dominant.
  
        I'm pretty close to concluding that "thinking collectively"
        and generalizations are almost always bad if they are not
        *always* true of individuals.

        Isn't this the kind of thinking that gets us into the
        problems of sexism in the first place?  People observe the
        world around them and notice that women seem to be doing more
        of some things, and men others, and women seem to be thinking
        more one way, and men another.  While this itself is not bad,
        it seems to be a human tendency (perhaps it is part of
        "original sin") to apply generalizations as universalities,
        applying to all cases individually.

        Bob

Note 1182.216

>    But the very idea of generalizations applied to sexes has been charged
>    sexist! If Jack say that women are emotional it is sexist, but if
>    Patricia says men are dominant over women, that is not?!

Eric,

Let me see if I can throw a little different light on this.  Like Cindy,
I see a connection between racism and sexism.

What if Jack said that Blacks are unambitious or have an aversion to an
honest day's work, but Patricia said that Blacks continue to suffer the
oppressive effects of covert discrimination?

Both would likely admit the existance of exceptions, some of them profound.
But would both statements be racist?

Shalom,
Richard

      I personally don't have a problem with saying something about a
      certain group that is 'overall' true - as long as it is stated
      to be what it is.  A generalization.
    
      Is it wrong to generalize if the generalization is true.
    
      Is it wrong to state, for example, that Asians generally fare 
      better academically than whites in America?  Is it wrong to
      state that whites generally fare worse academically than Asians
      in America?
    
      Why is it wrong?
    
      Is it racist?
    
      I can't see how it can be taken to be wrong!
    
      Just don't apply the generality to any individuals!
    
    						Tony

    When I say that men are the dominant group and women are the
    subordinate group I am talking about the systemic effect of sexism and
    not the action of individual men and women.
    
    If someone randomly calls into Digital and a man answers the phone, the
    caller will most likely believe that the person in charge has answered
    the phone.
    
    If a woman answers the phone, the caller will either not know whether
    they have reached the person in charge or think they have reached a
    Secretary.
    
    If a woman and man, walk into an auto dealer, the salesperson most
    likely will assume that the man will ultimately make the decision.  The
    conversation will be directed toward the man.
    
    If a woman and man are negotiating a deal with another, it will be assumed
    that the man is the real negotiator.  THat is off course unless the
    subject is an area that is assumed to be woman's domain.
    
    That is what I mean when I identify a dominant and subordinate group. 
    The general acceptance of one group as the normative group and the
    other group as different than and subject to invisibility and
    suspicion.
    
    
    
    

    When I talk about dominant group and subordinate group I am not talking
    about actions of individuals.  
    
    I am talking about how individuals will be treated, all other things
    being equal.
    
    A man of average height, weight, intellegience, communication skills
    will be channeled into positions of authority.  A woman of average
    height, weight, intellegience, communication skills will be channeled
    into a lesser position.  This is on average.  Each of us as individuals
    have billions of interactions each year.  Most of those interactions
    will consist of systemic stereotypical responses to our gender, race,
    sexual orientation, class.   Each one of us, women and men are sexist. 
    Women for instance are not put into lower positions by men in general
    or individual men.  Women are channel into lower positions because of
    learned stereotypical responses by women and men, including ourselves
    and our own responses.  Men are denied full access to their children
    not by women or individual women, but by stereotypical response by both
    women and men, including themselves.  That is the nature of the problem
    that I would like to work toward overcoming.  The only way to solve the
    problem is for a majority of individuals to actively commit to
    deprogramming themselves from the responses that they have learned
    since infancy.

    
    Richard,

    I see similarities between racism and sexism, but I do not see the two
    as interchangeable when making analogies.

    Sticking with the issue of sexism, I am merely pointing out what I see
    as an inequity: a stereotype of a woman (as perceived by the listener)
    is roundly criticized as sexist, yet a stereotype of men is seen as
    valid. 

    To say: 

         "American society, through its laws and customs, has restricted
         the leadership role women are allowed to play. The vast majority
         of the positions of power are held by men, from elected officials
         to the board room to the cop on the street."

    is one thing, but to say:

         "Men dominate women."
      
    is quite another. For example, we might say that Nazism flourished in
    20th century Germany, but we wouldn't say Germans are Nazis. 

    Again, I'm not on a crusade. I would prefer to speak plainly, without
    malice to individuals, and be done with it. That means it isn't sexist
    for me to call *a* female emotion and it isn't sexist for someone else
    to make the broad statement that women are the victims of sexism
    imposed by a society dominated by men. The point is, once we have
    determined we must be sensitive to a woman's perspective in our dialog
    (we've heard a whole litany of how language is a means to subtle
    sexism), it is ironically sexist (or at least unequal) *not* to be
    equally concerned with our language with regard to a man's perspective.
    I will stop short of saying you *refuse* to see the sexism in Patricia's
    remarks. :^)
          

    Maybe it's me. Perhaps I am too sensitive; trying to be a liberated man
    of the '90s. *I* am not an oppressor. *I* am a full partner in a
    marriage (as father and husband). *I* have no problem with a woman as
    boss, or judge, or president, or priest. So perhaps I overreact when I
    here unqualified criticism (sharp criticism to my sensitive ears)
    about "men," especially from those preaching equality and fairness.
          
	Eric

    PS. Please take my comments in the spirit of exchanging ideas, and not
        as from someone angrily lashing out. This is an area that we, as men
        and women, need to explore with equal participation. I think we are
        striving for a common goal: equal respect, dignity and self
        determination regardless of gender 

    re: .205 (Patricia)
        
>    I don't need to prove anything to you.  
    
    I haven't asked you to prove anything to me.
    
>    I am quite comfortable with my position.  All rational people who are 
>    familiar with the Bible and not blinded by their faith in THE BIBLE 
>    acknowledge the patriarchal nature of the Bible. 
 
    Since you believe this, then the only reason I can see for your
    arguments is either to denigrate the Bible, or to reinterpret it to suit
    your feminist views.
          
>    Sexism is evil.  Sexism robs 50% of humanity of their full personhood. 
>    Sexism robs the world of the additional services that could be
>    performed if all were encouraged to be the best they could be.  Sexism
>    robs the Roman Catholic Church of a large number of able leaders at a
>    time when many local Roman Catholic Churches are failing because of
>    lack of leadership.
 
    Here is the crux of the issue.  What you are quick to label as
    "sexism", may indeed be something altogether different.  Unfortunately,
    your mind is made up on this and any quality arguments to the contrary
    are being tossed out forthright, without due consideration (IMO).
           
>    There are some areas where my belief in an authority higher than the 
>    Bible allows me more flexibility and more courage to confront sexism than 
>    they are allowed at least openly in Yukon which requires a creed of strict
>    loyalty to every word of the canon.
 
    But if God wrote the Bible, why would God contradict himself in your
    heart?  You see, our feelings cloud many issues.  The Bible is very
    clear that we should not trust feelings or even rely on our
    intelligence- that if a doctrine goes against the scriptures, that it
    is not of God.  
    
    Satan is very clever at disguising evil as good.  God knows this, and our 
    proclivity to believe in things that *seem* good to us, which is why he 
    specifically tells us not to follow anything that contradicts His word.
    
    Without God's word, what form of concrete guidance do we really have in
    spiritual matters, or matters of God's church? 
       
>    I will continue to be an occasional voice there.  I will continue to
>    study and learn and practice being strong and articulate in those
>    things in which I feel a great passion.  I appreciate the feedback you
>    provide, the challenge you create, and the opportunity to stay very
>    steadfast in my beliefs in spite of criticism.
    
    I'm glad you view my criticism in such a positive way.  It is certainly
    not meant to be mean-spirited or negative towards you, personally.  
    
    My main concern is that, though you state you will continue to learn
    and grow strong in faith, you seem to be more guided by your passion. 
    This, in itself, is not a bad thing, as long as that which you are
    passionate about is really of God.  In order to learn and grow,
    sometimes we have to evaluate our passions, to make sure that they are
    properly directed.  You seem (to me, just going by notes) to be
    unwilling to evaluate *some* things objectively, under the light of 
    scripture.
    
    I realize that I give the Bible more authority than you do, but I feel
    that picking and choosing which doctrine I will follow in the Bible is
    an untenable spiritual position to take.  If you can't believe what one 
    section says, how can you believe any part of it?  If any part is wrong, 
    then either God is a liar, or God had nothing to do with the Bible.  In
    either case, we only have the unauthoritative word of men, and we
    cannot count on anything that is included in the pages of this book
    (including salvation).
    
    The Bible is an all or nothing book.  God did not leave any other
    option available, IMO.  You either believe His word, or you don't. 
    Picking and choosing is not an option that is tenable.
    
    
    -steve

re Note 1182.223 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     The Bible is an all or nothing book.  God did not leave any other
>     option available, IMO.  You either believe His word, or you don't. 
>     Picking and choosing is not an option that is tenable.
  
        Steve, I have no doubt that for some people there is no other
        alternative -- you rightly use "IMO".

        However, for many others there are other alternatives.  For
        many others it is obvious that even those who denounce
        "picking and choosing" and deny "picking and choosing"
        themselves nevertheless do "pick and choose."

        IMO, of course.

        Bob

    re: .210
    
    Hi Tony,
    
    You're welcome.  I hate to see things taken out of context, I do.  8^)
    I'll have to pass on being your editor, though, as I am a hapless
    mis-speller.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    This discussion has been excellent and has helped me focus more
    precisely.  I thank all the participants for that.
    
    THe two classes of sexism can more precisely be defined
    
    1.  Overt Sexism. In overt sexism the speaker makes inaccurate
    statement regarding the strenths or weakness of one group.  THe
    accuracy or inaccuracy can be tested by a reasonable examination.
    Example one and two fall within that class.
    
    2.  Systemic Sexism.  Is a tendency, over time for stereotypical images
    to be applied to one gender or a member of one gender.  In many cases
    it cannot be unequivocally proven.  If someone had an interest, they
    could scan this file for every time the word "unreasonable" or
    "illogical" was used.  I would guess that proportionately to the number
    of participants those terms are used more toward women than men.  That
    propensity for the stereotype to be applied is what is sexist. 
    Individuals usually don't even know the extent to which stereotypes
    influence there on thinking and therefore actions.
    
    It would be more precise to identify potentially stereotypical remarks
    without concluding that the remark itself was sexist.
    
    I do believe that we can do some specific analysis based on the facts
    of the instance to determine whether the remark was or was not sexist.
    Since systemic sexism effects the way each of us think, unless we
    believe that ststemic sexism exists and commit ourselves to be
    intentionally non sexist, then we will deny that our remarks are or
    could be sexist.
    
    Jack's remark in Example three indicated that Cindy, Patricia and
    others in here often write things that are illogical and irrational.
    I know that that is a stereotype that is often applied to women.  I
    know that out of everyone in this file Jack has identified two of us
    that just happen to be women.  I know that I have taken 8 theology and
    Bible classes toward my MDiv in the last four years, that I have
    written papers and exams for each of those classes and have gotten
    grades no less than b+.  That provides me independent feedback that my
    writing tends to be very rational.  Cindy has made the same statement
    about a course she took in Logic.
    
    So the evidence.
    
    1.  A stereotypical phrase attributed to women.
    2.  two women singled out.
    3.  Independent verification from each that they are regarded as
    logical by professional evaluators.
    
    
    So when women are identified as illogical or unreasonable, a light
    should flash, that that is a potentially stereotypical remark.  
    
    

                                     -< Example 3 >-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Z    "considering some of the ideas brought forth here by
Z    yourself(Patricia),
Z    Cindy, and  others are, with all due respect, quite foreign to
Z    logic and critical thinking. "
    
    I directed this to you because you are the host of this string and also
    the only one who had been putting entries in.  I put Cindy in there
    because of another string that was gojng on at the same time where we
    were discussing something similar.  This was on my mind when writing
    the above.
    
    Regarding your credentials, I do respect your efforts in obtaining the
    grades you have.  At the same time, I have found some of Darwins
    theories to be quite irrational and illogical.  The Roman and Egyptian
    Empires have laid the foundations for the New Age if you will, and yet
    they worshiped everything from statues to lice to the Nile River.  
    Primitive thinking for nations as advanced in philosophy and intellect.
    
    -Jack

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I'd sure like for you to attempt a comprehensive and rational
        argument for the postulate that lesser authority implies
        inferiority.
    
        If not, at least candidly acknowledge that this remains proof-
        less.
    
        To me, some of this is like a house of cards that can be perceived
        as standing tall and grand.  But, way down in the foundation is a
        trump card whose 'statement of belief' is entirely nonsupported.
    
        Remove that card and voilla!  The whole house just falls!  It was
        a mirage!  It was supported by something which had no support, but
        was held forth as having all the support in the world.
    
    						Tony

    re: .224
    
    I agree with your evaluation.  This DOES happen.  More's the reason to
    faithfully and prayerfully search the scriptures (by those like me who
    denounce "picking and choosing").  If I find a position I take as
    untenable (my word of the day  8^) ) scripturally, then I will change
    it.  I will NOT change it due to the doctrine of PCness or other
    man-made doctrine currently en vogue (otherwise known as the "social
    gospel").
    
    I have changed stances before.  One of my changes (after a long
    discussion in Christian), was my view on when the rapture will take
    place.  My previous view was that it would be after the great
    tribulation.  I've completely flip-flopped, as I was made aware of the
    scriptural inconsistency of my view.  
    
    
    
    -steve

    re: .226
    
    I have one nit here.  Credentials (your theology classes and Cindy's
    logic class) do point towards rational and logical thinking, just as
    my A's in English are credentials that I can clearly articulate my
    thoughts on paper (and spell correctly).
    
    In reality, though such may be the *tendency*, it doesn't always mean
    that this is true.  I know I have written very poor notes in the past,
    mostly because I didn't really think on it long enough to articulate
    the thought properly.  I also have this lazy tendency to mis-spell-
    something I didn't do much of in school.
    
    The same logic applies to Cindy's logic class and your theology
    classes.  The credentials point towards a good ability to do X, but
    this does not mean that you will do X in every given note.  It also
    means that when you don't do X, folks will tend to notice it (since you
    may normally be logical and rational), and will be more likely to point
    it out.
    
    I could also point out that since I have taken numerous programming
    courses, that I can also think very logically; but sometimes filters
    and other factors DO cloud that inherant logical thinking.  
    
    
    -steve

Something that hasn't been touched on very much is the fact that many
women support a male-dominant culture.

Overtly and covertly, through speech and silence, through complicity
and complacency, many women actually contribute to the perpetuation
of confining paradigms and conditions.

The truth is, it ain't just men.

Shalom,
Richard

    I was actually thinking of this just yesterday.  I was watching a
    movie, can't remember which one, but the dialog showed that Hollywood
    was intent of stereotyping the women as helpless dependent non
    thinkers.  I was surprised.
    
    -Jack

Watch for depictions in movies of women who demonstrate ambition.  They
almost invariably lose out in the end.  The Academy Award-winning film
"Mildred Pierce" is a good place to start.

Do films reflect our mental processes, our unconsious hopes and fears,
our unspoken rules and myths?

To some degree I think they do.

Shalom,
Richard

    
    Patricia,

    I appreciate your notes in here. While I disagree with the fervor with
    which you champion against sexism, I agree with the ideas of Overt and
    Systemic (as opposed to subtle) sexism. 

    As I said before, I think the "illogical" comments have more to do with
    conservative/liberal issues than male female. Perhaps you suggestion of
    a scan of the file would show this. It's true you and Cindy are women,
    but you yourself have also admitted to pushing the boundaries of what
    it means to be called "Christian." The more non-conservative one is,
    the more illogical and irrational they are to the conservative. Now
    ask yourself, who is the most *non-fundamentalist* in this conference?
    :^)  And Cindy... good heavens! she hangs out with Hinus! :^) How
    rational *could* she be :^)

    So the evidence:

    1. A stereotypical phrase attributed to liberals by conservatives
    2. Two liberals singled out
    3. Independent verification of non-conservative, no biblical
    inerrantist thinkers.

    Unless of course the only way you view yourself is by your gender :^)

    Eric
    
    PS> Please not the smiley faces!

    Richard,
    
    I totally agree with you on both your notes.  Everyone of us has been
    indoctrinated into the stereotypes and everyone of us fall victim to
    non conscious stereotypical actions.  This includes women and men.  It
    makes it impossible for a woman or man to play a non traditional role
    without a lot of heartache and conflict.
    
    The movies and songs and other artistic expressions of our culture will
    either potray the stereotype or make an active attempt to reverse the
    stereotype. 
    
    After a while it just gets very frustrating having to explain for the
    millionth time why men should not be identified as spiritual leaders or
    any other kind of leader simply on the basis of gender.

    Eric,
    
    There is a lot of truth in what you say.  Of course the fundementalist
    thinks of the Feminist and the liberal as tightly interwoven anyways. 
    I will be more aware of the words and how they are applied to women and
    men, liberal and conservative.  
    
    It was important for me to understand that systemic sexism is more
    about the total barage of responsive to the individual and not in
    particular any one response.  I do suspect though that in the dialogue
    between conservative and liberal, even though disparaging statements
    may fly, the words used for each might be different.  I will be looking
    for those difference mainly to help clarify my own thinking.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Patricia

Cindy,

What do you say to the women that like the role society gives them, and prefer 
to stay in that role? For these women your proposal's are blasting them out of 
a situation they are comfortable with, into something that they may dislike 
intensely. Is their perception of reality (happiness) and their desire any 
less valid then yours? For in this particular case, I don't think you can have 
it both ways...

Steve

BTW, this note does not necessarily represent my views on the subject. It 
springs from my experience of being a minority (non-Christian) and the 
unshakeable assumption of many of the Christians around me that I cannot be 
happy or content without God, an assumption which I know is completely 
incorrect.

A notable exception is "The Last Seduction", but there the female character
is thoroughly evil.

/Mike

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
             <<< Note 1182.233 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10" >>>

Watch for depictions in movies of women who demonstrate ambition.  They
almost invariably lose out in the end.  The Academy Award-winning film
"Mildred Pierce" is a good place to start.

    Re.a few back
    
    Eric,
    
    >hangs with Hindus (;^) [paraphrased]
    
    Yep...in fact, just this last weekend, I attended a Gita Yatra - a
    celebration of the anniversary of 5000+ years of the Krishna/Arjuna
    discourse handed down through the Bhagavad-Gita.  Wore my Indian garb
    and everything.  (;^)
    
    Re.237
    
    Steve,
    
    I'm officially signed out of the conference for the moment because I
    won't be in the office very much for the next 6 weeks and didn't want
    to jump into any discussions I couldn't finish (or may be unexpectedly 
    'raptured' out of (;^)).
    
    So with that in mind, here is my view on women who are satisfied with
    their situation...I think it's fine.  I don't try to push my lifestyle
    onto anyone, however I do enter into discussions and present my views
    from my perspective and why they work for me.  So no, their perception
    is no less valid than mine.  If the woman is *genuinely* happy and
    being treated well in her life situation, then that's fine.  But if I 
    see she is not, and doesn't realize it (for a myriad of reasons), then 
    I would try to present alternatives to have her see that there is 
    another way of living and that she has a choice not to stay in a bad 
    situation.
    
    One thing I really like about Unitarian Universalism is that because we
    have no books and no gods, there are no set 'roles' that pigeonhole
    people, and so people are given the freedom to be who they are and
    define their own roles.  For some people, this is a scary thing, and so
    from this perspective, UUism is probably not for everyone.  But for
    those of us who don't find this to be scary, it's a wonderful place to
    grow, explore, and become all that we can possibly be.  There are women
    in the pulpits, and men in the kitchen...probably moreso in UU churches
    than in any other church or religion that you'll find.    
    
    Cindy

    >But for those of us who don't find this to be scary, it's a wonderful
    >place to grow, explore, and become all that we can possibly be.  There
    >are women in the pulpits, and men in the kitchen...probably moreso in
    >UU churches than in any other church or religion that you'll find.    
    
   Isn't it wonderful!

    Richard Lederher is a columnist in the two big New Hampshire
    newspapers.  He is a linguistics expert, an author, and a professor. 
    He is well qualified in this area.
    
    The question was brought forth regarding the term, "Hissy Fit".  The
    inquirer was gender biased in her thinking.  What she was told by the
    professor was to go into linguistics history and you will find the
    term, "Hissy fit" is in fact gender neutral.  Hissy fit is described as
    making a lot of noise and fuss (like a stantly cat), over nothing.  It
    can be equated to terms such as "Tempest in the Teapot".  This may
    explain why Ted Koppel, a well versed communicator used the term to
    define Gingrich.
    
    -Jack

    Conversation 2 minutes ago with neighbor here:
    
    Her:  Jack, how are the Vikings doing this year?
    
    Me:   Urrr, how would I know.  I haven't followed NFL Football in
    	  years.
    
    Her:  Well GOSH, you're a guy!!!!

    Jack,
    
    I think I know ribbing, albeit based on a stereotype, when I hear it.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    
    PS  I wouldn't have even known the Vikings are in the NFL.
    

    Oh we both laughed about it.  I told her she was a sexist swine!  She
    laughed of course as we banter back and forth regularly.
    
    Problem is we live in a laid back society and if the minority insist
    society walks on eggshells, it most likely seems hopeless that systemic
    sexism will evaporate into nothing.
    
    -Jack

 ZZ  "Every so often I find a featherless sparrow chick..."
    
    

    Yer on a roll, Jack....     :*)

    Strictly to lighten things up!! :-)