Conference quark::mennotes-v1

        Interesting question.  I read recently that 'men' are confused,
        in that 'women'  have  demanded  their  space,  so  'men'  have
        stepped back and given the space.  Now, 'women' are complaining
        that 'men' are not giving  enough  commitment,  apparently  now
        conditioned to give space instead.
        
        Masculinity?   Being strong when strength  is  required,  being
        caring  and  gentle,  being supportive, but also  being  strong
        enough  to  be  able to accept support -  to  share  the  load.
        Honest in all things, dependable, trusting and trustworthy.
        
        &y.
        

    Interesting topic Jim.  In my view masculinity is to men, what feminity
    is to women.  It's what makes us different from one another.  I
    think that most men and women like the other attributes (of femininity
    and masculinity) in the other sex.  I also think that men and women
    will never be equal.  At certain things, men will have the upper
    hand or the expertise, and at other things women will have the upper
    hand and the expertise.  (To disclaim this previous statement somewhat,
    let me say that this is in most instances.  If I were not to
    generalize, this note would have to deal with every exception) 
    It is my belief that human nature will take care of things and decide
    where everyone fits in the picture.  
    
    When I hear the words act like a man, I usually relate it to stand
    up for what you believe in, be more courageous in confronting your
    fears, and own up to your actions.  
    
    I think the situation as it was 30-40 years ago was out of kilter
    towards favoring men.  However, I think we have to be careful that
    we quite possibly might have over corrected for the way things were.
    We now have mothers who want to stay home with their kids, who can't
    because both incomes are needed to provide the basics for the family.
    This is the reason why I don't think the feminist movement represents
    the beliefs, or is for the benefit of most women.  I am going to
    teach my daughters to act like ladies and my sons to act like gentlemen
    in the traditional sense.  Whereas I think it's important to do
    what you want to do in the workplace, I think it more important
    and rewarding that ones family is in order.
    
    Lastly, I think that when you can't distinguish womens roles from
    mens, we all will be worse off and less happy because of it.  I don't 
    think that it will last long though,  things will be as they are meant 
    to be, no matter how smart mankind thinks he/she is.
                                                       

    When you try to derfine it, its realy tough to do isn't it.
    I feel it is lost, because so far all the definitions that
    have been given, women also fit into, or at least we are told.
    
    An anthropologist that I seen on a talk show (I don't remember his
    name) said, as masculinity declines so will the human species. He
    said that men need women, but women today are begining to feel
    they don't need men. A woman can have children, nuture them, work
    at a career without a man. A man can only work at a career without
    a woman. Men have a psychological need to perform for women. He has
    a need to be the provider and cartaker of his woman and children.
    I don't remember all the things he said, and I wish I could remember
    his name because he has a book out on this subject.

    Jim

    I'm new to this conference, but I certainly hope that masculinity
    is not dead....I always seem to have a problem in that I like to
    be treated like a woman...god knows, in this day of the '80's
    MEGA-WOMAN and all that jazz, I was probably born at the wrong time...
    
    Masculinity is what each man makes of it....for some it's not being
    afraid to show that soft, sensitive side, for others, it's fighting
    at a bar with some roughnecks who happened to look at a woman
    wrong...defending their honor type-of-stuff, and for others, well,
    I'm sure I'll be reading to find out...you guys seem to have some
    good ideas.
               
    When I hear the expression "be a man" or "take it like a man" I
    usually think of that MACHO stereotyped kind of guy...not the kind
    I"m attracted to, but the stereotype keeps coming up in my head.
    Like I said, masculinity is what each of you make it, and I'm just
    glad that you all do!
        
    
    Jill
    

    re .0   Masculinity is biologically rooted and its expression has
            the whole of history on its side.
    
            I am continually amused by those that are taken in by
            the ideas of movements that do not reflect the sexual
            behavior that the sexes have engaged in throughout history.
    
            Masculinity and femininity are alive and well.
    
            Masculinity is not affected in those men that have refused
            accept ideological substitutions for reality.
    
            A movement that squashed itself due to blatant absurdities
            can hardly squash a man's masculinity.
    
            Or femininity for that matter.
    
                                                     Russ

	RE: .3
    
    	> At certain things, men will have the upper
    	> hand or the expertise, and at other things women will have the upper
    	> hand and the expertise.  (To disclaim this previous statement somewhat,
    	> let me say that this is in most instances....)
  
    	Care to name some things that men will have more expertise at
    	than women (and vice versa)?  Are you feeling brave today? :)
    
    	> When I hear the words act like a man, I usually relate it to stand
    	> up for what you believe in, be more courageous in confronting your
    	> fears, and own up to your actions.  
    
    	Sounds like a few good human traits to me.  (I mean, I seriously
    	doubt that my cats can do these things, but as head of household
    	and provider for my family, and as an adult in general, I'm
   	called upon to have these traits.  Male sexual organs are
    	apparently not a mandatory prerequisite.)  :)
    
    	> We now have mothers who want to stay home with their kids, who can't
    	> because both incomes are needed to provide the basics for the family.
    	> This is the reason why I don't think the feminist movement represents
    	> the beliefs, or is for the benefit of most women.
    
    	Since when did feminists gain control of the whole economy (or
    	were you just taking a free stab while you had the opportunity?)
    	Feminists only asked for one thing for women:  CHOICES!  It
    	was necessary because not all women can enjoy the "protection"
    	of a man, and needed to be able to support themselves.  CHOICE
    	made it possible to do that for millions who would not have
    	had decent employment opportunities any other way.  
      
    	> Whereas I think it's important to do
    	> what you want to do in the workplace, I think it more important
    	> and rewarding that ones family is in order.
    
    	Do you plan to quit your job and stay home to make sure
    	that everything is in order at home?  What if you found that
    	your wife could earn more than you do (and it was better for
    	your family if you gave up work and stayed home)?  Would you
    	do it?  (Isn't it more important to you than your career?)
    
    	> Lastly, I think that when you can't distinguish womens roles from
    	> mens, we all will be worse off and less happy because of it.  I don't 
    	> think that it will last long though,  things will be as they are meant 
    	> to be, no matter how smart mankind thinks he/she is.
                                                       
	Do you really feel that you need a defined role to be a man?
     	If men and women were sharing roles more, would some men feel like
    	less of a person (or just less of a man?)  Do you think women
    	should limit their development as human beings in order to make
    	men feel more masculine?
    
    	How do *YOU* know how things were "meant to be" for men and
    	women in our culture (and what makes you think that women will
    	be willing to give up the progress we've made in opportunities
    	just because some men are having doubts about how much of their
    	masculinity is left?)
    
    	Masculinity should be something that you know you have (inside
    	yourself.)  Why do some men seem to need so many external
    	reminders and ways to measure/prove it (when it is something
    	that just exists on its own whether anyone else sees it or not)?

    Feelings are emotions resulting from perceived experiences, whether they
be perceived correctly or incorrectly. If I feel masculine, what am I
feeling? Power, wisdom, provider or protector ? Women feel the same things.
Does that make them feel masculine ? Women still look for masculinity when
searching for a mate. They usually look for a man who is strong, wise,
protective and good provider. How many women do you know that have 
married men who are weaker, unwise, cowardly and can't provide and are still
happy ? A woman who makes a man feel weak, unwise, cowardly, or unable
to provide threatens his masculinity. The woman who makes a man
feel masculine, is a treasure that he will keep close to his heart. Masculinity
as someone said, is part of a man's biological/psychological make up. So then,
maybe it isn't masculinity in men that's being lost, but femininity in women ?

What does it mean to be feminine ?

Jim

                                        
    
    re .8
    
    Sure, Suzanne, I'll bite -;                   
    
    On the basis of socialization, I'd suggest that men might
    be more apt to do their own brakes or change their own
    water pumps, than women might be. 
    
    Of course, nature doesn't preclude women from doing their
    own car maintenance...(I believe HMtheQ was a chauffeur/mechanic
    during WWtheSecond)... 
    
    I feel that being able to fix things/remodel bathrooms/do plumbing
    has enhanced my feelings of masculinity. The fact that women can
    and do fix things/do plumbing doesn't detract from my having my
    masculinity feelings enhanced, in the least. 
                                          

    Masculinity is an ever changing conceptual ideology .
    
    What is accepted or prefered today as "being a man" will change
    tomorrow (or the day after) and is different now than it used to
    be . It this respect you cannot 'lose' your masculinity , but see
    it become out of fashion .
    
    
    Re .10
    
    Of course women can do anything men can do , and vice versa .
    
    The only limitations are physically or biologically .
    It's just this sort of attitude that gets women's backs up
    and reduces their chances of being 'recognised' .
    
    John J

re:< Note 270.10 by RANCHO::HOLT "Readings are getting stronger, Captain" >

>    On the basis of socialization, I'd suggest that men might
>    be more apt to do their own brakes or change their own
>    water pumps, than women might be. 
 
Well, they might be more apt to, but that doesn't mean men have the upper
hand or expertise. In my case they do cuz when I tried to take auto-mechanics
in high school they wouldn't let me. Girls were supposed to take home-ec
(I got thrown out of that one) and business stuff back then (1976). I don't
really know how to define masuline. I consider my BF to be masculine and I
know I like him that way, but household chores certainly have nothing to do 
with it.
   
Jenna

	RE:  .9

    	> If I feel masculine, what am I feeling? Power, wisdom, provider 
    	> or protector ? Women feel the same things. Does that make them 
    	> feel masculine ? 
    
    	No, it doesn't, unless they are willing to buy into the idea that 
    	only *men* can have positive human traits like these.  Myself, I
    	don't buy into that, so I think more positively of myself
    	as a *PERSON* when I feel powerful, wise, protective and see
    	myself providing well for my family.
    
    	> Women still look for masculinity when searching for a mate. 
    	> They usually look for a man who is strong, wise, protective and 
    	> good provider. 
    
    	You keep defining these traits as being "masculine" while not
    	all women do.  Sure, I like men and women who are strong, wise, etc.
    	(because I have much in common with them.)  :)
    
    	> How many women do you know that have married men who are weaker, 
    	> unwise, cowardly and can't provide and are still happy ? 
    
    	Perhaps women don't feel the need (that some men have) of deli-
    	berately marrying people over whom they can feel stronger, wiser,
    	more protective, braver, and for whom they can provide.  
    
    	> A woman who makes a man feel weak, unwise, cowardly, or unable
	> to provide threatens his masculinity. 
    
    	Oh, I see.  Men are threatened by feeling weak, unwise, cowardly,
    	etc., but it's fine for women to feel this way instead.  You
    	probably think that feeling weaker, unwise, cowardly, dependent
    	and unable to provide is feminine (which is the opposite of
    	masculine.)  It doesn't matter if these feelings bring on a
    	low self-esteem for women (as long as men are made to feel
    	better about themselves.)  Right?  That's the important thing.
    
    	> The woman who makes a man feel masculine, is a treasure that 
    	> he will keep close to his heart.
    
    	Who wouldn't?  Gee, it might be nice to have someone compromise
    	their self-esteem for me so that *I* could get constant feedback
    	on how powerful, wise, and protective I am (not to mention my
    	abilities as a provider.)  The person might feel sort of crummy
    	about their being weaker, less wise, less protective and less
    	of a provider than I am, but that doesn't matter!  Their reward
    	would be that I would hold them close to my heart as a treasure
    	(and would, after all, give them the TREMENDOUS BENEFITS of
    	my strength, wisdom, protectiveness and monetary support as
    	a provider.)  How generous that would make me...  :)
    
     	> Masculinity as someone said, is part of a man's biological/
    	> psychological make up.
    
    	And this you define as being strong, wise, etc... (as if men
    	were literally BORN to have these traits and women weren't...)
    
     	> So then,maybe it isn't masculinity in men that's being lost, 
    	> but femininity in women ?

    	If a woman is as strong, wise, and protective as you are (and 
    	makes as much or more money at DEC than you do) and she LIES to you
    	about those things to make *YOU* feel stronger, wiser, etc. -- 
    	is that what you would consider feminine?

    	> What does it mean to be feminine ?

	It *doesn't* mean holding yourself back or lying about your
    	personal strengths to make a man feel masculine -- not in MY
    	opinion, anyway.
    
    	If masculinity is part of a man's makeup, then why do
    	some men need weaker, less wise, etc. people around them to
    	convince them of it?  If a woman has the same good traits (and
    	the two people are roughly as strong, wise, and protective as well as
    	being equally able to provide,) why would any man need to
    	feel that his masculinity is being threatened?

    	RE:  .14
    
    	Actually, that looks like a fairly complete list to me.  :)
    	But remember that .3 said that his comment (about men having
    	more expertise at some things and women at others) applied
    	in "MOST INSTANCES"!
    
    	Your list may cover the most important things in YOUR life,
	:-) -- but how about naming a few trivial things, like say,
    	how one might earn a living...
    

    I like a manly man--the kind who doesn't take no for an answer.  The
    kind who drinks sixpacks of manly beer, six at a time.  The kind who
    admires Sylvester Stallone films.  The kind who writes in incomplete
    sentences.
    
    I like manly sports, especially those that involve firearms.  Shooting
    guns is the manliest of manly sports, although fraternity initiation
    rites come in a close second.  Masculine men know that when a woman
    says "no, not in a million years, you pond scum and goad turd", she
    really means "yes".  Masculine men like to sweat, and know that
    deodorants are for sissies. Masculine men pick their teeth with nails,
    and brush their teeth with saws.  Masculine men laugh at pain.
    
    Masculine men eat raw flesh with their teeth.  Masculine men can change
    a tire without using a jack.  Masculine men have chewing tobacco for
    breakfast.
    
    -- Mike    

    re:16
    Well that doesn't define masculinity, becasue your note descibes
    some women I know.
    
    Jim
    

re .0  > Even the ladies of this conference, what does masculinity mean to you ?

    Jim, I'm not entirely sure I'm a lady, but I'll try and
    answer anyway.  :)

    When I think of someone who is "masculine" I think of many
    more physical traits than emotional/psychological ones.  I
    think of someone taller than me, much more massive,
    relatively more muscular, and generally with lots of body
    hair.

    But when I think of "masculinity" I draw a blank.  I have no
    clue.  The next best thing I come up with is "sexy" and what
    means that to me--and the things that I find make someone
    sexy are not peculiar to one sex or the other.  Another close
    word might be "macho" but I don't think that's really
    "masculinity" either. 

    This is funny, because I know what it means to speak of
    someone's "femininity," but I don't know what it means to
    speak of someone's "masculinity."  Maybe because I grew up
    female and learning "femininity" but not "masculinity"...?

    If you're asking what qualities I value in a man as a friend,
    lover, or husband, they're honestly not much different than
    the qualities I would value in a woman, and so "masculinity"
    wouldn't seem to apply.  But if it helps, some of those
    qualities are a sense of humor, intelligence, the ability to
    listen, an interest in the connectedness of things (for lack
    of a better word), and the ability to have fun.

re .?

    In reference to a woman looking for a strong, protective,
    finanacially sound husband...Maybe I'm an exception, but I'm
    inordinately pleased to be married to my husband, who is my
    height and weight, has less endurance and stamina than I, and
    makes two-thirds my salary.  But those things are not *why*
    I'm happy with him, nor I think would I be happier with him
    if he were bigger and stronger than me.  Of course, if he
    were rich (as in millionaire), we could both retire... :) :) 

    -- Linda

    RE: 13 by Nexus::Conlon
    
    > "Oh I see, men are threatened by feeling weak, unwise, cowardly, <
    > etc., but it's fine for women to feel this way instead"          <
    
    As usual, *you* take things out of context and seem to find things
    that were not said. Perhaps you might re-read .9. The author
    explained how he felt about the base note, I thought he explained
    it quite well, and I generally agree with the feelings expressed..
                                                          
    
    > You probably think...... <
    
    And I've also go to wonder why you seem to find the need to speculate
    on what noters *probably think*.
    
                                   

    
    	RE:.13
    
    	Christ, Bonnie, just what IS it you want him to say???
    
    	Todd

Re:13

    	> If I feel masculine, what am I feeling? Power, wisdom, provider 
    	> or protector ? Women feel the same things. Does that make them 
    	> feel masculine ? 
    
>>    	No, it doesn't, unless they are willing to buy into the idea that 
>>    	only *men* can have positive human traits like these.  Myself, I
>>    	don't buy into that, so I think more positively of myself
>>    	as a *PERSON* when I feel powerful, wise, protective and see
>>    	myself providing well for my family.

	As I said, women feel the same things, so I question those feelings
	as a description of masculinity. I would say that the strength,
	wisdom, and provider and protector is different in a woman, but
	of no less value.
    
    	> Women still look for masculinity when searching for a mate. 
   	> They usually look for a man who is strong, wise, protective and 
    	> good provider. 
    

>>    	You keep defining these traits as being "masculine" while not
>>    	all women do.  Sure, I like men and women who are strong, wise, etc.
>>    	(because I have much in common with them.)  :)
 
	I defined these traits because this is what many men feel, because
	they see and hear it from women, as to what they look for in a man.
   	Also, I'm not saying he would be superior in these traits to a woman.

    	> How many women do you know that have married men who are weaker, 
    	> unwise, cowardly and can't provide and are still happy ? 
    
>>    	Perhaps women don't feel the need (that some men have) of deli-
>>    	berately marrying people over whom they can feel stronger, wiser,
>>    	more protective, braver, and for whom they can provide.  

	Nothing is done deliberately. Both of their qualities balance out
	or it doesn't work. I should also have said that a man would
	not look for less in a woman also.
	    
    	> A woman who makes a man feel weak, unwise, cowardly, or unable
	> to provide threatens his masculinity. 
    
>>    	Oh, I see.  Men are threatened by feeling weak, unwise, cowardly,
>>    	etc., but it's fine for women to feel this way instead.  You
>>    	probably think that feeling weaker, unwise, cowardly, dependent
>>    	and unable to provide is feminine (which is the opposite of
>>    	masculine.)  It doesn't matter if these feelings bring on a
>>    	low self-esteem for women (as long as men are made to feel
>>    	better about themselves.)  Right?  That's the important thing.

	 Because a man feels strong, wise, and provider, doesn't lower the 
	 self esteem of a woman. In fact when she's has a man with these
	 qualities it raises her self esteem. Thats what probably what
         attracted her to the man in the first place.

    	> The woman who makes a man feel masculine, is a treasure that 
    	> he will keep close to his heart.
    
>>    	Who wouldn't?  Gee, it might be nice to have someone compromise
>>    	their self-esteem for me so that *I* could get constant feedback
>>    	on how powerful, wise, and protective I am (not to mention my
>>    	abilities as a provider.)  The person might feel sort of crummy
>>    	about their being weaker, less wise, less protective and less
>>    	of a provider than I am, but that doesn't matter!  Their reward
>>    	would be that I would hold them close to my heart as a treasure
>>    	(and would, after all, give them the TREMENDOUS BENEFITS of
>>    	my strength, wisdom, protectiveness and monetary support as
>>    	a provider.)  How generous that would make me...  :)
    
	As I said in the last statement, no one sacrifices self-esteem.
	You take it as a put down to women. Its not. No one can take
	a person for granted. Their qualities  must be a compliment to 
        each other. They are gifts to each other. But we happen to be 
        talking about mens feelings right now.

     	> Masculinity as someone said, is part of a man's biological/
    	> psychological make up.
    
>>    	And this you define as being strong, wise, etc... (as if men
>>    	were literally BORN to have these traits and women weren't...)
	
	This is the way men feel. I'm not advocating women don't
	have traits that are of equal value, please don't think
	that, but what I'am saying is that, these are the things men 
	feel when it comes to masculinity.
    
     	> So then,maybe it isn't masculinity in men that's being lost, 
    	> but femininity in women ?

>>    	If a woman is as strong, wise, and protective as you are (and 
>>    	makes as much or more money at DEC than you do) and she LIES to you
>>    	about those things to make *YOU* feel stronger, wiser, etc. -- 
>>    	is that what you would consider feminine?

	No. I would consider it deceit.
	
    	> What does it mean to be feminine ?

>>	It *doesn't* mean holding yourself back or lying about your
>>    	personal strengths to make a man feel masculine -- not in MY
>>    	opinion, anyway.

	Who advocated that ? I'm asking the question.
    
>>    	If masculinity is part of a man's makeup, then why do
>>    	some men need weaker, less wise, etc. people around them to
>>    	convince them of it?  If a woman has the same good traits (and
>>    	the two people are roughly as strong, wise, and protective as well as
>>    	being equally able to provide,) why would any man need to
>>    	feel that his masculinity is being threate.

	Men don't need to feel stronger, wiser, or better protector and
	provider than a woman. I never said that. I said a man needs
	to feel strong, wise, a protector and good provider. Its not
	done at the expence of a woman's self esteem. Because a woman
	with a bad self esteem could never make a man feel anything
	but bad.

Jim

    in re .20
    
    um, Todd, that was Suzanne not Bonnie! 
    
    which Bonnie were you thinking of (me or Bonnie Randall Schutzman)
    
    Bonnie (who is always a bit surprised when people call Suzanne
     by my name :-) )

    
    	OOps, I was reading Bonnie's note and replying to Suzanne's.
    
    Todd

    
    re .16
    
    You left out:
     
    o the male custom of gretting one another with "Yo!" (*deep voice*)
    
    o calling each other by one syllable nicknames (anything that sounds
      like a grunt)..
    
    o driving like demented knuckleheads

    
    	REAL men kick ass and take names.  Real men never back off.
     Real men swagger with their chests out, their guts in, and their
    chins up.  Real men drink boilermakers.  Real men fire their M-60's
    with one hand.  Real men only shave every couple of days, if
    they feel like it.  Real men don't worry about jackshit. Real men
    can take women or leave 'em; guns and other real men are more
    important. Real men don't even know who Phil Donahue *is*.  The
    only manly sports can be counted on one hand:  shooting guns,
    professional wrestling, football, frat house initiations, and
    monster truck battles.  Real men own real dogs, which also can be
    counted on one hand; German shepherds, Rottweilers, pit bull terriers,
    Great Danes, and Rhodesian ridgebacks.  Real men hunt wild boars
    with Colt .357 magnums.  Real men listen to country-and-western.
    Real men hardly ever smile.  Real men are steely of eye and grim
    of jaw.  Real men wouldn't mind pasting you with a knuckle sandwich
    if you got out of line.  Real men don't stand in line.  Real men
    take no guff, backtalk, lip, crap, or excuses. Real men don't knuckle
    under, take a dive, fall down, wimp out, or cave in.  Real men don't
    beg, cry, whine or whimper. Real men move on, move out, press on,
    haul ass, stand up, and sound off.
    

    	Some of these descriptions of "manly men" are hilarious!
    	
    	Well, before we get too lost down any number of available
    	ratholes (and there limitless possibilities in this issue,)
    	I'd just like to say that I don't think it is necessary for
    	people to adopt definitive "masculine" and "feminine" roles
    	(and, in answer to question in the basenote, "No, I *don't* 
    	think we are losing anything as a society because of this.")
       
    	If people *want* to have set roles laid out for them (as to
    	what men or women should do and precisely how they should
    	act,) that is fine as long as they keep in mind that most
   	general traits that do not directly involve sexual organs
    	can usually be considered "human" traits, too (and thus,
    	can be considered as belonging to people of both sexes.)

    	What it boils down to is that if a person's masculinity
    	is all wrapped up in traits that he thought primarily belonged
    	to men, he is going to be disappointed (because all/most of
    	the positive human character traits are now being shared by
    	all of us to some degree.)  
    
    	It's not that masculinity is dying, or that men have lost
    	their identities (or that women are no longer feminine.)
    	It's just that a large number of positive human traits never
    	should have been characterized as strictly male in the first
    	place (because they have nothing at all to do with one's sex,
    	but more with one's uniqueness and character as an individual.)
    
    	I *do* believe strongly that people have sexual identities as
    	men and women, but I just don't think that one can turn a detailed
    	list of HUMAN traits into a laundry-list definition of what
    	it means to be a man or a woman. I see that as way too limiting.

                               
    YO !!!   (in a deep voice)
    
    Real , manly masculine men are called John .
    
    John

    
    To me I like a woman who is feminine, whatever those qualities are
    defined as. To me being feminine means being different from being
    masculine and I like the difference. If we are reducing everyone
    to one common denominator, then we have lost something. To me being 
    different is beautiful. Being different doesn't mean being of less value.
    Why are we celebrating differences if thats what it means ? I don't but
    the notion that men and women are sitting down and deciding what roles
    masculinity or feminity should play, it just works out that way
    because men and women are different. 
    
    Is masculinity lost ? No, but it is changing.
    
    Is femeinity Lost ? No, but it is also changing. 
    
    Are they becomming the same ? No, but hopefully their changing
    				  as a benifit to each other. That
    				  will only happen if we appreciate
    			          the difference, instead of begrudging
    				  it.
    
    Jim
    
    

	RE:  .30
   
   	> To me being feminine means being different from being
    	> masculine and I like the difference. 
    
    	How different does the person have to be?  And in exactly
    	what ways?  (Can we stop being vague here for a minute?)
    
    	> If we are reducing everyone to one common denominator, then 
    	> we have lost something.
    
    	All individuals are different.  Even identical twins who dress
    	alike every day.  That's why we all have different fingerprints.
    	We are NOT ALL THE SAME PERSON and there is no danger of it.
    	Honestly!  If we give up "masculine is YYYY" and "feminine is
    	ZZZZ" rules, we don't lose a damn thing (especially since those
    	who still need strict guidelines like that are free to use them
    	on themselves and their spouses.)  Society does not lose if
    	the rest of feel that we don't need artificial roles to establish
    	our sexual identity (with rules to follow.)
    
     	> To me being different is beautiful. Being different doesn't mean 
    	> being of less value. Why are we celebrating differences if thats 
    	> what it means ? 
    
    	It's GREAT that you value differences!  That means I can ask
    	you to value my difference for having a different notion of
    	femininity than your wife does (and for deciding that I and
    	my SO don't need to follow rules about it.)  Then we agree!
    
    	> I don't but the notion that men and women are sitting down 
    	> and deciding what roles masculinity or feminity should play, 
    	> it just works out that way because men and women are different. 
    
    	No, no, no.  The point is that men and women don't NEED defined
    	roles as men and women anymore, not that we are making up NEW
    	ones.  That means that men and women are not confined to the
    	artificial roles that used to limit them in the past.
    
    	Yes, men and women are different.  However, they are different
    	naturally and don't need any help to be different by having
    	rules of behavior to follow.  Let men and women be different
    	in any way they want to be (even if it turns out to be something
    	that can't be measured for men or women as a group en masse.)
    
    	We can appreciate men's and women's difference without setting
    	out to make damn sure they HAVE measurable differences (or else!)

    Was out of town yesterday on a business roadtrip.  I would like
    to respond to NEXUS::CONLON on some of her questions with regards
    to my note #3.  
    
    Most me are naturally more physically able than women.  Note that
    I said most.  Even though you and your boyfriend are the same height
    & weight I think if he would be able to lift more than you.  
    
    Women are usually better at nuturing children than men.  I've seen
    it many many times.  Yes, I've also seen it the other way.  These
    are very much in the minority though.  Please also note that I say
    women are usually better, not that men can't and women can.  This
    brings me to my next point.
    
    It seems to me that you are trying to make things black and white.
    They are not.  There are different degrees to which males and females
    have these different traits.  I agree that men and women can have
    the same traits, however, they are very much to different degrees.
    I also don't see how you cannot generalize when talking about
    relationships between gender.  Whereas I agree that the degrees
    of traits people have are different, I believe that some traits
    are more prevalent in men and some are more prevalent in women.
    
    Lastly, I would like to say that yes, we are all people, however,
    I am glad there are differences between men and women.  I think
    both my wife and I are glad that she has feminine traits and I have
    masculine traits.  Most of my neighbors are too.  When ever men
    or women get together, you may hear something like "typical female"
    (in the mens gathering) or "isn't that just like a man" (in the
    female circle".  
                                                  Mike

    	RE:  .32
    
    	First off, you are confusing me with someone else.  My 'boyfriend'
    	is 11 inches taller than I am, so yes, I would assume that he
    	can lift more than I can (but I've never asked him to prove
   	it, nor do *either* of us consider it as a critical part of our
    	relationship.)  [I am 5'3" tall, and he is 6'2" tall.]
    
    	Even so, I have worked at more "physical" jobs than he has.
    	(I was a camera operator in a large studio for some years, during
    	which I was required to both take apart and carry large studio
    	cameras in special padded boxes for remote shoots.  Also, I
    	have been in Field Service for almost 7 years, and although
    	I am a desk-bound support engineer now, for several years I
    	was in the Field where I repaired, installed, and often moved
    	large VAX's with no trouble.)  I didn't let being a 5'3" woman
    	hold me back in those areas, and neither did the television
    	studio or DEC.
    
    	As to my considering sexual roles black and white, quite the
    	reverse is true.  I don't see why special roles for the sexes
    	are necessary (nor why anyone should worry about society's
    	loss of them in general.)
    
    	I am quite different than my 'boyfriend,' but none of the
    	differences in my personality are specifically part of some
    	role I am playing as a woman.
    
    	As for 'That's a typical guy for ya,' don't say that around
    	my 'boyfriend' in this conference, because he hates generalizations
    	about people of either sex.  He likes to be himself, and he
    	likes me to be myself, too. We have no trouble figuring out
    	who is who when we are together.  :)

    
    	P.S.  In case you didn't see it earlier, I *do* think that
    	men and women are different, but I don't think it has anything
    	to do with things like having personal strength, wisdom, or
    	being able to provide a sizable income with which to support
    	one's family.  I think we have natural differences that don't
    	need to be forced artificially (or worried about if we can't
    	quite figure out what they are.)
    

    Re .29
    I just *knew* someone was going to enter that .
    
    If you're half as old as that joke ...........
    
    
    John J

    Re .37
    
    Neither (well maybe a little bit of maso..) actually .
    
    Just bags of hope .
    
    John J

    
    	RE:.39
    
    	Not bad Eagle!
    
    	Todd

    	RE:  .39
    
    	As more and more women join men in all aspects of work-related
    	endeavors, masculinity will become less and less synonymous
    	with words involving one's ability to earn a good living.
    
    	As we become more enlightened as a society, we will continue
    	to discover that most of the positive qualities that we used
    	to call "masculine" are actually "human" qualities (and that
    	some men HONESTLY don't need to feel that their manhood is threatened
    	because women can do things that were traditionally done only
    	by men.)  As more and more of us come to this realization, less and
    	less people will find themselves telling women who are engaging
    	in HUMAN BEHAVIOR involving work-related endeavors that they are 
    	"acting like men."  
    
    	As we make these cultural adjustments, men who still feel the
    	need to support a woman will seek a woman who is willing to
    	be supported (and vice versa) while those of us who do not
    	subscribe to these roles (as being *mandatory*) will seek others
    	who also do not subscribe to them.  Both kinds of potential
    	mates will be available for a long time (due to the fact that
    	cultural changes happen very, very  s l o w l y, and are not
    	universally accepted by every single member of a given society
    	at the same moment.)
    
    	Incidently, your comments about "women acting like men" and
    	"men [in turn] acting like women" remind me of an argument
    	I heard against Civil Rights in the mid-60's.  Someone told
    	me that it was inherent in the very NATURE of relations between
    	races that one race dominate completely.  This person went on
    	to say that we should HOLD BLACK PEOPLE DOWN AS HARD AS WE CAN
    	because he was of the opinion that if whites didn't dominate
    	blacks, blacks would surely dominate whites (and that our roles
    	as races would eventually REVERSE 100% if we gave blacks ANY 
    	CONCESSIONS AT ALL in the name of Civil Rights.)

    	The scenerios I keep hearing about all the drastic things that
    	will happen to our culture if women keep advancing in work-
    	related ways sound very much like that argument to me.  Some
    	people are incapable of imagining a society where NEITHER RACE
    	and/or NEITHER SEX completely dominates the other (in terms
    	of employment opportunities and political power.)
    
    	Myself, I *CAN* imagine such a society (and I'd like to see us keep
    	working TOWARDS it instead of thinking up all sorts of rationaliza-
    	tions about why we shouldn't.)

    In **SOME** people's minds, it is.....

          If Mr Baranski's note in =wn= about women increasingly valuing
    men by his wallet is any indicator, I would like to know how you
    would define a HUMAN trait when one sex is defining another by
    quantitative terms (as opposed to qualitative ones)?
    
          If masculinity isn't tied to money, then why does your sex
    tie a man's value to it?
    
          If I make what your sex does, will you still love me?
    
          As more women COMPETE with men in all aspects of work,
    how can men "earn a good living" (thus satisfying the "acceptable
    terms of exchange") when increased Labor guarantees less capital
    for a man's wallet.
    
          How can men "make more" when one sex's competition makes
    them "earn less"  ( thus making men less & less desirable in one
    sex's eyes) ?
    
          Do you see the problem here?   
    
          If your sex judges men by their ability to make money, how
    about doing something to ENABLE us to make more?
    
          IE a reduced Labor market ----> higher pay for "eligible
    bachelors."
    
          The Labor market can accomodate everyone, of course.
    
          Particularly men who, for some reason, can't quite ever
    make enough....
    
          On another note, while you see distinct M/F traits as too
    limiting, I see the increasing sexual integration before us as too
    expansive.   Or intrusive if you will.
    
          This, backed by continued legislative efforts/enactments
    encouraging/guaranteeing increased sexual integration - in all fields.
    
          Lemme see.
    
          A simple example of a fallen "barrier."  The FWO privacy loss.
    
          As we all know by now, =wn= cannot discriminate against men
    by excluding them in a FWO note.
    
          Isn't this dandy.
    
          Funny, while many (most?) of my male friends were against
    the FWO's, I wasn't.
    
          Now, why do you suppose that was/is?
    
          Right.  I value differences.  That's right folks, I valued
    that difference.
    
          I value privacy.  In this case, a woman's privacy.  To such
    extent that I didn't even read them.  Or the FGD's for that matter.
    
          Now, when ideological thrusts to remove nearly ALL forms of
    sexual (etc) discrimination are EVENTUALLY ENACTED, what do you
    think will happen?
    
          For one thing, some valuable differences, some valuable NEEDS
    will be washed away - perhaps forever.
    
          These are the consequences not of traditional sexual roles
    and obligations, but of the reality that comes when well intentioned
    people want/demand that ALL barriers that divide the sexes FALL.
    
          You say that Feminism is about *choice.*  Without going into
    other accompanying themes, let us start to sort out the consequences
    of *choice.*
    
          The ideology of *choice* says that a human being can be or
    try to be anything that s/he sets out to be, without regard to 
    biology, historical traditions, or what have you.
    
          Compared to the long course of historical events, *choice*
    is an idea that is different from the set of ideas that comprise
    traditional M/F defined roles and obligations.
    
          Men have a tradition of working outside the home to provide
    for their wife and children.  Men have a tradition of desiring to
    marry.  Men have a tradition of controling the political and economic
    realms in which they work.  Men have a tradition of sports involvement,
    having their wives take their last names - and wills as well.
    
          Men like to achieve ranks and titles.  Captain, Major, Professor,
    Doctor, General, President, Ambassador, Scholar, and so forth.
    
          Women have traditionally excelled in the role as wife and
    mother in a family unit.  In marriage.
    
          Before women took to the IDEA of female birth control in droves,
    the matter of motherhood and family life was a natural way of life.
    
          Women's Liberation absolutely insisted that ALL women immediately
    be on birth control so that the destiny of their lives was no longer
    tied to a life of forced roles or obligations.
    
          As the ideology of choice became the norm for American Society,
    all sorts of cultural and political changes took place. And continue
    to take place.
    
          I have but one question.  What set of ideas in the long course
    of human history justifies the ideologies (and, consequently, different
    behaviors) that women have decided to take?
    
          In short, what is there that can be pointed to that can lend
    support to the idea that an abandonment of traditional roles and
    obligations for women is a viable course for human history to take.
    
          What in History says that ideologies based and focused upon
    *choice* for the sexes, is superior to time-proven roles and
    obligations.
    
          Men don't seem to really have a choice in life.  What are
    the consequences when another sex decides to create an ever expanding
    World of them?
    
          If all the "barriers" that separate the sexes fall due to
    ideological/political/actual intrusions ("changes"), what is left
    that makes us sexually distinct?
    
          If female bodybuilders on TV cannot bear children (they cannot)
    what distinguishes them from men, human traits, or anything else
    of VALUE?
    
          And what of this obsession with HUMAN traits?  Have you lost
    the ABILITY to distinguish those which are most clearly human -
    those being tied to the female and the male?
    
          If man has lost control over the domain of work, is it possible
    that woman has lost control over the domain of family?  ie birth?
    
          Whose fault is it really.... for the saturated labor market?
    
          Men.
    
          Whose fault is it really for the loss in reproductive powers
    and the advent of test - tube baby technology?
    
          One guess.
    
          Well, it was still just one question.
    
          The consequences of choice are with us today.  
    
          As are the consequences of all those barriers yet to fall.
    
          I guess the times demanded life be the ideology of choice.
    
          
    
          I'll stick by what I know.
    
    
                                                       Russ P

    
    re .44
    
    >Men like to achieve ranks and titles.  Captain, Major, Professor,
    >Doctor, General, President, Ambassador, Scholar, and so forth.
     
    This is not unique to men. We call this credentialism, the accumulation
    of formal titles or diplomas.
                                                 
    Striving for these is often a substitute for actually being/doing
    the real thing.

	RE:  .44
    
        > If Mr Baranski's note in =wn= about women increasingly valuing
    	> men by his wallet is any indicator, I would like to know how you
    	> would define a HUMAN trait when one sex is defining another by
    	> quantitative terms (as opposed to qualitative ones)?
    
    	Unfortunately, we are still in the situation where one sex
    	is economically disadvantaged compared to the other, so there
    	is one sex that still has a number of members who view marriage
    	to a good provider as one of the only clear ways to insure that
    	a future family will have a means of support.
    
    	As economic opportunities equalize between men and women, less
    	and less women will feel the need to look to men for support
    	(like me, for example.)  I already make enough money to own
    	my house and support my family, so a man's income is relatively
    	insignificant to me.  However, many young women are not as
    	fortunate as I am in that respect.
    
    	> If masculinity isn't tied to money, then why does your sex
    	> tie a man's value to it?
    
    	It's still a matter of pure survival for some women.
    
        > How can men "make more" when one sex's competition makes
    	> them "earn less"  ( thus making men less & less desirable in one
    	> sex's eyes) ?
    
        > Do you see the problem here?   
    
    	The only problem I see is in your logic.  SOME women value money
    	in men because they have so few opportunities to make a good
    	living themselves.  The more we can level things out between
    	the sexes, the less some women will NEED to value money in men.
    
        > Women's Liberation absolutely insisted that ALL women immediately
    	> be on birth control so that the destiny of their lives was no longer
    	>tied to a life of forced roles or obligations.
    
    	That is a lie.  The women's movement insisted that birth control
    	be made AVAILABLE to all women who did not desire to become
    	pregnant at that moment in her life.  THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE
   	BETWEEN THIS AND INSISTING THAT ALL WOMEN IMMEDIATELY BE ON
    	BIRTH CONTROL.
   
        > I have but one question.  What set of ideas in the long course
    	> of human history justifies the ideologies (and, consequently, 
    	> different behaviors) that women have decided to take?
    
    	Our species has a LONG HISTORY of social and cultural evolution
    	(otherwise we'd still be living in caves using implements made
    	of stone.)  This evolution has been going on for as long as
    	humans have existed on this planet.  Is that a sufficient length
    	of time to justify future cultural changes for you, Russ?
    
        >In short, what is there that can be pointed to that can lend
    	>support to the idea that an abandonment of traditional roles and
    	>obligations for women is a viable course for human history to take.
    
	See above.    
          
    	>What in History says that ideologies based and focused upon
    	>*choice* for the sexes, is superior to time-proven roles and
    	>obligations.
    
    	See above again.
    
        > If female bodybuilders on TV cannot bear children (they cannot)
    	> what distinguishes them from men, human traits, or anything else
    	> of VALUE?
    
    	The ability to bear children is not the determining factor in
    	any individual woman as to her womanhood (any more than a man's
    	sperm count is the determining factor in an individual man's
    	masculinity, as far as I'm concerned.)
    
        > Whose fault is it really for the loss in reproductive powers
    	> and the advent of test - tube baby technology?
    
        > One guess.
    
    	Fertility problems have been with humans since the beginning.
    	In this century, technology can help some infertile couples
    	conceive.  There was no big "loss in reproductive powers"
    	except that which may have occured because of modern diet
    	habits or exposure to chemicals in foods and the environment
    	in general.  Which sex do you blame for that?
    
        > I'll stick by what I know.
    
    	Be my guest.  Whenever a society goes through rapid social
    	and cultural changes, there are ALWAYS some who would rather
    	remain in the dark ages.  You are welcome to stay there forever
    	as far as I'm concerned...

    
    Sounds like a broken record....
    
    
    You're playing old tapes, Colon.
    
    This note has turned into a 'rat-hole.'
    

    Re: .49
    
         OH!  I thought he was addressing an organ.  Mike, I think you
    are infringing on our constitutional right to misspell.
    
                                    Ogre

    	In case anyone thinks that the women's movement in something
    	totally new (in the past twenty years) and as such, is something
    	that has no historical basis nor chance for survival in future
    	generations...  The following is quoted from that well-known
    	'Feminist' publication, the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
    
    	   "Women's liberation movement, also called Feminist Movement,
    	   social movement that seeks equal rights for women, giving
    	   them equal status with men and freedom to decide their own
    	   careers and life patterns.
    
    	   "Concern for women's rights dates from the Enlightenment.
    	   The 18th-century philosopher Condorcet spoke in favor of
    	   female emancipation, and in 1789, the year of the French
    	   Revolution, Olympe de Gouges wrote 'The Declaration of
    	   the Rights of Women.'  This declaration strongly influenced
    	   Mary Wollstonecraft's 'A Vindication of the Rights of Women,'
    	   published in England in 1792, which challenged the idea that
    	   women exist only to please men and proposed that women receive
    	   the same treatment as men in education, work, and politics
    	   and be judged by the same moral standards....."
    
    	These ideas came out in ** 1792 ** (not in 1963 when 'The Feminine
    	Mystique' was written by Betty Friedan.)  
    
    	Encyclopaedia Britannica continues this article with the words,
    	"But action was slow in coming...."  (World class understatment,
    	considering we are still working on these issues two hundred
    	years later.)  We have never stopped making our slow progress,
    	however.  In no way is the women's movement some sort of modern
    	flash in the pan that will disappear in the next decade or so.

    RE: .52
    
         What was that in reference to?
    
                                      Greg

    re: 48  It usually does.....
    re: mike  WOW!  What a MAN!  You are the apidomy (sp) of manlihood!
    
    :-)

    re .52   Thank you for citing information from a quality source.
    
             I've studied feminism from all sides and will present
             my findings in the appropriate topic when time permits.
    
             Such things best appropriate in other topics and Conf's.
    
    
                                                   Russ P

    	RE:  .53
    
    	> What was that in reference to?
    
    	It was the beginning of an article entitled "Women's Liberation"
    	in the Micropaedia section of the newest version of the
    	Encyclopaedia Britannica that came out this year.

    Re: .58
    
         No, no.  I was trying to find out to which comment you were
    replying.
    
                                           Greg

        re .60    Biologically there's no evidence to suggest that
                  the sexes should behave differently than the 1000's
                  of cultures that have preceeded them.
    
                  Regarding the idea of ancient matriarchies filled
                  with bliss, feminists from literary (as opposed
                  to social-scientific) backgrounds argue that "rule
                  by women" was the original way of life.
    
                  Kate Millet is a clear example of this kind of
                  "qualified" proponent.
    
                  Fairly egalitarian societies like the Minoans SEEM
                  to be when contrasted with the radically male-dominated
                  culture of Athens at its peak.
    
                  Evidence is very thin for the case of primitive
                  matriarchies.  
    
                  A feminist social scientist notes, "there is little
                  evidence for the existence of truly matriarchal 
                  societies at any time." ( Women and Men in Society,
                  Charlotte G. O'Kelly; NY: D.Van Nostrand, 1980).
    
                  "I have consulted the original ethnographic materials
                   on every society I have ever seen alleged by anyone
                   to represent a matriarchy, female dominance, or the
                   association of high status, nonmaternal roles with
                   women.... I have found no society that represents
                   any of these." ( The Inevitability of Patriarchy,
                   Steven Goldberg, NY: Wm Morow & Co., 1973).
    
                   Goldberg is the Chairman of the Dept of Sociology,
                   City College,CUNY.  His '73 book researched over
                   4000 cultures finding no absence of male dominance
                   in any.  ie all patriarchies, no matriarchies.
                   As Margaret Mead said, "Steven Goldberg's data is
                   faultless."
    
                   The myth of primitive matriachies was in vogue in
                   the 70's and even Eisler still believes in such
                   nonsense.
    
                   Sexual Suicide by Gilder, '73, analyzes the need
                   for sexual roles and distinctions, with the con-
                   sequences for cultures ( backed up with historical
                   examples) that mix the sexes in all areas of life.
                   A landmark work.  
    
                   Maybe I went a bit overboard with the idea in May,
                   but life goes on.
    
                   The break from the role of Motherhood seems to
                   be a Societal trend that has no historical basis
                   to justify it.
    
                   As Goldberg and many others point out, its not
                   their business to tell the sexes (specifically
                   women here ) what they SHOULD do..... for life to
                   work well.
    
                   They say that the evidence suggests that women
                   WOULD do well to follow the footpaths of those
                   that have proceeded them.
    
                   The career standard has nothing in history to suggest
                   that it WOULD be the best thing for women to do/change.
    
                   
                                                      Russ P

    OK, make that .47 and .52

	RE: .60
    
        > Biologically there's no evidence to suggest that
        > the sexes should behave differently than the 1000's
        > of cultures that have preceeded them.
    
    	Wrong.  Previous cultures *wasted* millions of years
    	worth of human resources by their inability to see women
    	in more than one narrowly-defined role.  When a culture
    	exhibits massive short-sightedness as a traditional practice,
    	present and future societies are under no obligation to
    	continue the practice (and would be quite foolish, in fact,
    	to insist on it for the sake of tradition.)
    
        > The break from the role of Motherhood seems to
        > be a Societal trend that has no historical basis
        > to justify it.
    
    	Women, as a sex, have not broken from the role of Motherhood.
    	Most women are no longer limited to being *ONLY* Mothers (which
    	was largely the established practice until this century.)
    
    	Why do you keep implying that women NEED to justify our
    	pursuit of freedom and fair opportunities?  What authority
    	is standing over us requesting this justification?  You?
    	(Don't make me laugh.)
    
    	> As Goldberg and many others point out, its not
        > their business to tell the sexes (specifically
        > women here ) what they SHOULD do..... for life to
        > work well.
    
    	Exactly right.  
    
        > They say that the evidence suggests that women
        > WOULD do well to follow the footpaths of those
        > that have proceeded them.
    
    	They can suggest all they like.  However, their definition
    	of what it takes for women to "DO WELL" is obviously quite
    	a bit more limited than mine.  I think that women would do
    	well to pursue the paths that *we* choose for *ourselves*
    	rather than doing what some of us DON'T WANT TO DO (and would
    	be ABJECTLY MISERABLE DOING) because someone *suggests* to us
    	that we would "DO WELL" to follow traditional paths simply because 
    	so many others before us didn't have the choices that we have
    	today.
    
        > The career standard has nothing in history to suggest
        > that it WOULD be the best thing for women to do/change.
    
        According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, women have been working
    	in a number of cultures over the past 200 years to break from
    	limited roles in order to pursue equal rights in education, employ-
    	ment, and politics (requesting to be judged by the same moral
    	standards as men.)
    
    	Those of us who are alive today were preceded by many women
    	who *refused* to accept the limitations of *ONLY* Maternal and
    	spousal roles (and pursued their educations and employment
    	opportunities in SPITE of the tremendous difficulties.)  Many
    	of us today are FOLLOWING IN THEIR FOOTSTEPS (and consider their
    	dedication to 'choice' as a NEW tradition WORTH ESTABLISHING!)

    	Not that we needed any sort of justification to do this.

         Well, let's get biological about it.  A hairy chest is not
    a feminine trait.  An hour-glass figure is not a masculine trait.
    Masculine and feminine attributes DO exist.  It's just a matter
    of discerning the real attributes from the mythical ones.
    
                                  Greg

    	RE:  .64
    
    	Greg, of course there are certain biological traits that can
    	be considered masculine and feminine.  I've never denied that.
    
    	Furthur, it is my opinion that there are ENOUGH natural differences
    	between men and women that artificial sexual roles are not
    	necessary to keep men and women different.
    
    	It is these artificial roles that tend to limit people (both
    	in their personal lives and in their education/employment
    	opportunities) and for this reason, I object to the idea of
    	*forcing* standardized roles on people of either sex.

    	On the other hand, whoever WANTS to play these standardized
    	sexual roles should still be free to do so (as a function of the
    	same individual CHOICE that would permit others NOT to play.)

    	RE:  .63
    
    	> I can only hope it doesn't sink down any further with feminist
    	> propoganda..... [sic]
    
    	Not much danger of that since the only reference used so far
    	to support a feminist position has been a well-estalished
    	Encyclopaedia.  If I were you, I'd be more concerned about
    	the ANTI-feminist propaganda (including the use of casual
    	slurs and innuendos about philosophical positions that have
    	neither been presented nor defended in this particular topic.)
    
    	You can do much yourself to help prevent the extensive use of
    	tactics like these in a discussion that has managed to avoid
    	these particular pitfalls up to now.

    re: .65
    
         That sounds reasonable.  So, therefore, there are two groups
    who need to modify their behavior: machos and femmos.  The machos
    are casting disfavor upon the more aggressive women, and the femmos
    are casting disfavor upon the less aggressive women.  In the eyes
    of the machos, a woman who values career above children (family),
    is not a woman.  Similarly, the femmos tend to look negatively upon
    the woman who chooses to be a housewife and mother (and maybe
    financially dependent upon her mate).
    
         Both sides seem to deny their contribution to this, but the
    facts remain.
    
                                    Greg

        Suzanne,
    
                 I have read the Britanica, Colliers, World book, etc
        accounts of feminism, and the (supposed) female struggle toward
        whatever (usually listed as "equality of this or that").
    
                 Like most newspapers and TV programs, these pieces
        of "analysis" are tripe compared to the works of important
        intellectuals that have examined history and the sexes closely.
    
                 Carol Gilligan is first rate.  Her work, while flawed,
        has taken writers and readers to interesting places.
    
                 On the other hand, poisonous negativity consumes none
        other than the Steinems, Millets and Dworkins of the world.
    
                 Friedan's anti-feminine complaints in 'The Feminine
        Mystique' has been convincingly ripped to shreds by Decter,
        Davidson, and others.
    
                 "Male oppression of females."
    
                  How absurd.  So absurd that plenty of nuts planned
        to "liberate" your sex from these "artificial things":
    
                  home, family, love.
    
                  The Feminist Era is over, save for those that live
        in the DARK AGES.
    
                  Should its destructive ideologists ever reform their
        attitudes and philosophies, women's viewpoints may be better
        reflected, but it's a longshot that men's viewpoints will be
        accurately represented.
    
                  And so it is with all half baked ideologies.
    
                  And ideologues.
    
    
                                                        Russ

    	RE:  .68
    
    	> The Feminist Era is over....
    
    	First off, the Feminist Era as you describe it NEVER EXISTED!!!
    	You have an exceptionally ugly and twisted view of a movement
    	that Gloria Steinham herself has characterized as being about
    	CHOICE (and nothing more.)
    
    	As a Feminist myself, I am not obligated to accept as Gospel
    	every word ever written by every feminist who ever lived.  (If
    	I don't purchase, read and subscribe to every feminist book
    	ever written, no one is going to come and take my Feminist 'card'
    	away from me, sending me home in disgrace.)  
    
    	So if you think you can change my mind about Feminism by 
    	'tearing to shreds' many/most of the books written by best-selling 
    	feminists, don't bother.  I didn't form all/most of my ideas based 
    	on their works anyway.  Many of them raised my consciousness about 
    	a few things, but I don't make it a habit of blindly accepting
    	every ideology that I read in a book.  I believe in the basic
    	premise that women should have CHOICES (and my ideologies beyond
    	that are a function of my unique position as an individual human 
    	being who lives and makes philosophical decisions based on the
    	available information offered by my culture at any given moment.)
    	In other words, my opinions grow and change as I do (and the
    	only idea that I hold consistently is that which involves the
    	existence of CHOICES for women.)  And the availability of choices
    	involves having opportunities.
    	
    	If Feminism is dead (in your eyes,) Russ, then why do you spend
    	so much time studying it and trying to convince women (in files
  	like Womannotes) that Feminism is finished (and was wrong in
    	the first place.) If Feminism were really dead, you could just
    	let it alone (and we'd all find out eventually.)
    
    	You can't kill Feminism (or the ideology of CHOICE for women)
    	by merely insisting that it is already dead.  Feminism has
    	never been measured in terms of dues-paying members of any one
    	organization and/or Feminist magazine.  As long as women still
    	seek choices (and opportunities,) the spirit of Feminism is
    	alive and well (no matter how many people actually consider
    	themselves Feminists.) 
    
    	As long as CHOICES (and opportunities) continue to exist and
    	to grow for women, Feminism has achieved what it set out to
    	do in its most basic form.  That is ALL that counts!!!

    	RE:  .67
    
    	Greg, I find it quite interesting that you defined BOTH of
    	your stereotypes according to how each group (male and female)
    	would like to influence the behavior of WOMEN IN PARTICULAR
    	(instead of merely choosing their OWN behavior or the behavior
    	of men, which IS the subject of this topic after all.)

    	Try this on for size...  How about if individual men and women
    	choose their OWN BEHAVIOR in relation to the opposite sex.
    	In other words, if people WANT to choose 'traditional' roles,
    	they CAN!  If they do NOT want to choose these roles, they
    	can do SOMETHING ELSE THAT MAKES MORE SENSE TO THEM AS INDIVIDUALS!

    	In other words, CHOICES!  See what I mean?

    Re: .70
    
         Suzanne, when you don't see something objectionable enough
    in my writing, there is no need to create things.  I think you know
    full well that I was merely saying that BOTH of these groups are
    limiting the ability of women AND men to make their own choice of
    how they wish to be.
    
         ...and another topic is being choked off because Conlon does
    not believe in masculinity.
    
                                    Greg

       re .69   "..the Feminist Era as you described it NEVER EXISTED!!!"
    
                The considerable press afforded feminists (and their
                works) in the late 60's/70's clearly made for an 'Era.'
    
                Marches, media stars, ERA (remember Phyllis S.?) and
                abortion, rights demands and equality  over the other
                virtues saturated the public consciousness with images,
                information, and dis-information.
    
                "You have an exceptionally ugly and twisted view of
                a movement that Steinem...[ eventually - RP ] character-
                ized as being about CHOICE (and nothing more.)"
    
                The movement was more than about mere 'CHOICE', as
                numerous male observers of this conference have
                seen.
    
                Many of us have been on the receiving end of self-
                righteousness, venality, vindictiveness, and other
                things that often spill over from the ideology of choice.
    
                There is so much excess that's documented, that I'm
                surprised so few (feminists) have layed into the
                mistakes like they could.
    
                Notice I didn't say "should."  I'm a patient man who
                realizes the hopeless inability of some people to
                show excess for what it is.  
    
                I understand people now who simply do not have the
                human trait called "integrity" to be able to do so -
                ....
                That aside ( unapologized verbal murder [ hey C.I. are
                you listening?...thought not]) I believe that women
                should have a choice.
    
                "As a Feminist myself, I am not obligated to accept
                 (what feminist authors have written)."
    
                 No, of course not.  You do seem to have accepted the
                 ideas of equality and rights which is reflected in
                 your notes.
    
                 "..if you think you can change my mind ... don't bother."
    
                 I present what I know like you do.  
    
                 "I believe in the basic premise that women should have
                  CHOICES."
    
                  Choices are good as far as they go.  
    
                  Like "equality"...CHOICE is much more a matter of
                  something that people MAKE HAPPEN.  ie earned instead
                  being "given."
    
                  In an analogy of sorts, perhaps you recall the 'Dallas'
                  show a few years back when Patrick Duffy *thought*
                  that his father (who had promised) was going to "give
                  me those Oil fields."
    
                  To which his father snarled back, "Nobody gives you
                  nothing-you gotta TAKE IT."
    
                  The same with 'CHOICE.'  
    
                  The concept of 'Equality' can be a difficult one
                  to discuss, particularly since controversial and
                  complex things like 'forced fairness legislation'
                  enters into it.
    
                  Suffice it to say, that which cannot be equitably
                  worked out by interest groups OUTSIDE of the STATE,
                  are those things that the STATE seems quite willing
                  to work out for them.
    
                  I would like to see a Major male and female group
                  work more issues out without everything falling
                  into the "legislative ghetto."
    
                  There are many Feminist agendas that reach right
                  up to the State that i wonder about sometimes...
    
                  "If Feminism is dead (in your eyes)...why do you
                   spend so much time studying it and trying to
                   convince women (ie =wn=) that Feminism is finished
                   (and was wrong in the first place)?.... if Feminism
                   were really dead, you could just let it alone."
    
                   The fervor of the 70's publicity about Feminism
                   certainly is not with us today.  there has been a
                   neo-conservatism mood in the 80's, reflected in
                   the choice for the current Administration, etc.
    
                   As notes (ie H_R, Mn, Wn) involves a continual
                   exchange of ideas, I have found myself engaged in
                   frequent discourse with the many feminists that note.
    
                   I consider a feminist a person (usually a woman)
                   that accepts most of the basic tenets of the word
                   'feminist.' ( or 'feminism').
    
                   'Feminism' defined as the advocacy of political,
                    social, and economic equality of men and women.
    
                    That's the definition.
    
                    Many call all women 'feminists' but I do see the
                    2 words defined differently; a difference I respect.
    
                    Now.... a country that guarantees the basic rights
                    of all its citizen's is one thing.  Going into
                    the complex concept of 'equality' involves the
                    businesses, State, & Gov't.  And ideology.
    
                    Anyhow, with that in mind, i felt it well to study
                    up.  
    
                    As some women talk about feminism, I like to
                    talk about it too.
    
                    And i like to think that I engage the intellect
                    of noters - rather than telling them what to think.
    
                    It turns out that the study of Feminism involves
                    ideas that have the potential of taking the sexes
                    to new and exciting heights.
    
                    While some notions are lifeless, some are quite
                    alive - all of which means that I will continue
                    doing what I'm doing.
    
                    It's not so much that I study feminism (prefering
                    liberty and basic rights as opposed to equality
                    being pushed everywhere, ie clubs, no FWO, quotas)
                    as it is that I study the sexes.
    
                    I view contemporary equality as a "lets see what
                    we can legislate next" trap.  Or, "everything's
                    50/50 in this household."
    
                    Read the first MS issue to see that doosie.
    
                    No, I'm into the sexes.  I read whatever will
                    take them to the heights of spiritual, moral,
                    intellectual, and emotional pinnacles.
    
                    And if that means their 'playing' outside of
                    'the rules', - then so much the better.
    
    
                                                       Russ P

	RE:  .71
    
        > Suzanne, when you don't see something objectionable enough
    	> in my writing, there is no need to create things.
    
    	Hey, I didn't object to the way you phrased your note.  I
    	merely commented that it was interesting.  I had no idea
    	that being called 'interesting' was such a hot button with
    	you.  (Sorry, but I find *that* interesting, too.)
    
      	> I think you know full well that I was merely saying that BOTH 
    	> of these groups are limiting the ability of women AND men to 
    	> make their own choice of how they wish to be.
    
    	You started your note (which was in response to mine) by saying,
    	"That sounds reasonable.  So, therefore...." (as if you were
    	trying to paraphrase my ideas.)  If that wasn't your intention,
    	then you should have worded your note some other way.  If it
    	*was* your intention to rephrase my ideas, then I had every
    	right to correct your misrepresentation of my point of view.
    
        > ...and another topic is being choked off because Conlon does
    	> not believe in masculinity.
    
    	In reply 261.142, YOU wrote, "I have yet to see an opinion which
    	did not have the right to be seen" (when one man tried to set
    	a debate to rest and another man said that the debate could/should
    	NOT be put to rest because of the principles he felt were involved.)
    	
    	Did your statement apply to some of us in this conference (or
    	to all of us?)  Do we ALL have the right to stand up for our
    	stated principles here (or not?)

    Re: .73
    
    > Do we all have the right to stand up for our principles (or not)?
    
         Yeah, we all do.  So, give someone else a chance.
    
                                   Greg

    re Russ and Suzanne:
    
    I'm no moderator, but still: BOTH OF YOU KNOCK IT OFF!!!  If you
    want to debate the history/validity/justification/ad_nauseum of
    feminism, TAKE IT TO ANOTHER TOPIC!!!
    
    re "lost" masculinity:
    
    I always feel so sad when I hear someone talking about this whole
    issue.  How can you _lose_ your male-ness??  I mean after all, you
    still have that equipment dangling between your legs (or your knees,
    for those of you with no sense of reality...:), you still have that
    y chromosome, you still have a horomone balance which would be labeled
    "testosterone poisoning" if it were in _my_ body.  Even the most
    "effeminate" of men is still unmistakably, and deliciously male.
    
    I have a hard time with the words "masculine" and "feminine", I
    guess.  Perhaps I rely more on being entirely female than on being
    feminine; that way I can dress any way I want, act any way I want,
    and I am still female.  Perhaps it's more a sense of "my actions
    define what is feminine in me, female ergo feminine".
    
    Is it masculine to feel protective of others?  To want to be wise?
    To want to provide for my family?  Funny, I feel intensely female
    at the same time as feeling these things.
    
    Is it possible that while past movements (which will remain unmentioned
    and undebated here) have provided women the ability to define
    themselves, men still try to fulfill externally defined roles?
    
    Why is it a woman like Katherine Hepburn can be "feminine" (intensely
    so) while wearing men's clothing (hat, tie, coat, men's cut pants,
    etc), but no man can be "masculine" in a dress?  Is it possible
    that the growing acceptance of earrings on men (which I find quite
    attractive and verrrrry male/"masculine") is a step towards more
    freedom for men to define their own sexuality?
    
    Lee

    
    re -.1
    
    Knees will do nicely for me, thank you, reality notwithstanding.
    
    

         Realizing that it is no longer in vogue, I still think that
    the terms masculine and feminine are necessary descriptors (or attempted
    descriptors) of attributes which make something masculine identifiable
    from something feminine, and vice versa.  Equal ability in other
    aspects of life aside, there are good reasons to be able to discern
    between the two.
    
                                    Greg

    	RE:  .77
    
    	There will always be attributes that will make women (in general)
    	identifiable from men (in general.)  I seriously doubt that
    	we will ever be in danger of not being able to ever again tell
    	the difference between the two sexes.
    
    	If I happen to feel that it is *inevitable* that there will
	be identifiable differences between men and women, do you feel
    	that these differences are not natural enough that they will
    	need to be cultivated?  If so, exactly what behaviors would
    	you suggest that each sex cultivate, and why?
    

    re .75    Not a chance Lee T.
    
              The base note mentioned the feminist factor regarding
              questions of gender ID.
    
         PS   And newcomers to the conversation have no right to judge
              either Suzanne or myself regarding this.
    
              If I entered that first paragraph in =wn= I know what
              would happen.
    
                                                    later,
    
                                                           Russ P

    re .77 "masculine" and "feminine" still necessary words
    
    I guess I don't like them because I ascribe to them a lot of garbage;
    stuff like "I'm not feminine because I wear flats", "I'm not feminine
    because I like to think I'm tough", "You're not masculine because
    you cried yesterday", "You're not masculine because you like bubble
    baths", ad nauseum.
    
    While I personally am very happy with the way I have come to terms
    with what is inherently male and what is inherently female, the
    old terms still carry a lot of the old implications, one which say
    I cannot be what I _am_ and still be strong or willful.  I find
    it very freeing to live outside old bogus definitions, and I can't
    see how anyone, male or female, can live with themselves if they
    aspire to those definitions of un-reality.
    
    Lee
    ps, Bob Holt - "knees"?!?!  explain to this sleepy brain...
    
    

    Re: .78
    
         "Cultivate" was your choice of words.  It in no way conveys
    my ideas.
    
         However, I see nothing wrong with the men who choose to maintain
    those things which they see as identifiably male.  It doesn't mean
    that "they need some external definition of their maleness" or that
    they are less that confident in themselves.  It just means that
    they share my belief that an androgynous world would not work.
    
                                  Greg

    re: .80
    
         I see what you mean, Lee.  There are some very fantastic (meaning
    fantasy-like) connotations to masculinity and femininity.  They
    can be discarded without crippling the world.  There are basic
    realities, though, which we cannot function without.
    
                                  Greg
    
    
    PS:  Well, Russ, why don't you folks start a two-member conference
    and blast at each other till the cows come home?

    	RE:  .81
    
    	Ok, I'll accept your choice of words as "choose to maintain those
    	things which they see as identifiably male."
    
    	While I have no objection at all to those who CHOOSE to do
    	this, I want to know why you think that the world would
    	be androgynous if people were to STOP doing this (and how
    	many of us need to make this particular choice to avoid having 
    	the world face the threat of being androgynous?)

    Re: .84
    
         How many?  I would guess that that number who choose to do
    so, under current pressures, are sufficient.  A natural variance
    in tastes is good enough.  I have noticed that, as pressures from
    some quarter has increased for less masculine tendencies (my opinion),
    even more ridiculously stereotypical masculine tendencies have arisen.
    I guess it moderates itself.
    
                                    Greg

    	RE:  .85
    
    	> I would guess that that number who choose to do so, under
	> current pressures, are sufficient.  A natural variance in
    	> tastes is good enough.

    	> I guess it moderates itself.
    
    	Thank you very much.  That is all I have been trying to
    	say all along.
    

    well, what sort of traits _are_ those?  or can they be described?
 

    Re: .86
    
         "That number which choose to do so" includes those men who,
    in your stated opinion, need an external definition of their
    masculinity.  If you have been agreeing with me all along, then
    you chose some ODD words to do so.
    
                               Greg

    Re: .87
    
         If you're referring to those things which some men feel are
    identifiably male, I'll offer a bit of a description.  Most of the
    time, it isn't a conscious thing.  In fact, that is the difference
    between phoney macho and natural masculinity.  With natural
    masculinity, it is simply something a guy feels comfortable doing.
    With phoney macho, one has to think about it, and how it looks to
    others. Societal influences permeate both, but at least one is not
    so derived.
    
                               Greg

    	RE:  .88
    
    	Greg, I haven't been agreeing with you all along.  You finally
    	saw what *I* was saying from the beginning, that's all.  For
    	that, I am grateful.
    
    	If you go back to my earliest replies on this topic, I stated
    	that I think there are natural differences between men and
    	women (but I challenged the notion that "masculinity" included
    	all sorts of positive traits that women have, too.)
    
    	Obviously, you misunderstood many of my notes (and since
    	I will be away from the net for an entire week due to my having
    	major abdominal surgery first thing in the morning,) I will
    	gently explain it to you one last time.
    
    	What I originally objected to (early on in this topic) was the
    	idea that some men felt that it was necessary to define masculinity
    	(and were defining it with traits that many women have and NEED
    	in order to be successful in the business/technical world.)
    
    	The argument seemed to be that society would be losing something
    	if men and women stopped being 'different' (and at the same
    	time, these 'differences' were being described in ways that
    	implied, and even suggested, that women were being 'masculine'
    	if we exhibited some of the very traits that are *necessary* for
    	us if we are to be successful at the jobs for which we have
    	been educated, trained, and for which we have worked long and
    	hard for our success.)
    
    	That, in a nutshell, was the whole basis of my argument (and
    	everything else I said was in response to the various arguments
    	that have surfaced about this along the way.)

    re .89 - diff between phony macho and natural masc.
    
    a-hah!  so we (xx and xy) don't think all that differently after
    all (ie. I actually liked that).
    
    Every time I try to describe traits which are masc or fem, I end
    up having a hard time doing it.  Taking myself and one or two of
    the masculine but not "masculine" men I know, I find so many exceptions
    to each of the traits...
    
    I think no matter how androgenous a society may be in terms of dress,
    acceptable behavior, rights, and opportunities, the _real_ masculine
    and feminine traits will still be there.  It may be a little harder
    for kids to get a handle on what being a man or being a woman really
    _means_ but on the other hand they might find it easier since a
    lot of the old smokescreens will be removed.
    
    Lee

    	RE:  .79   Russ Pollitz
    
    	>  The base note mentioned the feminist factor regarding
    	>  questions of gender ID.
    
    	Just wanted to let you know that you are absolutely right
    	about that.  (I went back and double-checked.)  :)  And I
    	bet some folks thought that you and I never agreed on anything. :)
    
    	Sometimes it really helps to get an historical perspective on
    	why cultural changes happen (and I will admit that you got me
    	to do some research that I had not previously done on this
    	particular aspect of how and why so many changes in traditional
    	masculine and feminine roles have already occured after only
    	twenty or so years since the movement started in the mid 60's.)
    	
    	So I actually learned quite a bit from some of the offline reading 
    	that I did in the course of this topic, which was great, even
    	though we got CUT OFF before I could relay MOST of what I had
    	found (that was pertinent to the basenote) as a reply.  It was
    	pretty relevant to the subject matter, but if it's going to
    	upset people then it just isn't worth it.  I'll send it to you
    	by mail when I get a chance.
    
    	See you in some other part of the noter galaxy (sometime after
    	I come back from being in the hospital.)  Oh yeah, they decided that
    	I would NOT be able to note from the operating room (with the
    	anesthetist reviving me every time an 'Update' in womannotes, 
    	mennotes or Human_Relations shows a number other than '0' next to it.)  
    	Guess I'll just have to quit Notes cold turkey til I'm home again.  
	(Geesh, the sacrifices one is asked to make for one's health.
    	Honestly!)  :)  
      							Take care!!

    Re: .90
    
         Sorry Suzanne, my view never changed, and I STILL don't see
    what you were saying from the beginning.  BUT, if you want to attach
    that to the meaning of my note, you have my blessing.
    
                                     Greg

My base note wasn't meant to bring about a discussion about the feminist
movement. It was meant to address masculinity and how  men, and women 
feel about it. The big problem I see is that, some women don't want to
hear how men feel. This was not an attack against women, some have 
interpreted it as that. The rathole resulted. When I entered the note
I wondered if men could express their feelings about something that
is close to them in a mensnote file. I sense that some men wanted to, 
but backed off after the attacks started. Is this what men are doing
today, backing off from expressing the way they're feeling, and just 
going into a corner and trying to hide, because they're 
afraid of offending women ?  It is this attitude that made me wonder,
is masculinity was truely lost ? 
    
    
Jim

    RE:.41  Not that again.  Please don't equate sex equality with racial
    equality, they are two distinctive arguments.  For example.  I am
    150% for racial equality, however, sex equality is something I see
    as a detriment to men, women and children, especially children.
    
    RE:.47 You say that one sex is economically disadvantaged to the
    other.  FACT: Since 1975, men & women with similar educational &
    woking bacckgrounds.  Women earn $1.01 for every $1 men earn.
    
    RE:.72 I think feminism is a misleading word.  It implies thata
    woman has to have these beliefs in order to be feminine.  Fortunately
    most women were too smart to get trapped into this.  The fact is
    that the majority of women are not feminists and do not believe
    in feminism.  It seems to me that this is a prime example of the
    tail trying to wag the dog.
    
    RE:.92  Good luck in your surgery.  Our thoughts will be with you.
    
    In reading the replies which have been entered over the weekend,
    it seems to me that there is a consensus that feminine traits and 
    masculine traits do exist.  Everyone is also an individual and has 
    a varying amounts of these traits.  Is masculinity lost?  I don't
    think so.  There are always going to be those who believe in the
    traditional ways and will keep those ways going.  I also think that
    it is going to be the majority of the people.
    
    Mike
    different traits.

    I am glad that there are still some real mean and real women around who
    understand the importance of artificial and arbitrary sex roles in
    maintaining the moral fabric of this nation.  Just the other day, I
    asked my hero and fellow intellectual giant, Sylvester "Rambo" Stalone,
    what effect androgyny was having on our culture: 
        
        Me:  Hello, Mr. Stalone.
        SS:  (grunt)
        Me:  What do you think of androgyny?
        SS:  What's androgyny?
    
    I have carefully analyzed this issue, and I have determined that
    if we abolished sex roles, our society would collapse for the following
    reasons:
    
    1)  Men would stop opening doors for women.  Since the ability to
    open a door for oneself is a genetic trait located on the Y chromosome,
    women would be trapped outside of buildings a lot.  This would spur
    science to invent doors that open like on the TV series "Star Trek".
    
    2)  Women would start fighting wars alongside men, which would severely
    damage our ability to fight wars effectively.  Men can fire weapons
    more accurately than women because their hand-to-eye coordination is
    naturally developed, as a result of all the years of aiming at
    cigarette butts in the urinal at public rest rooms.  Now some smart alec
    might point out that men are notorious bad aimers in this activity,
    often hitting the floor; but that only happens when there are no
    cigarette butts in the urinal or toilet, and the man is bored.
    
    Once the Soviets saw that we had women in combat, they would invade us,
    and we'd all be speaking Russian, comrade. 
    
    3)  The country would be run by wimpy, Alan Alda type men, and by women
    with hairy legs.  They would pass a law requiring every woman to use
    birth control, and every man to have a vasectomy.  They would abolish
    marriage, show hardcore pornography on the public airwaves, and ban the
    Bible.  Worst of all, they might actually pass the ERA!

    It is a good thing that there are people in this country with
    traditional values who understand the importance of traditional roles,
    who will stand up to those who would destroy our country's moral fiber.
    Western civilization was made by men who owned guns and lynched
    criminals, and by women who stayed home and cooked and got pregnant a
    lot.  It is people like that who, God willing, will preserve our
    society, and build it forward into the twenty first century!

    -- Mike

re: .94
    
> The big problem I see is that, some women don't want to
>hear how men feel.
    
    I'd like to hear how men feel.  As a matter of fact, a man who I'd
    consider one of the most "masculine" I had met cried on my shoulder
    last week.  I was really touched that he trusted me, and did my
    best to help as much as I could.  I am GLAD men have feelings. 
    I think it is a masculine trait to feel the freedom to express those
    feelings (of course, within the proper situations, as with all feelings
    one generally finds acceptable releases for them, you know what
    I mean).
    
>I wondered if men could express their feelings about something that
>is close to them in a mensnote file. 
    
    That would be fine with me.  And, as in womannotes (oh no, the "W"
    file), if men decide they'd rather women didn't respond in the same
    notes string, but set up a separate topic for general discussion
    of the subject, that would be cool, too.

    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .99
    
         Perish and forbid such a thought!  When the mennotes noters
    become so insecure as to need For Men Only topics, the bell will
    indeed toll.
    
                                  Greg

    I discussed this with my husband (a non-DECcie, so he can't
    participate).  Without going into the details of our long and
    rambling discussion, we had a vague idea that "traditionally
    masculine" traits (such as career ambition) now seem to apply
    comfortably to both sexes, whereas some "traditionally
    feminine" traits (such as enjoying lots of new clothes) still
    seem to apply only to women--and that to some extent men are
    now defined in terms of negatives, in terms of being *not*
    those feminine traits. 

    For example, I often don't carry a purse when I go out; I
    purposefully chose jeans and a wallet which will fit in the
    pocket.  No one thinks much of it (although if I get dressed
    up in "traditionally feminine" attire for a fancy dinner, I'd
    better have a purse).  On the other hand, I see only a few
    men with purses/bags, despite the fact that some men carry
    enough junk (oops, I meant vital necessities) to need
    them--it seems that a purse is "feminine" and so a man can't
    carry one.  So my husband often puts junk in mine when I
    carry it, or wears a jacket with lots of pockets. 

    Do you men feel similarly that your "masculinity" is defined
    in terms of what you *can't* be and do?

    -- Linda

    The only problem I have with feminisim is when it becomes such an
    issue that it interferes with men and women comunicating/relateing
    with one another. Whenever one person becomes so caught up in their
    own opinions and ideas that they cannot understand anothers(note
    I dident say agree) there is a problem. I have/do know fems that
    allow this to happen and it at times works against what they are
    trying to acheive.
    
    I never thought that there was a true mans/womans job as a child
    my female role models(grandmother,aunt,mother) all worked as hard
    as any man. In my family my mother has worked as long as I can remember
    there were no set man/woman roles there my father cooked,cleaned
    and my mother would mow the yard. They both think the feminist ideas
    to be odd as its an idea they never even thought about. Granted
    most of my early years were sheltered from this in a small town
    without many of the problems others encountered but I never have
    seen it except when its been stuck in my face. Am I blind to a
    very important issue or is this just being blown all out of actual
    porportion?
    I do believe that men and women should be paid the same for the
    same skills and job, lesser skills be it man or woman should be
    reflected as lower pay. I dont see any justification to pay anyone
    more than they are worth just because thay are man or woman.
    There are things a man can do that a woman cannot possibly do as
    well as things a woman can do that a man cannot. Whats the real
    issue besides just having something to complain about?
    
    -J
    

    
    re .96
    
    Hopefully luck will have nothing to do with Suzannes
    success in surgery...

    
    A REAL MAN will define MASCULINITY any damn way he wants to and
    will tell those that don't like "his definition" to stick it where
    the sun don't shine.
    
    
                     And that's the name of that tune...
    
    

    Most of what I feel about masculinity came from the role models
I grew up with. My father was the greatest masculine role model
I had. My father would work a 12hr shift in a paper mill and come
home and tear off a slate roof of our two story house, go to work
the next day come home and put the new roof on. I have never met
a woman that could do the physical labor that my father, my grand-
fathers or my uncles did. They were my role models. My mother and
grandmothers and aunts worked hard at traditional house wife chores
but the work they did, I as a child could help with. Not so with the
things my father did until we were at least 12yrs old. The family
get togethers always involved the woman siting around talking and
the men always got into heavy horseshoe tournaments. The girls in the
family never showed the desire to get involve with the men's activities,
its just the way it was. As a result of the way I grew up, it has been
hard for me to adjust to women participating in men's activities. The
sportsmen's club I belong to, has just been forced to allow women to be 
members. I know women like hunting and fishing, and I've seen them
shot trap and skeet well also, but it just an adjustment that I and other
men are having a hard time adjusting to. When I'm with the guys at 
activities I feel more masculine than when women are around. It seems
conversation changes and attitudes change whenever women are around,
and I get really upset that women don't seem to respect this anymore.
Masculinity is felt for me anyway, in the company of men, not women.
Being today its harder to be in the company of men exclusively, I feel
many younger men don't know what masculinity is about.

Jim

    re 270.106 by Jim PCCAD1::RICHARDJ-
    
    Jim, I have a different perspective.  I'm in no way quarreling or
    demeaning your role models, your life or your choices.  However,
    for me, I disagree when you say this:
    
    > Being today its harder to be in the company of men exclusively, I feel
    > many younger men don't know what masculinity is about.
    
    I had some role models similar to yours.  I think I know what you're
    talking about.  I cannot personally aspire to such a role because
    I think its too limiting.  Men hanging out with other men, men
    uncomfortable when women are added to the scene.  Women are half
    of where its at, for me, and I cannot buy into any definition of
    "masculinity" that excludes them.  So I know what you mean by it,
    and I know its *wrong* for me personally.  Don't tell me I don't
    know what its about, just because I've CHOSEN differently than you.
    I did it with my eyes open.  I'll rewrite your statement for me:
    
    Being today its harder to be in the company of men exclusively,
    I feel many older men don't understand what younger men are about.
    
    DougO

    re:107
    OK Doug,
    	    I'm open to another point of veiw, and I don't claim that
    my statements are facts, only feelings. Remember feelings are 
    niether right nor wrong, they're only feelings. My masculine feelings
    arn't limited to the company of men, but its were they are most 
    dominant. I can enjoy the company of women, but there are times
    I prefer being with men only. I'm not saying it's right for everyone,
    but its they way I'am. 

    RE: .105  Did your wife tell you you could say that? :')
    
    RE: .106  Jim, I agree with you.  This is how our family and family
    events have always gone.  As far as mens clubs go, I think that the 
    feminists are being petty trying to invade these places.  I would 
    never want to join a womens club.  I respect their right to associate with
    whom they want.  There are some things that men will say in front
    of other men that they won't say when women are present and visa
    versa.  You can let your guard down.  You were right when you said
    masculinity was hard to explain (in an earlier note).  It's something
    you feel on the inside which no definition can be put on.  When
    you try, people see you as a narrow minded chauvenist.  that's the
    way some people deal with differing opinions and cultures.  They
    dump you in a stereotypical bucket and write the differing opinion
    off to ignorance or narrowmindedness.  I don't want to make everyone 
    think the way I do and I refuse to be brought to their way of thinking 
    unless,in my mind, I am convinced it is the right way.  
    
    RE: .106 & .107  Oh no, it's the generation gap raising it's ugly
    head!:')
    
    
    Mike
        
    PS  I think setting has alot to do with this topic.  Country, city,
    etc.

    
    -1  
    
    Mike - I'm NOT married - thank you very much!  ;^)
    
    Dwight

    
    re:  113 Mwannemacher
    
    Nothing funny about me.... Jack ... or is it Jackie?       
    
    You're walking on thin ice, and summers coming!  :^)
    
    Seriously, I've always had a weakness for the female gender, even
    married one, divorced her, and now I'm starting the cycle all over
    again.
    
    Dwight

    Was worried about my last entry.  Good to see you have a good sense
    of humor.  Have a good weekend.
    

    re: .97
    
    Encore, Mike!
    
    re: the title question
    
    Nope, got mine right here, uh, wait a sec. . .dang!  I thought it
    was in this pocket!?  Uh, well, look, I'm sure it's in my other
    suit. . .or maybe I put it in my purse. . .son of a snake!  I guess
    mine *is* lost.  Boy do I wish I'd had the Citibank Masculinity
    card. 
    
    Steve