Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    If someone dresses to catch the eye of the opposite sex (particularly
    if it's in a sexual manner - skin-tight-skirt, open cleavage, etc.
    - or on the other foot, black button-down shirt and tight jeans,
    or whatever), then they are going to get that kind of attention.
    If they don't know this, they obviously have some screws loose.
    If they then chastise the onlookers, I'd accuse them of giving mixed
    signals.
    
    -Jody
    

Jody, I agree. I don't think any of us - male or female - should claim
that when we appear to be too "overdressed" (or underdressed) for the 
surroundings we find ourselves in, that we don't want to be noticed.

We may not want people to comment upon how we look, whether via "cat-
calls" or more subltle comments, but I have a hard time believing that
we don't want people to look at us. 

This does not mean, however, that the attractive woman in the supermarket
(or anywhere else) is inviting anybody to sexually advance upon her.

  Alan             

    So, if a person dresses provocatavily, they're setting themselves
    up for rape too, right?  The rapist is justified, right?  I mean,
    she asked for it right?
    
    

    Re: .3
    
      One could make the point that there's a very subtle difference
    between looking at someone and raping them, but that may be too
    subtle for some people to notice.

    RE: .3
    
    > So, if a person dresses provocatively, they're setting themselves
    > up for rape too, right? The rapist is justified, right? I mean,
    > she asked for it right?
    
    Are you replying to my 290.2, or is your response just general
    stream-of-consciousness ranting and raving?
    
    Do you have a point that's related to this topic?
    
      Alan

    
    	I think she was the assh*le if all he did was look. If on the
    	other hand he is the type that drops everything in his hand
    	and yells "huba huba" or "Hey baby hows about....." then she
    	was probably justified. As far as the comments about rape, I
    	didn't know there was a law about looking at attractive women.
    	
    
    

RE: .4 and .6

.0 reminded me of a case where a woman was raped.  In court, they brought
up the issue that she was dressed provocatively and therefore was "asking for
it."  The courts can no longer ask questions about the way a woman was dressed,
her morals, or her background.  It's irrelevent. 

To bring this point back to .0, it shouldn't matter *how* a woman is dressed.
Women are *people* and deserve to be respected as such.  Ogling, gawking, and
leering at a woman makes the woman a sex *object* instead of a person.  

NO ONE should be subjected to uncomfortable stares, period.  The sooner
men stop drooling all over themselves when they see a "nice piece of *ss,"
the better.  

The man in the supermarket line probably never grew out of his jr. high
mentality or hormones.  
      
    

    Gee, People.... it only took three notes before the "he "might"
    rape " stuff came in.  We're getting better...:-)
    
    RE: last  Or WOMEN!                              
    
    I tend to agree with Mike on this.  He wasnt the right person to
    "catch".(meaning eyes)
    

    RE: .8
    
    The basenote author was not talking about the man raping the
    woman in the supermarket. However, he did mention that the
    man was "looking at" the woman. 
    
    Nobody here has suggested that the woman was "asking for it"
    (to be raped - or even propositioned).
    
    You appear to be determined to bring other issues into this topic.
    
    However the question still remains: Can a person (female *or* male)
    whose manner of dress does not fit in with the ambiance, reasonably
    expect that he or she will be noticed?
                                          
    I think the answer is "yes".
    
      Alan

    Many years ago, my suppervisor called me in to talk to me about
    a woman in the department, that had reported me to her boss about
    a comment I made to her. I had only worked in this department one
    week and only knew the woman by the way she dressed, which was
    very attractive to  most men. I had never spoken to the woman.
    Anyway my boss was sharp enough to catch her in a lie, and
    she admitted that it wasn't what I said but that she thought I was
    being a snob because I didn't talk to her when she walked by. She
    was the department flirt by the way, and I guess was irritated because I
    didn't ogle over her the way other guys in the department did.
    I wonder what would I have had to defend myself with if my suppervisor
    believed her first story, and what would of happened ? Its scares
    me to think about it. Anyway she ended up pregnant by one of the
    guys in the department and left DEC when they got married and were
    happily devorced about a year later.
    
    My rule is, don't look, say or do, even if they'er naked.
    
    Jim

    As much as it sounds unfair, you are often judged by the way you
    look, at least initially. If you look like a "Bikers in Leather",
    you'll be viewed accordingly, if a male has his designer shirt opened
    three buttons and is wearing lots of gold chains, he creates an
    image, and if a woman wears very revealing clothes, she will also
    be viewed accordingly. It may not be right, but that's the way it
    happens. Your mode of dress transmits an image, and if that's not
    the image you want to convey, then watch how you dress. If you don't
    care, then be prepared to be treated like you look (I don't
    like image making any more than you probably do, but society views
    it that way).
    
    Eric

    RE: .8  Admiring someones looks is a far cry from rape or even thinking
    about rape.  If I see an attractive woman who is dressed revealingly,
    I do look at her.  I, in no way shape or form think about raping
    her.  It is natural for me to look and admire.
    
    RE: Jim, you have a great deal of will power my friend.:')
    
    RE: Base note.  I think she was asking for it.  No, not to be raped
    but to be looked at.
    
    Mike
    

    re: .3, and other discussions of rape
    
    Rape happens to women (and men) from the cradle to the grave - it
    is not a crime of sex, it is a crime of violence.  It occurs to
    ugly people as well as beautiful ones...those who are dressed on
    homely clothing as well as sexy clothing.  
    
    I cannot believe that people who dress like that would somehow manage
    to force a normal average human being to lose control over their
    bodily functions and attack them sexually.  The way a person dresses,
    or even their natural endowments of whatever sort, are no excuse
    for physically attacking a person - and although "dressing that
    way" can be assumed an invitation to look, it is not an invitation
    to touch.
    
    -Jody
      

    
    
    As far as I know it's still legal in the country to look at anything
    (or anyone) you have a mind to.
    
    I did have a similar experiance some time ago. I was standing in
    a supermarket checkout with my three sons. Two aisles was a guy
    I know with his two kids. In between us was a very attractive woman
    not "provocatively" dressed, just darned perty! Anyway, my friend
    was having trouble with one of his kids grabbing candy or something
    similar. I looked over and smiled that sympathetic, I know what
    it's like look to him and the woman between us seemed to think
    I was smiling at her. She said something similar to .0, "what
    do you think your looking at" sort of line. I responded, "Whatever
    I f%*@ing want to look at!" She turned her head apparently pissed
    but chastised. Even if I were smiling at her she had no right to
    snap at me. If you don't want to be seen, stay home!
    
    I agree with -1. "Mode of dress transmits an image" but I'd like
    to suggest that the image isn't transmitted. The image is a perception
    on the part of the perceptee (is that a real word?). No one knows
    whats going on inside the mind of anyone else unless expressed
    in a less vague manner than a look. And even then.....
    
    
    Rob
    
    By the way, I was severely reprimanded by my then seven year old
    son for the language. 

    Was it Benjamin Franklin that said, "if you don't want to offend
    anyone, say nothing, do nothing, and be nothing".
    
    Jim

    Re: .0
    
    Of course, she KNEW what she was doing!  If the woman in question
    did NOT want men looking, staring, or otherwise ogling her, she
    would have been a bit more conservative; that does NOT mean the
    men wouldn't look, but at least staring might have been less tempting.
    I would probably do the same if I saw a man dressed provocatively.
    The mode of dress just cries out for attention.
    
    Barb

When I get that "What are *you* looking at?" line, I like to respond to
that rhetorical question with "What do you *think* I'm looking at?!"
If you've gotta ask, then chances are you won't understand the answer.

.8 (WOODWARD)
>NO ONE should be subjected to uncomfortable stares, period.

So, ignore him, period.

>The sooner men stop drooling all over themselves when they see a
>"nice piece of *ss," the better.  

Sorry, it's in our blood to be attracted to attractivly dressed women who
present themselves as WOMEN.  Besides, most of us don't drool in public.

>To bring this point back to .0, it shouldn't matter *how* a woman is dressed.
>Women are *people*

I'm glad to hear *THAT*!

>and deserve to be respected as such.

"Looking" is not disrespectful, no matter how you look (sic) at it.

>Ogling, gawking, and leering

Semantics....

>at a woman makes the woman a sex *object* instead of a person.  

In *your* eyes, apparently.  Too bad you feel this way.

>The man in the supermarket line probably never grew out of his jr. high
>mentality or hormones.  
      
Junior high is where it STARTS, not where it ENDS.

I love the way these innocent entries get turned around to discussions
totally irrelevant to the topic, like references to (physical) rape
because some guy's checkin' out a nice looking lady dressed to the hilt,
and - o-mi-gawd! - she catches him right in the act.

Kip

    Wonder what her response would have been if 'she' in turn was attracted
    to the guy? Regardless of what anyone one says I don't think she
    was thinking about going to church when she got dressed that morning.
    

I'm printing below some selected comments from some of the previous
replies to date. 


.1>    If someone dresses to catch the eye of the opposite sex (particularly
.1>    if it's in a sexual manner - skin-tight-skirt, open cleavage, etc.
.1>    - or on the other foot, black button-down shirt and tight jeans,
.1>    or whatever), then they are going to get that kind of attention.
    
        
.3>    So, if a person dresses provocatavily, they're setting themselves
.3>    up for rape too, right?  The rapist is justified, right?  I mean,
.3>    she asked for it right?
    
 
.5>	Maybe she wanted to be noticed, but not by that particular person.
   
   
.7>   	was probably justified. As far as the comments about rape, I
.7>   	didn't know there was a law about looking at attractive women.
    	
    
.8> To bring this point back to .0, it shouldn't matter *how* a woman is 
.8> dressed.Women are *people* and deserve to be respected as such.  Ogling, 
.8> gawking, andleering at a woman makes the woman a sex *object* instead of 
.8> a person.  

.8> NO ONE should be subjected to uncomfortable stares, period.  The sooner
.8> men stop drooling all over themselves when they see a "nice piece of *ss,"
.8> the better.  

              
.17>    Of course, she KNEW what she was doing!  If the woman in question
.17>    did NOT want men looking, staring, or otherwise ogling her, she
.17>    would have been a bit more conservative; that does NOT mean the
.17>    men wouldn't look, but at least staring might have been less tempting.
    

A few questions have been brought to mind as I read through this string
so far. (Well, to be truthful, I've thought about these issues before,
but this topic seems to be somewhat relevant to them). :-)

  - Do some women dress "provocatively" to sexually entice other women,
    and get annoyed when they end up attracting only men?
  
  - Do women never attempt to seduce other women?

  - Do women feel less hostile about the possibility of being "date-raped"  
    by another woman?

  - Have there been reported cases of a woman being violently raped
    by another woman? (Basically, this translates to: Are there any
    "crazed" female rapists out there in our society, preying on other
    women?)

  Alan

    re .20 Alan's questions
    

>  - Do some women dress "provocatively" to sexually entice other women,
>    and get annoyed when they end up attracting only men?
    
    Yes, and yes.  Can be very frustrating.  Annoyance levels vary pretty
    widely, from times when a Howitzer feels like the appropriate response,
    to times when it's not the slightest bit unwelcome.
  
>  - Do women never attempt to seduce other women?
    
    Women *DO* seduce other women; they attempt and sometimes succeed,
    sometimes fail.  It's as fun to watch this as to watch straight
    people try to seduce each other.  The fear of rejection in a Lesbian
    seduction scene is much higher than with a straight one though,
    so the tension is a little higher.

>  - Do women feel less hostile about the possibility of being "date-raped"  
>    by another woman?
    
    Can't speak for all women, but to ME, rape is rape and I'm pretty
    [expletive deleted] hostile about it ALWAYS.  I am certainly less
    likely to worry that a woman is going to do that to me than a man.

>  - Have there been reported cases of a woman being violently raped
>    by another woman? (Basically, this translates to: Are there any
>    "crazed" female rapists out there in our society, preying on other
>    women?)
    
    No cases that I know of but I am poorly read on that subject.  Like
    any other relationships, Lesbian relationships can be violent, though
    once again I don't know their rate compares with the rest of the
    world.
    
    Re basenote-
    
    Hmmm.  I'd agree that she was a boor, but staring is pretty rude
    regardless of the subject's attire/demeanor.  While y'all may
    sympathize with him, I can easily see a situation which makes her
    look (slightly) less reprehensible: I have a hot, *hot* date, dress
    as fantastic as possible and feel like the ideal seductress.  Oooops!!
    forgot the cream for the sauce to put on that asparagus.  No milk
    either.  Darn!  Well, I've got an hour before he arrives (WHEN will
    I learn that dressing for a great date does NOT take the two hours
    I expect it to??), so I'll pop over to the grocery store.  Fifteen
    minutes later: WHEN will I learn to put a sack over my head before
    leaving the house?  That guy is *still* staring at me!
    
    Then the nasty remark.  Sound a little less sinister?
    
    Lee

    Re: .22
    
    Thanks for the careful and reasoned response, Lee.  It helps me, at
    least, understand the various issues.
    
    I never go with the "she asked for it" crowd, but in a situation
    such as described in .0, I was hard pressed to think of a reason why
    the woman might not expect attention, but you gave a good one.
    
    				Steve

re: .22
   Not to pick nits, but sorry, Lee - .0 indicates she wasn't there buying
cream for the sauce - she was in line for the money machine!

(  :^)  )

   In all seriousness though, if one is "dressed to the hilt" as it was
referred to, then one is obviously trying to be noticed by someone, even
if it's not J. Random Shopper (i.e. you dress up because you want to
"look nice to/for ... [someone]"). I think most sensible people would agree
that you can't be selective about who happens to notice you, ergo if
you are noticed by J. Random Shopper it's not his/her "fault". Get the
picture?

-Jack

    reply #22 gave "one" example of a situation that "could" have happened.
    Was it that way?  We don't know.  Probably not... but we don't know.
    
    We also don't know if the man was staring so hard at the woman as
    to make her feel uncomfortable.  Perhaps he was.  Mabe not.
    
    Perhaps the woman was also being a real "bitch."  Maybe she had
    a bad day or just got up on the wrong side of the bed and singled
    him out???  Again, we don't know.
    
    I don't think that any of that matters where this topic is concerned.
    The issue is about attention being given to the manner of dress.  
    
    I feel also that she must have known that she stood out in the store.
    And if she looks like the author says, then I'm sure that I would
    have been "checking" her out too.  That's my right.  I would try
    to use a little tact and not make it so obvious.  But I would look.
    
    It isn't really a 'she asked for it' scenario, although it may be...
    but to me it's more of a... "I find her attractive so I'm going
    to look at her.... not rape her or anything, but just check her
    out."
    
    PS:  Rob.  Don't sweat the language.  You and I, (and Eddie Murphy),
    speak the same language!  It should be ok in a man's conference,
    but we have to take it easy here!  ;^)
    
    PSS:  Have you seen those women that wear those 'see through' halter
          tops in the summer?  You know how they flaunt their bosom
          in your face??  Next time try this one out.  Stare at their
          bosom and watch how fast they stop flaunting it... Hey!  You
          want me to see them... okay.  Come here!  Let's have a look!
    

    	I have to say since I've been paticipating in the MEN and
    WOMENNOTES that I find myself much more sensitive to female issues
    and from what I have read by women, to those things that may be
    uncomfortable for them.
    
    	As I said, I also was guilty of looking, only my view was more
    from the "backside" than the front. 
    
    	My own impression was that she was on the way home from work,
    wherever that may be and had decded to stop and shop. She did have
    a carry basket. Since I assume she's unmarried, I would say that
    she was a bit overdressed for the office, although with two of the
    three unbuttoned buttons of her blouse buttoned, and a size larger
    skirt, I don't think she would have gotten the attention she got.
    At her place of employment, maybe there is fierce competition for
    notice of employees and everyone tries to out do everyone else.
    Maybe she was having a guest for supper and wanted to get the guest's
    attention right away. I can't answer those questions. But The more
    I thought about it, the more I believe she wanted to be noticed
    and if Tom Selleck had been the man staring, She may have well walked
    over and said "hello" and not "what are you staring at?". 
                                                
    	My wife and I watch the dress of our thirteen year old very
    carefully and try to impress on her the messages that she may
    inadvertently send out with some of her get-ups. She's been mistaken
    for a 17 year old and a 22 year old. She's 5'7" tall and has been
    for over 6 months. A little make-up and the right clothes and my
    guess is that she wouldn't even be carded. 
    	This goes along with the dressing for attention and the
    ramifications of dressing up or down. Young girls look for male
    approval at puberty and in a healthy manner don't stop. Others have
    all kinds of bells and whistles and work hard to draw all attention,
    not necessarily approval, to themselves. I have always found it
    fascinating that in nature, the male has the bright feathers, the
    brighter colors, the longer manes, larger bodies to attract females.
    With the human, the opposite seems to be true. Make-up, High Heels,
    Fancy stockings, revealing fashions, all intended to attract the
    attention of the male (most cases).
    
    Ken

    It wasn't always that way...back around (and before) the Elizabethan
    era (that's a rough guess, I'm not a historian) the men wore the
    sumptuous fabrics and the fancy clothes (and the codpieces, to get
    the womens' attention), and the jewelry.  The women often weren't
    allowed to dress as finely as their menfolk (except perhaps in royal
    families), so they would not out-do them.  Certain types
    of jewelry and rich clothing were symbols of various high offices.  
    
    I suspect things turned around when men realized that focus on clothing
    was not an "enlightened" thing to do, and perhaps the men realized
    that the women should grab their attention, rather than the other
    way 'round.  Men had power, and didn't have to dress to impress
    anyone (although "fashions" were always in or out of style, they
    were much simpler than those of previous eras).
    
    I still find that men with long hair often have much nicer hair
    than women (and without dying and permanents) - they often have
    redder lips, naturally pink cheeks, more luminous eyes....I think
    that in many ways the men are still the peacocks of the species...
    but that's just my opinion...

    -Jody
    

	It looks like the woman in .0 is a champion player
	of "You can be a Perfect Bitch" board game I say in
	London. (There is a male counterpart game, "You can
	be a Perfect Bastard)

    
    Maybe I' m dense, but I really don't see why the woman's reason
    for being in the store is all tha important.  The way I see it is
    we all make choices in life and those choices all have consquences.
    If you choose to dress in a provocative and/or flashy way you're
    going to draw attention to yourself.  And for the most part you
    can't control who the attention comes from or the form it comes
    in.  So you better be prepared to deal with it.  No, I don't think
    her response was called for IF all the guy was doing was staring.
    
    Was he rude?  Probably.  Was she ruder?  Absolutely.  But who
    really "lost' in that exchange?  I think that's what my Mom used
    to refer to as "lowering yourself to their level" (or in this case
    beneath it.)
    
    Polly
    
    P.S  And before we have anotehr spate of "rape" responses, let me
    be really clear NO ONE ASKS TO BE RAPED and RAPE IS NEVER justified!
    

    Why couldn't she just take the stare as a compliment?  Or, better
    yet, why could he say something to the effect of "pardon me if I'm
    out of line but, that outfit looks very good on you!".  You see,
    it works both ways!  As for me, I would have complimented her to
    let her know my intentions, as I have often done.
    
    
    -jeff-
    

    
    
    	I found that this subject is somewhat covered in notes 82 &
    83. Just a pointer to more good reading.
    
    

    Haven't the time (at this moment) to read all the replies, though
    I would like to relate a funny story my wife told me.  Seems her
    father was going into a drug store and noticed a very shapely woman
    in a string bikini (Florida in August...), just about falling out
    all over the place.  He was admireing her (hell, his pacemaker probably
    arced!) and she jumped on his case yelling (for all to hear) "What
    the hell are *you* looking at?"  Without missing a beat my
    father-in-law replied "Your T*Ts!  And if you didn't want us all
    to see them, cover them up!"
    
    Wish I were there!
    jim
    

    was the guy she ripped into drooling ?
    
    There's looking at a person, and then there's gawking.
    
    I should think gawking would make anyone uncomfortable.
    
    Attractive women who wear stunning clothes are probably doing it cuz
    they know they can wear those types of clothes, and look good..
    
    wether or not it's done to intentionally drive men nuts is something
    else....

    Just read reply 36, (the one about the guys father in florida 
    and the young girl in a bikini ...)
    
    I'm still laughing..  as we get older, I really do think we get
    funnier....

    stop-it, my stomach hurts !!!

    I don't think there's anything wrong with looking.  Maybe the woman
    in .0 was obsessed with calling attention to herself, first, by
    dressing provacatively, and then by making a rude comment to a stranger
    in public.  Both called attention to herself.  I've always thought
    it was kind of like a game.  Some women try to make themselves as
    attractive as possible, then if a strange man or men notice them,
    they act outraged.  Maybe they don't understand what they're doing
    themselves.
    
    In one department I worked in once, a secretary came into work wearing
    a shear black blouse with a black lace slip under it showing through.
     One of the managers I worked with said, "That's a pretty sexy looking
    blouse you have on today!"  She snapped back, "What's the matter?
     Don't you get enough at home?"  This was in front of a bunch of
    people and the guy turned beat red.  I felt bad for him.  He hadn't
    meant any harm and didn't deserve to be embarrassed like that.

    Lorna
    

    When I worked in NYC, there was a woman on the train I took in
    the evening who dressed like she just got off a shift on 42 St.
    Needless to say, she attracted attention. One evening, another
    passenger was looking (lering, galking, whatever) and she cursed
    him out. Calmly, he replied, "If you don't want people to look at
    you like a hooker, don't dress like one" (though hooker wasn't the
    word he used). He then just as calmly, sat down again. Never say
    her again on that train.
    
    The same comparison can be made on a Job fair. I was at one where
    most people there were in suits or at least tie and jackets (males).
    While waiting to speak to a recruiter, another guy there was
    complaining that he was striking out on even getting a recruiter
    to talk to him and didn't understand why. His resume was well
    qualified, but he was dressed like he just completed overhauling
    a diesel truck!
    
    So dress as you wish, but accept the consequences.
    
    Eric

    	Opening staring at someone (not gawking necessarily, but staring
    	long enough to be noticed by the object of one's stares or nearby
    	people) is a way of behaving that is almost guaranteed to attract
    	attention to oneself (unless one has eyes in the back of one's
    	head.)  :-)
    
    	So -- if one is willing to engage in that behavior (and ends
   	up attracting attention to oneself,) then it would seem that
    	one is "ASKING" to be the recipient of attention (which could
    	come in the form of angry comments.)

    	In other words, the person mentioned in the basenote ASKED FOR
    	the angry comment from the woman (and should learn in the future
    	to refrain from making a public spectacle of himself if he wants
    	to avoid such comments in the future.)  
    
    	At least that argument seems reasonable (based on some ideas
    	I've seen so far about why the woman was "asking for it" by
    	dressing nicely in a supermarket.)  I would assume that the
    	argument holds for *anyone* who deliberately draws attention
    	to oneself in a public place.  Right?

    
    	Hey Eagles, If you're worried about getting angry comments
    	around looking at women, why don't you turn the tables. If
    	you catch some woman looking at ya, just turn around and
    	blast her, after all, what's fit the goose is fit for the
    	gander. :^)
    
    	G_B

    Actually eagles manage to look at women from a sufficient distance
    that they'd have to use a bull-horn to react verbally ...  As one
    gets older one tends to grow far-sighted ...  But over the years
    we have saved up many reactions to reactions we've always wanted
    to try ...  Like when women invade a formerly all-male club and
    turn a Fish and Game into a Cock and Beaver Club ...  Makes one
    want to vomit when women wearing skin-tight pants come to an NRA
    instructor training course openly admitting their primary motive
    was to meet available men ...  Don't some women even own anything
    equivalent to our old loose-fitting comfortable Army Fatigues ???

    ~--e--~  Eagles_Have_So_Few_Occasions_2_React_In_Anger_2_Women_...

    Re: .45
    
    >                                                       Makes one
    > want to vomit when women wearing skin-tight pants come to an NRA
    > instructor training course openly admitting their primary motive
    > was to meet available men...
    
    Oh, Eagles, you're so cynical.
    
    Perhaps all they wanted was to be seen pubic...er publically. :-)
    
      Alan

    RE. 47
    
    talked about the "good old days" when people who came to a
    shooting club really were interested in shooting ... not
    just joining some activity where mainly men were expected
    to be present.  There was a time when the few women who we
    encountered really were interested in outdoors/guns/shooting.
    Now more women attend but it's cocktail lounge conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

	Now you may get some men coming now because of these
   women. Where did u say this place is? :-)

    re: .49
    
    �       -< Dress/Behave_Appropriately_or_STAY_HOME ! >-
    �
    �                           . . . People who persistently
    � dress and behave inappropriately are doing everyone else
    � a dis-service.  It's like wearing curlers to go shopping.

    � ~--e--~  Eagles_Just_Lack_Words_2_Explain_Lack_of_Dignity
    
    
    Perhaps you could define for us what "appropriate" dress and
    behavior are for the various forms of social interaction.  A
    definition for "dignity" might help, too.
    
    Steve
    

    Steve, Are you saying that because I'm a woman, that when I go to
    the shooting range to practice my shooting, that I should dress
    and act like a man? That I should hide the fact that I'm a woman
    in baggy shirts and pants? 
    
    Sorry....I don't buy that!!  I go to the range to shoot..not
    to attract or look for a man. I'm a woman..and I dress like a
    woman. In the summer, I've seen many men practicing their shooting
    in shorts....so why shouldn't I wear shorts too???   Why should
    I hide the fact that I've got breasts and a waist and hips and legs
    in baggy shapeless clothes?  
    
    If a man cannot accept the fact that a woman can have an interest
    in target shooting, and that she owns rifles and handguns, and goes
    to the range to practice...then he has the problem. If he only looks
    at how she is dressed..then again, he has the problem. Isn't he
    supposed to be there to shoot....and not be checking out how the
    women are dressed??
                       
    kath

Re:  -1
    
>I'm a woman..and I dress like a woman. In the summer, I've seen many men
>practicing their shooting in shorts....so why shouldn't I wear shorts too???
>Why should I hide the fact that I've got breasts and a waist and hips and legs
>in baggy shapeless clothes? 
 
Yea, Kath!  Tell'em!  I'll support that!

    
    re -.2
    
    >Why should I hide the fact that I've got breasts and a waist and
    >hips and legs in baggy shapeless clothes? 
     
    No reason I can think of...
    
    Reveal thyself, and I shall honor you with my gaze....

    I just noticed that the note that i replied to (.59)  has been 
    deleted..as have most of Mr. Thompsons notes. To explain my reply
    in (.60), Steve had noted in .59 that he did not feel women
    belonged at gun clubs because they were distracting to men by
    the way they dressed. (Those were not his exact words...but in
    effect, what they implied.)
    
    kath

    Re: .63, .64
    
    Oh, no... not again!!!
    
    		Steve

    Gee, if there had been a *man* in line for the money machine with
    his silk shirt open to the waist, and wearing tight white pants,
    and a *man* had stared at him, I suspect one of three things would
    have happened.
    
    	1) The starer would have gotten his lights punched out.
    	2) The staree would have said something considerably more rude
    		than "What are you staring at?"
    	3) They would have gone home together. :-)
    
    The woman was completely justified. Staring is rude, whether it's
    at someone hideously ugly or ravishingly beautiful. If you stare
    at someone you should expect to get called on it.
    
    	-- Charles

    ref:  .66  Haynes

    >The woman was completely justified. Staring is rude, whether it's
    >at someone hideously ugly or ravishingly beautiful. If you stare
    >at someone you should expect to get called on it.
                        
    
Justified?  Rude?    .... according to "Charles Haynes," I suppose.

Perhaps some may think that the "man" was justified in staring .... and
that the woman was rude.

Dwight

    Hi Dwight,
    
    What's got YOU bothered? I assume that you disagree with me, though
    you never came out and said so. Do you really disagree that staring is
    rude? I learned it from my mother and father, perhaps things were
    different in your family or community. I was taught that staring
    at people was rude. Staring at someone with an obvious physical
    defect, staring at someone behaving oddly, staring at someone
    beautiful, it makes no difference.
    
    The woman *was* rude. No question about that, the only question is
    whether she was justified. I think she was. We could argue about
    whether returning rudeness for rudeness is justifiable, but that
    would be another topic.
    
    What point are YOU trying to make?
    
    It sounded to me from the tone of your reply that you were saying
    that "only Charles Haynes thinks it's rude to stare". From the other
    replies to this note that's clearly not true, was that really what
    you were saying?
    
    When you say "Perhaps some may think that the 'man' was justified
    in staring" you avoid putting your own feelings on the line. Do
    YOU think the man was justified in staring? Do YOU think he was
    rude?
    
    I've avoided talking about the "blaming the victim" and "verbal
    harassment" pieces of this topic, but I notice YOU avoided my other
    point. How if it had been a man the story might well have ended
    differently, with the starer being punched out. Would THAT have been
    justified? 
    
    	-- Charles

    re .66 & .58
    
    
    Are you not comparing apples to oranges??  A man staring at a man
    is not similar to a man staring at a woman.  If a woman stared at
    the man in your example would he still have "punched out her lights"?
    
    I think your example it off base.
    
    Mark
    
    

    Ah-HA! Why is a man staring at a woman different from a man staring
    at at man? Is it ok for a man to be offended by another man staring
    at him, but not ok for the woman to be offended? Women should expect
    to be stared at by men and just accept it? Men should not stare
    at men? The old double standard again, and it's bullshit. If it
    had been another woman staring at the garishly dressed woman, and
    the garish woman had objected, would that have been ok? I bet no
    one would have batted an eye. What I hear you saying is that men
    are allowed to stare at women, and women should just put up with
    it. I don't by it. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
    
    If a woman was staring at a man, I believe that the man would be
    justified in saying something along the lines of "What are YOU staring
    at." No difference at all.
    
    	-- Charles

    RE: .70
    
    Say, Charles, regarding same-sex starers and starees, in .20 I
    posed some questions.
    
    So far, Lee T. in .22 has been the only person who's responded to them.
    
    Do you want to give 'em a try?
    
      Alan

    Come on Charles.  A man staring at a man is by no means the same
    as a man staring at a woman.  For one, the "normal" relationships
    are a man and a woman together.  There is a great deal of tension
    regarding homosexual relationships.  Many men have been ingrained
    with a bias against this.  So if a man is staring at another man,
    there is immediately some tension.
    
    Now, a woman staring at a man would be no different than a man staring
    at a woman.  Staring is rude.  However, let's face it.  There are
    situations, no matter how we try, that are things we will stare
    at, however shortly.  If a woman dresses provacatively, or a man
    dresses similarly, then these people will get stares.  If they do
    not understand this, then they are either extremely naieve or extremely
    stupid.  Again, I do not say that the stares are acceptable, just
    that they will happen.  So, if the man in the original note was
    making his stare obvious, as it appears he was, then he deserved
    to be asked IN A NICE MANNER to please stop.  If he persisted, then
    he deserved whatever he got.
    
    All of what I say is true whether it is a man-woman or woman-man.
   
    Why is it so necessary to always bring up discrimination whenever
    an argument is going on?  There are 2 situations which always seem
    to be thrown in people's faces - those are either sexual discrimination
    or race discrimination.  It seems that no person can do anything
    against either a woman or black person without being accused of
    these.  Can we not have a sensible discussion and not bring up these.
     I was totally disgusted when that jerk, Dukakis, tried to pin the
    race discrimination label on Bush.  When a person is unable to win
    an argument, this always seems to the comeback used.  It really
    makes me sick.
    
    Ed..
    
    

>    A man staring at a man is by no means the same
>    as a man staring at a woman.  

Yes, but let's not ignore the similarities, and there are many.

>   For one, the "normal" relationships
>   are a man and a woman together.  

Ummm, you could have chosen a better word than normal.  I know of a 
lot of normal gay relationships.  Normal can be relative.

>   There is a great deal of tension
>   regarding homosexual relationships.  

I don't understand this sentence.  The best I can make of it in the 
context of the rest of your paragraph is, "there is a great deal of
tension when a gay man stares at a strate man who is not used to it."
In the gay relationships I know of (gay men dating gay or bi men), I
don't see "a great deal of tension."

RE: Staring in general.

I dunno.  It all seems relative to me.  (Such a secular humanist 
stance, huh?)  If a man or woman is dressed in a sexy way in a singles 
bar, I could understand staring.  I use a certain amount of staring 
when I am trying to meet men in bars (though I'm finding it more 
effective lately just to go up and talk to the man).

If we are talking about a man staring at a well-dressed (reasonable 
for work) man/woman at work, then I don't think that staring is 
reasonable, even though the woman/man might be dressed _very_ 
attractively.  There is no way to shut out sexual attraction in the 
workplace, but I do believe people can keep it under control.  I think 
people can limit themselves to looking at work and keeping themselves 
from staring.  I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

I dunno.  Let me use this example.  I am a gay man.  I play basketball
in the DEC Nashua league.  After the games, I take a shower.  There
are many naked men in the shower room, certainly wearing less clothing
than these "provocatively" dressed men/women we have been talking
about.  Granted, I look, but I don't stare.  It's not a problem for
me.  Locker rooms are not appropriate for staring or sexual
attraction.  I keep it under control.  No sweat! 

If I can keep myself from staring in a locker room full of naked men,
why can't strate men keep from staring when a beautiful woman walks
down the street in sexy clothing?  Looking?  Fine.  Staring?  Keep it
in your pants, guys! 


						--Gerry

>  - Do some women dress "provocatively" to sexually entice other women,
>    and get annoyed when they end up attracting only men?

I don't think so.  From what I have seen, lesbians are very aware of 
living in a male-dominated world.  They understand that they way they 
dress can affect the way men react and behave towards them.  To the 
best of my knowledge, most lesbians dress very plainly to avoid any 
hassles from men that they can.  From what I have seen, lesbians would 
generally not dress "provocatively" unless they were going to be in a 
place where they were safe from men (for instance, going topless at a 
women's music festival, or dressing up to go to a woman's bar).  
Lesbians are too aware of the effects of "provocative" dress on men to 
dress that way in public.  From the lesbians I have met, the _last_ 
thing they are interested in is a sexual hassle from a strate man.
  
>  - Do women never attempt to seduce other women?

Sure.  But as I said, this is more likely to happen in an environment 
where the lesbians feel safe to be who they are (for instance, a 
lesbian bar).  Lesbians and gay men would be risking a lot to come on 
to someone without feeling certain that that person will not beat 
them, kill them, or expose their sexuality to others.

>  - Do women feel less hostile about the possibility of being "date-raped"  
>    by another woman?

Good question.  I have never heard about this being an issue in the 
lesbian community.  It could be there, but I doubt it.

>  - Have there been reported cases of a woman being violently raped
>    by another woman? (Basically, this translates to: Are there any
>    "crazed" female rapists out there in our society, preying on other
>    women?)

I haven't heard of any.  From my readings, domestic violence ("wife"
beating) is a problem in the lesbian community.  I have no idea what
the statistics would be.  I have read a few articles mentioning this
problem.  That's not the same thing as rape, but it is violence
between women. 



						--Gerry

    RE: .73
    
    Gerry, where do you draw the fine line between "looking" and
    "staring"? Is it time-dependent, i.e., a "look" after 5 seconds
    becomes a "stare"? 
    
    In your example you say that you look at naked men in the shower,
    but do not stare at them.  
    
    When I go to nude beaches, I certainly notice attractive nude women
    there (besides my girlfriend). I suspect I'm getting noticed by
    some of the women there, too (I hope so, at least :-) ). 
    
    Are we noticing/looking/staring/ogling...........?
    
      Alan

    
>    Gerry, where do you draw the fine line between "looking" and
>    "staring"? Is it time-dependent, i.e., a "look" after 5 seconds
>    becomes a "stare"? 
    
Good question.  I dunno.  

Without having too much time to think about the answer ( :-) ), I 
would say that we need to check in with those around us (accept 
feedback) to see if we have crossed the line.  What I mean by that is 
that I guess we have to gauge the reaction to our glances by looking 
at how the other person is reacting.  Take a look at the beautiful 
person's face to see if "everything is okay."  (One complaint I've 
heard from women is that some men are unable to look above the neck; 
just one glance to the face would send a message that "below the neck" 
is not everything.)

When I said that I have never had any problem in the locker rooms, I
could easily have said, "I have never had any negative reactions to my
behavior in the locker room."  I look at the faces of the guys around 
me, and I don't sense any discomfort.  

I know this is not a concrete answer, but people are all different.  A
"look" to one person can be a "lewd glare" to another, right?  So I
guess I would do the best I can to avoid staring, and apologize if
someone let's me know that I crossed their line into "staring."  After
all, it isn't my intent to harrass anyone.  But I do still feel that 
looking at people is okay.  It beats the "you don't exist" eye 
avoidance that most New Englanders throw at me every day as I walk the 
hallways at work or the streets in Boston.  :-)



							--Gerry

    Ok Alan, I'll try to answer your questions from .20.
    
    - Do some women dress "provocatively" to sexually entice other women,
      and get annoyed when they end up attracting only men?
    
    None of the lesbians I know are surprised when straight men pay
    attention to them. They don't appreciate (sexual) attention from
    straight men, but they are (somewhat) resigned to it. If they are
    in a "safe space" though, they can be VERY vocal about unwanted
    attention. Some of them are quite willing to voice disapproval of
    unwanted attention regardless of the "safeness" of the space as
    well. I'm not sure where you were trying to go with this question.
  
    - Do women never attempt to seduce other women?
    
    Yes, so? If the woman in the original note had been a lesbian, that
    might have explained her reaction, but I don't think her sexual
    orientation is relevant.
  
    - Do women feel less hostile about the possibility of being "date-raped"  
      by another woman?
    
    I haven't the slightest idea. I've never talked to any of my lesbian
    friends about date rape.
  
    - Have there been reported cases of a woman being violently raped
      by another woman? (Basically, this translates to: Are there any
      "crazed" female rapists out there in our society, preying on other
      women?)
    
    Rape is by it's nature a crime of violence. "Violent Rape" is
    redundant. Women do rape other women, women rape men, men rape men,
    and men rape women. What is your point?
    
    Gerry,
    
    Thanks for your replies. I will only add that the fact that men
    feel that it is ok to respond to unwanted sexual attention from
    men with violence, but that women are not expected to respond at
    all to unwanted sexual attention is exactly the point I was trying
    to make. The fact that this woman responded (rudely) to unwanted
    attention is subject to analysis and criticism. If she had been
    a man people would possibly have assumed he was an asshole, but
    nothing more.
    
    	-- Charles

    
    We still need to determine the amount of elapsed time needed
    for t         to equal t      ..
         glance             stare 
                                    
    Also, does it count if I avert my eyes in time not to be caught?
    
    Finally, does it count as staring if one is actually looking at
    the tops of patent leather shoes?

    Bob,
    
    Ive never noticed that even the most polished patent leather
    shoes reflected well enough, or were in a proper position to
    make there be anything worth seeing by looking at them..
    
    Do you mean that it is *not* a myth?
    
    Bonnie

    What happens when a guy is just daydreaming and not consciously
    aware of the person in his view, and the woman plows into him
    as in .0 ? 
    
    Jim

    RE: .80 That happened to me once. I was standing in a check out
    line with my mind somewhere else totally unaware of where my eyes
    were pointing and some biker type thought I was staring at his wife
    or SO and demanded to know what I was looking at. I forget my retort
    but it apparently satisfied him. Not a comfortable situation. Thing
    of it is is that the woman with him was totally unattractive to me
    and I would never have spent much time looking at her if I had been
    'awake'.

    If often wondered what is acceptable in terms of looking at attractive
    people. Obviously if no one sees you looking you'll never get in
    trouble. So can one assume that if no one sees you looking that you
    haven't hurt anyone? If so, what is the difference between someone
    seeing you look and not seeing you look? What about the other side
    of the comfort level? That is to say that a woman wearing very
    revealing clothes makes me very uncomfortable. Do I have a right
    to complain? If not, why not? 

    				Alfred

    RE: .82 by Aerie::Thompson
    
    Kindly refer to entries .63 & .64.
    
    

RE: .84 AERIE::THOMPSON                           

>    to kath ... This was your Ms_Interpretation of what was stated.
>    The focus of the deleted notes was that when involved in many
>    events there are certain "traditional" outfits that are worn
>    and generally these serve two purposes.  One is to be functional
>    for the event in which one participates as in hip boots for fishing
>    in trout-streams.  The second is that when persons wear attire which
>    is not "uniform" with the expectations of other participants it may
>    well be distracting to other "players" and is thus poor form.  One
>    example of this might be a base-ball short-stop wearing a multi-
>    colored clown-suit and jumping around to distract a batter.

>    The immediate and obvious attempt to skew the discussion in the
>    direction of excessive show of cleavage or legs or tightness of
>    pants in the butt is annoying to a serious debater trying to make
>    a point about appropriate attire being part of participation.

Steve, It's really too bad that you deleted the note that I replied
too. I would not have replied or jumped into the discussion if it
had the content that you imply.  You very clearly stated in your note that you
did not feel women belonged at gun clubs because they were distracting
to men by the way they dressed. 

Where in my note did I make reference to excessive show of cleavage
or tightness of pants in the butt???? I didn't realize that the
word breasts meant *excessive show of cleavage*!!!!!!!

I made no obvious attempt to skew the discussion. I merely stated
that I was a woman...and would dress as a woman when I shoot.

I did not get into this discussion with any thought of being
malicious or throwing rocks. 

And sometimes women get tired of hearing men turn their words 
around and throwing rocks at them to satisfy their egos or to 
save face.......

kath
    

>    So can one assume that if no one sees you looking that you
>    haven't hurt anyone? If so, what is the difference between someone
>    seeing you look and not seeing you look? What about the other side
>    of the comfort level? That is to say that a woman wearing very
>    revealing clothes makes me very uncomfortable. Do I have a right
>    to complain? If not, why not? 

I think that the key to these questions is first of all to admit that 
not everyone (on _both_ sides) has the same (or a predictable) comfort 
level.  Second of all, I think that, within reason, there is no way of 
knowing beforehand how much of a look constitutes a lewd stare by the 
other person.  Third of all, I think that the polite thing to do is to 
pay attention to feedback given by the other person; that way, you can 
adjust your behavior, behaving in a true "community-concerned" manner.

We have already gotten a good amount of general feedback from women 
that men "staring" at them is a problem.  I think that the strate men 
who hear this feedback should make an honest attempt to "look" and not 
"stare" (responding to the general feedback, trying to help a 
neighbor feel more comfortable).  If strate men get feedback from a 
woman that says "You're staring; stop it," then the man should 
apologize and move on without guilt.  (I doubt a woman would give him 
grief if his apology were sincere.)  If a strate man _continually_ 
gets feedback from women that says "You're staring; stop it," the man 
should consider that his "looking" is "rude staring" to most women and 
he might want to consider toning down his "looks."

It's all a matter of respect for the other person.  If women 
continually give a strate man feedback that he is "rudely staring," 
then what does it say about the man if he replies, "It's her problem.  
I was only looking.  I'm going to keep on looking the way I want."?
Doesn't it show an "I don't care" attitude towards women?  If someone 
does something that he or she _knows_ has a good chance of bothering a 
person or a group of people, isn't that harrassment?

Do you have the right to complain if a woman is dressed provocatively? 
In the strictest sense, sure, you can offer her the feedback that her 
manner of dress makes you uncomfortable.  However, I would have to 
think that the way she dresses is none of your business; you do have 
the option of not looking at her.  

This isn't an iron-clad rule, though, because, if it happened at work
and if you seriously thought it was having an impact on your ability to
work with her, I can see it being very reasonable for you to give her
the feedback that the way she dresses makes it very uncomfortable for
you to work with her.  On a street, you can look away and not deal
with her; at work, you might have to work closely with her throughout
the day.  This would be an entirely different situation, in my
opinion.  It depends.... 


						--Gerry

    Eagle, I believe that same arguement was used in another conf...Oh
    I see that was different.  MEN AND WOMEN should have their space.
    BUT!  You cannot have one without the other.
    
    Why bother.......I am a GAG! MAN! Naturally I am wrong.
    
    If this sounds sarcastic....It was ment to.  I have had it with
    this WOMEn should have this and WOMEN should have that but when
    it comes to MEn having...HEAVEN FORBID!  MAN HAVE HAD IT ALL ALONG!
    YEah right.                                                  

    
    Ok, please hold your head steady... now ... move it to the center
    of the choppin block.  Good.  Now don't move...  Steady... steady...
    
    Oooh!  That will look good hanging in the "Women's Hunting Lodge."
    

    My head has been ther for a looooong time....
    thanks jes the same...

    There's a dynamic that often operates in these kinds of discussions
    that I think is worth a bit of examination.  To demonstrate, I've
    extracted part of Stev. . .er, Eagles reply (.87), but before
    looking at it, I'd like to set down a couple of disclaimers:
    
    1)  Time constraints prevent me from a major research activity
    	(e.g. re-reading lots of notes/replies to find an equal
    	number of male and female replies which demonstrate my
    	point; I have, however, no doubt that, given sufficient
    	time, one could find lots of examples of the dynamic.
    
    2)  I've read enough of Eagles writing to "know" (o.k., believe)
    	him to be a reasonably open-minded person - i.e. one who'll
    	likely understand that my comments are emphatically *not*
    	about him.  Using his text was simply the fastest way I
    	could grab one example.  Suffice it to say that, despite
    	the fact that I try to avoid it, I suspect it would be
    	possible to find examples in my own writing that demonstrate
    	the point as well.
    
    That said, here's the text:
    
    � Many men believe women should not be included in our activities. . .
    �
    � . . .soon we have lost our refuge where we went to relax and practice 
    � with our handgun hobby-toys away from the stresses of mixed company 
    � and the apparently inevitable Ms.Understanding typical of today's 
    � females.
    
    � But all we asked was to be allowed a space of our own in which to 
    � relax and enjoy being men with other men ...  Women
    � are now determined to thwart any sense of male refuge.
    
    
    The pattern that I see occuring, particularly in discussions where
    there's a good deal of heat, is that one side will make qualified
    assertions about their side and make (or imply) blanket assertions
    about the opposing group.
    
    F'rinstance:
    
    "Many men. . ."      but not *all* men
    
    ". . .apparently inevitable Ms.Understanding typical of today's
    females."    	 apparently *all* women
    
     
    "Women are now determined to thwart any sense of male refuge."
    
    Once again, the "opposition" is portrayed in absolute terms -
    the sentence as written implies that it's *all* women challenging
    "any" sense of male refuge.
    
    Now, again, I feel reasonably certain that when we're involved in
    these discussions, we don't intend to imply such absolutes.  But
    it seems to me that we often find ourselves using the language
    of absolutes in describing "them" and more moderate tones in 
    describing "us".  
    
    In terms of the (tangent to the current) topic, I suspect that
    few people believe that all members of either sex want to eliminate 
    *all* forms of same sex (i.e. opposite sex excluded) socialization.  
    I believe most people realize that to demand inclusion in any and/or all
    same-sex social activities of "them" would be to jeopardize "our"
    privilege for the same.  
    
    However, the language of confrontation can easily get in our own
    way.  I have no problem agreeing with a statement that "Many men. . .",    
    but when one asserts that "It's apparent that men. . ." (or women)
    the doors of reasonableness start to close because, without the
    qualifiers, the phrase "I can see that men. . ." is speaking to
    me; "many" or "some" men *might* be speaking to me, but it may
    not.  Conversationally, the qualifier has left the door open.
    
    Again, the tendency I frequently see is to grant "us" the 
    qualifier, but not to do so for "them".  Personally I have a
    strong notion that this is an unintentional behavior - in 
    memory I hear myself saying, with great surprise, things like,
    "Good grief!  I never said *that*. . .huh?. . .oh. . .well, yeah
    I did say that, but I didn't mean. . ."

    One final reflection:
    
    ". . .it is [the] tendency of the opposite sexes to fail to
    understand or truly communicate. . ."
    
    Amen, Eagles, and I'd add that this seems to me to be a tendency of 
    humans in communication with other humans.
    
    One final thought:
    
    I suspect what irks people is the notion that "the door is closed
    to you", but that given that "the door is open if you'd like to
    come in", many (perhaps most) would choose not to do so in the
    case of same-sex socialization.  An example from my own warped
    existance:  it's occasionally been the case that a female friend,
    for whatever unfortunate circumstances, found herself in the house
    with my roomates and me on a Saturday or Sunday morning.  I've always
    been careful to let my friend know that she was welcome to come
    join us for (our) mandatory viewing of World Wide Federation of
    Wrestling and The Three Stooges.  For reasons which I'm at a loss
    to explain, no woman ever chose to join us. . .
    
    

    Re: 91
    
    Very well put.  Your comments are an example of one man's
    [person's] opinion expressed in a very open-minded, 
    non-judgmental manner.  True, fair communication.
    
    Dorothy

    
    	So Eagles, what's the beef with women shooting at your club?
    	Does your club have a dress rule that all members must dress
    	in a like manner? What about the men, do ya all dress the same?
    	Can I come if I don't wear jeans and flannel shirt? I never
    	wear a flannel shirt, but might want to show up in my silk
    	"playboy"(brand name - actually one of playboys artist) shirt,
    	would this keep me from being welcomed? I'd think the club would
    	have more interest in how well a person can use a handgun both
    	from a safety point of view as well as ability wise.
    
    	Also, you stated you *Don't allow* women members to drink and
    	shoot, but you do men. Why is that? Drinks/drugs and guns don't
    	mix well regardless of the users sex. Sounds like your club
    	is really trying hard to find ANY reason to justify trying to
    	keep women out.
    
    	G_B
    
    
    	ps - Hi Kat, want to go shooting sometime? I'd gladly go with
    	you anytime, I know you know how to use a handgun. Also, dress
    	the way you feel most comfortable(I will do the same), as I
    	don't feel we need a uniform to be able to hit the target.

             
Re: .93 ANT::BUSHEE    
    
    >	ps - Hi Kat, want to go shooting sometime? I'd gladly go with

	Hi George.....Isn't this bird season????

        Sure !!!  Lets Go !!!!!!!  ;-)


	Kat

	p.s.   What are ya wearing ???  ;-)
     	
    

    
    
    	Nice try eagle!!!
    	However, I doubt very much anyone of the *younger* generation
    	would agree I belong to their group. Us over 40's type as a
    	rule don't usually get called the younger generation, but I
    	do want to thank you for the kind words.
    
    	G_B

             
RE: .95 AERIE::THOMPSON

>    re: .93, .94	... seems like one excellent example of why
>    		old eagles delete old replies ...  They just get in
>    the way of the younger generation and their orientation toward
>    fooling around doing whatever seems fun this season ...  Maybe
>    it's wrong to remember a time when people knew the "right" way
>    to behave and then chose to rebel.  Today nobody wants to bother
>    even knowing or understanding what they are rebelling against!
>    So let's have instant gratification and do whatever feels good!

>   ~--e--~  Eagles_Wish_the_"Don't_Worry...Be_Happy"_Generation_LUCK

In .93 George brought up some very real questions about your gun club,
and rules regarding drinking and shooting. How do those questions
warrant the above reply to him??

As far as your reference to both George and myself as the 
*younger generation*......may I remind you that we are all of the
same generation.  

And... may I say that I know and respect very many of the younger
generation.  Sure maybe their values aren't the same as yours, but
times change and so do people.  You cannot stay stagnant, living
in the past and wishing for days gone by....and expect to succeed
and be happy in todays world.

I salute the young people of today....for their enthusiasm and for
being, and wanting to be, all that they can.

kath....
    

    re: .98 
    
    "So Y'all HAVE your fun making fun of folks who still value. . ."
    
    While I'm not certain that people are intending to make fun,
    Eagle, (especially intentionally), neither am I entirely certain
    that some aren't/haven't.  What does seem clear is that it
    feels that way to you, and I don't see a lot of value in poking
    fun at an idea (imo, an "o.k." thing) when it is felt by a person
    as "being made fun of" (imo, a distinctly *not* o.k. thing).
    
    I have no trouble hearing that, for you, the issue is not whether
    or not women shoot but how some may feel about the club and their
    approach to same.  And though it's a bit harder for me to pick out, 
    I get a pretty strong impression that you're equally unthrilled
    by the inappropriate behavior of some men.  
    
    NB: the next couple of paragraphs are intended to be read from the 
    editorial (i.e. generalized) "I" and "you" voices.
    
    I happen to disagree with the notion of there being a time past 
    (present of future as well) when we all "knew" what was "right".
    Among other things, this country was founded by a group of (Amerind) 
    land-stealing, (English) law-breaking rebels and I suspect that there 
    were any number of English and Amerinds at the time who were a tad
    upset at how there used to be a time when everyone "knew" what was
    "right".  But, if I have a different view that I want you to see 
    and/or accept, I suspect that when my poking fun at a behavior or
    idea is perceived as making fun of a person, I've just shot myself 
    in the foot.
    
    I tend to look askance at any arbitrary notion of "right" or 
    "appropriate", especially when it starts to support exclusionary 
    behaviors.  However, be that as it may, you have a right to your
    views and feelings.  Yes, I have a "right" to express an opposing 
    view in any (non-libelous) way I choose, including trying to ridicule
    you.  But it seems to me that if my underlying intention is to have 
    you look at my ("obviously superior") viewpoint, the more I get on 
    your case, the less you'll listen to mine.  And, how can I blame
    you for that response; in the same situation, mine is the same.  
    Am I (and my allegedly superior notions) not going to get a better 
    audience if I approach at least as a neutral?  I'd hazard a guess
    that the more you see me as a friend, the greater your willingness
    will be to listen to my ideas.
    
    So, Eagle for the few who *may* be trying to have fun at your expense
    I'd ask that they poke around at their own motives and intentions.
    My guess is that noone here *intends* you (the person) to feel
    ridiculed, but if an attempt to look at an idea through the lens 
    of humor yields that result, then given the intent is to change
    or expand your viewpoint, I'd have to say the attempt failed its
    objective.
    
    With this in mind, I hope you will understand the following:
    
    "~--e--~  Eagles_Assume_Real_Men_Are_Amused_By_This_Foolish_Topic_...
    (and_By_Extension_The_Foolishness_Of_This_Entire_Conference)"
    
    Aww - c'mon, man.  You don't *really* mean that to stand as is,
    do you?  I might say that "real men" don't let a few stings get
    to them so badly that they assert ". . .The_Foolishness_. . .",
    etc.  I might, but I won't, because (I believe) I'm a "real man"
    and I've been known to respond with far less "cool".  But, in
    friendship I would offer the thought that perhaps a "real strong
    person" would take a second look at such a response and say that
    it was spoken in a moment of more heat than light. . .
    
    Pax,
    
    Steve
    

Perhaps when the Eagle mentioned *younger gereration* he wasn't just thinking
age, but maybe was implying something about the current "care free" attitude
that is drifting around today.... Maybe??? 
    
Another noter with her sights on the Eagle, talked about change and how it is
good for us or whatever... 
    
Of course, it would be foolish to think that everything around us will remain
"constant."  We know times and people change.  We expect that. 
    
But consider this:  Change for the sake of "change" may serve no purpose.
Plus, there are MANY changes that occur all the time, and many of them are NOT
healthy changes, and no, I'm not going to be sucked in to "define healthy."
Many people are concerned about these changes, while many people want to jump
on the soapbox and spout "rights" even though they may not even have a cause...
but they love the attention, and the funny thing is that many of them don't
even believe all the information they're spouting, but they believe they are
looked at as being "open-minded" and we all know that is the *popular* opinion
of the day.... 
    
       (see note 418 of soapbox for more info on popular noters - :^))
    
I think I hear what the Eagle is saying.  He is entitled to think and believe
in a way which the modern day liberal vigilante may not understand. 
    
    As a side note:  Even prejudice against a bigot, is still prejudice,
                     and makes one no better than the bigot they are
                     upset with.
    
And no, I'm not hinting that the Eagle is a bigot.  Not by any means.  I
support many of the "reasons/thoughts/concerns" that he has expressed, not only
here, but in other notes as well.  I'd be bored silly at the gun club, but I
support the club's rights to gather for whatever reasons "they" decided to form
the club for in the first place. 

Best regards,
Dwight                       

It's dangerous sometimes the way women dress at gun clubs. The club I
    used to belong to had an indoor archery range. Well this guy comes
    to the club with his gorgeous looking girlfriend who was in a tight dress
    with low cut top, and a split up the side. She walked in as we were
    firing. Arrows hit the ceiling the walls and someone even shot the
    deer head that was mounted on the wall. Most of the guys put there
    bows down and went to the bar for a drink, they just couldn't handle
    it. 

    
    Jim

    RE: ?  Some notes ago someone said that if a woman dressed
    provacatively and offended someone, that the person offended had
    the right to say something to the woman, however, she had the right
    not to pay him any mind.  After all, she has the right to wear what
    she wants.  This being so, doesn't the man in .0 have the right to
    look, stare, gawk at anyone he wishes to?  I think so.  
    
    RE: Eagles.  I am from the old school (although I am under thirty)
    and agree with alot of what you are saying.  I think that much of
    the new way of thinking is damaging and weakening our society. 
    Yes, some progress is good, but progress without thought is very
    harmful.
    
    Might
    

    
    	Okay, let's look at this further. In the case around the base
    	note (re: dress for a grocery store), the woman was dressed
    	out of the norm for such a place. Okay, granted maybe most women
    	when they do their shopping may be wearing jeans or some such
    	outfit, no problem with anyone. With the other woman, it was
    	felt she wasn't dressed for shopping by most standards, now
    	the problem starts. Some male starts to stare and drool, she
    	doesn't like it and tells him so. Others say because of the
    	way she dressed she should expect it. To expand on this, what
    	if she works in something like modeling where that style of
    	dress is the norm. Does this mean she should drive by the store
    	on her way home, change then drive back wearing more apporiate
    	dress? How many say yes? Of those that do say yes, what about
    	a male that wants to catch an afternoon high school football
    	game? If he works in an area that requires a suit and tie should
    	he first change because most other males will be in jeans? No,
    	well what's the difference between the two?
    
    	 In the case of the gun club, why must someone wear what someone
    	else thinks is the outfit for shooting? Does it have any effect
    	on ability to shoot? I've been shooting for way over thirty
    	years and I sure haven't noticed my shooting vary due to my
    	manner of dress. Thus, I wear what I feel is most comfortable
    	FOR ME. Why should this be any different for a female? Is it
    	simply the fact that she is a woman and should dress by some
    	standard that the males at that place determine proper?
    
    	 As for was she off base about blasting the male for staring?
    	No, no more than a male would be for letting into anyone that
    	stare at them. Granted, what you might call a look, someone
    	else might call a stare, that's life!! Any person has the
    	right to wear whatever outfit they feel. Any person has the
    	right to look, but should also understand the gray area
    	between when a look becomes a stare.
    
    	 I really got a kick out of the past few replies, I asked
    	some questions and it seemed that an answer couldn't be found,
    	so the person starts throwing *Younger generation* *liberial*
    	and other assorted labels around. Well, for one I'm not really
    	That young at 41+, two I am not a liberial/me generation(what
    	ever the me generation is). I am however one that feels if men
    	have the right to do something, so do the women, I am for fairness
    	period. I won't try to tell you to live by my standards, but
    	by that, it doesn't mean it gives you(generic you) the right
    	to try to have me live up to your standards.
    
    	G_B
    
    	PS - Eagles, I hope you don't feel picked on and attacked,
    	that was not my goal. My goal was to address the falseness
    	of the stereotypes (ie she asked for it by the way she dressed).
    	and double standards (ie okay for men to drink and shoot, but
    	not the women).
    

    I dunno - I've gone to the grocery store in a full three-piece
    suit and tie - pretty far out-of-the-norm for Purity Supreme.  I
    might expect a few glances, but not a steady stare.  And I understand
    that some women would find my manner of dress to be just as provocative
    as some men found the appearance of the woman in .0.
    
    					Steve

>    Scene 3:	One over-dressed woman at a tennis court full of
>    male tennis players ...  All the players become distracted
>    and they eventually retire to the bar and talk about women.

10% of the men wouldn't be distracted and wouldn't talk about women.

;-)


							--Gerry

    DRESS THE WAY YOU WANT. GO THE PLACES YOU WANT. LOOK AT WHAT YOU WANT.
    
                    THIS IS THE USA BE FREE  
    
    
    JUST DON'T BRAKE THE LAW

    AND WHAT RUNS THROUGH YOUR MIND WHEN YOU BUY A SHIRT I BET THE FIRST
    TWO THINGS ARE .....I LIKE THIS  AND  I THINK IT WILL LOOK GOOD
    ON ME...........IF SO YOU WANT TO BE LOOKED AT !!!
    

    RE: .104  G_B,
    
    I agree with you totally.
    <I am however one that feels if men have the right to do something,>
    <so do the women, I am for fairness period.                        >
     
    I would be against a man trying to invade a womens club also.
    
    Mike

    
    	RE: .109
    
    	Mike, No way did I mean to imply in my note (.104) that I
    	favored keeping women out of a shooting club. I can not
    	support that, the purpose of the club is to shoot and anyone
    	wanting to do that should be able to. If however, a group
    	of men (or women) want to form a club for the sole purpose
    	to just get together with other men (purely social) then
    	go for it.
    
    	G_B

    When I feel like getting together with some men to socialize,
    I call 'em up and say "Hey, ya wanna hang around and do some
    stuff?" (I'm particularly articulate with my brothers, I must
    say. . .).
    
    I suppose this makes me either absurdly old-fashioned or
    wicked, awesome, rad, way cool new wave.
    
    Steve
    

    Eagle,
      I would suggest that any woman who uses sex-appeal to get ahead
    at work in a technical environment is going to short-circuit her
    career.
      The rest of your note is sad but true.  Who knows, maybe 50 years
    from now that won't be the case.
    	Linda

    
    If you would like to get your wife's attention - just look comfortable.
    
    The only thing some people pay is attention.
    
    It is extremely easy for us to give our major attention to minor
    matters.
    
    A good listener is one who can give you his full attention whithout
    hearing a word you say.
    
    The easiest way to get a kid's attention is to stand in front of the TV
    set.
    
    
    
                                           RM

    Good grief, Ray.  These are worse than your usual (hard as *that* is to
    believe.)
    
    > If you would like to get your wife's attention - just look comfortable.
    
    That "quote" is presuming that marriages involve flawed communications,
    that a woman one is married to cannot possibly understand/enjoy/tolerate
    one's own satisfaction, and that manipulation based upon these silly
    assumptions is justifiable/necessary/recommended.  I think the line is
    a load of whale dreck.  Why bother repeating it?
                                                    
    DougO