Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    So where's the one question?
    
    - M
    
                <<< 2B::NOTES1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                         -< Topics of Interest to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 70.0                        sexual equality                      No replies
CEODEV::FAULKNER "my sharona"                        11 lines   6-FEB-1987 13:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is an extension of the discussion started in womannotes
    re 189.11
    
    I would pose the question.
    Men and women are more equal than ever for in the woman's struggle
    for equality the 80's were reached.
    No longer is the threat of sex available for if women say no.....
    the counter is to say okay there's plenty more who will.
    So yup their equal more than ever and men have one less constraint
    to work out.
    

    Or if she says no because she really likes the guy but doesn't
    want to appear "easy" and then later is willing, does that mean
    all nos should be considered yeses?

    easy is archane
    

    I guess I'm dating myself, that's the way it was a generation
    ago.

    We have plenty of choices!!
    
    When I say yes, I mean yes. When I say no, I mean no. When I say
    Let's get to know each other better, then I mean maybe for some
    later date. When you pose the question, do you mean yes because
    you want to, because it's expected, or because it's a habit? ;-)
    
                           -sunny-

	In past times a woman couldn't say "yes" even if she meant it
	because she would be labelled "easy". The man would realize
	this and stick around, since after all he'd get the "no" from
	anyone else.
	
	Nowadays, the concept of "easy" is archaic, and plenty of
	women are willing to say "yes" when they mean it, so women who
	say "no" when they mean "yes" are likely to be lonely.
	
	and in some sense this makes men and women more equal. Because
	women no longer have the sexual power over men they used to?

	Do I understand you correctly Kerry? (I hope not, thinking
	like you may be hazardous to my mental health:-).
	
	Mike

    Re; .11
    Your note implies that you think that men are only interested 
    in women for sex.

    Re: .13
    
    The opinion that seems so prevalent in WOMANNOTES - that men are
    basically useless - is, thank goodness, a minority opinion among
    women in general. 
    					Steve L.

    re .14:
    
    Not so.  Take a poll.  The majority of womennoters have husbands
    and boyfriends, and I don't think that sex is the only reason most
    women get involved in relationships.

    	-Ellen

    I want to thank another noter for sending me mail about my
    note in .14.  I should have indicated that it was an exaggeration.
    
    Nevertheless, I do feel that a very vocal minority of WOMANNOTES
    noters (those perhaps responsible for the majority of entries) 
    repeatedly give me the opinion that they consider men "the enemy",
    and this bothers me a great deal.  I'd be willing to accept the
    argument that even these women don't really believe this, but the
    pain they have suffered in the past, caused by individual men,
    encourages them to speak in a general negative tone.  Goodness knows
    if I had a mind to write notes on what women have done to me in
    the past, it might look pretty sour too.
    
    And regarding .16 in particular - I never offered an opinion on
    the reason women get involved in relationships, and don't believe
    that statement anyway.  But I can understand how you concluded that
    as my note was a response to .13 which DID mention the topic.
    
    					Steve

    Re: .18
    
    Suzanne, I would NEVER take offense at a woman being self-sufficient.
    In fact, if you look at my entry in HUMAN_RELATIONS on "What Turns
    You On", you'll see that I find that quality very attractive.  I
    suppose what I did take offense to (and is the topic of my replies
    to this note, which unfortunately, has now strayed well off the
    original), is what I see as a repeated opinion by some women that
    all men are jerks.  I also stated that I don't think all women,
    or (with my clarification) even a majority of women feel this way.
    But when reading WOMANNOTES, those comments do seem to stick out.
    
    To set the record straight - I find the notion of a woman being
    totally dependent on a man to be quite abhorrent, and would think
    very poorly of such a woman.  I would like women, like men, to
    be self-sufficient, to believe in themselves as worthy beings in
    their own right, but also to believe in opening their souls a bit
    to share life with another, and to revel in the joy that a
    special companion can bring.
    
    Honestly, Suzanne, after all you've read of my notes I'm a bit
    surprised you misread me.
    					Steve

    Re: .19
    
    I think we see eye-to-eye now...
    			Steve

	re .12:

	I'm not getting at anything - that was just my perception of
	what Kerry was getting at. And .11 certainly does not express
	my own views. I avoided responding to those views with my own
	in the absence of any certainty that those views indeed
	represented Kerry's views. Of course, we may never know, since
	Kerry is a master at avoiding making sense:-).
	
	Perhaps I should have included a disclaimer: This note does
	not necessarily express the opinions held by any known
	noter:-).
	
	Now, .10 says "Women are gaining in equality... in other words
	losing their power". So it does appear that the point of this
	discussion is the claim that women had sexual power over men
	(by always saying "no", whether meaning it or not), but have
	given it up in the wake of the "sexual revolution". Therefore
	women are becoming more equal to men (from a position of being
	stronger than men).
	
	I agree with the conclusion (women are gaining in equality)
	but not with the assumptions or the reasons. As Nancy pointed
	out, one assumption behind this is that men are only
	interested in women for sex. Another is that women are (were)
	only interested in sex as a tool. Those assumptions are just
	plain wrong. The sexual revolution has brought more equality
	to women - in bed. Women now have the freedom to take more
	responsibility for their sexuality than they were allowed
	before. Maybe it could be argued that the sexual revolution
	was largely a result of this freedom (and the Pill was also a
	contributing factor to both effects) rather than the other way
	around - at any rate, women are dealing with sex on a much
	more equal basis with men than they were even a generation
	ago. Women have also gained in equality socially and
	politically (even though there's still a long way to go), but
	that's due to social and not sexual forces.

	Hope that all made sense, gloomy Monday's are not my best
	day:-)

	Mike

    I remain unconvinced that women have any need for men their own
    age. What with the complaints about harrassment, the real problem
    of rape, and the apparrent need for new women to assert themselves
    by dealing out the same hash they (collectively) have been getting,
    the role of men has been getting uncomfortably close to 'enemy',
    'rival', 'threat', and 'foil' for barbs about how much more worthy
    we would be if we were more like women. On the other hand, women
    older than myself have been valued friends and confidants, due
    probably to their maturity and the lack of any sexual angle. As
    for sex, babies, and companionship, they're probably better off
    with each other, artificial insemination, and each other.

    I have been encouraging women to seek female companionship for 
    years.
    
    women are to competitive to befriend one another 
    they get a grudge and beat it for eternity
    men beat each other up then buy  each other a brewsky
    simple quick and clean not lingering forever like a virus
    

    I have a number of thoughts that relate to this whole discussion.
    
    One is that I am an active participant in woman notes and very much
    like men. Out of those of us who gathered at our party Friday night
    I don't think that there was one woman there who did not enjoy
    the company of men. However, when some individuals are talking out
    their personal pain and anger, I don't think it is appropriate
    to jump in and reassure the male readers of woman notes not to let
    this make them think all the womem hate men. Such a comment would
    be totally inapproraite to the discussion.
    
    Second is that I was in college when the so called "sexual revolution"
    began. It's been more than twenty years since I was dating or had
    to deal with the possibility of s*x with someone with whom I was
    not in a commited relationship. But I don't really think that women
    have gained very much by accepting recreational s*x. If she becomes
    history to a man if she says no, what does she get by saying yes?
    A little pleasure, danger of pregnancy, danger of STD, and now
    danger of AIDS and she'll still be history in a few months anyway. 

    Women can and do befriend each other, although for many of them
    it may take a degree of maturity before they are capable of trusting
    other women.
    
    Given the problems of AIDS (read this week's TIME) it boggles my
    mind that people stillare advocating casual s*x. 
    

    
    "I thought all men were animals!"
    
    "They are, but they're better than sleeping alone!"
    
    					- a recent Moonlighting repeat
    
    DFW

.  I have two best friends.. I love them dearly in different ways.. one is a man
   and one is a woman.  I have known the woman for years and we are closer than
   most sisters.. she is the dearest friend I have ever had and YES we get 
   peeved at one another once it a while but it does not last long.. and we have
   YET to resort to buying beers to mend arguments.
   My other best friend is a male.  He is the person I have chosen to spend my 
   life with.  He became my best friend long before he was anything else and 
   that is why the 'anything else' came along.. it was from that genuine 
   affection and caring toward each other that the love of a lifetime grew.

.  Sex can initiate a relationship between two people but without anything else
   the sex will grow old and the relationship will wilt so saying yes or no 
   will have little bearing in the long run.

.  Men and Women will only be as equal as they allow each other to be.  It is
   not that uncommon to have a dominant female in a relationship.. in this 
   situation the man is not exactly 'equal'...  if it works and both are happy
   with the relatinship then why should it have to be equal???  the same applies
   in the reverse as far as I can see..  I think equality is something to be
   worked out; I am speaking of course in the context of a relationship.

.  If a woman says no to sex that is her right.  Just the same as if the man
   if the one being asked and decides to say no.  I don't see the problem if
   both have the right to say no and the understanding is that they both mean
   what they say. 

   On one never to be forgotten night, longer ago than this aching bones
   care to remember I assumed that "no" actually meant "no", so didn't press
   the matter, ended the evening an hour or so later in what seemed an amicable
   way (I di wonder if I should apologise for having asked, but remembered
   the silly dictum that "men never apologise")
   
   The following morning A messenger brought a small package: it contained
   her engagement ring an a short note explaining that I clearly didn't
   love her or I would have "taken her anyway" (which just might have set
   me up for a rape charge). I tried to phone, write, even go to see her,
   but she was never in. After a couple of weeks I gave up.
   
   Alternately after I had recovered from that, aged a little, matured some
   more, I found that if the question had to be asked then the answer would
   be no. If the chemistry, and the moment were right then neither of us
   had to ask the other. It just happens.
   
   /. Ian .\

                   
    Some Rambl'n:
    
       Expressing my own opinion (only)
    
       If you can't talk to him in the livingroom, chances are you can't
    talk to him in the bedroom. If you can't talk to him in the bedroom,
    why bother. Sex is basic communication, best when one knows what
    is wanted,needed-talking is sometimes essential. Accept no, as a
    "real" no and yes as a "real" yes. A maybe, should be voiced as well as
    any other response. We need to be clear with one another.
    
        On WOMANNOTES:
    
       I've experienced negative and positive in people. I try to give
    people the benifit of the doubt (especially in electronic media).
    I believe in living with a positive frame of mind. Being female,
    and understanding myself as I grow means I accept what life gives
    me. I know many people, some of them men, some of them women. Those
    people that treat me with respect, trust and love are friends. I
    am an equal opportunity human being, if you love me then I will
    love you. If you love yourself, it easier to love others. What goes
    around, comes around. Womannotes is a reflection of experience,
    we do what we can with what we have...I hope I am open enough to
    see past the pain some women are experiencing, to seeing them as
    people trying their best to grow. I don't always accomplish that
    goal....
    
    Maggie T 
    

    That's the only solution _I_ see...
    
    Lee

    RE .35
>        Train mothers and other parents to STOP ABUSING their children.
>    How often have you heard parents in stores proclaim to their
>    children "If you don't stop that I'll belt you one !". An by gosh they
>    will, too !
 
    This isn't abuse, its discipline.  When you belt a child for no
    reason, then its abuse.  The problem lies with parents who threaten
    to belt the child and then don't follow through or don't even bother
    to discipline the child.  The child learns that he/she can get away 
    with no punishment and then pushes it to the limit.  I believe the
    term is "spoiled brat".
    

    Ahem.  You've hit a "hot button" with me.  Physically
    overwhelming a child is not discipline.  I could count
    on one hand the number of times I've hit my son.  And
    those times were uncalled for.  I was venting anger
    and frustration on an innocent child.  Jamey is disciplined,
    but in non-violent ways.  He is expected to responsible for
    his own actions.  For example, if he is not ready to go in
    the morning (I give him 5 minutes warning), no problem.  I
    don't have to be late for work.  The clothes that are not
    on his body when I'm ready to leave go in to a paper bag and
    he can finish dressing in the car or at day care.  It only
    took one "lesson" of this sort (several years ago) to em-
    phasize that HE is responsible for himself.  His little
    tootsies were cold, as it happened to be winter and there
    was snow on the ground; but no permenent damage.  This is
    only one example of non-violent ways to discipline a child.
    Someday that kid is going to be bigger than me.  If I had
    to use physical means to convince him to behave, I'd be out
    of luck.
    
    By the way (someone be my witness on this!!), he happens to
    be the most polite, well-behaved, loving child that I have
    ever known.  (ok, he has his moments, but so does his mom)
    And with any luck, he will be a polite, well-behaved, loving
    and RESPONSIBLE adult.
    
    By the say-I don't hit my dog either, although I'm not above
    shaking her when she really screws up.  She's pretty nice too.
    
    

    re -.1:
    
    Yeah, my little half-sister (6 yrs old?) still cries her eyes out
    when told to sit on the couch.  When you define a punishment, it
    works whether or not it is violent.  She's no "spoiled brat."
    
    And I still hate violence.  There is always another way.
    
    Lee

    OK, I'm not going to argue, but I'll try to understand you.
    
    What would you do if the child was setting fire to the clothes in
    the closet and flat refused to stop?  You can take away the matches,
    but he'll find more and start over again.  What sort of non-violent
    punishment would the child understand to override the desire to
    burn down the closet?
    
    If the child took a hammer to your brand new car, what would you
    do?  Further, if he refuse to stop, what would you do?  The child
    can always find a good rock to replace the hammer.
    
    I believe that a good spanking is not physically or emotionally
    damaging, but is painful enough that the child will think twice
    before invoking that pain again.  It worked with me.
    
    Spence

    re:.40
    
    Either that, or the child will learn not to get caught in the
    future!!
    
    Gee, Spence, I can't imagine Jamey acting in such a destructive
    manner, but I'll try to give examples. 
    
    A year or so ago, Jamey went thru a phase during which he kept
    carrying matches in his pocket.  First I explained the dangers,
    then I let him light the matches (while I supervised) and then
    we lit a small fire in a safe place, so he could learn the con-
    cequences.  Then his dad showed him the scar on his thigh from
    a book of matches accidentally igniting while in his pocket. 
    That solved that "problem"!  
    
    Jamey has never been destructive, although he did once scribble
    on the back seat of the car.  He spent the rest of the afternoon
    cleaning it off, and he is no longer allowed to have any type of
    writing implement in the car.
    
    Perhaps this next will serve as a good example:  Some parent use
    physical punishment to teach their kids not to go out in the street.
    That only teaches the child that they will be hurt by mom or dad
    if they go out in the street AND ARE CAUGHT IN THE ACT.  I prefer
    to show Jamey WHY a particular act is dangerous.  So....we spent
    time driving down busy streets and looking a dead animals.  Believe
    me, a squashed cat serves as a very good example of why a small
    child should not wander out in the road!  Must have worked, because
    he has NEVER attempted to cross the street, or parking lots, without
    an adult by his side.  He is very cautious about cars.
    
    
    

    Is it possible that many parents don't want to take this kind of
    time with their children?  Its easier to swat and scold than to
    show and tell.  I am very impatient and if I had a son, I would
    be impatient with him.  I would probably be the swatter type because
    I don't have the patience that it takes to show him why its wrong.
    How many kids are unwanted and therefore the parents don't want
    to spend the time with them that they should?  The worst is possibly
    the parent that won't take ANY action.  When he grows up the police
    can take care of him.  I think that too many parents equate 'no
    physical punishment' with 'no action what so ever'.  If every parent
    would take this kind of time with their kids, it might just work.
    This is part of the reason I don't have kids, I don't have the patience
    to put up with them.  Also, I don't like kids because of the way
    that other peoples kids act.
    
    The 'dead animal' example was terrific.  It shows that you have
    the patience to show him why its wrong.  When I watch Bill Cosby
    talking to his TV kids, I often wonder if that really works.  Maybe
    it does.
    
    I may seem wishy-washy to everyone.  The fact is that my opinions
    change easily.  If I hear a good arguement, I will alter my thinking.
    
    Spence

    Re: .41, .42
    
    I agree - explaining to a child why his actions can lead to bad
    results really can work.  I've used this technique with my
    3-year old several times.  You can tell it bothers him because he
    keeps changingthe subject, but he DOES remember.  This works much
    better than constant swatting.
    					Steve

    re: .41, .42, .43
    
    I agree too.  When I was a kid, I loved playing with matches.  The
    first time I got caught (the time my brother and I burned down a
    shack), my dad gave us both a long lecture about a relative who
    died from playing with matches, showed us hs picture, and had us
    both bawling our eyes out.  Didn't lift a finger against us, but
    we learned.  Worked pretty well.
    
    Lee

re: .the_last_few

I don't think most children suffer too much from a swat on the
rear end.  But DON'T HIT THEM IN THE HEAD (OR FACE)!!  I got that
treatment a few times as a child and early adolescent, and I'm
still amazed that I didn't become a psychotic killer as a result
--there is NO excuse for hitting a child in the face (or giving
him/her a "good belt upside the head").  That's child abuse, plain
and simple...

I was *never* hit by my parents, I don't think I've got any bad habits 
which I wouldn't have otherwise. I never littered, didn't vandalise and 
didn't steal, because I was taught it was wrong.

Jerry

>I was *never* hit by my parents,

	And just look how you turned out!

(Smiley face)

Richard.

    I believe that explaining may work some of the time, but not all
    of the time.  My daughter is given three chances with explainations
    as to why something is not acceptable, the forth time it's explained
    with a swat on the tush.  At eight, she can remember 2-3 times she
    has been swatted.  So sometimes maybe a swat after explainations
    works too.  
    
    vivian

    re .40
    
    (how did the topic change from sexual equality to disciplining
    children??)
    
    A spanking is always usefull as a LAST RESORT. As a child, my father
    used to give me a pair of cutters when I was bad and make me walk
    to the bottom of the farm we lived on in New Zealand, and cut a willow
    switch. He used to always tell me to think about what I had done
    while I fetched the switch. Although I never got spanked this way
    more that 2-3 times the walk down the back of the farm and the walk
    back was the worst part of the punishment by far!!! the spanking
    was merely a formality, in my eyes by then . In each and every case
    my fathers wisdom enlightened me as to the error of my mischief
    and I never felt I was spanked for anything I didn't deserve....
    
    To this day my father is my second best friend (second only to my
    wife)
    
    GOD BLESS PARENTS - THEY HAVE A REAL TOUGH LIFE!!!!!
    
    Phil

    a ps on .50.....
    
    For every one time I got spanked, I was "talked to" or "explained
    to" about 100 times - so spankings were reasonably rare ( I say
    "reasonably" because I wasnt exactly a model child)
    
    but what about the other side of the coin??
    
    Some of the happiest moments of my life have been my father telling
    me for the first time that he is proud of me and that he would always
    be there for me....
    
    DITTO DAD!!!