Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    re: .0
    
    	   Quite amusing, but not very enlightening.  When the author
    	attempts to equate such vagueries as 'guns and money out of
    	control' and the death penalty, the analogy stretches very
    	thin.  Furthermore, the obvious attack on conservatives and
    	Reagan display the liberal leanings of the author, and we all
    	know that liberals can not be trusted, nor are they capable
    	of rational thought. ;^)
    
    	- Greg

    What was that about liberals....?  ;-0
    
    The way I see it:
    
    Conservatives: Have reasoned and justified to themselves
    that it would be better to destroy the entire planet rather
    than let a rival economic ideology (communism, which even Mr. Gorbachev
    is beginning to realize is a dismal failure economically, socially,
    etc., and will eventually collapese under its own weight anyway) to 
    threaten the status quo of rule by the rich elite. (Or,
    as we have so often, simply resort to assasination and illegal
    overthrow of governments whenever the people of these third world
    countries have the audacity to try and rule themselves rather than
    be ruled by the despotic tyrant the CIA installed in a coup decades
    ago (what was that word..."democracy" that you're trying to restore
    in Nicarauga? Doesn't that mean that the *people of Nicarauga* decide
    who's going to rule over them, instead of Ronald Reagan?  
    
    Also, like some sort of drunken adolescent, they stand in a burning
    house (the Earth under the onslaught of industrial pollution), and
    deny that the house is burning; yea, when some want to throw water
    on the fire, they say "we need more study to actually see that this
    house is burning".  Anyone take a look outside last July?
    
    They are unwilling to impose legislation on business, that would
    enforce and stem the tide of the greenhouse effect, acid rain, etc.
    etc. 
    
    Far from the Iroquois Indian's elder's practice of basing decisions
    for the tribe based on what impact the decision will have *seven*
    generations into the future, the Conservative mindset sees only
    the "here and now" bottom line profit margin, which would be (horrors)
    lowered by the legislation that is needed to stop the slow choking
    to death of our planet.
    
    So, while spouting the pretext of "maintaining morality" and "doing
    what's best for our country" and all their advocacy of nationalism
    (something we would think would have passed from the world after
    WWI and WWII), their policies are actually, on two fronts, the greatest
    danger that this planet has ever been threatened by.  They actually
    have the effontry to claim that those who *oppose* the killing off
    of 200 million people in a nuclear genocide, or *oppose* the
    destruction of the Earth's atmosphere, as the "loony left".  
    
    Yep, saving the planet from destruction and rape sounds pretty loony
    to me.  Destroying it with nuclear war and environmental pillage
    makes a *lot* more sense.
    
    The Liberals...well, right now it's all we can do to keep them from
    doing these things.  Once a couple hundred of years have passed,
    history will look back on the folly of the mindset that was willing
    to destroy the entire *planet* based on a differing *economic* system,
    as madness, and perhaps the Liberals then will be able to turn their
    attention to a more nobler cause; making life as good as possible
    for the greatest number of people.
    
    Watch the next four years as the middle class disappears and we
    continue to polarize into the upper class and the lower class.
    Doesn't even George Bush have the wisdom to see the writing on the
    wall?  If it wasn't my country that was going down the tubes, I
    would enjoy watching the next four years as his illusion of American
    economic strength and world dominance blows up in his face.  Remember,
    George? "No New Taxes".  How you are going to balance the budget
    without revenue as part of the equation, we are all waiting to see.
    
    I now relinquish the soapbox.  
    
    Thank you,                     
    Doug Wetherington

    Just wanted to enter a quick note to soften some of the edges on
    my last reply...
    
    .2 was not directed at .1 in particular, and I did notice the smiley
    face at the end of the comment about liberals.
    
    .2 is simply a statement of my beliefs, and it is worded strongly
    because I believe that the conservative mindset is a direct threat
    to my own life, the lives of any potential childrem I may have,
    and to the basic harmony of nature on this planet.
    
    We have created a world where every one of us knows that everything
    we have built, everything our ancestors have fought and struggled
    for for the last x000  years, can be wiped out forever in the time
    frame of a few minutes.  I don't think there is *any* argument that
    justifies the genocide of 4 billion people and all other life forms
    on this planet.  But, I'm just a loony liberal.
    
    Anyways, I really am a nice guy, and regret that my first entry
    in this notesfile is so hard-edged.
    
    Oh yeah...I originally typed and submitted the basenote into another
    Notesfile, and gave permission for it to be extracted to here. 
    I was curious to follow it's progress.  
    
    Doug from Detroit

    Thanks for posting this note, Doug and Bonnie.  The premise is quite
    interesting.  Is it a mere coincidence that during the Reagan era we
    have seen the rise of macho films like Rambo and Neanderthal television
    show hosts like Morton Downey?  Do the macho Reagan foreign policy
    initiatives (the invasion of Grenada, the bombing of Libya, the arming
    of terrorists in Nicaragua and death squads in El Salvador) simply
    represent the foreign policy side of a general trend in American
    culture towards Neanderthal thinking?  Is a macho foreign policy the
    natural by-product of a macho culture?
    
    -- Mike

    
    Good article...
    
    Whatever the "Old Macho" ethic was based on, it's clear to me that
    New Macho is based upon fear, confusion, and frustration.  The New
    Macho adherent is a person who feels that they have lost control -
    over money, over people, and over events - and that to survive, they
    must dig in their heels and batter their world back into something
    they can understand and accept.  The New Macho people are the weak
    ones - the strong ones are the people who persevere in hope of change
    and growth.  
    
    Ron

    So we should all bow down at the altar of the Alan Alda's and Phil
    Donahue's of the world if we wish to be considered as having the
    "correct" attitudes by the New Feminist?  
    
    I guess what bothers me about all this gaseous generalizing is that
    while it may make the author and those of her ilk feel good, it does
    little to convince us "Bad Men" to want to assimilate those attitudes
    that will cause them to say "Good Boy".  Or to put it more simply,
    stop using vinegar if you want to catch flies.
                 
    Mike 
        

    I don't think Rambo is the new macho image, in fact most guys I
    know hate Rambo movies except First Blood. I do think the article
    is trying to say something about masculinity, and how men identify
    with it, which is why I had asked in an earlier note. "Is masculinity
    lost ?" Thanks for posting it Bonnie.
    
    Jim

    Mike,
    
    Do you mean his movie role or his private personality?
    
    The fact that he is very bright and apparently socially
    quite charming (given who he married :-) ) but can play
    the role of the barbarian would make him indeed a unique
    personification of the macho image. And perhaps a more
    postive one, since it is obviously a role with him.
    
    Bonnie

    Depending upon the ideological principles held by people, 
    the role of barbarian can be played by anyone.
    
    Female chauvanism is as bad as male virism.  Both can be
    called macho if you want to get right down to it.
    
    Frankly, I find ideological aggression more uncomforting
    than natural impulses.
    
    You'd be surprised the chalices that are really blades.
    
    
                                               Russ P.

    re .10, Russ-
    
    >    Female chauvanism is as bad as male virism.  
     
    Russ, this is merely the latest salvo in a string of many I've seen
    you drop in here and elsewhere regarding women's social empowerment.
    I'm really curious, because the needle is wearing that groove pretty
    badly by now, the song never changes, why do you keep playing the
    same old record?
    
    >    Frankly, I find ideological aggression more uncomforting
    >    than natural impulses.
         
    Here's the reason I'm curious.  I don't see the dichotomy between
    the two that you see.  I find it perfectly natural for women to
    recognize and resent previous culturally-based suppression, and
    to rail against it.  Be that ideological agression?  Maybe for some
    women, on the radical separatist side...and so what?  I'll call
    it paranoia to lump "female chauvinism" in with "male virism" as
    if their incidences were statistically equivalent...we both know
    they're not.
    
    >    You'd be surprised the chalices that are really blades.
         
    So even that symbol is threatening to you, Russ?  I probably *would*
    be surprised, but I'll take the chance: I invite you to show them
    to me.  Frankly, the innuendos come across very ugly.
    
    Hmmm, this really doesn't address the basenote much, let me mention
    that I appreciated the beginnings, where the author addressed changing
    male-female roles, especially in business and economics, but when
    the article took a radical left into politics, it lost its detached
    analytical basis and became just another ranting ideological tract.
    Oh well.  Thanks, Bonnie.
    
    DougO

    re: .2 (Wetherington)
    
    	   I had no doubt you viewed conservatives as the bomb-tossing
    	Terminators of planet earth.  That is exactly the reason I
    	tossed in my sarcastic remark about liberals.
    
    	   And hey, don't worry about the 'hard-edged' reply...
    	that's the only kind I write.  ;^)
    
    	- Greg

    RE: .13
    
    Well, I raise my beer mug in a toast that we have the right to freely
    debate these things, and care enough to do so, even though we disagree
    on means perhaps we agree on ultimate goals...the best thing for
    our country.
    
    DW

    The article had some interesting points scattered throughout, but
    went to extremes on many occaisions.  Whereas many good things came
    out of the 60's an 70's, there were many bad things also.  I think
    to hold these times up as idealogical times which we should always
    strive to mimic is wrong.  There were many generalizations throughout,
    which really took a lot of credibility away of what the author was
    trying to say.  Maybe this trend of "new macho" (I don't agree with
    the authors definition, but I do agree that things are changing
    and redefining themselves again) is societys way of saying, maybe
    we went too far with all of these 60's & 70's ideas.  Maybe its
    just society correcting itself.  And no, I'm not condoning that
    we change EVERYTHING back to the way things were, but I would like
    to see some things change (family units staying together and that
    type of thing.)  One thing that I think everyone has got to realize
    is that the people who really care for you and are going to help
    you in your time of need are your family.  
    
    I, myself, am a conservative, but I do see a lot of good ideas that
    the liberals have.  It doesn't have to be all one way or the other.
     There is a happy medium in there somewhere. (I hope)
    
    Mike 

    What is Macho ? Everything that can be defined in Macho, can be
    atributed to females also. So we have macho females and macho males.
    Didn't they come out with a female version of Rambo called Raven?
    I think the whole idea of macho stinks, because it really means
    phony. If we men and women are looking for a macho image to identify with,
    then we're looking to be something we can never be. Why not look
    inside yourselves and be the best you that you can be, because being
    yourself is what the world needs, not a macho image. The world has
    enough phonies to put up with, we don't need more.
    
    Jim

    RE: .16  I agree Jim.  This expression has always been used, but
    noone has every really defined it.  I always related it to someone
    trying to be somthing they are not.  I definitely do not think it
    is a substitute for masculinity as it is sometimes used.  As you said,
    be the best person you can be.  
    
    After reading the article a few more times it appears that it is
    a bashing of conservatism and a promotion of libralism.  It also
    tries to equate coservatives with males and everything that is wrong
    with society today.  As I saiid earlier, it has some good points
    scattered throughout, but they were overshadowed by the soapbox
    manner in which they were presented.  It would have been a much
    better article if it was only 1-2 paragraphs long.
    
    Mike  

    
    Was Dustin Hoffman the image of American masculinity 
    9 years ago? I thought it was CLint Eastwood. 
    
    Anyhow, I can only conclude that the base note is a bunch
    of pompous garbage. But, it does a nice job of presenting not only more
    male bashing (the sport of the 80's) but also conservative bashing.
    
    Thanks for entering it though, very very amusing.
    
    						Hank

    re: .19
    
    I think Trevor wrote the article in a manner that was as
    tongue-in-cheek as possible considering the subject matter...it
    kind of struck me as late night type of thinking.  I don't agree
    with everything in the article either, I agree with a couple of
    the earlier criticisms of it, but I do think it made some interesting
    points.
    
    How it can be construed as male-bashing, rather than a plea for
    men to remember the humanistic side of themselves as the more
    desireable side, I don't understand.
    
    Nor do I understand how a plea for the people of the earth to try
    to live together without blowing each other up, and a plea for people
    to stop the destruction of the environment, is "pompous garbage".
    
    To all:
    
    Misunderstanding is often the result of lack of communication. 
    I would like to try and understand the conservative viewpoint better.
    Surely no sane man would stand by and allow the atmosphere and water
    base of our home planet be contaminated, nor would he be willing
    to risk the destruction of his home, family, and all other life
    on earth over a difference in political ideologies. 
    Furthermore, I am convinced that the noters here are
    indeed sane.  Therefore, I must conclude that I am misunderstanding
    the viewpoint.
    
    I would welcome a non-sarcastic response, perhaps even a new topic,
    that would allow me (us) to become better acquainted with the conservative
    viewpoint.  
    
    Do conservatives believe that the environment should be used up
    with no restrictions as fodder for the industrial machine, and that
    it will last till the end of their lifetime and they don't care
    what happens afterward?
    
    Do they believe that it would be better to blow up the planet
    completely rather than peacefully co-exist with the Russian people?
    
    Do they advocate the breaching of the Constitution, or the removal of
    the clause of the constitution that puts the power to make war into
    the hands of the congress rather than the president?   If not, how
    do they sanction the actions of the NSA under Oliver North, and
    the fact that Ronald Reagan has been carrying out a covert war in
    Nicarauga for years, for a time in violation of law passed by 
    the Congress of the United States (the Boland Amendment).
    
    All of the above seem to me to be accepted and agreed to by most
    people I encounter that say they are of the conservative political
    leaning.  Would anyone care to comment, or start another note, to
    help me to understand better?  If what I have written has made you
    angry and you wish to *react* rather than *respond*, please spare
    me.  If you wish to help me understand your beliefs better, I would
    welcome a response.
                             
    Doug

re:20    
>    Do conservatives believe that the environment should be used up
>    with no restrictions as fodder for the industrial machine, and that
>    it will last till the end of their lifetime and they don't care
>    what happens afterward?

    No    
    
>    Do they believe that it would be better to blow up the planet
>    completely rather than peacefully co-exist with the Russian people?
  
   No    

>    Do they advocate the breaching of the Constitution, or the removal of
>    the clause of the constitution that puts the power to make war into
>    the hands of the congress rather than the president?   If not, how
>    do they sanction the actions of the NSA under Oliver North, and
>    the fact that Ronald Reagan has been carrying out a covert war in
>    Nicarauga for years, for a time in violation of law passed by 
>    the Congress of the United States (the Boland Amendment).

    No 
       
>    All of the above seem to me to be accepted and agreed to by most
>    people I encounter that say they are of the conservative political
>    leaning.  Would anyone care to comment, or start another note, to
>    help me to understand better?  If what I have written has made you
>    angry and you wish to *react* rather than *respond*, please spare
>    me.  If you wish to help me understand your beliefs better, I would
>    welcome a response.
                             
    As a conservative on politcal issues, I hope my answers help you understand
    that your understanding as it presently stands of what conservatives
    believe is incorrect. The problem with your understanding is in
    your loaded questions. 
    
    Jim

    Re: .20         
    
    If this article was meant to be taken with tongue in cheek, then the
    author should have indicated that somewhere.  It certainly did
    represent fuzzy, late night type thinking, which isn't calculated to
    get this reader to pay much attention. 
    
    The problem I had with that article was that it sounded like yet
    another "All White Republican, Conservative Males Are Responsible For
    All The Country's Problems" kind of thing.  The author seemed to be
    making such gross generalities that I, for one, just gave up trying to
    dig any deeper for whatever underlying message there might have been.
    
    It seems to me that the author was more interested in preaching to the
    choir, than he was in trying to make new converts.  It makes the "True
    Believers" feel good by way of pointing the finger at those who have a
    different point of view. 
    
    As far as your questions about the "Conservative" point of view goes,
    I'll leave that to someone who wishes to label themselves as such.  I
    am not a "Conservative", although I do agree with some of the classical
    Conservative positions.  As you pose those questions, though, I imagine
    the answer will be "No", and then a return question as to why you are
    being so insulting.  No sane person would be for the agenda that you
    have described. 
                                 
    If this is the kind of answer you didn't want to hear, maybe you
    shouldn't have phrased your questions in a such a patronizing manner. 
                                                   
    Mike
                                           
                                                        

    Re: last 2
    
    Good points, both, and well taken.  
    
    I apologise for the bitterness of my attitude, and the slanted 
    mannger in which I phrased my questions.  The fact that I was being
    that way, needed to be pointed out to me, and I appreciate the
    frankness. Sometimes I get overly emotional and need to be reminded
    when I'm being unreasonably slanted, or sarcastic.  I assure you
    that I am working on this, and some of the discussions in the
    notesfiles are helping me to do this.
    
    I am 23 years old, and I daresay that with age some of my positions
    will grow and change, and my manner will mellow somewhat.  If you
    are willing to accept my apologies for my Attitude, I would be more 
    than happy to continue the discussion.
    
    You can see why it is so difficult for me to understand the Right.
    Obviously my current comprehension of their positions is woefully
    lacking, or is so tainted with emotionalism that I am not perceiving
    it rationally.  Perhaps the former is a result of the latter.
    
    Please, let's keep talking.  If no-one else replies to what I've
    written so far, I will do my best to rephrase my questions so that
    they will not be "loaded", and so that I will not come off as being
    offensive.  Or, I invite anyone to do so for me; rephrase the questions
    in a more generic manner. 
    
    Perhaps a new topic should be generated.  Is there anyone who would
    care to help a young idealist grow in his understanding of people's
    diverse opinions?  Does anyone remember any extreme opinions they
    had at 23 that evolved as they grew older and hopefully wiser?
    
    Doug

    re. .23
    
    No problem, when I have a little spare time I'd be happy
    to discuss some of the points you've raised.
    BTW, when I was 23 I was very very liberal.
    
    							Hank

    Yo Doug,
    	No apology necessary. We need all types of dialogue in order
    to see things more clearly. The thing I have learned is, not to
    let my dislike for the other's position blind me so badly that I
    can't see what they're really saying. Both sides have their good
    and bad points. Its just the circumstances of the times that make
    one sides good points shine and the others wrong. There will be
    a time when a more liberal position on issues will be necessary.
    Hopefully we won't be so entrenched in our ideology that we won't
    beable to see it. Thats why both sides must be heard.
    
    
    Jim
    

    Re. .23
    
    Doug,
    	When I was 23 I was very much a liberal.  Now I'm 36 and I'm
    	*still* liberal, if not more so.  I'm a little more selective now
    	about where I put my support and my money, but I still cut up my
    	Shell Oil card to protest their role in South Africa, I don't buy
    	California grapes, and I keep an eye on the League of Conservation
    	Voters rating of politicians.  Not that any of these are
        exclusively liberal causes,  they're just things I have an interest
    	in.  My gut feeling is that conservatism puts too much emphasis on
    	trying to recapture a state of stability, which never actually
    	existed anyway, instead of rationally evaluating alternatives.
    	Enough of the soapbox - I just wanted to let you know that growth
    	can be in a number of directions and that older does not
    	necessarily mean mellower (my 70-year old more-liberal-than-ever
    	mother will attest to that - and, hey Mom, thanks for encouraging 
    	me to read Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience").
    
    	Ron

    Dare say, I might have even been called RADICAL in my younger days
    (20-21). I even had a subscription to the Militant (!), but maturing
    reality changed those attitudes. As a Conservative, I don't believe
    in change for change's sake. I believe that the least amount of
    government interference is the best, and that government does not
    necessarily know what's best for ME. I believe in a free economy
    where business may compete without artificial constraints, as long
    as that competition is fairly done. If you produce a product better
    and cheaper than I can, you deserve to succeed and I deserve to
    fail. I FIRMLY believe in the rights of the working man to choose
    if he wants to belong to a union or NOT belong and still have the
    right to work (closed shops run against every ideal I hold true).
    I don't believe in large and expensive social programs whose succes-
    ses in the long run of curing anything, are questionable at best.
    I believe that those who can work should work and not get governmental
    handouts. There should be equal opportunity in the workplace, but
    no favoring any group or bending any rules. The only factor that
    should decide who gets a job or promotion is that person's
    qualifications. I believe that you can never level out the economic
    system, some people will make more because they are better at what
    they do than others. There has always been rich and poor and there
    will always be rich and poor. Everyone should have fair access to
    the system, those who make it, therefore will succeed. I believe
    that the rights of the victim should greatly outweigh those of the
    criminal, and that once someone commits a crime, he (or she) must pay a
    penalty for their acts. The safety of society from being preyed
    on my criminals is of utmost importance, and that society has the
    right to protect itself from crime by whatever means necessary.
    Knowledge is of great importance, so book banning is wrong (I draw
    the line on such things as child porn though). The parents should
    have the rights over how their children are raised (unless they
    are abusing them) and how they are schooled.
    
    If you look over the previous material, my view of a conservative
    revolves around keeping big government out of our everyday lives,
    letting the economy control itself by supply and demand, letting
    individuals make their own decisions (as long as no one else is
    hurt as a result), and letting those who are more qualified rise
    to the top.
    
    These opinions are not necessarily those of anyone else in DEC or
    this node, but only those of the writer.
                                                                 

    I was a liberal at age 12, I was a liberal at age 23, I am still a
    liberal at age 28, and I will probably be a liberal until my dying day.
    I have always believed in the liberal values of peace, justice,
    equality, and human rights, and I don't believe that this will ever
    change.  Certainly my outlook on certain things has matured over time,
    and I suspect that this process will continue to happen, but maturing
    does not require tossing out one's values or one's conscience. 
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .29, I don't always look at as tossing out one's values or
    conscience, but rather, once out of the "ivory tower of learning",
    getting a more realistic view of the world. I remember the great
    differences in attitudes in college (late 60's/early 70's) between
    the students were were working to pay for their education and those
    whose parents footed the bill. It seems that once you get out in
    the real world, your view changes.
    
    Eric
    
    
    

    re: previous few
    
    Thanks for understanding.
    
    I am swamped today, and will have to prolong my participation in
    the discussion until this weekend or next week.  Until then, 
    
    respectfully,
    Doug Wetherington

    re: .26 (and .20, .23, .19)
    
    �	No apology necessary. We need all types of dialogue in order
    � to see things more clearly.
    
    On the other hand, Jim, though I agree that an apology wasn't
    *necessary*, it seems to me that it can help that dialogue to
    continue as dialogue (vs. accusations, name-calling, etc.).
    
    I applaud the willingness of anyone to re-read their own words
    and look honestly to see what their intent was.  That Doug
    would review and publicly admit the bias in the phrasing of his 
    questions (in .20) strikes me as exemplary behaviro from a couple 
    of angles. 
    
    First, it seems to me that to stand up in *any* public forum and
    apologise takes a healthy amount of guts.  It also demonstrates
    to me a high degree of reasonableness, a willingness to really
    listen to the words of others and honestly see if "the shoe 
    fits".  Finally, since at 23 I *knew* what was "right" for
    the world (like so many of my peers); secure in that "knowledge"
    I didn't have to be bothered by re-examining my own ideas and
    the way I was presenting them.  
    
    So while it may not have been *necessary*, I find Doug's openness in
    reviewing his own words refreshing.  In honesty, I'd find it
    equally refreshing if folks using phrases like "pompous garbage"
    would follow the good example of youth. . .
    
    Steve
    
    NB: this is an edited version of .31 in which I inadvertantly
    forgotten to clear the buffer of stuff I was using for reference
    (never *could* git th' hang o' these computer doodads. . .)

    re .11  "...this is merely the latest salvo ... regarding women's
    social empowerment ...why do you keep playing the same old record?"
    
    I happen to think that notesfiles (particularly gender-proclaimed
    ones) should generally reflect the audience for whom said files
    are for.  
    
    As you know there exist voices from some of the more fringe ideological
    perspectives that make sure their voices are heard.  These vocal
    majors tend to overshadow the rest of the populance, particularly
    when an issue "gets hot."  I like issues that don't "get hot." ie
    proceed cordially with respect for one's colleagues.
    
    Furthermore, since modern critiques have put the lights out on said
    ideologies, I don't really like what should be "normal conversations"
    derailed (distracted by) by those ideologues who don't know what
    they're talking about.  
    
    In addition, matters like "women's social empowerment" do not make
    me paranoid.  In fact I rejoice in "women's freedom."  However,
    my definition of "freedom" and "empowerment" is very apolitical
    since the trappings of political structurings have a way of deeply
    affecting the personal.  Dangers include moves toward mandatory
    quotas, ie 50% of such and such job "must be filled by women" (or
    whatever).  The sexes have a number of like and different interests,
    like and differing *motivations.*  When quotas force gender preferences
    freedom is compromised.  
    
    Furthermore, there is a difference between "emancipation" and
    "liberation."  Considering the excesses of the latter, it is well
    to know the difference.
    
    "I don't see the dichotomy between the two..." (ideological aggression
    and [sexual] natural impulses)... I find it perfectly natural for
    women to recognize and resent previous culturally-based suppression,
    and to rail against it.  Be that ideological aggression? ... so
    what?"
    
    The burden of proof regarding supposed matters of 'suppression'
    lies on the shoulders of the claimants.  As science marches on,
    the biological differences the sexes have do seem to have a lot
    to do with the shaping of any given culture.  Levin thinks that
    "gender preferences" are innate.  You cannot force a woman to be
    an engineer if she's not motivated to be one, nor a man to be a
    househusband. Nor a girl to play with trucks, or a boy with dolls.
    It's well known that "non-sexist" child rearing is a complete flop.
    Levin says that "if the broad features of human society flow from
    innately programmed preferences of men and women, these features
    are not products of oppression."
    
    "So even that symbol is threatening to you...?"
    
     Oh no, it's not the symbol, not the symbol ....
    
     
                                                      Russ

    	RE:  .34  Pollitz
    
    	> You cannot force a woman to be an engineer if she's not
    	> motivated to be one, nor a man to be a househusband.
    
    	Neither can you force a man to be an engineer if HE is not
    	motivated to be one, nor a woman to be a fulltime homemaker.
    
    	The IDEA is that you do not assume that culturally-inflicted
    	roles are 'innate' to each sex (and instead, allow each
    	person, man or woman, to decide what role can best fill
    	that individual's desires AND potential.)
    
    	A society that thinks "engineers are men" and "homemakers
    	are women" is ultimately going to sentence both men and
    	women to unhappy, dissatisfied lives.

    re: .34

    � It's well known that "non-sexist" child rearing is a complete flop.
    
    Another view might be that "non-sexist" child rearing is a relatively
    new experiment for society, one that will be played out for quite
    some time yet.  Perhaps it's a little too soon to declare the
    experiment a "complete flop".
    
    � Levin says that "if the broad features of human society flow from
    � innately programmed preferences of men and women, these features
    � are not products of oppression."
    
    It seems to me that Levin's statement simply raises the questions
    such as:
    
     o	Are there such things as "innately programmed preferences of 
    	men and women"?  

     o	If so, what are they?
    
     o	Is "innate" to be read literally (i.e. inborn, biologically
    	predetermined)
    
    Also, it seems to me that "innately programmed" is somewhat of a 
    contradiction of terms:  innate suggests that it comes with the 
    "wetware", no choices while to me, "programmed" suggests changeability 
    (i.e. a programmer, and the possibility of changing the program).
    
    Steve                      
    

    re .35   Perhaps I should have used the word "motivate" instead
             "force."  Sometimes when I read authors like Friedan such
             words and phrases accidently slip out if you know what
             I mean ...
    
             Oh, I did make a mistake.  One *can* force women to be
             engineers.  Well, not exactly, but let's take a comparable
             idea for a ride:
    
             "... Eisler urges in the 'Equal Rights Handbook'(NY: Avon
             1978)- a book endorsed by the League of Women Voters -
             that ERA would warrant court action to insure a 50 percent
             representation of women in administrative and judicial
             positions at all levels of government and in female characters
             on television (pp. 193-97). (Broadcasters who failed to
             comply would lose their licenses.) She adds that ERA would
             mandate changes in "the educational programs of all schools,
             universities, vocational colleges, and apprenticeship
             programs" (p. 193).
                                                      - M. Levin
    
             The idea Suzanne is that so called 'culturally -(based)
             inflictions' are really just reflections of the way people
             are inside, and that some ideas to radically "equalize"
             everything possible "in the name of equality" have been
             made a stark reality with the Gov't, State, Corporations,
             Lawmakers, and others all getting a piece of the action.
    
             And believe me, someone like Riane who refers to Homemakers
             as 'crypto-servants' is not interested in *Choice*, at
             least not in quite the same way that you and I would like
             to think.
    
    re.36    I'll need some time as there's a lot of technical stuff
             to cover.
    
    
                                                   Russ P.

    	RE:  .39
    
    	Mike, don't get too excited about this.  This sounds to me
    	like another instance where Russ finds a sentence written
    	by one woman in a book that is over a decade old and tries
    	to hang an entire movement for it.
    
    	He has the right to say whatever he wants, of course, but
    	please don't think that his "Reports" on Feminism necessarily
    	constitute arguments (that need refuting) from any of the
    	real Feminists in Notes.

    	Russ condemns all Feminists for ideas that most of us have
    	never heard of before.
    
    	Movements are composed of people (and not ideologies that
    	take years of research to dig up to be used against them.)

re: .40 (NEXUS::CONLON)
In .38, Russ says the book is "endorsed by the League of Women Voters".
I read this as present tense, not past.

.40� Movements are composed of people (and not ideologies that
.40� take years of research to dig up to be used against them.)

Movements are composed of people who have an ideology.  And, where is
it written there is a statute of limitations on what people say or do?
If Hitler were to come back today and tell us he *really* does love
Jews, should we elect him chancellor?

thnx,

Kip

    	RE:  .41
    
    	The point is that not every single member of any given movement
    	is responsible for every word ever uttered by any person who
    	calls him/herself a member of that movement.
    
    	If Russ wants to hold the individual author responsible for
    	her words 10 years ago, fine.  He shouldn't hold the entire
    	movement (and every person who is affiliated with the movement)
    	responsible.
    
    	As far as the League of Women Voters "endorsing" the book,
    	I'd want to hear what the League itself had to say before I
    	would accept what opinions Russ *claims* they have about the
    	ideas.
    
    	Would YOU accept what Hitler might have said about Jewish ideology,
    	for example (knowing his obvious bias against them and his constant
    	agenda to discredit them) or would you want to reserve judgment
    	until you heard their views from their own spokespersons?

If Russ can fill us in on his source for stating the League of Women
Voters endorsed the book, that would be nice.  Let him speak for
himself.

One cannot say he belongs to an organization unless one subscribes to
that organization's ideology.  Any views spoken by a representative of
said organization will reflect the views of the entire organization.

thnx,

Kip

	RE: .38
    
    	> Perhaps I should have used the word "motivate" instead
        > "force."  
    
    	Ok, fine.  Then I'll change my statement to "You can't
    	motivate a man to be engineer if he doesn't want to be one,
    	nor can you motivate a woman to be a fulltime homemaker."
    
    	It fits, either way.
    
        > Oh, I did make a mistake.  One *can* force women to be
        > engineers.  Well, not exactly, but let's take a comparable
        > idea for a ride:
    
    	What are you trying to say here?
    
        > "... Eisler urges in the 'Equal Rights Handbook'(NY: Avon
        > 1978)- a book endorsed by the League of Women Voters -
        > that ERA would warrant court action to insure a 50 percent
        > representation of women in administrative and judicial
        > positions at all levels of government and in female characters
        > on television (pp. 193-97)....
    
    	Eisler "URGES"?  That sounds like she is trying to promote
    	a personal opinion of what should happen (rather than trying
    	to predict actual events that might occur.)  
    
    	Of course, it is hard to tell because you didn't quote her
    	own words.  You quoted someone who *interpreted* what she said.
    
        > The idea Suzanne is that so called 'culturally -(based)
        > inflictions' are really just reflections of the way people
        > are inside...
    
    	What people (and how do you divide them up according to the
    	way "they are inside"?)
    
    	Do you think that all men are the "same way" inside (and all
    	women are the same way inside as other women?)  I'm talking
    	about "ways" other than strictly biological, of course, as
    	I infer you are.
    
    	I'm an engineer, so at work, I'm more the "way" engineers are
    	inside.  Any attempts to take me away from engineering (because
    	it isn't what I am "supposed" to be like inside) would be an
    	affront to my individuality as a person (as well as to the way
    	I *really am* inside.)
    
    	If we allow our culture to make judgments about what we 'ought'
    	to want (based on the way it perceives each of us TO BE, based
    	strictly on our sex,) then we cease to be individuals and our
    	culture will fail to offer us the opportunities we need to
    	reach our full potential as human beings.

    Kip,
    
    The actual definition of feminism, as I have mentioned in this
    file before, is 'advocay of the political, social and economic
    equality of men and women'. (There was a long back and forth
    discussion of this in note 301, titled "Nifty New Slogan?") To
    call oneself a feminist can, and often does, mean that you subscribe
    to the dictionary definition of feminism. It does not mean that
    you are a member of a feminist organization (there are many) or
    to the philosophy of any other person who writes books or
    speaks on feminism.
    
    Bonnie

	RE:  .43
    
	> One cannot say he belongs to an organization unless one subscribes to
	> that organization's ideology.  Any views spoken by a representative of
	> said organization will reflect the views of the entire organization.

    	Although there *are* organizations which consider themselves
    	as "Feminist," they are a subset of the Feminist Movement (which,
    	by contrast, is NOT a formal organization unto itself.)
    
    	If a person belongs to a Superset that has NO formal structure,
    	such as a formal 'joining' or 'dues' procedure with the
    	accompanying election of or subsciption to a certain set of
    	leaders, then one belongs to a ideological MOVEMENT and NOT
    	an organization.
    
    	Therefore, one is not responsible for every word ever uttered
    	by every person who belongs to either the Superset or an organized
    	Subset.  
    
    	The only thing that one commits to by calling him/herself a
    	member of any particular movement is the common factor to which
    	the entire movement has AGREED that all members hold.
    
    	This 'common factor' cannot (by definition) be something so
    	obscure that most of it's members have never heard it before
    	(as in the case of the obscure quotes mentioned by Russ in
    	an earlier note.)
    
    	Do you understand?

.43> One cannot say he belongs to an organization unless one subscribes to
   > that organization's ideology.  Any views spoken by a representative of
   > said organization will reflect the views of the entire organization.

    I, too, disagree with these assertions.  I belonged to a particular
    religious denomination for many years before I realized that I never
    really understood what they were talking about, and that there was
    really a vast gulf between my beliefs and those I had heard (and
    repeated) regularly.
    
    As for any representative automatically reflecting the views of
    the entire organization, I have a couple of comments:
    
    	1) This may be the "legal" view, but we all know from experience
    	   that there are spokesmen for the organizations we are in
    	   who say things with which we don't agree.
    
    	2) The only objective approximation of an organization's ideology
    	   is that part which is written down.  Most members of groups
    	   have a much longer informal agenda, and each person tends
    	   to have some items on that personal agenda with which others
           in the group might not fully agree.
    
    Mark

    re: .48
    
    O.K.  So now in fairness, "the obvious must be stated" that 
    neither is Arpad exactly un-biased, nor Steve, nor Chelsea,
    nor. . .
    
    I think Suzanne's observation that Russ sometimes takes specific 
    quotes from one author and tried to attach that quote to all 
    "feminists" is an accurate one.  In one instance, he asked someone 
    to justify her feminist beliefs in light of his interpretation of 
    one such author's words.  Moreover, just as "the peace movement" or 
    the "black power" movements were not organizations with stated 
    platforms, the "feminist movement" is a phrase which covers a 
    wide spectrum of individuals, organizations and the beliefs they
    all hold.  While there is a strong base of commonality within a
    "movement" there's also a great deal of diversity.
    
    Arpad, you apparently reject the definition of feminism
    that Bonnie gave (.45) by stating "Equality! Not Feminism!"
    in your personal name.  Why?  Would you say also "Equality!
    Not Black Power!" as well?
    
    Steve
    

    
    re: .49
    
    Good points, Steve.
    
    It's interesting to note that nothing is called a "movement" when
    it first starts - only when it has gotten up a head of steam.
    There were plenty of feminists before there was a "feminist movement."
    And the term "movement" is just a convenient handle for talking
    about directions in social change.  Since movements are made up of
    multiple individuals and groups based on related but sometimes
    widely divergent beliefs, it is unrealistic and naive to expect
    consistancy.  That's good - because consistancy = stagnation in
    terms of social change.  The energy that changes societies comes
    from the creative tensions between point and counterpoint.  Look
    at notes...
    
    Other musings...
    
    When it comes to looking at how relations between people are changing,
    look at the people around you first.  Books are good for letting you
    know who was thinking what at a particular (past) point in time.
    They're not so good for telling you what's going to happen next.
    (And this from a BOOKSnoter, writer, and former English major!)
    I only have to look around and talk to people to feel the chilling
    effects of the New Macho mentioned in the base note.  And I react to
    it at gut-level - I don't check a book to tell me how to respond.
    My identification with feminism comes from my respect for the
    strong, capable, intellegent, and compassionate women I know:
    my wife, family, friends, and coworkers.
                                                                   

Movements, since they are composed of people, also make mistakes.  

I remember in a Core Group meeting, I was laughed at because I said
that, at age 27, my career path at DEC was not important to me (since
I was young enough to get another job somewhere else).  Before he
finished laughing, I said, "But I reserve the right to change my mind
at sometime in the future."   The guy who was laughing nodded his head 
in agreement.

I suppose that, if it were possible, the feminist leaders would take
back some of the things they did and said along the way.  And they
have the right to change their minds, too (without changing their
overall goal).  But the funny thing is that, at the time, the choice
usually seems to be to do nothing or to try to do something in
response to a problem (sexism).  When you choose to do something, you
make mistakes.  And what a coincidence it seems that many of the most
critical people are ones who "saw no problems" or who saw the problems
and did nothing. 



							--Gerry    

re: .45 (Bonnie)

Thanks for the definition of feminism (again), Bonnie.  Since it
(definition) "does not mean that you are a member of a feminist
organization...or [that you subscribe] to the philosophy of any
other person who writes books or speaks on feminism", than what
I said in .43 does not apply _here_.

I went back and re-read .0  As far as the "New Macho" goes, I
just don't buy it outright as presented by the author.  The
article places too much emphasis on men being solely responsible
for the woes of the world - and suggests that it's up to us to
be solely responsible for correcting them.

(Flame away if you want; I won't be responding to this topic
any longer.)

thnx,

Kip

    re: .53
    
� The article places too much emphasis on men being solely 
� responsible for the woes of the world - and suggests that 
� it's up to us to be solely responsible for correcting them.
    
    I'd be interested to hear a bit more, Kip.  In particular
    what phrases in the article suggest to you that correcting
    the world's woes is solely the responsibility of men.  When
    I re-read it, I came away (again) with the belief that the
    author's position was more like "The "new macho" is a risky
    image for us to adopt, particularly as a nation; we, as a 
    nation, need to move away from the sword-rattling behaviors
    we've exhibited.  Because men are, in general, the holders
    of power (political, economic, military), they have a majority
    of the responsibility to change and evolve."  Implicit, to
    me, is that women play a critical role as well; if women, in
    general support the "new macho" image of males, they will be
    continuing to support a risky national posture.
    
    Steve

    I recently observed a panel discussion on the changes that feminism has
    brought about in society.  One of the panel members described her
    difficulties, as a female entrepreneur, in gaining respect and
    acceptance within the local business community.  She had to combat
    certain stereotypes about what she as a female was capable of doing.
    
    What I found interesting was that in this same panel discussion there
    were several comments about the supposed lack of nurturing qualities in
    men.  Apparently I was the only person there who noticed the irony that
    those who decried the stereotypes that limit what women are expected to
    be able to do would turn around and express traditional stereotypes
    about a supposed limitation in men. 
    
    I can expect reactionary thinking from reactionaries; but when people
    with apparently progressive credentials implicitly accept a stereotype,
    and when that stereotype exemplifies the macho myth, then perhaps that
    says a lot about why our society has progressed so little.  Perhaps the
    evils of Reagan-era conservatism simply reflect a more deeply ingrained
    problem in U.S. society. 
    
    -- Mike

    please elaborate on the "evils of the Reagan era conservatism"
    I'm sure that's not a stereotype, either.
    
     The fact of the matter is that it is virtually impossible to go
    through life without accepting at least a few stereotypes. No matter
    how "enlightened" any particular group is, they always manage to
    subscribe to a few stereotypes themselves while decrying other's
    inability to see through stereotypes aimed at them. It is very simple.
    
     Realizing, of course, that sweeping generalizations are never "always
    true", it is possible to make statements that cover a statistically
    significant portion of a group's members. For example, many women
    feel oppressed; they feel that men look down upon them and their
    abilities because they are women. It is somewhat interesting to
    note that many of these same women also feel that their abilities
    in certain areas exceed that of men, by virtue of their femininity.
    
     It is always easier to see fault in someone else. When that fault
    is also present in you, it's always "different" somehow. We are
    all human. We are not perfect. It's all part of the deal, like it
    or not. 
    
     It is very easy to be hypocritical regarding stereotypes. It is
    especially humorous when one person from group A tells a person
    in group B what a horrible condescending attitude they have, and
    they do it condescendingly. That they are being hypocritical is
    totally lost...
    
    Mark

	RE:  .56
    
    	> It is especially humorous when one person from group A tells 
    	> a person in group B what a horrible condescending attitude 
    	> they have, and they do it condescendingly. That they are being 
    	> hypocritical is totally lost...
    
    	You have seriously underestimated the level of insight that
    	persons from 'Group A' display when they use a condescending
    	tone to address the tendencies that some members of 'Group B'
    	have of using that very tone (on a regular basis!) to address 
    	some members of Group A.

    	Not only is the use of a condescending tone effective in
    	demonstrating (to some) what the tone sounds like to the
    	listener, it can also be a source of humor to some other
    	members of 'Group A' (because of the irony involved in seeing
    	a condescending tone used in that particular configuration.)
    
    	Before anyone starts in about "two wrongs don't make a right"
    	or "the end doesn't justify the means," I'd like to point out
    	that I don't consider the use of a condescending tone to be
    	a moral issue.  It's just another social dynamic (among many!)
    	that takes place between humans (and as such, is worth of
    	exploration from time to time, especially in contra-traditional
    	ways.)
    
    	Whether the use of this particular tone from 'Group A' makes
    	you uncomfortable (or just plain angry,) don't assume that
    	the significance of such a tone is lost on those who have
    	chosen to use it in certain situations involving interactions
    	with 'Group B.'
    
    	Take my word for it, the members of 'Group A' know exactly
    	what they're doing when they use it.  >;^)

    In other words, it is implicitly assumed that when group B uses
    a condescending tone, it is not that they are using it as a social
    tool; it is that they are ignorant. However, group A uses a
    condescending tone only as a social tool. My apparent confusion
    is that you seem to feel that using a superior attitude to decry
    the same quality in another is not somehow hypocritical...
    
    IE- I can do the same thing that you do, but I can ream you out
    for doing it. That sounds logical. :^0
    
    Mark

	RE: .58
    
        > oh- group A is just superior to group B <
    
    	Isn't it interesting how you assume that Group A would
    	have to really feel superior to Group B to *finally/occasionally*
    	engage in behavior that has been common to Group B for
    	thousands of years (even though the behavior is still
    	very rare for Group A as a whole even now)?
    
    	> In other words, it is implicitly assumed that when group B uses
    	> a condescending tone, it is not that they are using it as a social
    	> tool; it is that they are ignorant.
    
    	Well, actually, I was trying to give Group B the benefit of
    	the doubt here (by implying that the use of a condescending
    	tone is sometimes unintentional.)  If you want to use the
    	word 'ignorant,' well, if the shoe fits (as they say.)
    
    	I do think that some members of Group B do it intentionally
    	as well -- something about the Group B ego, I think...  :-)
    
     	> However, group A uses a condescending tone only as a social 
    	> tool.
    
    	Let's just say that Group A has been less conditioned to use
    	the tone automatically, so it requires a special purpose
    	when some members of Group A use it (and education is *one*
    	of the possible special purposes.)
    
     	> My apparent confusion is that you seem to feel that using a 
    	> superior attitude to decry the same quality in another is not 
    	> somehow hypocritical...
    
    	Well, perhaps this will help you relate:  If someone challenges
    	you to a brawl, you may not believe in fighting, but if you
    	give the impression that your non-combatal stance is because
    	you are UNABLE to fight, the challenger will never let you
    	alone.  Once you show that you are willing and able to defend
    	yourself if necessary, then you can start talking about not
    	really wanting to fight with the person in the first place.
    
    	If you put it on a verbal level, it comes out to, "We are
    	*both* able to take a superior stance with each other in
    	conversation, so why don't we drop the stance and just
    	talk to each other like equals instead."
    
    	>IE- I can do the same thing that you do, but I can ream you out
    	>for doing it. That sounds logical. :^0
    
    	No, actually, it comes out to, "This is what you often do to
    	me and now you know that I can do it to you as well.  So
    	neither one of us needs to continue it.  Let's just talk
    	to each other as equals."
    
    	I'm not suggesting that it always works (or even works very
    	often.)  But polite requests and ignoring condescending attitudes
    	don't work either, so at least the humorous aspect is left
    	for some folks in Group A.
    
    	Sometimes, that alone makes the whole thing worth it.  :-)

    A most revealing couple of notes .57/.59 Suzanne,  which I found thought
    provoking and I'd like to share some of those thoughts. Might 
    make a fascinating new topic actually.
    
    This use of group A, group B smacks of us vs them thinking
    which in my opinion serves to do nothing but further redefine
    and reinforce differences in the continuing embrace of conflict.
    
    Condescension is at best an attitude of disrespect for others,
    at it's worst, a tactic of intimidation and derision. I personally
    feel that condescension is never justified. 
    
    By the same token, I understand the analogy you offered and at a 
    cursory glance I may agree with it. But upon deeper reflection I must 
    disagree. I feel that there must come a time when the cycle of confrontation
    must be broken; that people must learn to stop and listen to each
    other, that we must stop holding each other accountable for what
    transpired before and move forward.
    
    						Hank 

    re .60
    
     Maybe we CAN rise above the pettiness, if more people have that
    attitude.
    
    Mark

    	RE:  .60
    
    	Exactly, Hank.  But how do you break the cycle of confrontation
    	and start learning how to talk to each other?
    
    	You might notice that my stance in talking about this is *not*
    	condescending (although I have engaged in a bit of friendly
    	teasing here and there.)  :-)  It's jes the devil in me. :-)
    
    	Seriously, though...
    
    	By my revealing things here, you realize that I've left myself
    	somewhat vulnerable (in certain areas,) which gives others the
    	opportunity to choose between slamming me against the wall or
    	just talking to me.  You, personally, chose to talk to me.
    	That's one way to get things started and I appreciate it.
    
    	Using a condescending/superior tone can be used as a way to
    	distance yourself from certain kinds of unfriendly interactions
    	(and entertaining yourself in the process, in some cases.)
    
    	However, you're right.  Talking is better (and is far and away
    	more enjoyable than the alternative.)
    
    	Happy Holidays!

    	RE:  .61
    
    	Happy Holidays to you, too, Mark!