Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    Since a lot has been made of statistics lately, I thought you might
    like to see some figures with respect to male/female salaries. These
    are the latest figures from the Department of Labor Statistics and
    are for 1st Quarter 1989. They are not broken down by catagory
    (although the Dept. of Labor Statistics is sending me a detailed
    breakdown). The following are MEDIAN salaries:
    
    	Male (per week)	$468.00  (figures to $11.70 per hour)
      Female (per week) $326.00  ( figures to $8.15 per hour)
    
    Men earn about 30% more per hour (.69658) than women. When I asked
    if there were catagories where women earned more than men, the
    individual said no, but would send me a complete listing so I could
    check for myself. As you know, in large samples the MEDIAN figure
    is often used, rather than the MEAN because the median most easily
    accounts for extremities of range.
    

    
    re. -1
    No, nobody has "explained" anything of the kind. Somebody has
    made such a claim, but has not presented any data to support the 
    assertion. There is a significant difference between a claim and
    evidence for a claim.
    

    What evidence... I see no  evidence.....
    
    Waaaaaa I am maiking LESS than that Median.... should I start 
    looking for someone to acuse???
    
    Lets see.... Um..... indonesians.....yeah...they did it to me...
    
    this is getting old....

Um, folks, this discussion about wage parity is interesting (though we've
been over it before), but I don't see its relevance to the original topic.
If one of you feels strongly about it, please start a new topic on wage
parity.  Though first I might suggest reading the previous discussions
in WOMANNOTES-V2.

				Steve

    Steve,
    
          I think it very much relates to the topic at hand.  It all
    has to do with steroetypes of gender and biased.  I don't understand
    why a discussion has to be tabled because the subject widens.
    Coversation would be very boring if we had to walk a narrow line.
    Also, even if it has been discussed before, so what?  Maybe there
    will be new information presented that will educate someone.  If
    you look at discussions in many of the different notesfiles, it
    is just the rehashing of the same subjects.  I think it is good
    to revisit topics from time to time because information does change
    and going back to an old note will not give the focus which will
    lead to a good discussion.
    
                                                      Mike

    Re: .24
    
    Humor me, Mike.  I like to keep topics focused.  There's no shortage
    of topic numbers in this conference...
    
    I want to see this particular topic stay on the track of 
    "pigeonholing" people by appearance. 
    
    				Steve

    	In order to determine if there is a difference based on gender,
    >
   > basic scientific study dictates that you divide the data along the
   > suspected cause, in this case, gender.
    
   > 	So, you have a woman and a man who have equal educations.
    
   >	When you look at the incomes, the woman is making slightly more
  >  than the man.
    
  Sorry, but it ain't so, according to the U.S. dept of Labor Statistics.
    Using the criteria you specify in the 1st line above, there is NO
    catagory of full-time employment where women earn more than men (with
    catagories ranging from "Managerial and Professional Specialty" to
    "Farming, Forestry and fishing": broken down by sex, age, and race).
    My Source?
    "News: United States Dept. of Labor" Bureau of Labor Statistics,
    Washington, D.C. 20212, USDL 89-194 "Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage
    and Salary Workers: 1st Quarter 1989" (7 pages, 4 tables)
                                                                        

           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 626.0                   Some new salary figures                   2 replies
RAINBO::TARBET "I'm the ERA"                         24 lines   1-JUN-1989 15:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "To begin with, 50% of the population is ruled out of the [...]
    high-salary formula by gender.  Although its extent has been reduced in
    the past two decades, there still is sex discrimination in R&D
    salaries.
    
    Along with that come factors which at first appear to be sex
    discrimination, but are merely sex/culture related. [ interesting
    distinction! ]
    
    ...
    
    Even having a PhD in her field does not make enough salary differeence
    to bring the female university biologist into the upper salary ranks.
    
    ...
    
    However, as the table clearly shows, the highest median salary for
    women in R&D [ $41,249 ] (in government) remains below the lowest median
    for men [ $41,635 ] (in universities)"
    
    from "Keys to Top R&D Salaries: Age, Experience, Education"; Research &
    Development Magazine, May 1989;  author Robert R. Jones, Executive
    Editor.
              

    re: .9
    
         In 1985 there was only one occupation where women earned more
    than men.
    
         I only have the figures from the 1985 weekly salary by occupation
    information, but there was one occupation where women earned more
    than men.  That was Dietitian.  The figure doesn't appear in the
    comparison of salaries section because 50,000 people of each sex
    must be employed in the occupation for them to do a salary average
    and comparison.  Only 3,000 male dietitians were employed in 1985.
    The average dietitians weekly salary was $336 and the average female
    weekly salary was $339, so men had to be making less than women.
    
    ASP

    Mike W
    
    1. you've quoted  the $1.00 for men to $1.01 for women several
    times. Can you refer to the note where you gave the source?
    Most of the information that I or other people have been able
    to find has been quite different.
    
    2. I agree that men and women differ both in phyisical strength
    and in the fact that women bear children. How does either of
    these affect functioning in most jobs available today? There
    is no similar difference in mental abilities. Given that a woman
    either has no children, or has grown children, or has arranged
    child care to the satisfaction of her and her spouse, is there
    any reason to feel that she cannot handle most jobs as well as
    a man?
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, 
    
          Here are some of the reasons that women make less than men:
    
    1) Women who have children either leave work and reenter the job
    market.
    
    2) Women who have children work part time.
    
    3) Women have not persued higher education (this has changed in
    the past 10 years or so) as much as men have. 
    
    4) Women enter job markets where the pay scale is not as high as
    men.
    
    Bonnie,
    
          I cannot remember the source of the information, but it is
    something which was published, I do know that.
    
                                             Mike

    Mike,
    
    In the note I copied from Womannotes the point was made that even
    with a Phd women's salaries were lower than men's in equivalent
    jobs.
    
    Bonnie

    So that makes it correct Bonnie???
    
    I saw the same thing Mike is quoting, but hey.. its wrong anyhow
    so whats it matter right?
    
    Life sucks.....

    Al,
    
    Why are you attacking me? All I asked for was a reference. The
    only data I've seen - like the recent material printed in this
    string of notes - indicated that women are still under paid compaired
    to men. If you have any information that says the quoted material
    is false then enter it here. Tony Purmal's note said that the only
    occupation where women out earn men with the same education is
    as dietician.
    
    Bonnie

    All I can say is that I'm glad I have a wife who takes pride in
    raising her kids, staying at home and being a housewife.  We may
    not be monetarily rich, but we sure are when it comes to the family.
    No, things aren't perfect, but there darn close.  God bless us all,
    everyone.:')
    
                                                   Mike

    and I'm glad that I've married a man who is proud of my
    abilties and supports me in using them, and with whom I've
    raised five super kids. It is good that there are so many
    different kinds of people - it keeps the world interesting.
    
    Bonnie

    re .19, Mike-
    
    > All I can say is that I'm glad I have a wife who takes pride in
    > raising her kids, staying at home and being a housewife. 
      
    I *wish* that was all you would say.  Instead, you jump all over
    Gerry and Jodie when they offer a different opinion.

    Note 350.6
    > RE: Ger- I don't buy this one bit.  If you take a man and woman who 
    > have comparable qualifications, the woman is making $1.01
    > to the mans $1:00.  Look it up, it's fact. 
    
    As Bonnie and Tony have demonstrated, look it up, it ISN'T fact.
                                                               
    Note 350.16
    > Jodie,
    > 
    >       The stat of .73 to a dollar is a tool used by the womans
    > organizations as propaganda to make woman feel as though they are
    > being cheated.  You have to look at alike circumstances otherwise
    > the argument doesn't hold any water.  
    
    Again, see Tony's note.
                          
    >                      What I am trying to do with the stats is to
    > correct the misconception that men have it better than woman.  I
    > also want to say that I (even though I am one of those straight
    > white males) feel as though I am struggling also.  Trying to raise
    > a family of four one one salary is definitely not easy today. 
    
    Mike, no matter HOW tough you have it, the facts already given show
    that by and large, women have it TOUGHER.  You don't wanna face
    facts, thats your problem.  Don't claim the facts are on your side,
    though, when they aren't.  If anyone needs their misconceptions
    corrected, it isn't Tony, Gerry, Bonnie, Jodie, or me.
    
    DougO

       I may regret sticking my head down this rathole, but...
    
       We're arguing apples and oranges here, comparing statistics that
    aren't really comparable.
    
       Person A says that, on average, women earn about 70% of what men do.
    
       Person B says that, all else (education, experience, job, etc.) 
                being equal, women earn about as much as men.
    
       Person C cites figures claiming that within most fields and degrees, 
                there _is_ a wage disparity.
    
       We can argue these for a long time and go nowhere because they're
    all saying different things. They may all be right, wrong, or whatever, 
    but they're _not_ mutually exclusive.
    
    Didn't mean to interrupt,
                          Rob
                             

     From my own personal experience, the women with whom I went to college
    that were good looking are faring as well as the best of the men in the
    business world. The women who were less attractive are faring worse
    than the average male (generally speaking). This is a relatively small
    sample. This does not account for how well the various women DO their
    jobs. It looks like a trend, though. Discrimination based on beauty?!!
    
     Hmmmm.
    
     Perhaps it's due to the willingness of male managers to pay more to
    get an attractive woman in his department who is competant than an
    esoterically attractive woman who is as competant. Perhaps there's
    another reason?
    
     In general, I have noticed a trend for good looking women to get job
    offers faster and easier than less attractive women. They often get
    paid more as well, regardless of their ability to perform the job as
    compared to other equally qualified but less attractive coworkers.
    Is there a phenomenon here or what? Is there anything we can do about
    it? Is this fair or not? How is this different from any other form of
    discrimination? Is this form of discrimination any more accpetable than
    any other/ Why or why not?
    
    The  doctah

    RE: DougO-well you know what they say, a wish in one hand and a
    pile in the other.  Is this really mennotes?
    
                                               Mike

    
    It's also been demonstrated that tall men earn more, on average,
    than short men, at about an extra $1000 per year per extra inch
    in height.
    
    Looks like it's time to start a movement to expose the inherent
    heightist discrimination in our society, raise some funds, and lobby
    the lawmakers to pass anti-height-discrimination laws.
    

    re: .25 (Mike)
    
    � Is this really mennotes?
    
    Would you care to elaborate on that question, Mike?  Since your
    question is a rhetorical one, it's meant to say something about
    this discussion and I'm kind of curious to know what that something 
    is.  From the apparent sarcasm of the question plus the title of 
    your reply, I gather you feel this discussion too closely resembles
    those in Womannotes.  Is that the case?  And, if it is, why does that
    bother you?
    
    Steve

         Actually Bonnie, the stats that I have really don't address
    education, just the average salaries for 200 occupations and those
    of men and women in those occupations if more than 50,000 of the
    group is employed.  I'm sorry if I misrepresented my statistics.
    
         The source of my statistics is Monthly Labor Review, Sept 1986.
    The statistics are for the wages for the year 1985.  I'll get the
    1988 statistics as soon as they're available, I couldn't find the
    1987 statistics.
    
         I think that the reason some of us would like the source of
    the $1.01 to $1.00 is because we'd like to know its context.  I
    could believe that for college graduates in 1988 that women are
    making $1.01 to the $1.00 their male counterparts are making in
    their first jobs.
    
         Mike, I do agree that some of the reasons that you listed for
    women earning less than men are a factor in the wage differences,
    but they are not the only ones.  Women have to fight tooth and nail
    to enter some jobs which are traditionally male jobs.  I'm not talking
    about jobs where physical strength is a requirement for employment.
    
         The woman who won the Supreme Court case against Santa Clara
    county a few years back that addressed equal pay took so much sh*t
    to get where she was its a wonder she made it as far as she did.
    She was a bookeeper for the county road maintenance and realized
    that the dispatcher (a job held only by men) payed somewhere between
    25 to 45 percent more than her job.  Both jobs has similar skill
    requirements, but the bookeeping required more education and the
    dispatcher job required two years of work on a road crew.  She had
    to go to court to get the supervisor to *accept* her application
    for the road crew.  Then she had to go to court to get instated
    in the job because men less qualifications than she had were hired
    ahead of her.  While working on the roadcrew her the tires on her
    car were repeatedly slashes, she was subjected to verbal abuse and
    was routinely assigned to the worst possible work.  Then after she
    had her experience she had to go to court again to get her application
    accepted for dispatcher and finally went to court to get the job
    because a less qualified male was hired ahead of her.
    
         Now, Mike I don't think that you're the type of man who would
    try to prevent a qualified woman from working through the system
    to get a better job, but there are lots of men who will.  And there
    are many traditionally male and female jobs which have similar
    requirements and duties where the the men's job pays more than the
    women's job.  The women who are qualified to go after those jobs
    and want to shouldn't have to fight to get them.
    
         I'd love to see a study which makes an attempt to quantify
    the characteristics of various jobs (ie risk of personal injury,
    stress level, satisfaction level, educational requirements, physical
    requirements, percent of the population that meets the requirements,
    etc.)  That way we might be able to have somewhere to work from
    to decide if various workers are being paid "fairly".
    
    ASP

    RE: ASP  I do not doubt the fact that there are men out there who
    want to keep women down.  My big beef is, are we catering to the
    exception again?  I'm sure you could find instances where men were
    not given a job because they were men.  What I'm saying is that
    the world isn't perfect for anyone.  We all have been or will be
    discriminated against for one reason or another at sometime in our
    lives.  We are too hell bent on status and money these days instead
    of trying to be good people and help one another.  It is frustrating
    being a male and hearing about all of the stuff you do to women
    and I, for one, am getting sick and tired of it.  That's all.  
    
    RE: -2  It was more of a tongue in cheek remark then anything else
    dealing with the tone of the discussion.  No offense was meant to
    anyone.  Again a casualty of seeing things in print as opposed to
    having a face to face discussion.
    
                                                    Mike

    I think that it may actually have something to do with how people
    are viewed by others as leaders and people who they would want to
    emulate or be associated iwth - be they male or female.  Think about
    it, on a relative basis you don't see many fat ugly men as business
    or political leaders.  
    
    It has to do with leadership and charisma.
    
      Mark
    

    
    Re .-1:
    
    > You don't see many fat ugly men as business or political leaders
    
      Not sure I agree.   On the political front, Tip O'Neill and Henry
      Kissinger come to mind.  Ted Kennedy is no light-weight.  Most
      business leaders tend to be heavy-weights too - all those business
      lunches.   

    RE: .31-and lets not forget a famous US President:
    
    Pres. Taft was no lightweight by far. and hewre in Mass. George
    Kavarian puts Taft to shame!
    
    Eric

    re: .29
    
    � It is frustrating being a male and hearing about all of the 
    � stuff you do to women and I, for one, am getting sick and tired 
    � of it.  
    
    I hear you, Mike and, in truth, there are moments when I share 
    your frustration.  I too occasionally get tired of hearing white 
    males portrayed as "the bad guys".  And, although I understand 
    Gerry's comment that "the system" is the problem, as near as I can 
    tell, it's been white males who've historically been the creators 
    and protectors of that system.  And I believe much of that history 
    continues today,  so I tend to make a general equation between "the 
    system" and white males (or SWAMs).
    
    While I sometimes feel tired or a bit assaulted - because, after 
    all, I personally am doing what I can to right those wrongs - I 
    nevertheless need to remember that I *am* part of that class of 
    people who've created a problem.  And I need to remember that it's 
    better for me to turn my frustration towards those who perpetuate 
    this order than to react towards those who've pointed out the problem.
    
    The trick for me is to remember that when someone speaks of "the 
    system" or of "white males", the remarks made may be accurate 
    without applying specifically to me.  In the same breath, I'd also 
    say that it's a lot easier for me to listen to those remarks when 
    they're couched in terms of ". . .many/most white males. . ."  It 
    also helps me to remember that whatever my frustration level is, 
    it's pretty much dwarfed by that felt by women and minorities over 
    the years.
    
    � I do not doubt the fact that there are men out there who want to 
    � keep women down.  My big beef is, are we catering to the exception 
    � again?  I'm sure you could find instances where men were not given 
    � a job because they were men.

    I doubt that we're catering to the exception.  Yes, we certainly
    can find *instances* where men have been discriminated against in
    getting jobs.  But even today, in our "enlightened" times there
    are so many instances of women and minorities being discriminated
    against that I believe it's fair to say that such discrimination
    is "systemic".  I think we've made progress in this country in the
    last 20 years, but to say that classes of people are no longer the
    objects of discrimination would, I believe, be off the mark.  
    
    In moments of cynicism, I sometimes think that this country will
    achieve "true equality" when everyone is always the object of 
    someone else's discriminatory behavior. . .
    
    Steve

    Steve,
    
          I understand what you are saying, although I can't put women
    in the same category as other minorities.  We have got to speak
    of one or the other.  Blacks have been treated terribly throughout
    the years in this country.  While I am not ready to take the blame
    for what the white forefathers did, I think we need to keep a hard
    eye on this issue and take punitive action when someones rights
    as a person are violated.  That goes both ways (when whites are
    discriminate to black and inversely when blacks are discriminate
    to whites).  
    
          In regards to women, they have not been subject to what the
    black person has had to deal with.  Womens organizations lump women
    in with all minorities to broaden the spectrum of who they appeal
    to.  Again, I am not saying that women haven't had to overcome
    obstacles, but so have men.  When the majority of men worked and
    the majority of women stayed at home, women lived a good 5-10 years
    longer than the men on an average.  Now that gap is narrowing. 
    The point being that it isn't all peaches and cream dragging your
    butt to work everyday and puuting up with all the crap.  It's just
    not that glamorous.  Men have done it throughout the years to provide
    for their families.  So, yes, women don't have it great and neither
    do men.  The best solution I can come up with is find someone who
    you want to spend your life with and form a team.  After all is said 
    and done, it's not men against women, it's your family against the
    world.  
    
                                                Mike

    I agree with Mike that we shouldn't take the blame for the "sins of
    our fathers"; we didn't choose those actions and we're therefore
    not to blame.  What I choose to do today is accept that it's my
    responsibility to learn what's going on and to work to change
    unfair imbalances.  And I certainly agree that it's no day at 
    the beach doing the five-day-drag.  Where I see an imbalance
    is that historically, women haven't had an equal opportunity in 
    a white, male-dominated workplace to choose that work world.
    
    Now, I gotta be honest here: there's a part of me that's at a loss
    to understand why anyone would want to make such a choice.  I don't.
    I'd much rather stay at home and do the dishes, laundry and vacuuming. 
    Hell, I have to do that stuff anyway; I'd sure like it if I didn't
    have to go out and make the bucks, too.  
    
    I'm definitely in the group who'd be happy being supported as a 
    house-husband; as a person who's been separated for more than two 
    years, I've had occasion to muse on the possibility that I might 
    be divorced some day and find myself looking to re-marry.  Now this
    twisted thinking usually passes quickly, but whilst in its grip,
    I find myself toying with ideas about how I'd want it to be and, 
    somehow, the notion of marrying rich has a certain appeal to it.  
    
    And I'd be a bargain too:  among other things, I *do* windows. . . 
    
    And to the moderators who'd be right in pointing out that this is
    tangental to the discussion at hand:  I confess, apologize, and
    will now beat a hasty retreat back to my batch job which just
    finished.
                               
    Steve                                                          

    	RE: .34  Mike Wannemacher
    
    	> Steve, I understand what you are saying, although I can't
    	> put women in the same category as other minorities.  We have
    	> got to speak of one or the other.
    
    	Women *very much* belong grouped with "other minorities" when
    	it comes to talking about things like freedom and opportunities
    	because we have *FAR* more in common with the people of other
    	minorities in those regards than we have with white men.
    
    	When our country was founded, only white men could vote or own
    	property.  Blacks and women could not.  After the Civil War,
    	black men were given some rights, but black women had to wait
    	another 50 years or so (along with white women) before they
    	were even allowed to VOTE.
    
    	In the history of our country, ALL people other than white men have
    	been systematically excluded from the best kinds of educational
    	and employment opportunities.  Although the Civil Rights movement
    	did much to help black men to overcome this obstacle, black
    	women had to wait (along with white women) for the women's movement
	to start receiving these opportunites (because black women had
    	to overcome the obstacles of BOTH race and sex.)
    
    	> In regards to women, they have not been subject to what the
    	> black person has had to deal with.
    
    	Perhaps not, but being denied the right to vote or own property
    	or have equal opportunities in employment and education for
    	a couple of CENTURIES is certainly serious enough for women
    	to be grouped with other minorities who have gone through the
    	same thing.

    	> The point being that it isn't all peaches and cream dragging
    	> your butt to work everyday and putting up with all the crap.
    	> It's just not that glamorous.
    
    	Why are you saying this to a group of people who access this
    	conference through their EMPLOYMENT?  Obviously, everyone here
    	knows what it is like to work, Mike, (women included.)
    
    	The REAL point is that a group of people who are SYSTEMATICALLY
    	DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY to "drag their butts to work everyday" 
    	when they WANT TO DO IT are not receiving the same kind of freedom 
    	and opportunities as those people who are NOT systematically
    	being denied opportunities like this as a group.  
    
    	Since women and other minorities have shared this particular
    	hurdle over the past couple of centuries in this country, women
    	have more in common with other minorities than we have with
    	white men.  It's as simple as that (whether you like the idea
    	of women being grouped with other minorities or not.)

    Suzanne.  
    
    Thanks for proving my point.  
    
                                            Mike

    re: .37
    
    I disagree that Suzanne has proven your point, Mike.  As I
    understand, the point in question stems from .34:
    
    �       In regards to women, they have not been subject to what the
    � black person has had to deal with.  Womens organizations lump women
    � in with all minorities to broaden the spectrum of who they appeal
    � to.  Again, I am not saying that women haven't had to overcome
    � obstacles, but so have men. 
    
    In the first place, to say that women haven't been subject to the
    same discrimination as black people isn't entirely accurate - black
    (and other ethnic) women certainly have.  But I'll admit that's
    kind of a nit and I don't believe it's the major point you're 
    discussing.
    
    In the next couple of sentences you appear to equate the obstacles
    that women have faced with those presented to (white) men and 
    therefore assert that the notion that women and minorities have
    certain discriminatory patterns in common is just a political ploy 
    by women's organizations.  If you could show that women haven't
    been systematically denied employment opportunities granted to men,
    I'd be more inclined to agree, but this doesn't appear to me to
    be the case.  
    
    Yes, we all have obstacles to face, but are you suggesting that
    women have had the same obstacles as men in employment?  It seems 
    to me that the heart of this discussion has to do with the *choice* 
    of obstacles one faces and it's clear to me that in the denial of 
    choice of employment, women do indeed have a great deal in common 
    with minority groups.
    
    Steve

    But Steve, women were staying home because it was the thing to do
    at the time.  Men made more because the majority of me needed to
    make more to support the majority of women.  Not to mention the
    fact that women went into professions which weren't as high paying
    as were the professions dominated by men.  
    
    Suzanne, as far as I can recall from history courses as well as
    some reading I've done, women didn't really want to vote for the 
    most part.  Most of the women were content to do as they were doing.
    So you see, that's why it is different.  
    
                                              Mike

    Mike,
    
    I don't know what history books you were reading but they tell
    a version of history very different from the one I'm familiar with.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .39
    
    Yes, ". . .women were staying home because it was the thing to 
    do at the time. . ." (still is according to many).  The problem
    as I see it is the *reason* it is/was "the thing to do".  The 
    reason is because white males said that such was the way it should
    be.  Minorities were also kept out of many jobs because it was "the 
    thing to do".
    
    Steve
    

    	RE: .39  Mike Wannemacher
    
    	> Suzanne, as far as I can recall from history courses as well
    	> as some reading I've done, women didn't really want to vote
    	> for the most part.  Most of the women were content to do as
    	> they were doing.  So you see, that's why it is different.
    
    	First off, I don't accept your *justification* for discrimination
    	against women (if that is what you are trying to do) as being 
    	because "most of the women were content" any more than I would 
    	accept the idea that slavery was OK because most African-Americans 
    	seemed "content" with it.
    
    	Furthur, I would like to see the exact source of the claims
    	you have made as to the way "History" has been recorded for
    	this era.  Your recollections are not enough.
    
    	Excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica:
    
    		"Concern for women's rights dates from the Enlightenment.
		 The 18th-century philosopher Condorcet spoke in favour
    		 of female emancipation, and in **1789**, the year of the
    		 French Revolution, Olympe de Gouges wrote 'The Declaration
		 of the Rights of Women.'  This declaration strongly
    		 influenced Mary Wollstonecraft's 'A Vindication of
    		 the Rights of Women,' published in England in 1792,
    		 which challenged the idea that women exist only to
    		 please men and proposed that women receive the SAME
    		 TREATMENT AS MEN in EDUCATION, WORK, AND POLITICS 
    		 and BE JUDGED BY THE SAME MORAL STANDARDS. [Emphasis
    		 mine.]
    
    		"...In the United States the feminist movement first
    		 coalesced in July 1848 at the Women's Rights Convention
    		 in Seneca Falls and Rochester, N.Y., where Elizabeth
    		 Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott promoted a bill of rights
    		 setting forth the INFERIOR and UNJUST POSITION of WOMEN
    		 and DEMANDING A REDRESS of WRONGS.  Out of this grew
    		 the movement for woman suffrage... The right to vote
    		 was long delayed -- until 1920." [Emphasis mine.]

    	Until the 20th Century, over half of the adult, law-abiding
    	citizens of this country were NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.  You can't
    	wipe that injustice away by saying that half of the adult citizens
    	of the country were denied the vote because someone ASSUMED
    	that they didn't WANT to vote.
    
    	The movement to win women the right to vote took over 72 years.
    	If women did not want to vote, several generations of women's
    	rights advocates would not have fought and died for this victory
    	for so long.
    
    	Please supply the sources for your claims.

    Well, well... unlike spacific noters, the SUPREME COURT has decided
    that there is such a thing as "REVERSE DESCRIMINATION".... against
    white males that is.....
    
    Not aimed at anyone in particular, ges a tidbit of information...
    
     BTW, listen(watch) to the news to verify the information.
    
 

The following note is copied from womannotes with the permission of
    the author. I think it illustrates why women have appeared in the
    past to be comfortable with the limited choices available in the
    past.
    
    Bonnie
    
               <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 632.49        I have an ambivalent self-image to project           49 of 49
APEHUB::STHILAIRE "the other side of the mirror"     48 lines  13-JUN-1989 09:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I also would have loved to have been able to stay home and take
    care of my daughter when she was small, but we didn't feel we could
    afford to pass up my mother's offer of free babysitting while I
    worked.  On the other hand, if the woman's movement had had it's
    current momentum 100 yrs. ago, I might have been more prepared to
    take on a well-paid job when I did go out to work, because I might
    have grown up knowing I would have to support myself instead of
    growing up expecting my husband to support me, as I did.  I also
    might have grown up with the awareness of more options than being
    a housewife, nurse, teacher, librarian, or secretary.  I, also,
    might have grown up with a few more varied role models than I did.
     Growing up in a working class family, in a rural community, in
    the 50's and 60's, all the women I knew were either housewives,
    school teachers or nurses, or a few poor unfortunates who, because
    they were either divorced or married to (I thought) lazy men who
    didn't earn enough money, and were forced to take on assembly jobs
    in factories or work as waitress or secretaries to get by.  I was
    24 yrs. old before I even knew what a computer engineer was, and
    over 25 before I encountered my first woman doctor, over 30 before
    I encountered either my first woman lawyer, or woman with a Ph.D.
     Not being an A student, or especially ambitious, it just never
    occurred to me for years that a woman could strive for anything
    other than being a wife, a teacher or a nurse.  I never believed
    that "the hand that rocked the cradle rules the world."  I just
    thought that men were supposed to rule the world and women were
    supposed to rock the cradle.  It was only when I realized that I
    could neither afford to stay home and rock the cradle nor could
    I rule the world that I began to question things.

    I agree with Liesl (and I believe we are the same age, almost exactly)
    that we are a "lost generation" of women.
    
    As far as stereotypes of mens and womens chores go, a recent incident
    served to remind me of the way previous generations thought of these
    things.  I recently discovered that a male friend's grandmother
    had decided that she doesn't "like" me anymore.  The reason she
    doesn't like me is because a couple of months ago when I stayed
    over at her house, my male friend got up and cooked a breakfast
    of bacon and eggs.  I sat at the kitchen table while he put the
    breakfast in front of me.  I thanked him for cooking it and said
    it was good.  He and I thought nothing of it.  However, from that
    moment on she had decided she didn't like me.  She just could not
    accept the fact that a woman would sit and let a man serve her
    breakfast.  She's 86 yrs. old, and apparently "in her day" no decent
    woman would have sat and let a man serve her food.
    
    Lorna
    

    Suzanne,
    
          What pecentage of women belong to womens organizations?  I
    imagine it's a very small percentage.
    
    
    Bonnie,
    
         I see your previous note as proving my last point which you
    questioned.
    
    All,
    
         I still like my philosophy of our family against the world
    (if need be) instead of women against men.  Do what's best for the
    family sure seems alot better than doing what's better for a bunch
    of people you don't know or care about.
    
                                                Mike
    

    	RE: .45  Mike Wannemacher
    
    	> What percentage of women belong to womens organizations? I
    	> imagine it's a very small percentage.
    
    	What percentage of African-American slaves belonged to the
    	Underground Railroad (for escaping slaves) that helped a number
    	of slaves escape their masters before the Civil War?  A small
    	percentage, I would imagine.  
    
    	Does that imply that the slaves were "content" to be slaves?
    	No, it does not.
    
    	Injustice is wrong whether the vast majority of the oppressed
    	become political activists to effect changes or not.

re: .45
    
>    Do what's best for the family sure seems alot better than doing what's
>    better for a bunch of people you don't know or care about. 
 
    Well, we're sure going to make a lot of progress with people like
    you populating the world.  How can the world improve, how can our
    children's lives improve, unless we look towards, and work towards,
    a better tomorrow for EVERYONE.  I suppose you look forward to any
    female children you have being housewives, and any male children
    you have being breadwinners.....what if they want something different?
    Would you not support that with your parental caring?
    
    -Jody
       

Observation and suggestions from a moderator:

Not only is this discussion getting very heated, we are off the topic. 
If people could keep the following things in mind, I think it would be 
helpful:

	o  Tie in the tangents with the main topic (wage disparity).
	   It is necessary to discuss related topics, but it helps to
	   keep focus on the main topic.

	o  Please avoid "you" and "we" language.  When people use that
	   language, the tone sounds accusatory and aggressive.  
	   Please try to speak in "I" statements.  ("I feel...I 
	   think...I believe...")  By sticking to "I" statements, 
	   nothing gets attributed to anyone who didn't say it
	   herself or himself, and it doesn't sound so accusatory.

	   (This method is used in Valuing Differences courses to
	   avoid fights.)

This is just a suggestion.  Thanks for considering it.


							--Gerry

    I don't buy the comparison between the underground railroad and
    NOW.  Most women who I talk to look at NOW in a negative context.
    I have already said that race and gender are two entirely different
    subjects.  
    
    Jody,  After reading what was written by me in that note I realize
    that it is not what I was thinking.  My apologies.  If you are down
    and out, most of the time it's going to be family and friends who
    offer assistance.  If you go to an organization like NOW, they won't
    touch it unless it serves there agenda.  I am a firm believer that
    you should do whatever you can to help your neighbor.  I did not
    want to sound so negative.  I have two daughters and if they decided
    to be career oriented and not have a family I would be quite saddened
    at that decision.  I would still love them with all my heart, but
    I would be disappointed.  The biggest reason is because I know what
    they would be missing.  To me, God and family are at the forefront
    of my life.  I would feel sorry for them because I know the joys
    which they would miss.  I would expect my son (if I had one) to
    provide for his family and treat them with respect.  If he didn't, 
    I would be disappointed in him.  I would still love him however,
    as I would my daughters.  In both events I would solicit my advice
    whether it be wanted or unwanted (after all, that's my job as a
    parent isn't it?:'))  I hope this makes things a little clearer.  
                          
                                                 Mike

    Re .45, Mike, I'm sorry to see that you read what you wanted to
    read into my .44, and claim that it helps to prove your point. 
    It must be convenient to be able to read whatever you want into
    anything.  This way you never have to be bothered with changing
    your mind or with actually trying to understand what another person
    is trying to say.
    
    I find your audacity, as a man, claiming that most women were content
    to be housewives, ridiculous.  How can you, a man in the last years
    of the 20th century, claim to know how all the women of the last
    three hundred years felt??  Certainly, the literature (novels, poetry,
    journals) and women's history that I have read differs with your
    assessment.
    
    Just because a woman would like to be able to afford to stay home
    and take care of her child when it's small, doesn't mean she wouldn't
    like to have an interesting well-paid career when the child is older.
     And, just because *I* wanted to stay home and take care of my child
    when she was small, doesn't mean that all other women would want
    to, or that all other women even want to have children.  It also
    does not mean that there are not men who would like to have the
    opportunity to stay home and take care of their children when they
    are small.  
    
    In any case, due to our economy today, there are very few men or
    women who can afford to stay home with their children, because two
    pays are needed to support a family.  In this case, since almost
    all women are forced to work whether they want to or not, women
    should have the same opportunities, job-wise and pay-wise, as men.
     The days of the stay at home wife are over and will probably never
    come back.  So, unless you plan on having your daughters marry
    millionaires, I would suggest you make sure they get the same education
    as if they were male.  There are very few females born today who
    will not one day wind up supporting themselves.
    
    I, for one, will be very dissapointed in my daughter if she doesn't
    graduate from college with the ability to get just as high paying
    a job as the average male.  And, I will be even more dissapointed
    in our society if the jobs available to her are not the same as
    the jobs available to males.
    
    Ideally, we would live in a society where both men and women would
    be able to choose whether they wanted to work, or to stay home with
    their kids.  Some men might like to stay home with the kids, but
    until the average woman starts earning as much money as the average
    male this is not feasible.  The point is that life roles should
    not be determined by sex.  If a woman wants to be a Vice President
    of a major corporation, she should have the same opportunity as
    a man.  On the other hand, if a man wants to stay home and take
    care of his kids, he should have the same opportunity to do that
    as a woman.
    
    The traditional family with father as breadwinner and woman as
    caretaker of the house is outdated and sexist, and while it may
    have originated out of necessity, it was perpetuated over the years
    for the sole reason of keeping women second class citizens and making
    sure men got to run the country.
    
    Lorna
     

    >The traditional family with father as breadwinner and woman as
    >caretaker of the house is outdated and sexist, and while it may
    >have originated out of necessity, it was perpetuated over the years
    >for the sole reason of keeping women second class citizens and making
    >sure men got to run the country.
    
    It might be of interest to note that the so-called "traditional"
    family (i.e. one wage earner, wife-at-home-husband-at-work-away-from-
    home) was an invention of the industrial revolution. Before then,(at
    least in the United States, and probably in many western European
    cultures as well) when almost all work was home-centered, BOTH
    husband/wife raised the kids and BOTH husband/wife worked full time
    all the time.
    And, unfortunately, both women and children were considered by the law
    to property, not persons. Judging from the notes, there may be a few
    folks who yearn for those days.
    John
    

    So If my wife decided that she wanted to stay home and me being
    the nice guy I am "allowed" her... that would by your standards
    Lorna, be sexist...or outdated?...
    
    I think statements like that is what makes the whole "family life"
    thing appear negative ...
    
    There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with a woman (or man  for that
    atter) staying home and doing traditional roles (ooo those yucky
    things that I would never let my hulk type friends see me do)....
    
    I cannot see for the life of me what makes it sooooo bad that a
     woman WORKS INSIDE of the home VS. a woman that WORKING outside 
    the home  

    And before anyone (you know who you are) spazzes on me, my wife
    works because she wants to.... not because she has to....
    
    and if she wanted to quit...so what.. 
    
    Geee, I wish I had that sort of "stability"...
    
    :-)
    

    Al, 
    
    I think Lorna and you are in violent agreement. I know that I
    feel that both sexes should have the right to choose to work
    at home (assuming in this day and age that they can aford to :-(.)
    Also that people should treat them honorably and with respect for
    what ever choice they make and what ever job they do to support
    the family. 
    
    The impression that I get from some of this discussion is a message
    that the only place for women is in the home, and that this is 
    the only right and proper sphere for women's endeavor. 
    
    In an ideal world everyone would have equal chances at education
    and we would choose the roles we play in this life freely without
    constraint of the expectations of others or financial pressures.
    
    Bonnie
    

    	RE: .49  Mike Wannemacher
    
    	> Most women who I talk to look at NOW in a negative context.
    
    	You're obviously not talking to the same women that I talk to,
    	*and* your statistical sample is invalid.
    
    	In any case, it doesn't even MATTER whether someone belongs
    	to an organization (or supports a particular political group
    	or not.)  As decisive as *my* particular views are on this
    	subject, *I* don't belong to any women's organizations.  Why?
    	Well, I'm a computer engineer and I'm busy a lot.  Many other
    	people (besides me) have *very* strong political views without
    	belonging to any specific organizations (other than registering
    	with a political party for the purpose of voting, which *I*
    	*DO*, in case anyone is interested.)
    
    	> I have already said that race and gender are two entirely
    	> different subjects.
    
    	Well, I've already offered an explanation about why I refuse to 
    	accept your decision about this (and I built a case based on the 
    	history of constitutional law to support my position.)  
    
    	Since you have offered nothing but conjecture (about the wishes of 
    	billions of women who were not formally polled over the past few 
    	centuries,) you have failed to provide a supportive argument
    	for *your* position.  (And, "laying down the law" with us in
    	a stern tone of voice will not be enough.)  :-)

    	RE: The traditional family being "outdated and/or sexist"...
    
    	While I am certainly in favor of ANYONE (man or woman) staying
    	home to raise children *IF* it is his or her CHOICE (as Lorna,
    	Bonnie and others have mentioned,) I also agree that the *idea*
    	that the *ONLY* valid form of the family is the "traditional"
    	one (where the WOMAN stays at home) is outdated and sexist.
    
    	The problem that some people have with women in any role (other
    	than the traditional one) is the difficulty they seem to have
    	with accepting WOMEN as adult human beings with minds, lives,
    	dreams and DESTINIES of our own!!
    
    	If some of these folks know ONE WOMAN who likes being a fulltime 
    	housewife and mother, then ALL WOMEN ON EARTH (past, present and
    	future) would or SHOULD like it as well (whether we women realize
    	it or not.)

    	If some of these folks know ONE WOMAN who doesn't like to vote,
    	then our country was completely justified in banning ALL WOMEN
    	FROM VOTING UNTIL THE 20TH CENTURY (as was the case.)
    
    	When most people are asked, "What would you wish for all our
    	children in the future," most respond "I want them to be healthy
    	and happy."  What some of these folks wish for future WOMEN
    	is that they fulfill the dreams that THESE FOLKS feel are the
    	best for the future women (and NOT what the future women want
    	for themselves,) since they seem to feel that women should be TOLD 
    	what to do and what to be rather than letting us decide for ourselves.
    
    	This is the problem women have faced for thousands of years,
    	and it has been the most difficult part of our emancipation
    	(e.g., getting our culture to accept the fact that we are human
    	individuals with our OWN dreams and destinies, and are NOT put
    	on this Earth to live out the roles that others have chosen
    	for us against our wills.)

    Re .53, .55, Bonnie & Suzanne, Exactly.  I agree completely.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, thank you all for putting words in my mouth and misinterpreting
    what I say.  Take the blinders off and look at it from my perspective.
    I never said anything about a woman being less of a person or a
    second class citizen.  Nor did I say anything about a woman working
    out of necessity.  This is a fact of life, I know that.  Putting
    the family first and self second is the most noble thing one can
    do.  I'll believe this and that's all I can say.  See ya'll later.
    One more thing.  Please don't get bent because someone doesn't see
    eye to eye with you.  I don't.  Gotta get busy and I can't see anything
    good coming out of this note, it's turning into a riot and that
    is not my intention.  Have a good day all.
    
                                                    Mike

    RE: slasher Noting...
    Gee dont you ges feel all fuzzy inside now?  You won!  RAH!
    
    Instead of explaining, you go off on a tangent and twist words...
    I AM impressed....
    
    Dont bother slashin me, its happened before....
    
    itll happen again....
    
    Wow!  what a nice day outside....

	Some thoughts on some replies...	

	I'd really like to see more of the data used for calculating
	the wages of women and men. As has been stated elsewhere,
	statistics can often be used to show damn near anything.
	I tend to think that the argument offered that women make
	approx. 70 cents to the male dollar might now be outdated.
    	I too saw the figures about female college grads making
    	$1.01 to the male college grads $1.00 but don't remember the
    	source. Nevertheless, as time goes by I fully expect any
    	wage differences between the sexes for the same jobs to
    	disappear.
    	
       	Regarding women and minorities...
	I have always felt that the women's movement has no right
	aligning itself with the civil rights movement of African
	Americans; that to do so, though politically expedient and in
    	retrospect highly effective, is nevertheless an exercise 
    	in intellectually dishonesty. I feel
	that it serves to cheapen, so to speak, the struggle that
	African Americans have had to fight, and exagerates the
	suffering that american women have endured.
 	It is my opinion that no-one, save the american Indian, has been 
    	subjected to the suffering that African Americans have had to face 
    	and overcome and continue to confront today. 
	Sure, as previously noted, women have suffered systematic
	exclusion from opportunities and the right to vote, but white women
	have also enjoyed many benefits via their stature as white americans
    	during the history of this country that other minorities didn't. 

	I also take exception to the proposition that the roles of the 
    	traditional family have been "perpetuated....for the sole reason of 
    	keeping women second class citizens and making sure men got to run 
    	the country." I think that many men and women were so busy
        surviving that they didn't have a lot of time to sit back and consider
	alternatives to their roles in life. Evolution is a slow
	process and I think that has been especially true of the
	evolution of the family. But it may be worth noting that
	this evolution has increased dramatically and I think
	coincidentally with the modern day information explosion.
	
	I also wonder what the family of the next century will
	be like, and what effects it will have on our society.
	Might make for an interesting topic.

    	Al raises a good point somewhat subtly and I'll add my
    	2 cents to it. If anyone is interested in continuing this topic,
    	I'll be glad to do so. But I'm not here to debate, or challenge
    	opinions, demand sources or deal with "straw man" arguments.
    	Nor do I enjoy seeing a noter ganged up on because his
    	misinterpreted (my opinion) views are not agreed with. 
    	Mennotes has been very friendly for the last couple of months.
    	I'd like very much for that trend to continue.
    
    							Hank
    

    
    .53
    
    "The impression that I get from some of this discussion is a message
    that the only place for women is in the home, and that this is 
    the only right and proper sphere for women's endeavor."
    
    Bonnie, I think you forgot to mention the part about being barefoot
    and pregnant also!!
    
    Gene~

     I'd like to see some data as well. I think that for equally qualified
    male and female candidates just getting out of college, things are
    pretty even. As a male, this makes me feel pretty good, since I believe
    in equality.
    
     I suspect that as time goes on, a disparity appears between the wages
    of men and women. If we track the careers of a man and woman who just
    graduate from college, my guess is that the man will be making
    significantly more than his female counterpart within 5-8 years. He
    will go up the ladder further and quicker as well. Now we can sit back
    and analyze why the man did better financially than the woman, and it
    can all make sense. But while we can justify any individual case, it is
    a far longer stretch to justify ALL cases. When you look at a large
    company such as DEC, I would expect to see roughly the same proportion
    of female vice presidents as I saw female engineering students in
    college. There were approximately 5 males to each female, so I'd expect
    to see about 20% of DEC's vice presidents to be female. Trivia- how
    many female VPs do we have? (I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet a
    week's pay it isn't even close to 20%)
    
     What does this mean? Are men simply "better" at being managers than
    women? Or is it the perception of the bosses (mostly white male) that
    men make better managers? I suspect that it is the perception that is
    key. Read "Dress for Success," for the value of perception.
    
     I am not pointing any fingers, or accusing anyone here. I am
    recognizing that despite the feelings that the majority of us have
    regarding equality, it still isn't the norm as practiced by our
    superiors. I can understand how women feel about this. But, I don't
    have any power either, so they can stop beating me up about their lack
    of power.
    
     I can see the points for both sides re: sexism and racism. I don't
    think that women are quite as poorly treated as racial minorities (in
    general), but they certainly aren't treated the same as white men.
    
     Anyone that's ever read anything I've written knows I'm not a
    quiche-eater or anything :-), but I have come to realize what exactly
    many of the women are complaining about. I don't agree with AA, but I
    don't have a better answer yet. I do think the recent court decision
    will be helpful, but I think it will put municipalities and businesses
    in a tough position. They'll really have to be sharp to prevent a
    prosecutable trend from developing.
    
     There's something very basically stupid about the approach of
    corporate leaders in retaining all of the most powerful positions for
    white men. That is the waste of talent that minorities and women
    represent. I'm not saying we should promote women to promote women, but
    for God's sake promote the talented ones. As time goes by and
    competition for the EEC market intensifies, we will have to make most
    efficient use of our talent pool to remain economically powerful. That
    means promoting the most talented and motivated individuals, without
    regard for _what_ they are.
    
     I don't think there's a big conspiracy, men against women, like many
    feminists do. I think it has to do more with subtle perceptions about
    who is appropriate to do what job. This becomes much worse in people
    from the old school. As these elder leaders retire, there will be more
    openings for new talent. Hopefully they will be filled by the best
    talent available, for all of our sake.
    
     So, to relate to the topic, men and women continue to have wage
    disparity. It is probably less than the feminists would have us
    believe, but more than we'd like to think it is (being equal minded
    males and all:-) I think that the wage gap widens as you go up the line
    in time and experience. I think that this gap is slowly closing,
    though.
    
     It sounds to me that women want equality right this minute. Gee- I'd
    like a new Ferrari this minute too, but it's not going to happen
    either. It will take time- how much time? Nobody knows for sure.
    In this age of instant gratification, an open ended process to redress
    the wrongs of our fathers is not good enough- thus protests and marches
    and hatred. Unfortunately, the more virulent the women seem, the
    tighter the men hold onto their power. "Do they think that WE are
    willing to let THEM make US minorities?"
    
     The women's movement is doing the best they can, I guess. I can't help
    but feel that they end up alienating alot of us guys that are in
    general pretty damn reasonable fellows. And this hurts the movement to
    equality. I suspect is has to do with pent up frustration on their
    part. But calling us hate-mongers just aggravates us. I see plenty of
    hatred on the other side as well. "Men are pigs." "Men just want to
    keep women subjugated." "Men hate women." These statements are true
    most infrequently. 
    
     I think there is seriously something askew when the minority voice can
    be used as a bludgeon to attack the majority voice. If a white male
    makes a statement that _could_ be misinterpreted to be racist, everyone
    runs for cover- personnel jumps all over you. But if a minority makes
    the same statement, not an eyelash is batted- and it's damn near
    impossible to get personnel to do anything. I don't like the idea of
    giving one voice any more creedence than another because the voice
    belongs to a member of any one group. Rather, I say let the statements
    speak for themselves.
    
     Well, I imagine I have pissed off just about everybody by now. So be
    it. I've made what I consider to be a waypoint towards a lively and
    useful discussion. Let the games begin.
    
    The Doctah

    
    Interesting note Doctah, pissed me off too, just like you said. :-)
    
    Got to thinking though...
    Seems to me that as we enter the next century, any company that
    continues to practice any kind of discrimination or systematically
    finds a way to exclude some subset of the employee pool is in danger
    of comitting slow corporate suicide. The world is changing, getting
    smaller, and we have to have the resources to compete on a worldwide
    market. To do so successfully we'll need to attract the best people
    from all walks of life and then compensate them accordingly to keep 
    them. 
    
    The one glitch I see is what has been referred to as the mommy
    track and I still have trouble anticipating how that will
    enter the equation.
    
    							Hank

    	RE: .59  Hank Modica
    
    	> Regarding women and minorities...
    	> I have always felt that the women's movement has no right
    	> aligning itself with the civil rights movement of African
    	> Americans; that to do so, though politically expedient and
    	> in retrospect highly effective, is nevertheless an exercise
    	> in intellectual dishonesty.
    
    	The alignment between the women's movement and the civil rights
    	movement was **not** CREATED ARTIFICIALLY by the women's movement.
    
    	The alignment was created by the history of constitutional law.
    	Here's how white men, African-Americans and women "align" up
    	according to American history:
    
    	  	People who could vote,        People who could *NOT*
    		  own property (and who        vote, *NOR* own property
    		  had the best overall         (and who were systematically
    		  educational and employ-      excluded from educational
    		  ment opportunities):         and employment opportunities):

    			White men			Blacks 
    							Women
    
    	Where is the intellectual dishonesty in that?  That is historical
    	fact!

    	> I feel that it serves to cheapen, so to speak, the struggle
    	> that African Americans have had to fight, and exagerates the
    	> suffering that american women have endured.
    
    	Well, personally, I don't feel that *anyone* has the right to
    	pit minorities against each other in some sort of "contest"
    	about which minority group has suffered more (*especially* when
    	this pitting is done by a member of the majority for the purpose
    	of making ONE of the minorities' movements LESS, shall we say,
    	"expedient.")  

    	No one can possibly know who has suffered more.  Both groups
    	had movements that took OVER 100 YEARS to achieve what we have
    	today.  The women's movement started in America in 1848, although
	the European movement started as early as *1789* -- and both
    	groups suffered from the same CONSITUTIONAL INJUSTICES!
    
    	What right do *you* have to make value judgments and/or comparisons
    	of other peoples' experiences and/or pain due to oppression?
    
    	> Sure, as previously noted, women have suffered systematic
    	> exclusion from opportunities and the right to vote, but white
    	> women have also enjoyed many benefits via their stature as
    	> white americans during the history of this country that other
    	> minorities didn't.
    
    	Obviously, you have overestimated the degree of "benefits" involved
    	with being the "property" of men who have status.  In any case,
    	it isn't your place to judge how women feel about OUR experiences
    	(or how OUR feelings compare to the feelings of others about
    	whom you are ALSO not in a position to judge.)

    	RE: .61  The Doctah Levesque
    
 	> It sounds to me that women want equality right this minute.
    
    	Well, we've been fighting for it (first in Europe, then here)
    	for over 200 years now, so pardon us if we're not thrilled at
    	the prospect of waiting another several hundred years to reach
    	our goal!  :-}
    
    	> I can't help but feel that they [the women's movement] end
    	> up alienating alot of us guys that are in general pretty
    	> damn reasonable fellows. 
    
    	Spontaneous eruptions of some white males' backlash (as evidenced
    	by some notes in 350 and 351) end up alienating a lot of women, too.
    	Not that some of the men here ever appear concerned about that.
    
    	> If a white male makes a statement that _could_ be misinterpreted
	> to be racist, everyone runs for cover...  If a minority makes
    	> the same statement, not an eyelash is batted...
    
    	That's not what happens in real life, of course.
    
    	In REAL life, a woman makes an offhand statement (such as "that
    	was so white male of him") -- the meaning of which was probably
    	NOTHING SIGNIFICANT TO HER IN THE SLIGHTEST -- and a man who
    	overhears it is so deeply appalled that he feels compelled to
    	tell his shocking story to the Notes World (which starts an
    	avalanche of notes where men wail to the heavens about how they
    	are blamed for everything, even though the woman's remarks didn't
    	mention blame even ONCE!)
    
    	Perhaps progress would be somewhat faster if some white males
    	weren't so doggone quick on the hot button in response to the
    	remote (possible) suggestion that a woman *might* be thinking
    	negatively about how women are treated in the world.  Y'know?

    	RE: .62  Hank Modica
    
    	> Seems to me that as we enter the next century, any company
    	> that continues to practice any kind of discrimination or 
    	> systematically finds a way to exclude some subset of the 
    	> employee pool is in danger of comitting slow corporate suicide.
    
    	Well put!  I agree.
    

    	RE: .63 You're reply to me contained the following... 

	-------------------------------------------------------------------
       	>Well, personally, I don't feel that *anyone* has the right to    <
    	>pit minorities against each other in some sort of "contest"      <

    	>No one can possibly know who has suffered more.		  < 

    	>What right do *you* have to make value judgments and/or comparisons <
    	>of other peoples' experiences and/or pain due to oppression?        <
    
	>Obviously you have overestimated the degree of "benefits" involved..<

    	>In any case, it isn't your place to judge how women feel about      <
	>OUR experiences (or how OUR feelings compare to the feelings of     <
	>others about whom you are ALSO not in a position to judge.)         <
 	----------------------------------------------------------------------

	I've a quandary. I'd hoped to join a friendly discussion about
	the topic and it's relative tangents. I carefully used phrases like
	"I feel" or "it is my opinion" in an effort to present my views
	in as friendly a manner as possible. And what do I find?
	I find myself presented with a reply that argues 
	positions I did not take, misrepresents what I expressed, 
	questions rights I did not exercise, and finally tells me my place. 

	Why Suzanne?

								Hank 	 
	

    I can't stay out of this fun.  Ms. Conlan, It's so nice how you can
    blow off whatever anyone else says because it does not coincide
    with what you say.  You are the epitome of the womans movement.
    Don't admit to or agree with anything the other side says.  It's
    unbelievable.  You sa ONE PERSON (meaning one woman) doesn't like
    the womans movement, that's crap!  It is a majority of the women
    who have a great deal of problems with the womens movement.  Yes,
    they agree with some parts, as do I.  But most of them I know (more
    than just a handful) do not want to be associates with the movement
    because they disagree with more than they agree with.  
    
    You know, I didn't know wome couldn't own property.  Is this really
    true?  Why?  I thought if you had the money (man or woman) you could
    have the land.  
     
                                                  Have a good day,
    
                                                  Mike
    
    P.S.  Remember-equal rights means dragging yourself and a 100 lb
    backpack through rice patties and getting shot at.
    
    
    
                                               

Thanks for the levity Mike (or is it Oog Oog)
    
                                                 Mike

    	RE: .66  The Doctah
    
    	Well, it's been awhile since I've seen so much overt taunting
    	coming from a grown up, but I'll make a quick response anyway.
    	
    	Now, listen closely (and stop fidgeting!!)
    
    	> Oh, then please tell us what happens "in real life," oh goddess
    	> of knowledge.... It is most fortunate that women would never,
    	> ever engage in something so "petty." They'd never complain
    	> about a guy holding a door open for them...
    
    	The vast majority of the notes I've seen on this subject sprang
    	from some male **CLAIMING** that women go bezerk when doors
    	are opened for them (with the women responding that WE DO
   	NOT go bezerk in that situation, and explaining how they really
    	feel about it) because it has become a favorite stereotype of
    	the less-sensitive-type male set.
    
    	Oh well.  When it's all over, those same men "remember" the
    	incident as another case of "women going bezerk because some
    	guy opened a door for them" (because they didn't hear a word
    	we said.) 
    
    	That's how it seems to go in these kinds of discussions.
    
    	Unfortunately.

    	RE: .67 Hank Modica
    
    	Saying "I feel" in front of statements that call a factual group
    	alignment "intellectual dishonesty" does not make it "OK."
    
    	Please explain to me why you feel it is fine for you to sit
    	in judgment on the feelings of billions of women and minorities
    	(placing comparisons about the "value" attached to each group's
    	suffering, rather than simply agreeing that their lack of rights
    	was unfair.)
    
    	Get past the language I used for a minute, and ask yourself
    	what it is you expect of women?  Should we be forced to explain
    	our pain to you in depth so that you "accept" that we have suffered
    	enough to deserve to be grouped with other minorities the way
    	we always have?  
    
    	(Do we need to prove to white men that we have suffered enough to
    	deserve to express our movement in the way WE see fit, without
    	needing "white male" approval of how we align ourselves?)

    	>What right do *you* have to make value judgments and/or comparisons <
    	>of other peoples' experiences and/or pain due to oppression?        <
    
     Every right in the world. Just like we can make value judgements about
    what the best method of interconnect for high pin count ceramic
    packages to PCBs is. Everyone is entitled to make value judgements
    about anything they desire, and they have the right to state their
    opinions. You don't have to like how people feel or what their opinions
    are. 
    
     The Doctah

>    	Well, it's been awhile since I've seen so much overt taunting
>    	coming from a grown up, but I'll make a quick response anyway.
    
    Hey- at least I was up front about it. :-)
    
    re: door opening
    
     It was women who said that males opening doors for women is a "power
    play" and an attempt for men to dominate women. It was one of the first
    big brouhahas in =wn= that I got involved in. And plenty of women were
    worked up over it.
    
    re: hearing what you want to hear, remembering what you want...etc
    
     Suzanne, I think that you are as guilty of this practice as anyone
    else I've ever met. I think that you rarely stop sharpening your claws
    long enough to _listen_ to what is being said. It seems like you only
    listen for key phrases that you can pounce upon- and do not examine
    things in context. That said, I'd also like to say that you often make
    valid points in spite of this. You are sometimes justified in your
    attacks. But not always. And sometimes you do the same things you
    complain about us doing. I'm not up to a war with you about this. These
    are just my opinions and observations, though they do seem to be shared
    by a number of other _people_ (men & women). 
    
    The Doctah

    	RE: .73 The Doctah
    
    	>> What right do *you* have to make value judgments and/or
    	>> comparisons of other peoples' experiences and/or pain due
    	>> to oppression?
    
    	> Every right in the world... Everyone is entitled to make value
    	> judgments about anything they desire, and they have the right
    	> to state their opinions.
    
    	GREAT!  That includes me (and the entire women's movement),
    	as well!!!  Thank you!
    
    	My remarks above were originally in response to a statement
    	made by Hank Modica that said that the women's movement has
    	"NO RIGHT" to align ourselves with African Americans.  According
    	to you, and I agree, we have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to do
    	EXACTLY THAT!!!
    
    	That's what I was trying to say!

    re .69, Mike-
    
    > I can't stay out of this fun.  Ms. Conlan, It's so nice how you can
    > blow off whatever anyone else says because it does not coincide
    > with what you say.  You are the epitome of the womans movement.
    > Don't admit to or agree with anything the other side says.
    
    As usual, Mike again has failed to read what she said.  And mis-spelled
    her name.  Here, Suzanne actually DID agree with her opponent.
    
    .65>                           -< Agreed! >-
    >	> Seems to me that as we enter the next century, any company
    >	> that continues to practice any kind of discrimination or 
    >	> systematically finds a way to exclude some subset of the 
    >	> employee pool is in danger of comitting slow corporate suicide.
    >
    >	Well put!  I agree.
    
    Mike, do you ever wonder why 5-10 people argue these topics with you?
    When you completely miss the FACT that Suzanne has agreed with some
    people in some cases, in order to make your accusations against her,
    you show us your own blinders.  Try taking them off...
    
    DougO

    	RE: The Doctah
    
    	> re: door opening
    	> It was women who said that males opening doors for women is
    	> a "power play" and an attempt for men to dominate women. 
   	> It was one of the first big brouhahas in =wn= that I got involved
    	> in.  And plenty of women were worked up over it.
    
    	Women were "worked up" over the fact that we keep being accused
    	of going berzerk when guys open doors for us, when in fact we
    	don't!!!!
    
    	Go back and read it (and see what *I* said about it!)  Along
    	with the vast majority of other women in the conference, I said
    	that I say "Thank you!" when guys open doors for me (and I open
    	doors for other people as often as I find the opportunity.)
    
    	The part about the "power play" was explained (so that we could
    	discuss women's original concern about this particular behavior.)
    	However, the VAST MAJORITY of us just thank people who open
    	doors (unless they make a huge display out of it.) 
    
    	That's what the brouhaha was about (ask anyone in =wn=, or better
    	yet, go back and read it yourself.)  
    
    	See, I told you that some men still didn't listen to what was
    	really being said.  You're obviously one of those that didn't.
    
    	> I think that you rarely stops sharpening your claws long enough
    	> to _listen_ to what is being said.
    
    	I have done NOTHING BUT listen to this conference for the past
    	several months (and have not entered a single note here until
    	this week, although I read it every day that there are any entries
    	in it.)  Your generalization shows a lack of attention on your
    	part.
    
    	> I'm not up to a war with you about this.
    
    	It isn't a war.  You made some comments, and I responded (which
    	was my right.)  It's only a war if you make it one.

    Doug,  If you have to point out a misspelling to discredit a point I
    must say it's a very weak tactic.  I'm sure I could go over some
    of your notes and act as a grammer teacher, but chose not to.  Also
    I have had 6 off line letters who chose not to get into the discussion
    who support my point of view and that is why I reentered the note.
    I also am amused.  Your little digs are quite comical to me anymore
    although I must say that they do lack substance.  
    
    Suzanne,  Yes women have suffered as have men.  The majority of
    the times a child custody case comes up a man suffers.  Both
    financially and emotionally.  As one example.
      
    
    General: I for one, am glad men and women aren't treated the same
    (no not because I'm part of the so called "majority", but because
    it would be a pretty crappy world if everyone was the same.  Genders
    make us different from physiological makeup to emotional makeup.
    Saying it isn't so doesn't make it go away.  People have written
    of the progress which has been made.  Take a look around at what
    progress has given us.  Most womens organizations have done alot
    (whether intentionally or unintentionally) to tear down the family
    unit by pushing the idea that women don't need men.  I, as a man,
    am not afraid to say that I need my wife.  It's really not that
    hard.    
    
                                                   

    Mike, your misspelling someone's name is merely discourteous. 
    Discrediting the things you say doesn't require our recognition
    that you are not only wrong, but rude at the same time; however,
    I am of the hopeful opinion that even you can be courteous if
    you choose to be.  I will continue to gently point out the errors
    of your ways, whenever I can muster the patience.

    As before (351.22 and 351.25) your latest (351.79) ignores the 
    point I presented; you accused Suzanne of NEVER agreeing with anybody,
    when her most recent note clearly DID agree with someone.  I observed
    that you obviously didn't read what she wrote...your misspelling, quite
    plainly, was not the point.  You didn't read what *I* wrote, either, or 
    your level of reading comprehension is very low.  I'm glad you're
    amused, too...lots of people are indeed laughing.

    DougO
    

    	RE: .78 Mike Wannemacher
    
    	> Suzanne, Yes women have suffered as have men.
    
    	Mike, what I have been specifically trying to point out to others
    	here is that there is NO POINT to rate/compare degrees of
    	suffering.
    
	All I've tried to talk about is RIGHTS!  Women were denied the
    	right to vote, and were (past tense) denied the right to own
    	property, and have been systematically excluded (along with
    	other minorities) from educational and employment opportunities.
    	This is a matter of indisputable history.
    
    	This country was BUILT on the idea of rights, but it took women
    	until the 20th century to get any!  That was WRONG (and we are
    	still fighting the lack of opportunities that has RESULTED from
    	this appalling oversight.)
    
    	At no time in this discussion have I claimed to know the degree
    	to which any specific group has suffered (including white men,)
    	nor do I care to speculate.  What I'm mainly interested in is
    	RIGHTS and OPPORTUNUTIES for women and minorities (and *not*
    	a rating/comparison of the degrees that any group has suffered.)
    
    	Are we clear on that point now?  Thank you.
    
    	(P.S. Thanks very much for the earlier compliment about my being the
    	"epitome" of the women's movement!!)  If only it were true!
     
    	Also, in regards to the support that the women's movement has
    	received...  The majority of women (including ME) may not formally
    	belong to women's organizations, but I think that women in general
    	have VOTED WITH OUR FEET about women's rights by joining the
    	workforce by the tens of millions (and by entering into so many
    	different traditionally male occupations.)
    
    	You also claim that the women's movement has broken up the family
    	unit by influencing women against men.  If so few women support
    	the women's movement, how do you claim that the movement was
    	able to influence so many women?

     FWIW- I was listening, though that won't change your opinion.
    
>    	See, I told you that some men still didn't listen to what was
>    	really being said.  
    
    Yeah, and some women are the same way. Makes for a lively discussion,
    eh?
    
>    You're obviously one of those that didn't.
    
    Alas, such things are obvious only to those with closed minds.
    
>    	It isn't a war.  You made some comments, and I responded (which
>    	was my right.)  It's only a war if you make it one.
    
    Oh, I forgot. Only I can make a war. Must be because I'm a white male.
    :-)
    
    The Doctah
                            

    	RE: .83  The Doctah
    
    	>> You're obviously one of those that didn't [listen].

    	> Alas, such things are obvious only to those with closed minds.
    
    	Stop talking in slogans, Mark, and try going back to READ what
    	was actually said in the =wn= discussion about door opening
    	(and you'll see that the majority of the arguments came from
    	fighting off the *stereotype* about "women going berzerk when
   	a guy opens a door.")
    
    	If I can find what I wrote, I'll make a copy for you.  (I can
    	guarantee you that my remarks were about how I DO NOT MIND when
    	someone opens a door for me.)
    
    	That's what really happened, whether you want to acknowledge
    	it or not.
    
    	> Oh, I forgot. Only I can make a war. Must be because I'm a
    	> white male.  :-)
    
    	More snide comments and taunting, eh?  Well, continue on, if
    	it pleases you.

	re: .75  By S. Conlon

>    	My remarks above were originally in response to a statement
>    	made by Hank Modica that said that the women's movement has
>    	"NO RIGHT" to align ourselves with African Americans.  According
>    	to you, and I agree, we have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to do
>    	EXACTLY THAT!!!

	I take it that if I'd used the phrase "no business" instead
	that some of this flak wouldn't be flying. 	

	Suzanne, you told me in . 72 to get past the language you were
	using and yet you conveniently zeroed in on a two word phrase,
	used it out of context (or worse, couldn't comprehend what I was
	trying to convey in that paragraph) and have distorted my
	stance. I see now I should have chosen a different phrase.
	But at the time I was just trying to offer my opinion on
	that subject. I didn't realize my words would be used
	against me in such a gross distortion of my views. 

	I still read =wn=; great conference, I've learned a lot there.
	I remember a note by someone who wondered out loud to the
	community about why certain people would go in there for what appears
	to be no other purpose than to discredit their feelings, derail
	discussions, attack what they say, and generally be nothing more 
	than contentious. I remembered that note while reading *some*
	of the replies to this topic. And you know, I wonder the same
   	thing about mennotes sometimes.   

	As I said before, the last few months, for whatever reason, 
        mennotes has been a real friendly place to participate. 
    	No real arguments, nothing nasty, very supportive place for
    	those who like to note here. I hope that doesn't change.

    
    							Hank
                                                            

I'm sorry to see that folks didn't follow Gerry's sage advice earlier - the
last 20 or more replies to this topic have been largely the "sticking out
of tongues", which I consider inappropriate behavior for all concerned.

I've set this topic /NOWRITE for a while - I will likely return a number of
replies to their authors and see if I can get this discussion back on
a rational track.

It's my observation that questioning the motives of your opponents is never
a way to win converts.

					Steve

Here are some thoughts on compared suffering:

I was attending an all-day lesbian, gay, and bisexual training for 
Corporate EEO/AA managers late last month.  During the day, we showed 
the "Pink Triangles."

Pink triangles are the insignias that the Nazis placed on the uniforms of 
gay men in the concentration camps of Germany.  Approximately 500,000 
gay men were killed in the camps.  (Fine.  I'll concede that the 
Jewish people "suffered more."  No debate here.)  However, unlike the 
Jewish prisoners, many of the gay men, upon liberation of the camps by 
the Allied Forces, were sent back to jail because the forces felt 
that they were actually criminals (sodomy is against the law).  During 
liberation of the camps, gay men frantically searched for other 
insignias to put on their uniforms so that they would not have to 
spend more time in jail.

It is also known that some of the higher up officials in Nazi Germany
were closeted (not openly acknowledged) gay men.  (I can provide this
information later; I would have to look it up.)  It has been common
throughout history that closeted gay men take part in the destruction
of other gay people. 

Lesbianism was not a crime, but it was a crime against the state not 
to be married and not to conceive children.  "Fallen women," such as 
prostitutes and lesbians and homeless women were sent to the camps 
with black triangles placed on their uniforms.

The movie also chronicles how, during the Middle Ages, lesbians and
gay men were accused of being witches and were burned at the stake.
Faggots--bundles of sticks--were used to burn us; since most people
considered us to be good kindling, the name stuck. 

As for modern times, the movie showed the McCarthy hearings, during 
which, lesbians and gay men were black listed.  They losted their 
jobs, homes, and reputations.  Once again, one of the ring-leaders of 
the McCarthy purgings of gay men, lawyer Roy Cohn, was a closeted gay 
man.

At the end of the film, we began to discuss the current problem of gay 
bashing.  (For instance, in New York City, reported gay bashing has 
risen 300% since 1984.  In many instances, the attackers yelled out 
something to do with AIDS before beating or killing their victims.) 

At this point, one African American man stood up and said that he had 
never taken the gay rights movement seriously because he didn't think 
that gay people suffered.  After watching the movie and listening to 
10 of us talk, he had decided that we had.

Does this mean that gay people have suffered more than African 
Americans?  No.  Does the fact that African Americans have suffered 
the most negate the fact that other groups of people are dealing with 
serious suffering?  No.

During the first Gay Awareness Day at Digital (last Monday at the 
Westfield manufacturing plant), I participated in a panel discussion 
about gay issues in the workplace.  One African American man stood up 
and said, "I don't think that it is fair to equate sex to race.  It's 
not the same thing."

An African American lesbian on the panel answered his concern.  She 
said that she has experienced prejudice in response to three different 
aspects of her being: being a woman, an African American, and a 
lesbian.  She said that the three things are very different, and that 
the panel did not mean to suggest that the experiences were 
"equivalent."  She said that she too hates it when someone says or 
implies, "I'm gay, so I know what it is like to be Black."  

No, gay people do not know what it is like to be African American, but
they do know what it is like to be painted as a "lesser" human being
by another group of people. She said that, in her experience, what
being gay and African American _did_ have in common was the "ugliness"
of the prejudice, the similar dynamic of systematically making a whole
group of people "lesser" human beings. She said that that was her
experience, that the dynamics of prejudice are similar, even if the
actual experience of being an African American was very different than
that of being gay. 

In response to the person who thought that someone "wants change 
immediately," I have to say that I do not have the right to judge a 
group of people for their desire for immediate liberty.  Here is a 
passage from Dr. Martin Luthor King's "Letter from the Birmingham City 
Jail," in response to white ministers asking him to stop his civil 
disobediences in pursuit of civil rights for African Americans:

"...I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and 
Jewish brothers.  First, I must confess that over the last few years I 
have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate.  I have almost 
reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling 
block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's 
Councilor or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more 
devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which 
is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of 
justice; who constantly says, 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, 
but I can't agree with your methods of direct action'; who 
paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's 
freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advised the 
Negro to wait until a more convenient season.'  Shallow understanding 
from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute 
misunderstanding from people of ill will.  Lukewarm acceptance is much 
more bewildering than outright rejection...."

In my opinion, that is what happens often when SAWM talk to women and 
to minorities (and when women and minorities bicker as to who has 
suffered the most); we are trying to set "the timetable for someone 
else's freedom."  

For most strate, white families, things in America are better than 
they were 10 years ago.  Lots more patriotism, lots more pride, a 
renewed interest in "family values," more money to be made in a better 
economy, and so forth.  Some will also point to the "progress" we have 
made since the Sixties: women graduates are earning the same (slightly 
more) than male graduates, there are more women in positions of power 
than there were 10 years ago, and so forth.

I think that there is some "order" in America, and people don't want 
the "tension" involved in taking a look at some work that still needs 
to be done if we are ever going to feel that America is "just" for all 
its citizens.  Women and minorities try to deliver the message to 
strate, white males, and what do we most often get back?  "Statistics 
say that everything is fine, you should be happy." "Why is it that you 
are demanding immediate change?"  "I agree with your goals, but I 
can't agree with your methods."

The reaction to Suzanne has been interesting as has been her reaction 
to this group (don't forget to look at the whole mn/wn history and 
herstory before judging).  Would use the same methods as Suzanne?  No, 
I have a different style.  Do I understand her anger (or her 
"intensity" in her noting style)?  Yes, I think I can relate to it.  I 
understand what it is like to try to report to someone that I am 
suffering that that there is something that that other person can do 
about it, and I get back, "Statistics show that everything is okay, 
why do you demand immediate change, pull in your claws."  It hurts, 
and fighting back with intense notes and angry tones is 
understandable. 

The greater suffering of women doesn't negate any suffering of men.  
The greater earnings of women graduates does not erase the face that, 
after a certain level of management (glass ceiling), there are 90% 
strate-appearing white men.   The urgency and passion and anger of 
women and minority groups does not mean that they are "blaming" 
anyone.  We don't have to turn white men or NOW or anyone else into 
"bad folks" in order to fight suffering; it doesn't have to be a black 
and white situation.

But my message to strate-appearing white men is that, for the most 
part, you aren't listening to the message of women and minorities: 
unjust things are still happening in this country, and we're pissed.  
Like the white clergymen to Dr. King, we get statistics proving our 
feelings wrong and we get pleas to slow down.  Just don't be surprised 
if you get heated messages from feminists, gay people, and African 
Americans,  just like the clergymen got a heated letter from Dr. King. 
 
A few exceptions aside, you aren't listening to us...


							--Ger

First of all, I want people to know that it was a coincidence of timing that
caused Gerry's .87 to appear after I wrote .86 announcing the topic
as write-locked.  I hadn't done that when Gerry started writing his note.

As I look back over the past thirty or more replies, I see a lot of
personal attacks from several different participants.  Hidden under these
are some really interesting thoughts, but it's difficult to notice them when
your eyes see red.

I am going to reopen this topic, and I am NOT going to hide or delete any
notes.  I am going to ask the following of everyone:

	1.  Please try to get back to the topic of wage parity.

	2.  DO NOT put words in other people's mouths.  If you don't
	    understand what someone says, ask for a clarification.

	3.  Do not question the motives of others.  They undoubtedly feel
	    they are just as much in the right as you do.

	4.  Speak for yourself.  Avoid stating or implying that you
	    are the sole representative of some larger group (and I've
	    seen a lot of that here.)

	5.  Accept the idea that not everyone in this world shares your
	    opinion, and that no matter how convinced you are that you
	    are right, it may well be impossible to convince everyone
	    else.

	6.  Say your piece.  Once.

I want everyone to know that the moderators of MENNOTES encourage active and
positive discussion of topics from all points of view.  But at the same time
we discourage ad hominem attacks and offensive behavior.  I hope that this
is the last I need to say on this subject, and that people will remain
calm and rational.

Thanks for your cooperation.

					Steve

    	RE: .85 Hank Modica
    
    	> I take it that if I'd used the phrase "no business" instead
    	> [of "no right"] that some of this flak wouldn't be flying.
    
    	Well, that's partly true since the main area that I've been
    	trying to discuss has been "rights," but not entirely true
    	because I had objections to a long list of remarks that you
    	made (and not merely to those two words.)  I would have requoted
    	every phrase to which I objected a few more times, but it would
    	have been very time-consuming to do that.

    	> ...you conveniently zeroed in on a two word phrase, used it
    	> out of context (or worse, couldn't comprehend what I was
    	> trying to convey in that paragraph) and have distorted my
    	> stance.
    
    	Hank, I understood what you were trying to convey only too well.
    	You said that you felt that the women's movement had no right
    	(or no business, if you prefer) to align ourselves with the
    	civil rights movement because you feel that African Americans
    	have suffered more than white women have suffered.
    
    	Your remarks amounted to what I would consider an extremely
    	unfair criticism of the women's movement, to which I felt 
    	compelled to address.  
    
    	Although your note often used the words "I feel" and "in my opinion," 
    	you said that the practice of the women's movement aligning itself 
    	to the civil rights movement was an exercise in intellectual 
    	dishonesty (in spite of the fact that the two groups have aligned 
    	themselves because of the undisputed history of constitutional law 
    	that has caused people of both groups to be denied many of the same
    	rights in much the same way.)  That's an opinion, and not a
    	"feeling," so it is subject to debate.
    
    	> But at the time I was just trying to offer my opinion on that
    	> subject.  I didn't realize my words would be used against
    	> me in such a gross distortion of my views.
    
    	At the time, *I* was merely trying to debate that opinion with
    	you, which is my right.  I have serious disagreements with what
    	you said, and I have every right in the world to object to what
    	you said and to explain why.
    
    	I would like to see you address my actual objections (instead
    	of discussing my personality and/or noting style) so that we can 
    	discuss these issues.  So far, I don't feel that you have
    	directly addressed a single one of my objections as originally 
    	stated.  I have to wonder why you haven't.
    
    	Are you willing to debate your opinions as stated?  If not,
    	why not?

    	RE: .87  Ger Fisher
    
    	Wonderful note, Ger!
    
    	> At this point, one African American man stood up and said
    	> that he had never taken the gay rights movement seriously
    	> because he didn't think that gay people suffered.  After
    	> watching the movie and listening to 10 of us talk, he had
    	> decided that we had.
    
    	It's great that he was able to experience that bit of growth
    	by listening (operative word) to what you all said.  What
    	often happens to women's groups is that people outside the
    	group become *angry* when they hear about how women have
    	suffered (causing the others to invalidate the women's experiences
	by telling the group that their suffering is not as extensive
    	as some other group's.) 
    
    	Obviously, the opportunities for growth/understanding/progress
    	become very slim at that point (which is why some/many women
    	hesistate to even *discuss* our feelings/suffering with those
    	others that we feel are likely to dismiss or discount our
    	experiences in an insensitive way.  It is much safer to stick to
    	discussing rights.
    
    	> I understand what it is like to try to report to someone that
    	> I am suffering and that there is something that that other
    	> person can do about it, and I get back, "Statistics show that
    	> everything is okay, why do you demand immediate change, pull
    	> in your claws."  It hurts, and fighting back with intense
    	> notes and angry tones is understandable.
    
    	It is also understandable that persons who represent the status
    	quo will feel compelled to say and do things that serve to "slow
    	down" movements that effect change for disadvantaged groups
    	(even if they don't always realize that they are doing this.)
    
    	It is a frustrating experience to observe this process.
    
    	> But my message to strate-appearing white men is that, for
    	> the most part, you aren't listening to the message of women
    	> and minorities:  unjust things are still happening in this
    	> country, and we're pissed.
    
    	> Like the white clergymen to Dr. King [referenced earlier in
    	> your reply], we get statistics proving our feelings wrong
    	> and we get pleas to slow down.
    
    	> Just don't be surprised if you get heated messages from
    	> feminists, gay people, and African Americans, just like the
    	> clergymen got a heated letter from Dr. King.
    
    	> A few exceptions aside, you aren't listening to us...
    
    	Amen, Ger.  Thanks very much for putting these thoughts in such
    	an exceptionally articulate way!!!

Just for the record:  I have lots of mixed thoughts about what has
been going on in this note.  I'm not sure if a lot of it has been
constructive. I need to keep thinking on it, so I would appreciate it
if folks wouldn't put me completely on one side of a fence or the
other on any given issue.  The more I look at differences, the fewer
times I seem to come up with one wonderful answer to any given issue. 
Life is complex... 

I'm doing some heavy thinking about what MENNOTES could possibly mean 
as a "safe space" for men, and I have a feeling that some people might 
not like some of the conclusions that I think I will be coming up 
with.  More on that later....

As for wage parity, I don't have a lot of strong feelings about it.  I
guess I accept the idea that if you add up all the money made by all
working men and by all working women, regardless of historical reasons
as to "why," the pile of money made by men will be larger than the
pile made by women (.70 to the dollar). 

I also find it easy to believe that women college graduates make
more than male college graduates, especially since a friend of mine 
pointed out that Affirmative Action is the indirect cause of this.  
When I look at it like this, it makes sense: the government says that 
a company must make quotas.  A company, since it _has_ to hire women,
want to hire the best, and, if sexist and threatened, will want to
only do this at the entry level.  Bidding wars happen over the best
women college candidates.  (This is not theory.  A friend of mine in
VMS said that ZKO lost its bids for all women and most minority
candidates coming out of college because the other companies were
offering so much more money. We lost _all_ women who interviewed
in one day for VMS.) The result: women college grads make 1.01 and
male grads make 1.00. 

But what happens 3 years down the road?  How about 5 or 10 years down
the road?  Women may be making good bucks in the entry level so that a
company can look good with AA statistics to be shown to the
government, but it is still strate-appearing white men who are in the
majority of managerial positions (the people who control raises and
promotions). 

My big concern, when talking about wage parity, is the 
glass ceiling.  What can a company do to allow the best and brightest 
women and minority candidates advance into the strate-appearing, white 
male upper echilon of a company?  Granted, there are historical 
reasons why women weren't at the top of companies years ago, but we 
have qualified and talented women now who can do that.  Why aren't 
they rising to the level of their ability at the same rate that men do 
once you get past a certain managerial level in the company?



						--Ger

     Feminists and the majority of reasonable people would like to see
    equal rights immediately. As has been stated, women have been fighting
    for equal rights for some time now. Unfortunately, the people who
    monopolize power are in no particular hurry to give it up. What I see
    happening is that people who are not in power are being blamed and
    attacked as if they had power, by virtue of their demographic makeup.
    
     The majority of the power in this country is in the hands of white
    men. This does not meen that all white men have power. In the us vs.
    them attitude that many minorities have, those of us without power are
    lumped together with those who do. We are chastised, hated, etc,
    because we are white men, not because we actually DID anything. Then,
    when all of the nastiness has ended, we are somehow supposed to jump on
    the bandwagon for equal rights and be all palsy walsy with ther very
    people who've just spit their venom at us. Sounds pretty likely to me.
    
     Since the vast majority of us are reasonable people, it would be far
    easier to get us on "your side" by reasoning with us than by attacking
    us. 
    
     Let me further state that i think that by and large the complaints of
    women and minorities are largely justified, but they are directed at
    the wrong people. Complaining to white men who have no power won't help
    if you alienate them in the process. Complaining to white men with
    power won't help either- they've got the power, why give it up? The
    correct approach is to bring as many people together as possible to
    bear upon the very few who happen to have all the damn power.
    Minorities have done this to an extent, but have methodically excluded
    white men from this.
    
     This is understandable. When a minority sees a white man, they see an
    oppressor. While the majority of oppressors may be white men, the
    majority of white men are NOT oppressors.
    
     Now all the minorities can continue down the path they've headed and
    maybe they'll eventually get to equality. Maybe they won't. Maybe
    there's no such thing as true equality. Nobody really knows.  I think
    that it will take far longer for women and minorities to reach equality
    as long as they continue to place all white men in an adversarial
    position.
    
     There are some men who have joined the cause despite being initially
    devalued due to their membership in the majority. Often these men find
    acceptance (to a degree) in the feminist or minority movements. I
    admire these guys, since they have the wherewithal to endure the crap
    and fight for an ideal which affects others more than themselves.
    
     Yeah, this probably sounds like alot of bellyaching from a man in the
    majority. It's not supposed to. I don't claim to have suffered any more
    than anyone else, or as much as anyone else, or anything like that. I
    am just trying to say that things would be alot easier all around if
    all people were not judged by their sex or color etc, and that the
    so-called equality movements are no better in this regard than anyone
    else. They have the same biases and preconceived notions as the hated
    "white males" but aren't as subject to abuse about it, since they have
    less power (and hence ways for the biases to appear).
    
    The Doctah

    RE: THE TOPIC OF WHOS SUFFERED MORE-It doesn't really matter whos
    sufferd more or less.  The fact remains that race and gender are
    two seperate criteria.  The problems have to be addressed seperately
    because the circumstances are not the same.  My grandfather was
    a boy when Hitler was trying to take over the world.  With a name
    like Wannemacher you can bet that he wasn't the most popular kid
    on the block.
    
    RE: WAGE PARITY-I was passed over for a position because a woman
    had to be hired for the job.  How do I know this?  Because the hiring
    manager is a friend of mine (from work) and she said while I was
    more qualified and my performance was better than the other persons,
    her manager told her she needed to hire a woman.  Now let's look
    at who suffered.  1) me  2) My wife, as she stays at home with the
    children 3) my 2 year old daughter 4) my 4 month old daughter 5)
    the company and hiring organization for not getting the best employee
    for the job.
    
    RE: GENERAL- I, for one would like to live in a place where everyone
    looks out for one another and we don't have to worry about a person
    being judged on the color of there skin or for that matter, the
    job that they do.  The way our economy is set up is pretty nutty
    when you think about it.  The people who work to help and protect
    us (police, firefighters, nurses, etc) get penuts while people who
    play games and play music are multimillionaires.  You can rest assured
    that if there was an emergency in the life of one of the elite,
    they would expect the firefighter or police officer to be there
    in a moments notice.  The most peaceful people I have had a pleasure 
    to associate with are the Amish.  People are not judged, everyone 
    works to help the other and to provide the necessities for everyone.  
    They really don't give a darn about money.  While it may be going
    back in time, they sure don't have the problems that we in the
    "advanced" society have.  Well, enough rambling.
    
                                                   Mike
    

    	RE: .92  The Doctah
    
    	Since you seem to have attributed a number of "feelings" and
    	"opinions" to people in groups to which you do not belong, I
    	think it only fair that a member of one of those groups respond
    	to you (since your characterization of my group's feelings does
    	not fit my feelings, nor the feelings of most of the people
    	I know in my group.)  Although I can't speak for everyone
    	in any of the named groups, I can certainly speak for myself 
    	and my position as a member of one group.
    
    	> In the us vs. them attitude that many minorities have, those
    	> of us without power are lumped together with those who do.
    	> We are chastised, hated, etc, because we are white men, not
    	> because we actually DID anything.
    
    	Some women and minorities discuss issues involving equal rights
    	with some white men who have made exceptionally negative comments
    	about a particular rights movement (or members thereof) and
   	the exchanges *do* tend to get heated.
    
    	The fact is - the angry responses of women and minorities are 
    	*not* a matter of disliking the person for being a white male (but
    	rather, being offended by what the person has written or said.)  
	There is a *huge* difference between defending a rights movement
    	from what a woman or minority feels is unfairly discrediting
    	and arguing with someone purely because he is a white male.
    
    	People who say extremely negative things about women and minorities
	(and/or our movements) have done SOMETHING for which they receive
    	angry responses (yet often, they have claimed they have done nothing
    	and are merely being attacked for being white and male, which
    	isn't usually the case at all.)
    
    	> Since the vast majority of us are reasonable people, it would
    	> be far easier to get us on "your side" by reasoning with us
    	> than by attacking us.
    
    	When one is in the process of defending one's movement from
    	attacks, it isn't always easy to calmly reason with people who
    	discount almost every word you say.  Those who are able to do
    	it (like Bonnie Reinke, for example) have my undying admiration.
    
    	> Complaining to white men who have no power won't help if you
    	> alienate them in the process.
    
    	Defending ourselves and our movement from white men who have
    	no power but who write exceptionally negative notes about women,
    	minorities *OR* our movements at our place of employment may
    	not win the friendship of those particular individuals, but
    	it sometimes feels better than seeing the attacks and saying
    	nothing.  Remember who started this latest series of notes,
    	and why.
    
    	> The correct approach is to bring as many people together as
    	> possible to bear upon the very few who happen to have all
    	> the damn power.  Minorities have done this to an extent, but
    	> have methodically excluded white men from this.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
    	Not true.  There are number of white men who have made significant
    	contributions to every minority movement that I can think of
    	(including women's reproductive rights, as well as in the area
    	of equal opportunities!)  I see white men coming to the defense
    	of women and minorities every single day (including in this
    	very notesfile!)  Don't think we don't acknowledge this support,
    	either in the file or offline (because many of us DO!)  No way
    	have these men been methodically excluded from helping.

    	> When a minority sees a white man, they see an oppressor.
    
    	That's not true, either.  However, there are many things written
    	and said by some white men that I consider oppressive (and with which
    	I attempt to discuss or debate.)  The response that comes back is
    	that I must be seeing the person as an oppressor because he
    	is a white male (when actually, I saw the person's actual *remarks*
	as negative or oppressive instead.)  Again, there is a *huge*
    	difference between the two.
    
    	> There are some men who have joined the cause despite being
    	> initially devalued due to their membership in the majority.
    	> Often these men find acceptance (to a degree) in the feminist
    	> or minority movements.  I admire these guys, since they have
    	> the wherewithal to endure the crap and fight for an ideal
    	> which affects others more than themselves.
    
    	Well, I can't speak for the wonderful men who do support our
    	movement (except to say that they are valued by me A LOT,) but
    	I *can* comment as a white person who supports the civil rights
    	movement.
    
    	Actually, I supported the civil rights movement before I was
    	even *aware* that there was a growing women's movement (so I
    	supported civil rights before I ever had any idea that there
    	would be a time when I would be a member of a rights movement
    	that would affect my OWN fate.)
    
    	Once I heard the facts about what African Americans had been
    	through, I didn't expect them to "win me over" (and I didn't
    	complain about some African Americans' openness about the anger
    	that they felt about how they had been treated.)  I listened
    	and tried to learn.  Then I felt my OWN anger for what I felt were 
    	inexcusable actions on the part of my *own* race (and wished that
	none of it had happened.)
    
    	At no time did I feel persecuted or defensive about the anger
    	of some African Americans.  I even made a point of reading the
    	most extremist anti-white literature I could find (and it still
    	wasn't enough to make me defensive about being white.)  I just
    	wanted to know the full range of feelings (from moderate to
    	extremist) and I tried to listen and learn from it.
    
    	At no point will I ever expect any African American man or woman
    	to treat me in some special way to "win" or "earn" my support.
    	Their cause is just, so they have my support (because it's the
    	right thing for me to do and no other reason.)
    
    	I felt this way *before* I knew about the women's movement,
    	and feel this way today.  

    	Those men who support the women's movement appear not to have
    	needed to be "won over" either.  They seem to have as deep an
    	understanding of what we are trying to do as anyone (and support
    	us on principle.)  For that, I (too) have tremendous admiration
    	for these men, and eternal gratitude.

>	There is a *huge* difference between defending a rights movement
>    	from what a woman or minority feels is unfairly discrediting
>    	and arguing with someone purely because he is a white male.
    
    Agreed.
    
>    	People who say extremely negative things about women and minorities
>	(and/or our movements) have done SOMETHING for which they receive
>    	angry responses (yet often, they have claimed they have done nothing
>    	and are merely being attacked for being white and male, which
>    	isn't usually the case at all.)
    
    True. Bu then the reprisals should be directed to THEM and not to
    'white males.' <I'm talking about no one in particular here>
    
>	The response that comes back is
>    	that I must be seeing the person as an oppressor because he
>    	is a white male (when actually, I saw the person's actual *remarks*
>	as negative or oppressive instead.)  Again, there is a *huge*
>    	difference between the two.       
    
    Yes. This is not everyone's attitude, though.
    
>    	Once I heard the facts about what African Americans had been
>    	through, I didn't expect them to "win me over" (and I didn't
    
    The point is not so much to win us over as it is to not alienate us.
    
>    	complain about some African Americans' openness about the anger
>    	that they felt about how they had been treated.)  I listened
>    	and tried to learn.  Then I felt my OWN anger for what I felt were 
>    	inexcusable actions on the part of my *own* race (and wished that
>	none of it had happened.)
    
    I'm a white male and I'm angry about it and wish it never happened as
    well.
    
>    	At no point will I ever expect any African American man or woman
>    	to treat me in some special way to "win" or "earn" my support.
>    	Their cause is just, so they have my support (because it's the
>    	right thing for me to do and no other reason.)
    
    There are some people who can be idealistic and they get discouraged by
    the very same people who's side their on. Some of them say 'frig it,'
    others go on. You have to admire people that are willing to continue
    the struggle even when they are fighting a) the people in power b) the
    people they are trying to help c) ignorant people. Some people can do
    that. Most can't.
    
>    	Those men who support the women's movement appear not to have
>    	needed to be "won over" either.  They seem to have as deep an
>    	understanding of what we are trying to do as anyone (and support
>    	us on principle.)
    
    I support the movement towards equality on principle too. I am not very
    active about it, because I have been discouraged by the very people who
    I was trying to help. I feel that there are many guys like me who
    support the idea of equality but are tired of being the brunt of
    statements like "...part of man's scheme to keep women subjugated" etc.
    
    The Doctah
    
    ps- Thanks for your thoughtful and _calm_ reply :-)

    Thankyou for the compliment Suzanne, tho I'm not any where as
    noble as you give me credit for (as two gentlemen who have
    exchanged mail with me on this subject know). Last night
    I heard a very wise man say something in a speech that I felt
    went a long way towards explaining how I feel about such issues.
    His words were essentially 'if you respond to remarks that you find
    ...ist (racist, sexist, homophobic, anti a cause you believe in)
    with anger, or give back in kind to unkind words, you give your
    power away.' I liked that (and it says better what I mean when
    I say 'you don't educate people with a brick). :-)
    
    Actually being in notes has been good for my scots/irish temper
    and my sarcastic tongue.
    
    Mike, you say over and over that race and gender are two separate
    criteria. One thing I've asked you a number of times and you've
    never really answered is 'does that make it okay in your book to
    discriminate by gender'? When you say that the two aren't the
    same that is what I hear.
    
    And Mark, I'm with Suzanne on my reaction to the civil rights issues.
    I was involved in those issues long before I became seriously aware
    of discrimination against women. I also felt that it would be highly
    presumptious of me to even think of asking Blacks not to 'alienate'
    me in their search for equal rights. The tremendous injustices that
    have occured to African Americans are such that I am amazed that
    so many African Americans are still willing to trust and befriend
    any White American.
    
    On this one, I really feel that the man who can say, yeah, I didn't
    do any of that stuff to you, but I can understand why you are
    frustrated, angry, etc is someone I'm far more comfortable with
    than the man who says that women and men are different and women
    should stay home and they don't have any right to be upset.
    
    Bonnie

    I can agree somewhat with that last part Bonnie.  The problem I
    have with (the only I can see) is, does that "anger" justify the
    ignorant, or reverse, or whatever you want to call it??
    
    in other words, does your anger (you not meaning you per ce Bonnie)
    justify mistreating others??  No!  I have done nothing to deserve
    the anger, discrimination toward me, smart ass comments, little
    digs like "thats dso whit of oyu, etal... do I?  No, I thought not.
    
    My ancestors (English (Kanucks))for which BTW, is only one generation
    away (meaning I am the first "american") were actually slave traders...
    does that constitute anger toward me because of my decent?  I dont
    think so.  I am not by all means happy with what they did, or proud
    of it.  But, its part of my 'real' history that I cannot escape.
    
    I think that alot of this jabbin back en forth is because people
    just dont want to listen.  For me to understand anger, feelings
    etal, you first have to explain it WITHOUT LUMPING ME INTO IT!
    
    Yes my ancestors were slavers, BUT that doesnt mean that I condone
    or support oppression.
    
    See?
    
    BTW:  this isnt really aimed toward you Bonnie, so if I said ANYTHING
    that might remotely appear negative or whatever, I am sorry.
    
    Better Steve?  :-)

    Al,
    
    I wasn't in the slightest offended by what you wrote. Actually
    I thought it was one of the best pieces of writing I've seen
    from your fingers.
    
    Bonnie

>    I also felt that it would be highly
>    presumptious of me to even think of asking Blacks not to 'alienate'
>    me in their search for equal rights.
    
    I'm not saying that one should "ask to not be alientated." What I'm
    saying is that there are elements of ideology as well as pragmatism
    here. There is no doubt that discrimination has occurred to minorities.
    There is no question that this was wrong, and that the offended parties
    have every right to be angry, etc. The pragmatic side enters when you
    want to DO something about the problem. It does not help to be "right"
    when you alienate people who could make the difference between getting
    what you want and staying where you are. I think that women and
    minorities have every right to alienate white men- but that right does
    not imply that it might be a particularly smart thing to do. 
    
    Of all the white men, there are three groups wrt racism/sexism. There
    are those whose ideologies are such that they will support the
    racial/sexual minorities no matter what. There are also those who will
    oppose minorities and women because they are aware that they have a
    good deal, and they don't want to lose their advantage. Then, there is
    the largest group, the ones who are mostly unaware of the scope of
    racism and sexism, or are aware but unmotivated. I think that each of
    the fringe groups encompasses about 10% of the population. This leaves
    80% of the white male population that can potentially be
    converted/motivated to the cause of equal rights. To alienate this
    group shows a lack of foresight, IMO. But it all depends on what you
    want. If you want the movement to succeed on its own, with no help from
    the dreaded white man, then it is logically consistent to remain at
    odds with white males. They are viewed as opponents, and are treated
    thusly. However, if the time constant is the variable that we want to
    reduce, I believe that the best way to do this is to convert/motivate
    the 80% of the white male population that is largely unused. 
    
     Ideologically, there is no compunction for any minority group to
    attempt to use sympathetic white males to their advantage. But I think
    it makes alot of sense to do so.
    
    The Doctah 
    

    OK Bonnie let me see if I can explain why I say they are two different
    issues.  My perspective is from that of what is best for the family.
    I believe that if the family is solid, our society is solid.
    Discrimination on account of race has no bearing on whether the
    family is strong or not.  Blacks, whites, and all other races and
    nationalities have families which need to be fortified and made
    strong.  The needs of the family or all of the same regardless.
    
    Now in the family structure what are the needs.  We've got the basics
    for physical survival food, clothing, shelter.  Now we have the
    support and guidance we need as adults and which our children need.
    Noone is going to care more for our children as we are as parents.
    For a child who is being nursed, the mother is needed (I hope noone
    will disagree with this :')).  I also think it is a safe bet that
    in 90% of the families, the mother is better equipped to handle
    an infant.  It seems as though nature starts preparing the mommy
    for getting up for the late night feedings by making it hard to
    sleep in the later stages of the pregnancy.  It also seems as though
    the mother can calm a crying infant better than the father.  (Keep
    in mind I'm not saying that fathers can't do it or that this is
    all the time)  I also know that a father gets a tremendous feeling
    of having to protect.  Ex.  If the baby wakes up, Lisa is up right
    away.  If there is a noise outside, I get up immediately.  So, if
    for the most part the mother is the best at taking care of the infants
    then it is established that the mother is needed at home at the
    beginning of the childs life.  Remember I am saying how I see it)
    If this is the case then there is a need for the husband to make
    enough money to financially support the family.  These are the
    differences which I see and some of the reasons that I feel the
    way I do.
    
                                                Mike  

    Mike,
    
    I don't have much problem with what you said in your previous note. 
    My husband and I are in the process of raising five children and to both of
    us our family is our first priority. Obviously only the mother can
    bear the child and nurse it. (Tho in the case of the four of our
    five who we adopted neither of us could nurse and we both bottle
    fed them as babies.) 
    
    Where I do have a problem is that you appear to feel that the only
    pattern of parenting that produces a healthy family is that of mom
    staying home and dad working. When my kids were little I worked
    part time it is true and now that they are all teenagers I'm working
    fulltime (in part to help pay for college education.) My first
    son was born just as I earned my Master's degree and I found that
    first year that I was very unhappy just staying home. Part time
    teaching work helped keep me a satisfied person, which contributed
    to the well being of our family.
    
    There are many women who have no children, women whose children
    are grown and women who have been able to find child care arrangements
    for their children that satisfy both parents. For these women -
    for many of whom working is a necessity financially - job opportunities
    should be the same as for men. 
    
    I don't believe that it helps the well being of the family to discriminate
    against women in the job market, in education, or in the public
    sphere. Rather I feel that in most cases restricting the options
    available to women to choose from would be harmful to family life.
    What I hope to see is that individuals should be free to find the
    combination of family/work involvement that is satisfactory both
    to them personally and to their spouses and children.
    
    Bonnie

    Gee Bonnie, >this is getting scary, I can see your point and agree
    with a great deal of it :').  A problem we have run into in our
    society today is that a lot of people are putting themselves in
    front of the family.  You can see it in all walks of life.  Thus
    the children are (in my opinion) getting the short end of the stick.
    Maybe having the mother at home won't end this trend, but when the
    traditional family was intact, the instances of crime, drug abuse,
    teen prgnancy, and other social ills were at a far lower rate (per
    capita) then they are now.  I read all of the psychological theories
    about how these ills are not related to the transition our society
    is going through, but it seems to me that the evidence is pointing
    to the contrary.  Also, let me also say that I am not saying that
    it's a piece of cake staying at home, and I realize you can go crazy
    some days.  It ought to make it all worth it knowing that you are
    helping to develop the people you love the most in the world.  
    
     closing this response let me say that I believe everyone should
    be treated with respect regardless of sex, color, creed etc.  Arguing
    sex discimination does not mean to me that women are less than men,
    just different.  Our first priority as adults should be making this
    world livable for our kids.  A saying I heard once and really liked
    is, "We are not going to leave this world to our children, we are
    borrowing it from them.  Nuff for now.
    
                                                 Mike

    re: .103
    
         Mike, I think that I can agree that a healthy family increases
    chances of producing healthy adults.  There you are right in my
    opinion.
    
         However I seem to recall you blaming all of societies ills
    on the move away from traditonal families in a number of notes.
    In doing so you are ignoring the potential other changes which have
    occured in our society.  I feel that you must also examine the effects
    of population increases, the increased amount of advertising and media
    exposure, the increased exposure to violence in the media, pollution,
    the changes in the economic make up of our society, the fact that
    we can be anihlated in a matter of minutes or hours and the list
    goes on and on.
    
         If you really want to prove that the increase in social ills
    is due to the move away from the traditional family I'd suggest
    that you do some research.  I'm sure that there are some social
    scientists that share your views and I'm sure that studies have
    been done.  A trip to a good college library should yield some
    good information in Social Science journals and Psychology journals.
    
         This is not a poke at you, but I certainly inderstand that
    you might not have the time to do such research because of the time
    you devote to your family.

RE  "Ease up, or you'll alientate the ones who can help you (white 
     males)"


If women or minorities riot in the street or if they lobby in suits
and ties, in either situation I think that a good many white males
would feel alienated.  No matter what women and minorities do, there
always seems to be alienation in the white male camp.  (Alienation 
happens.)

I can only conlude that white males have more power over their own
feelings of alientation from minorities than the minorities have. I
challenge white males to look inside themselves to see if there is any
work that they can do to reduce their own feelings of alientation
about the striving of women and minorities to better their life in
this country. White males need to own their own feelings; they need to
own their own alientation.  If they need the support of women and
minorities in getting rid of that alientation, I think that they would
be glad to help.  But women and minorities aren't going to take on the
work of white men for them. 

I am not issuing a challenge that I am not willing to carry out
myself; I am currently working on my own alienation feelings about
women, about other minorities, and about white men.  (For the record, 
I have rarely been pushed away by a person of minority status in my 
attempts to reconnect with their different culture and experience; if 
the attempt at reducing the alienation is genuine, women and 
minorities usually respond with a lot of support and encouragement.)  

I think that, if I feel alienated, I am the one who has the most power
at helping me to get reconnected with other people again.  No one can
do that for me. 


							--Gerry

    RE: .104 I don't remember blaming all social ills on this issue 
    alone.  I do remember saying that I thought it was a contributing 
    factor.  This is a belief I have and I think it is well founded.  I 
    have done a fair amount of reading on these issues as well as others.
    I think you are right.  There are so many different theories in
    psychology today that no matter what your views are, you can find
    psychological data to back you up.  I look at the way things are
    today and the way they were 30-40 years ago and try to see where
    there were MORE AND GREATER problems.  Since I wasn't around
    40 years ago. I gather my data from talking to people who were around.
    The general conclusion is that things (as a whole socially) are
    substantially worse now.  Then I look at some of the major differences
    which have occured in this timeframe.  I analyze each difference
    and come to a conclusion as to whether they have a bearing on the
    problem.  Now I grant you this is not a major university study,
    but I don't know that their studies are capable of being proven
    than mine.  
    
      
    RE: Ger-May I don't see where it is my problem that in the past (when
    many of todays "activists" weren't born) people were treated unfairly.
    My job is to treat everyone with respect and courtesy and to teach
    my children the same thing.  If this is done then the past will
    not repeat itself.  Also, I am not naive enought to think that there
    are some people out there who treat people unfairly.  But the thing
    to remember is that there are people of all races, genders, etc
    who are guilty of this.  We have to address these instances on a
    by event basis and not fester the anger for what has happened in
    the past.  
    
                                                 Mike  

    re: .106
    
        Mike, I went back and looked at .103 and you indeed do not
    attribute societies ills to the movement away from traditional
    families.  I appologize for misrepresenting your note.
    
    ASP

>If women or minorities riot in the street or if they lobby in suits
>and ties, in either situation I think that a good many white males
>would feel alienated.  No matter what women and minorities do, there
>always seems to be alienation in the white male camp. 
    
     There will always be some hardliners that will be put off. That is
    their problem. But there are ways to make the 80% majority of white
    males more sympathetic to your cause. 
    
>I can only conlude that white males have more power over their own
>feelings of alientation from minorities than the minorities have. 
    
     Yes and no. You do own your own feelings, but you are not disconnected
    from your environment. If every minority blames your genes for their
    suffering, you tend to get alienated, like it or not.
    
>But women and minorities aren't going to take on the
>work of white men for them. 
 
     You can look at it from that point of view, however, you have more to
    gain by "white men doing their work" than they do. Like I said before,
    it is your right to be contentious. But you're fooling yourself if you
    think anything will happen any faster that way.
    
    The Doctah                
    

    
    Mike,
    
    Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you stated, but
    I feel that you think the mother is the better equiped parent.
    Could you tell us why you feel that way?  I have done much 
    thinking on this and have concluded that both parents are
    equally important (except for pregnancy and birth).  I agree
    with your statement that the family must come first.  But I tend
    to disagree that the mother is better equiped to be a parent.
    I was raised in a single parent household by my mom not by choice
    because my dad had passed away.  And I know what it is like to
    grow up without a father.  My Mom did a tremendous job and I admire
    her determination.  Plus we all turned out fine.
         However, I have had the oppurtunity to witness several 
    male friends in parenting roles.  Some are single fathers w/o custody.
    Some are divorced fathers with custody.  Maybe these guys are the
    exceptions (though I do not think that is so), but they are all
    doing wonderful jobs raising their kids.  And the children benifit
    tremendously from their fathers.  I guess I am questioning why you
    feel a father is not as capable as a mother at child rearing?
    In this world as  you know the traditional family is no longer
    the majority, but that is not to say that the untraditional families
    are an worse off.  I was raised in an untraditional family and
    really didnt see any significant differences other than the absence
    of my dad.  As long as there is love and understanding amoung the
    members of the "family" , then there truly is a family.
               
    
    Doctah,
    
    >There will always be some hardliners that will be put off.  That
    >is their problem.  But there are ways to make the 80% majority
    >of white males more sympathetic to your cause.
    
    If you are really sure there are ways to do this then please 
    enlighten us.  
    
    Thanks,
    Michele

    Michelle,
    
          I didn't say that men cannot be good parents.  I like to think
    that I am a fairly good parent, because I do my best.  I think that
    women are, for the most part, more patient with children and because
    they have a head start on the father (carrying the child, nursing
    the child closer to the children.  This may or may not change when
    the child gets older.  
    
                                                  Mike

    I also believe that there is a maternal instinct.
    

    Mike Z and Mike W
    
    and since I did't bear nor breast feed 4 of my 5 guess I didn't
    have any particular 'advantage' as a parent over their father :-).
    
    Bonnie

Besides -- haven't you seen today's "Bloom County"?

    	Rabelais expressed the theory that soft breasts are neccessary for
    the growth of childrens' noses, but then he was writing before feeding
    bottles were common anyway.    :-)   :-)

    If this theory is true, I'd like to meet Carl Malden's mother. 
    
    
    
    				%^)

    "Karl", not "Carl".
    
    - ���

    or Dolly Partons kids:')