Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    
    	Who knows what a 'real man' and a 'real woman' are anymore..
    
    	We (the human race) are still reeling from the womans movement/
    	civil rights movement.. As far as I'm concerned, nobody knows
    	what they are anymore..
    
    	Sign me "White Male, Irish, with blue eyes and as confused as you"
    
    							mike

    
         Reeling, huh?  Yep, you sound pretty confused.
    
         I'll tell you what I want.  A woman who is as kind to me as
    I am to her.
    
                                  Greg
    

    One who is a float, maybe?

    RE: .4
    
    	Holy Shit.. Should this REALLY be made public Suzanne? I mean,
    	YOU agreeing with ME?? :-)
    
    RE: .2
    
    	Yea, reeling.. (The human race in general)
    
    						mike

    It may be easier to "define" an unreal woman or man.
    

    Re: .0
    
    	I always figured that the real women were the ones with 2 legs.
    
    	Jake

    
         Unreal men?  Max Headroom and Barney Rubble.
    
                          Greg
    

    Don't talk about my friend barney like that !

    
    	Anyone turned into a roastbeef sandwich at midnight. |^) |^)
    
    	Todd

    I knew a REAL woman once; She loved to join in a good game of "dutch
    oven" in bed after we had both eaten a big batch of
    chili...............God I miss her sometimes!

                           THE UNIQUESS OF WOMAN
    
    God gave man and woman their own individual, unique nature.
    
    To each of them it is a glory. The basic differences between the male
    and female need to be understood from a Biblial perspective.
    
    Many a man missed the mark in dealing with a woman because he makes
    the same mistake, he tries to deal with her as if dealing with a man.
    
    God's pattern for the replenishing of the earth through the process of
    each seed-bearing plant reproducing after its own kind was then
    transferred to the reproduction process for mankind.
    
    To replenish the earth, God established a reproductive process whereby
    the man would plant his seed into the woman and the earth would be
    replenished with humanity.
    
    God made sex to be enjoyable so the man would desire it and thus
    fulfill. God;s command to replenish the earth. Sex isn't something
    a man is forced to engage in.
    
    When a man fails to recognize, understand or meet the unique needs of
    a woman, it can cause trouble for her, for him.
    
    Procreation may be the evidence of manliness, but not of maturity.
    
    Love is greater than sex. Sex is not a part of love when it the
    expression of lust. 
    
    Woman was made beautiful, desirable and loved. 
    
    Man has often corrupted the natural beauty of woamn by looking upon
    her as simply an object to be taken or bought in order to satisfy his
    own lust.
    
    It is also true that many a woman thoroughly enjoys her ability to
    seduce a man. There would be no pornography to look at if there were
    no women who desired to flaunt their sexual prowess.
    
    The women's liberation movement began as a justifiable rejection
    against men's double standards, through time it has degenerated into a
    general rebellion against all men. Rejection is often a proper course
    of action, but rebellion never is.
    
    Women are tired of being misundewrstood and abused. Men must learn to
    minister to the woman's unique nature. Men compalin that they dont
    understand women, but often they simply dont understand themnselves.
    
    To misunderstand women is to misjudge and mistreat them. That's why
    women suffered from male dominance for centuries.
    
    A woman's uniquenes is her greatest appeal to man and his greatest 
    challenge.
    
                         Ray Moore
    

RE .13

I suppose this comes as no surprise, but I feel that I have to go on 
record as to how angry I feel after reading all of that.

Some low-lights include the notion that "pornography would not exist
if there weren't women who didn't want to flaunt themselves."
Interesting how all men seem devoid of all responsibility in that
statement, when, in actuality, it is men, primarily, who create and
market pornography. 

The most angering thing in this writing is that everything that is
said about "women" comes in the context of men. That is insulting to
me because it implies that women are nothing without men, without
being seen through the needs and nature of men.  Having spent time in
the lesbian community, I know that, for the most part, women are
beautiful, strong, and powerful beings that can get along quite well,
thank you, without the presence of men. 

Procreation, you say?  Semen and a turkey baster are all women "need." 
As far as what they "want," that is for every individual woman to 
decide. 


							--Gerry

Re: .14
     
> RE .13

> I suppose this comes as no surprise, but I feel that I have to go on 
> record as to how angry I feel after reading all of that.

I suppose I share some angry feelings after I read your response, too,
Gerry.

>                                           Having spent time in
> the lesbian community, I know that, for the most part, women are
> beautiful, strong, and powerful beings that can get along quite well,
> thank you, without the presence of men.

Probably lesbian separatists can, and do. Yet, among non-lesbian women,
I think that a man is something that is quite desirable to them, for all
sorts of reasons.

> Procreation, you say?  Semen and a turkey baster are all women "need."

What a romantic way to make a baby.

Gerry, I appreciate the fact that you are open about your sexual preference,
and I do "value the differences" of gays and lesbians.

Yet, I must admit I'm starting to get a little weary of the implications
made by some non-heterosexuals, that the behavior of straight people (approx-
imately 90% of the population) is somehow aberrant. 

  Alan

    	RE: .15  Alan Ross
    
    	.14> Having spent time in the lesbian community, I know that, for
    	.14> the most part, women are beautiful, strong, and powerful beings
    	.14> that can get along quite well, thank you, without the presence
    	.14> of men.

    	.> Probably lesbian separatists can, and do.
    
    	Heterosexual women can, and some do, get along quite well without
    	the presence of men as well.  One would hope that you did not
    	mean to imply that heterosexual women are INCAPABLE of "getting 
    	along" on our own.

    	> Yet, among non-lesbian women, I think that a man is something
    	> that is quite desirable to them, for all sorts of reasons.
    
    	What does this have to do with whether or not women are able
    	to "get along quite well without the presence of men"?  Some
    	single heterosexual women have very *strong* desires for men,
    	but are still able to live happy successful lives without the
    	continuous presence of a man, wouldn't you agree?
    
    	Ger's stated association with women may have been primarily
    	with members of the lesbian community, but I don't think that
    	he was using the idea of "getting along without the presence
    	of men" to mean a world where men are no longer on the planet.

    	My impression was that he was merely stating that women are
    	capable of taking care of ourselves (regardless of our sexual 
    	orientation.)  Do you disagree with that?
        
    	> I must admit I'm starting to get a little weary of the implications
	> made by some non-heterosexuals, that the behavior of straight
    	> people (approximately 90% of the population) is somehow aberrant.
    
    	Mentioning that one has had associations with other members
    	of the gay community is not in any way an implication that there
    	is something aberrant about non-gay people, in my opinion. 
    	
    	If you have an *exact quote* that would support the idea that
    	such assertions have been made in this conference, I would
    	appreciate it if you would supply the text for it.

    	RE: .43  Moore
    
    	Your note sounds like it could apply equally well as advice to 
    	farmers (about how to care for their fields in ways that will 
    	yield plentiful crops.)

    	You talk about "the man...plant[ing] his seed into the woman"
    	(in much the way that a "seed-bearing plant" reproduces "after
    	its own kind.")
    
    	Well, in an analogy taken from the plant world, the woman is
    	the one with the SEED, not the man.  (The man's donation is
    	the pollen, brought over by bees, that fertilizes the woman's
    	seed.)
    
    	A better analogy for a man "planting his seed" would be if you
    	consider men as farmers, and women as fertile fields that men
    	plow and plant (which, of course, implies that men are the ones
    	who make human, conscious decisions, while women wait passively
    	for the farmers to show up with the plows when the *farmers*
    	feel like it.)
    
    	Well-cultivated fields yield more plentiful crops, it's true.
    	If you treat your fields badly, the plowing and planting won't
    	go well (so it's best to make wise farming decisions when one
    	is in the position of dealing with the land.)
    
    	Women, however, are human beings (with our own hopes, dreams,
    	desires, talents, and destinies,) like men.
    
    	Your reply didn't give me the impression that the Bible regards
    	women in this particular way.  Why not, I wonder...

    re: .13
    
    In my opinion, this reply is patronising stereotypical religous
    twaddle.

    Hope that's different enough for you to value...
    
    - Andy ��� Leslie

    re:  .13
    
    absolutely unbelievable!

>Yet, I must admit I'm starting to get a little weary of the implications
>made by some non-heterosexuals, that the behavior of straight people (approx-
>imately 90% of the population) is somehow aberrant. 
>
>  Alan

After reviewing my note, I can say with confidence that I never said 
this.  Again, it is not an either/or situation.  For my homosexuality 
to be "normal," I do not feel the need to make heterosexuality 
"abnormal."  

I think that heterosexuality is normal.

There, now that I am on record, I would like to ask people that they 
not assume that I am anti-heterosexual when I write.  As I have 
mentioned many times, I use gay examples because I know them best.  I 
figure that people of color are a lot better at giving "people of 
color" examples than I am.  I think that single, heterosexual women 
might have been able to express as much anger and examples 
as I did.  ...but I'm not a single, heterosexual woman.

Also, the only thing that I intended from my reply in this note was to 
express my anger upon reading a note.  I feel that I was appropriately 
polite in the way that I gave that feedback.  (I have entered a note 
elsewhere explaining why expressing my anger is, indeed, part of the 
Valuing Differences program.)


							--Ger

    
    I'm not assuming you are anti-hetero before I read your notes.
    
    That realization comes while I'm reading them. 
    
    I cannot stop you from hating the majority culture, and
    I'm glad you are using this forum to share your views.
     
    If I'm to be hated, its illuminating to at least know why.

    	Bob, you tell other people so often that they "hate" others
   	that I guess it must be because you use hate yourself as some
    	sort of theraputic tool to help yourself cope with the world.
    
    	(If you can tell someone that he "hates," then I guess it is
    	OK for me to tell you that YOU hate.)
    
    	Why are so filled with such hatred for people who are not part
    	of the majority culture, Bob?
    

    re: .21
    
    � I'm not assuming you are anti-hetero before I read your notes.
    �
    � That realization comes while I'm reading them. 
    
    How is it that you reach this realization?  Could you quote
    something that supports this conclusion?
    
    Steve

    I've read Ger's notes and found them to be eloquent and thoughtful. 
    
    Marge 

Just for the record, I do not hate heterosexuals.  I also do not hate 
the "ruling society."  I have my disagreements, but I really don't 
hate too many people.  

Besides, I find it difficult to "hate" a "system."  I'd rather put my
energies towards understanding myself and other people.  To me, hating
a system kind of turns it into a person.  It gives it too much power
that I don't think it has.  I'd rather see people empower themselves
so that they can modify and build a system that then supports people,
instead of the other way around (people modifying themselves to fit
into some objective system that does not serve all its people). 

Also, for the record, I am very happy that the author of the note I 
objected to (Al?) has found a philosophy that works for him.  I sense 
real strength and conviction in his words, and, if that philosophy is 
serving him and the ones he loves, I wish him all the happiness in the 
world.  Sincerely.

Just don't--through wording--attribute that philosphy to me (or 
to others); I don't believe in it.

						--Gerry