Conference quark::mennotes-v1

	I have received several requests for information on our REAL MEN group,
	so  I  decided  to post this broadsheet based upon our REAL MEN printed
	material  with  some  of  my personal impressions of our group added as
	well.

	-Erik (a REAL MEN member)

   -----------------------------------------------------------------


	** REAL MEN WORK TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN **


   REAL MEN  is  an  anti-sexist  group  in  the  Boston area.  Why do we call
   ourselves  REAL  MEN?  Because  we  are  attempting  to contribute to a new
   understanding of what it means to be a man.

   We believe  that,  contrary  to  the popular stereotype about 'real men' as
   tough  macho  guys,  it  is important for MEN to rethink and work to change
   traditional masculinity, which is often more difficult to do and takes more
   courage.   [We also chose our name to help reclaim the word 'real man' from
   its  negative  macho  image  that  adversely affects and enforces society's
   thinking of how men are 'supposed to act'].

   We are  a political/educational group committed to PUBLIC ACTIVISM.  We are
   a  direct  action  group  committed  to  action.   Our principle goal is to
   encourage  more  MEN to take responsibility for our personal sexism as well
   as the overwhelming level of violence against women in our society.

   To this  end  we  sponsor  forums, provide speakers, organize informational
   pickets,  sponsor  demonstration  protests and walks [eg, our recent Andrew
   Dice-Clay  protest],  promote  our  views  on radio and television [eg, our
   recent  CEASEfire  week  media  blitz],  distribute  media packets, conduct
   speak-outs,  and  do whatever else we can to raise men's awareness of their
   need to work actively against sexual INEQUALITY and VIOLENCE.

   While we  encourage  men  to get involved in organized political action and
   especially  to  join our group, there are many ways for men to work against
   sexism and sexual violence in their personal lives.

   SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT *MEN* CAN DO:

   - Speak  up in disapproval at a party or sporting event when some guy makes
   a joke about rape, demeaning women, or some other sexist remark.

   - Refuse  to  purchase  magazines  and  other  material  that portray women
   sexually  in  degrading  and  violent  ways.   Refuse to listen to music or
   condone comedians and others who demean and verbally assault women.

   - Support  candidates  for  political  office  who are committed to women's
   equality,  and  who  will  introduce  and support legislation to strengthen
   women's legal protection against male violence.

   - Donate  money  to  battered women's shelters, and support increased state
   and  federal  spending on services for battered women and children.  Donate
   volunteer time/money or otherwise support area rape crisis centers.

   - Listen  and learn from women's experiences, read articles and books about
   masculinity  and  the  root causes of sexual violence, and EDUCATE yourself
   about  the  connection  between  larger  social forces and the problems and
   conflicts of individual women and men.

   - SUPPORT  WOMEN AND WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE ALREADY DOING THIS WORK.
   This  not  only  helps  women's issues, but is a key step in the process of
   realizing men's issues as well.


   -Erik
                                                                     

See also note 409.

	Steve

[This is a broadsheet from our REAL MEN planning core group meeting last night]

			BIG-DICK DIPLOMACY

  The crisis  in  the  Gulf is about oil, U.S.  power in the post-Cold War era,
  and diverting attention from pressing domestic problems. It is also about...

			* MASCULINITY *!!

  The politics  of masculinity are inextricably linked with issues about power,
  the  need  to  control,  political "strength", and militarism.  Statements by
  Bush, his congressional supporters, and in the media clearly demonstrate that
  MASCULINITY is a critical factor in this crisis.

  Bush has  repeatedly  used  MACHO  rhetoric  in  his  efforts  to sway public
  opinion,   "scare"   Saddam  Hussein,  and  justify  his  own  intransigence.
  Statements  like  "he's  going  to  get  his ass kicked", talk about who will
  "blink"  first,  and  ridiculing  Sen.   Paul  Wellstone as "chickenshit" are
  telling.

  A SAMPLING OF QUOTES:

  - "The  party  of  death...has  since  August  2  seen sanctions as a kind of
  ritualistic  foreplay  to  the violent penetration of an entire region of the
  globe."  -- editorial, (The Nation, 12-24-90)

  - "There's  a  misguided  MACHISMO  mentality  in  America  now, a John Wayne
  attitude,  that  says...this is the way we should conduct foreign policy.  We
  ought to be the bully boy." -- Rep.  Joe Kennedy 2d (Boston Globe, 1-12-91)

  - "I  feel like you're listening to a fight between two three-year-olds.  'No
  I  will  not.   No  I  will.   Na  na  na"  -- Rep.  Pat Schroeder (Newsweek,
  12-31-90)

  - "I  am  very  disappointed  with the protesters...I am appalled by what I'm
  seeing  in  Boston and around the country...I suspect these people are afraid
  of being drafted.  Well I'm sorry, but they're just a bunch a wimps as far as
  I'm  concerned."  --  parent  of  25  yr  old Army infantryman (Lynn, MA Item
  1-18-91)

  - "Manhood  and  face,  that is what this confrontation is now about." -- Pat
  Buchanan (Boston Herald, 12-19-90)

  Bush's use  of  schoolyard  rhetoric  suggests  that  he has personalized the
  conflict as a test of his manhood.  THE HUGE "GENDER-GAP" IN ATTITUDES TOWARD
  OFFENSIVE  MILITARY  ACTION  SUGGESTS  THAT, IN 1991, TRADITIONAL AND VIOLENT
  NOTIONS  OF  STRENGTH  AND  MASCULINITY  STILL RESONATE DEEPLY WITH MANY U.S.
  MALES.  Recent polls have shown the gap between women's and men's support for
  Bush's aggressive posturing to be between 18 and 25 points.

  Some important questions are raised by this crisis:

  - Will tens of thousands of children, women, and men dies because George Bush
  sees negotiation as "backing down"?

  - Why  is the gender-gap so high? Does the projection of U.S.  military power
  make  American  men  feel  more  secure  about  their  masculinity? Does U.S.
  military  prowess  enhance their self-image? Does national power translate to
  feelings of personal power?

  - What  role  has  the  U.S.  defeat in Vietnam played in damaging American's
  men's collective self-confidence? Is "kicking Saddam's ass" a big step toward
  reclaiming  the  old  "USA  is #1" feeling that was ingrained in the American
  male psyche after WWII?

  - What  role  do  sports  and  video  game  metaphors  play in Bush's and the
  Pentagon's propaganda efforts? 

  - Does  fear  of the "wimp factor" drive Bush's obsession with "bringing Iraq
  to its knees"?

  - Why  should  U.S.  soldiers die to defend the gender-apartheid dictatorship
  of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?

  - If  the  war  is  "successful",  will  that  help  to  reaffirm traditional
  masculine  values such as physical aggression, competition, proving strength,
  and  hierarchies  of  power?  Traditionally  in  war,  men  are the important
  players,   and   women   are  relegated  to  dependency  on  their  "powerful
  protectors." What long-term effect will this have on gender relations?

  - What  does  it  say  about  our  national  priorities that we are diverting
  billions  of  dollars  from  domestic  social  programs  to a war intended to
  restore a regime that has proven itself to be violently oppressive to women?

  *** Sponsored by REAL MEN, a Boston-based anti-sexist men's group ***

[This is a broadsheet from our REAL MEN planning core group meeting last night]

  "There's a  chance  [Hussein's]  playing  chicken.  But each day that goes by
  leads toward the conclusion that he thinks we don't have the balls to do it."
  -- Senior Bush aide (Newsweek, 12-31-91)

  <picture of  two  MEN standing on opposite sides of a line drawn in the sand,
  each  with  thousands of other men and tanks behind them.  One saying "I DARE
  YOU!" and the other "I DOUBLE DARE YOU!!">

  GEORGE: HOW MUCH BLOOD WILL IT TAKE TO PROVE YOUR MANHOOD?

  Dear George,

  If you  and your supporters think that BEING A MAN means launching a needless
  war killing hundreds of thousands of people, costing billions of dollars, and
  potentially  devastating  the environment, you need to think again about what
  it  means  to  BE  A  MAN.  In the meantime, if you really need to prove your
  masculinity, here are a few items that will help you to do it without causing
  death and destruction:

  A TOY SOLDIER - so you can play war without really hurting anyone

  A RULER - in case you ever doubt the true measure of your manhood

  SPINACH - so you can grow big strong muscles

  A SHERIFF'S BADGE - so everyone will know that you're in charge

  CAMEL NO-FILTER CIGARETTES - for that cool, death-defying look

  A TIGHTLY SEALED BOTTLE - so you can impress us all by opening it

  A BARBELL - so you can pump iron like Arnold Schwartzenegger

  BUNDLE$ OF TOY MONEY - because you can never be too rich and powerful

  A TOY PLANE - to recreate your heroic days as a WWII fighter pilot

  *** REAL MEN, a Boston-based anti-sexist men's group, in cooperation with the
  MIT Initiative for Peace, is sending these items to the President and members
  of Congress. We encourage others to do the same. ***

  I have mixed feelings about the war, and have some strong feelings about REAL
  MEN and what response we should make to the war.

  As a  core  member,  I  strongly drove the opinion that REAL MEN should *not*
  attach  its  name  to the anti-war movement, despite the fact that several of
  our members are strongly anti-war.  I feel we have many important women's and
  men's  issues  to  handle  that  we  didn't  need  to water down our image by
  becoming  'another  anti-war'  group.  Personally I have mixed feelings about
  what  the US should do and when it should have done it, agreeing with several
  sentiments on both sides of the issues.  [FWIW, I do believe there are *some*
  select  things  which  require  men *and* women to go to war for, so I am not
  completely anti-war].

  However I feel that this crisis has made many men's issues and women's issues
  rise to the surface.  I think we should capitalize on it.  Like we did in the
  past.   Our  march  on Super Bowl Sunday last year did not have us with signs
  "REAL  MEN  AGAINST  FOOTBALL",  but  capitalized  on the fact that the event
  causes  a  tremendous  jump  in  assault  and abuse of women - and challenged
  people with that.  At the ADC protest, we did not have signs "REAL MEN CENSOR
  ADC",  but  capitalized  on  the  fact that his 'humor' encourages sexist and
  degrading  attitudes  in  his  crowds  -  and  challenged  people  with that.
  Likewise,  I  hope  we  do not have sighs "REAL MEN ARE AGAINST ANY WAR", but
  capitalize  on  the fact that many men's and women's issues are rising to the
  surface  in  this time of crisis.  I hope to challenged people to examine the
  possibilities  of  having these masculine concepts influence their opinion on
  the  war.   Luckily  the founder also feels this way - ie, our broadsheets do
  not  endorse either the pro-war or anti-war side of the issue.  It challenges
  people  to  examine their own feelings about it, from our unique anti-sexist,
  women's issues, and men's issues perspective.

  SOME MEN'S (connected to women's) ISSUE QUESTIONS I FEEL RAISED BY THE WAR:

  - I  feel the military is built around the concept of BEING MACHO.  That it's
  macho  to  be  in  the  war.   It's macho to leave and protect the "women and
  children." If women are in combat, it "ain't so macho anymore if women can do
  it  too."  This  is  a sentiment I often here behind reasons from men who say
  "Women  should  not  be  in  combat." It also threatens the 'strong macho men
  protecting the women' concept.

  - In  fact, I feel this attempt to retain the ability to attract men to fight
  via  this  "be  a  macho  male  hero  of  the  country  <like  all the other,
  exclusively  MALE,  heroes>"  image is the prime reason why the military will
  not  allow  gay  men  to  join  -  it won't be a macho 'real man' thing to do
  anymore, if gay men are doing it too.

  - I  think  having women involved in the military conflict (as it is, even in
  'support'  roles)  challenges  people  many  ways.   It's  not a 'male thing'
  anymore  if  women  are  there  too.  Even though we still have "It's a man's
  thing to do combat" for macho men to cling to, the big change I see is:

  - I can imagine a range of reactions when (and I can just see it happening) a
  female  pilot  in a support aircraft is shot down and taken hostage and shown
  on  TV  along  with  the  male  crew.   The  outcry  against  the war will be
  increased.   It  will  be  'much  worse'  now that they have a woman hostage.
  Sentiments  will rise that it is detestable if women are held, but it is 'not
  so  bad'  when 'only' male soldiers are abused.  The outcry will be increased
  by angry men now that women are held. The rescue effort will be increased.

  - I  can  imagine  a  huge anti-war sentiment in the country exploding if and
  when  they  hold  a  draft.  ESPECIALLY if women are to be drafted too.  THAT
  will  be 'terrible' and 'devastating' and 'unfair', whereas a draft of men is
  'not  so  bad'.   There is something acceptable in our male psyche I call the
  "Son of Abraham" sentiment - where we feel it is OK and much easier for us to
  'sacrifice' our sons, but our daughters must be protected at all cost.

  - It  will  be  said  how  'sons  are  brought up be physical and aggressive,
  whereas  daughters are brought up to be passive to men'.  The fact that there
  are  many  men  who  are non-aggressive as well will not even come into their
  cognizance.  Neither will the fact that not all women are passive either.  Or
  that  some  women  are  more  aggressive than many man.  The gender roles are
  further enforced.  [And will strongly affect life *after* the war too].

  - I  find  it  interesting that people in the 'there should be no protesters'
  camp  scream  "SUPPORT  THE TROOPS".  Since *when* does supporting the troops
  mean 'sending them to battle?' Fathers are you 'supporting' your daughters by
  sending  them  to  war?  To me, "SUPPORTING THE TROOPS" means working to make
  sure  they  get brought home safe and secure as soon as possible.  Especially
  where  it  is  not  100%  sure  that other options have been given their full
  chance.   Screaming  "we support you!" while in an glib and patriotic extreme
  rush  to  send them to war before making sure war was 100% unavoidable is not
  'support' in my book.

  - I  find  it  very telling that there is such a gender-gap in opinions about
  the  war.   Why is this so? What does it say to you? How do you explain it to
  yourself?   It  says  very  loudly  to  me  (personally)  that  machismo  and
  masculinity  are  heavily  involved here.  And when I examine my own internal
  feelings  about  the matter (which I have to an intense degree these last few
  days),  I  realize that many of my feelings revolved around 'being a man' and
  being  respected  -  as a man.  IE, the view that being anti-this-war is seen
  (especially by other men) as being 'wimpy' and 'un-manly'.

  - I  find  it  curious  that anyone who is not 100% pro-this-war is now being
  called  'anti-Semitic'.   It's  interesting  how  so many people are all of a
  sudden  so  concerned about anti-Semiticism.  Where were they before the war?
  Debate over our current best actions is not being anti-Semitic.

  - I find it curious how people are so concerned about rape (in Kuwait) all of
  a  sudden.   Where  were all these men who are so concerned about it, when we
  deal  with  sexual  assault  and  rape  issues  here.   Does  this  mean  our
  anti-sexual  assault  men's groups will grow after the war with this all 'new
  awareness' from men? Does the unseldom men raping conquered men bother people
  as  much?  If so, why not? Would you go to war if 'just' captured Kuwaiti men
  were being raped?

  Interesting men's issue sentiments being forced to the surface in public here
  out  of this rush to war...  a great chance to challenge people's assumptions
  of  men's  and  women's gender-role issues.  Very telling attitudes about our
  expectations of men, and about our expectations of women.

  -Erik

    
    What gender gap have you noticed?

 "Real Men's" response to the crisis has been polemical in the extreme, as
they have ignored the stated reasons for the war completely to instead attack
imagined psychological factors in their effort to distance themselves from
all things traditionally male, in any scenario. Their statements are ugly
to read, and give the distinct impression that "Real Men" are not a group
of regular guys but a cadre of anti-male iconoclasts, desparate for attention
(like little boys), and full of anti-male and anti-conservative sentiment.
While they may indeed have some reasonable attributes and goals, the way
they go about acheiving them inspires annoyance and resentment from the very
group that they purport to be attempting to change. I believe they are using the
war for the purpose of self-aggrandizement via media exposure, in addition to
furthering the anti-war agendas of some key members.

 Their repeated references to the male anatomy in a manner as to imply that
those who do not agree with their position are merely attempting to "prove
they have one" is particularly absurd and disgusting, given the fact that they
would be among the first to complain if those who hold the alternative opinion
stated that those that didn't agree with them "didn't have one."

 The Doctah

    
    Thanks to the author for entering all this "REAL MEN" stuff.
    I now know that I'll never associate with or ever give
    a serious thought to what this group says or does in the future.
    
    							Hank

.8> Thanks to the author for entering all this "REAL MEN" stuff.
.8> I now know that I'll never associate with or ever give
.8> a serious thought to what this group says or does in the future.

    You got that right!  I thought we were at war, and, lo' and behold,
    it's only a laboratory session for Valuing Differences!

.5> I  feel the military is built around the concept of BEING MACHO.

    Call it whatever you like - in my organization it was called "esprit
    de' Corps" and it kept a lot of us alive.  When the bullet start flying
    you'd better damned well hope the enemy views you as "macho" ... you do
    not deal with an adversary from a position of weakness!!
    
    You may "feel" that it is ... I *hope* that it is and will continue to
    be!

    Jerry

I don't like the fact we are fighting again in the world, nor do I like the 
fact that some/many of our young men and women may die....but I sure as 
heck find the first two entries in this note both disgusting and vulgar in 
their impression of the war and why we are there. They are welcome to their 
opinions, but I find them arrogant and more offensive than the war.....as 
hard as I can believe that myself! -.2 was right, I now have a group on my 
list to carefully avoid!

    Vic

    re: .6
    
    > What gender gap have you noticed? 
    
    	[From .3]...
    
    	"Recent polls have shown the gap between women's and men's support
    	for Bush's aggressive posturing to be between 18 and 25 points."
                       

 I find that hard to believe, given the fact that ~85% of all americans
are in favor of what we are doing. That would require virtually every male
to be in favor to arrive at the quoted disparity, an extremely unlikely
scenario given what one can observe in the streets.

 The Doctah

re: .9

>    You got that right!  I thought we were at war, and, lo' and behold,
>    it's only a laboratory session for Valuing Differences!

	No relax,  mister,  you're  presently  right.   It seems life is only a
	laboratory for weapons and war.  I suppose this justifies your constant
	thrill  with  it in 'BOX (the military, its weapons, combat techniques,
	thrust ratios of nuclear weapons, etc etc).

> -< A few good men ... >- 

	Um, that's  "a  few good men AND women." Betcha that threatens all your
	macho  fun  fantasies  of being Rambo.  Do they include having to fight
	under a female platoon leader Jerry? Do tell.

>   When the bullet start flying
>   you'd better damned well hope the enemy views you as "macho" ... you do
>   not deal with an adversary from a position of weakness!!

	Thank you  for at least 'admitting' the presence and assumed importance
	of  masculinity issues in the military.  How does that concept of yours
	jive with having women in the military? Of having women being drafted?

	-Erik

  Now that  we  have  the three most renown ultra-conservatives and militarists
  checked  into  the  conversation, it is interesting to note that they avoided
  answering  any  of  the  questions  posed.   But  instead  quickly turned the
  opportunity to challenge their assumptions into name-calling.

  535.7 dismissed  it  as 'anti-male' (a men's group anti-male?? That says more
  about  you than the group).  535.8 will only 'give serious thought' to groups
  he  *already*  agrees  with  (big  challenge there), and apparently dismisses
  everything  else.   353.9 by the most famous ardent militarist who enjoys the
  military  coverage  even  during  peace  time (and must be loving his present
  24-hr  live  coverage  front row seat), dismisses it as 'Valuing Differences'
  (wonder where he read that word, it was nowhere in 535).

  How about  answering some real questions...  Why *is* the gender gap so high?
  What  does  it  say  to  you?  How much do masculinity concepts tie into your
  feelings about the war? Into the language you use to describe the war? 

	- How  much  of  our going into war is resulting from two men not being
	able to negotiate or being seen as 'weak' or 'backing down' (aka "being
	'unmanly'")?

	- How  much  is our exciting military prowess being used to enhance our
	American  male  self-image?  How  much is our defeat in Vietnam playing
	into our decision to make "USA #1" again? Why do the pro-war protestors
	chant  "USA!  USA!  USA!" as if this were the Olympics and we wanted to
	prove  our  power and ability to dominate to the rest of the men in the
	world?

  There is  already enough discussion in note 553, "Guilt about *not* fighting"
  over  whether  this  war  was  or  was  not  necessary.   I think it would be
  inciteful  to  have  this additional note devoted to looking at the men's and
  masculinity issues revolving around this war.

  -Erik

	Some feelings toward why there is a gender gap from another (anonymous)
	elder man and war veteran I have a lot of respect for...          
                                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------   

From my experience it seems that gender roles and sexual behavior
are imprinted on men at a very early age,  before a man has
any real independant sense of self or self-reliance.  Much
of the socialization is carried out by terror - beatings,
teasing,  shunning.  As men grow older any time that gender
roles or sexual behavior is questioned sleeping demons of
humiliation and pain are awakened.  The easiest way to cope
with it is to deny the pain and fear and put up a boundry
against the person or situation that triggers the memory.
Anger and aggression are fabulous ways to avoid feelings of
fear and vulnerability and emotional pain.
 
Very pernicious for men,  because the early socialization
serves to strip away self awareness and non-violent coping
skills.  Stir in the beliefs that men are not victims of violence,
that calling on others to defend from a bully is cowardice
and weakness,  and cruelty is admirable.   Above all,  men
must never fear anything,  or show sensitivity to another
persons feelings...
 
Women are allowed to be soft and vulnerable and weak.  Most
folks think that is the natural order.  When a man violates
the rules,  well,  it is easier to aggressively reject them
than it is to accept that maybe the world don't work the way
it was taught on an elementary school playground.
 
 

	Specifically questions like the ones REAL MEN asked in .3:

------------------------------------------------------------------
  Some important questions are raised by this crisis:

  - Will tens of thousands of children, women, and men dies because George Bush
  sees negotiation as "backing down"?

  - Why  is the gender-gap so high? Does the projection of U.S.  military power
  make  American  men  feel  more  secure  about  their  masculinity? Does U.S.
  military  prowess  enhance their self-image? Does national power translate to
  feelings of personal power?

  - What  role  has  the  U.S.  defeat in Vietnam played in damaging American's
  men's collective self-confidence? Is "kicking Saddam's ass" a big step toward
  reclaiming  the  old  "USA  is #1" feeling that was ingrained in the American
  male psyche after WWII?

  - What  role  do  sports  and  video  game  metaphors  play in Bush's and the
  Pentagon's propaganda efforts? 

  - Does  fear  of the "wimp factor" drive Bush's obsession with "bringing Iraq
  to its knees"?

  - Why  should  U.S.  soldiers die to defend the gender-apartheid dictatorship
  of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?

  - If  the  war  is  "successful",  will  that  help  to  reaffirm traditional
  masculine  values such as physical aggression, competition, proving strength,
  and  hierarchies  of  power?  Traditionally  in  war,  men  are the important
  players,   and   women   are  relegated  to  dependency  on  their  "powerful
  protectors." What long-term effect will this have on gender relations?

  - What  does  it  say  about  our  national  priorities that we are diverting
  billions  of  dollars  from  domestic  social  programs  to a war intended to
  restore a regime that has proven itself to be violently oppressive to women?

	And some more questions to be thought about in light of masculinity+war
	issues...

	- Why *does* the military exclude gay men from the service?

	- What *will* happen when female POW's are taken and shown on TV?

	- What  *will* happen to American opinion for how much we want this war
	when we have a draft?

	- What  *will*  happen  to  American opinion when daughters are drafted
	along  with  the sons? Will the war still be worth it, or will we start
	to  hear  more  people  saying "No, this war is not worth my daughter."
	[Have  at  it  Mr.  Beeler, is this war worth your daughter? Little bit
	different  from  sending  those  faceless  disproportionate  numbers of
	African-Americans and other financial minorities in the military, huh?]

	Curious what  people  feel about these events which are just around the
	corner and indeed already on our doorstep...

	How many feelings of masculinity in you are being touched via answering
	these?  I admit my first response to each of these questions draws very
	heavily  on  my  (American  male)  views  of masculinity.  How much for
	others?

	And doctah, how are asking these questions anti-MALE???

	-Erik

	Re: Erik

	I did not disparage you or the group REAL MEN.
	I thanked you for the info and stated my conclusion as it
	relates to me. 

	Your reply? First you choose to impugn me as one of
	the "three most renown ultra-conservatives" checking into
	the conversation, you accuse me of name-calling, then you
	misrepresent me as someone "who will only give serious thought 
	to groups [I] already agree with and finish with a nice little 
	dig, "big challenge there".

	I do hope you'll excuse me but I simply will not lower myself
	and respond in kind. I stated how I felt. It was a brief note
	but I don't have a lot of extra time to note. If you
	were sincerely interested in why I felt that way
	all you had to do was ask. 

    	I also take great objection to your comments toward the other
    	two noters you objected to. I've met them both. I consider
    	them to be two of the finest people I know and I feel you've
    	misrepresented them.
    
    	If this is how you choose to conduct this topic Erik, then
    	please do, without me.
    
    							Hank

    
    	Your three line...
    
    >    Thanks to the author for entering all this "REAL MEN" stuff.         
    >    I now know that I'll never associate with or ever give               
    >    a serious thought to what this group says or does in the future.     
    
	was hardly a very significant (or positive) contribution to the
    	discussion. If I misinterpretted you, I'm sorry.
    
    	Here's your chance to explain your 3-line reaction. I'd welcome you
    	to answer some of the REAL MEN questions as well, from your
    	personal perspective...
    
    	-Erik
    

.13> 	No relax,  mister,  you're  presently  right.   It seems life is only a
.13>	laboratory for weapons and war.  I suppose this justifies your constant
.13>	thrill  with  it in 'BOX (the military, its weapons, combat techniques,
.13>	thrust ratios of nuclear weapons, etc etc).

My PhD thesis was on "All Altitude Air Burst Simulation" for nuclear weapons -
after that I spent some time at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory designing
warheads and analyzing existing weapons phenomenology.  Prior to all that I
spent some time behind an M-60 killing people ... at no time did I consider
                                                  -------------------------
it a "thrill" but more so doing a job which from my perspective, needed to be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
done.  I did my best to do those jobs to the best of my ability.
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Thrill?"  No, but a simple recognition of reality and what needs to be done.

.13>	Um, that's  "a  few good men AND women." Betcha that threatens all your
.13>	macho  fun  fantasies  of being Rambo.  Do they include having to fight
.13>	under a female platoon leader Jerry? Do tell.

I have no "fun fantasies" about being Rambo.  War is not fun nor is it a 
fantasy - it is a very serious business.  Anyone who has been there can
reiterate that.

When I say a few good men, I mean precisely that.  I am not a proponent of
females in combat but don't really give a flip about who my CO is .. as long
as they do their job and do it well.

.13>	Thank you  for at least 'admitting' the presence and assumed importance
.13>	of  masculinity issues in the military.  How does that concept of yours
.13>	jive with having women in the military? Of having women being drafted?

I would not even come close to denying the presence and importance of 
masculinity issues in the military.  I'm not an advocate of women in combat,
but if they have a desire to serve in the military that's their decision.

As to having women drafted - No.

.14> 353.9 by the most famous ardent militarist....

"Famous? :-)  ... why ... thank you!  (I don't do autographs)

.14> ...who enjoys the military coverage  even  during  peace  time (and
.14> must be loving his present 24-hr  live  coverage  front row seat)...

To respond is to dignify.  No thank you.

.14> Why *is* the gender gap so high?

Well, figuring that out is not tops on my personal list of priorities.

.14> What  does  it  say  to  you?

Nothing.

.14> How much do masculinity concepts tie into your feelings about the war?

They don't.

.14> Into the language you use to describe the war? 

It doesn't.

.14>	- How  much  of  our going into war is resulting from two men not being
.14>	able to negotiate or being seen as 'weak' or 'backing down' (aka "being
.14>	'unmanly'")?

None of it.  Seems to me like the United Nations and a few other countries
were involved?

.14>	- How  much  is our exciting military prowess being used to enhance our
.14>	American  male  self-image?

You gotta be kiddin'?  Is this a real question?

.14>	How  much is our defeat in Vietnam playing
.14>	into our decision to make "USA #1" again?

Zero.

.14>	Why do the pro-war protestors
.14>	chant  "USA!  USA!  USA!" as if this were the Olympics and we wanted to
.14> 	prove  our  power and ability to dominate to the rest of the men in the
.14>	world?

Damned if I know.  Damned if I care.

.17> 	- Why *does* the military exclude gay men from the service?

They'll change.

.17>	- What *will* happen when female POW's are taken and shown on TV?

Absolute OUTRAGE for a massive strike ... massive.

.17>	- What  *will* happen to American opinion for how much we want this war
.17>	when we have a draft?

For the moment, I think that this question is academic.  The conflict won't
last that long.  It takes a long time to get the wheels in motion, train,
outfit.... the draftees...

.17>	- What  *will*  happen  to  American opinion when daughters are drafted
.17> 	along  with  the sons?

I doubt seriously we'll see females drafted in our life time ...

.17>	Will the war still be worth it, or will we start
.17>	to  hear  more  people  saying "No, this war is not worth my daughter."
.17>	[Have  at  it  Mr.  Beeler, is this war worth your daughter?

I don't subscribe to (1) women being drafted or (2) women in combat UNLESS
IT IS THEIR CHOICE.  If my daughters want to serve - it is their decision.
[Don't worry, their father was a Marine - they'll *want* to serve - it's in
their genes :-) ]

.17>	Little bit
.17>	different  from  sending  those  faceless  disproportionate  numbers of
.17>	African-Americans and other financial minorities in the military, huh?]

I thought that it was a volunteer force that we had over they - they weren't
drafted - they put on a uniform - raised their hand and said "I do solemnly
swear ...."

.17>	How many feelings of masculinity in you are being touched via answering
.17>	these?

None.

.17>  	I admit my first response to each of these questions draws very
.17>	heavily  on  my  (American  male)  views  of masculinity.  How much for
.17>	others?

Zero.


Any more questions?

Jerry

    re: Jerry....
    
    All I can say is ..........  EXCELLENT.
    
    re:19
    
    Get a life....

    One minor point of clarification here ... in 535.19 you addressed a
    fellow noter's comments as:

	"...hardly a very significant (or positive) contribution to the
    	discussion... If I misinterpreted you, I'm sorry."

    In my answers I have used very short sentences and tried to keep the
    dialog to 4 or 5 letter words or less ("no", "none", "zero", etc..) so
    as to avoid any misinterpretation. If you have any questions, please feel
    free to ask, but, rest assured that I'm deadly serious and mean every word
    of what I have written.

    It may not be what you want to hear (that is to say that it may be
    dismissed as 'not positive')  ... as to "significant" ... well, it may
    be equally dismissed as insignificant for the same reason.
    
    Jerry

>Now that  we  have  the three most renown ultra-conservatives and militarists

 A pointless and valueless comment. It is also false.

>(a men's group anti-male?? That says more about  you than the group).

 You don't believe a men's group can be "anti-male"? Why not?

>  How about  answering some real questions...  Why *is* the gender gap so high?

 Why don't you address the point I made in .12 which goes directly to this 
issue? Why did you fail to address my points in .7? And you accuse US of
"not answering real questions?!!"

>	- How  much  of  our going into war is resulting from two men not being
>	able to negotiate or being seen as 'weak' or 'backing down' (aka "being
>	'unmanly'")?

 Our entry into hostilities was driven by one man, Saddam Hussein. Had he
reversed his illegal and immoral acts, no hostilities would have existed.

>Why do the pro-war protestors
>	chant  "USA!  USA!  USA!" as if this were the Olympics and we wanted to
>	prove  our  power and ability to dominate to the rest of the men in the
>	world?

 This amateur psychology kick is a dismal failure. It doesn't even rate
a response.

>  - Will tens of thousands of children, women, and men dies because George Bush
>  sees negotiation as "backing down"?

 No. Any who die will have died as a result of the complete intransigence of
one man, Saddam Hussein.

>  - Why  is the gender-gap so high?

 I don't believe your numbers. See .12.

>  - What  role  do  sports  and  video  game  metaphors  play in Bush's and the
>  Pentagon's propaganda efforts? 

 They are not "propaganda efforts," first of all, they are releases of 
information. Second of all, the role played is that sports metaphors are
simple and easy to understand by a number of people; they are a communication 
device.

>  - Does  fear  of the "wimp factor" drive Bush's obsession with "bringing Iraq
>  to its knees"?

 nope. The "wimp factor" is a manufactured item by media with too much time on
their hands and not enough real work to do. It has no place whatsoever in
this crisis.

>  - Why  should  U.S.  soldiers die to defend the gender-apartheid dictatorship
>  of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?

 They shouldn't. No one should ever die as the result of the ambitions of
an aggressor. However, what should happen and what does happen are very 
different things. US soldiers are dying not because of the system of government
of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but for the return of a sovereign state to
it's people, the removal of a destabilizing and dangerous force in the
middle east, and the strangthening of the UN into a major force which will
be seen as being capable of stopping any aggression anywhere in the world
in order to prevent said aggressions in the first place. The resulting stability
will be paid many times over.

>What long-term effect will this have on gender relations?

 Since women are becoming more involved in the military, gender relations ought
to improve as women start to pay more attention to what's happening in the
military arena and men and women find more common ground.

>  - What  does  it  say  about  our  national  priorities that we are diverting
>  billions  of  dollars  from  domestic  social  programs  to a war intended to
>  restore a regime that has proven itself to be violently oppressive to women?

 What is says is that people who make such statements haven't the foggiest idea
what they are talking about, given the fact that no such diversion has taken
place. Domestic social programs funded last year have not been touched, and
the proposed budget by Bush will include increases in domestic spending. So
you might want to take aminute to turn down the anti-America propaganda
machine and check at least a few of your facts.

 the  Doctah

    
    	Oh, your side is "releases of information". The opposing side is
    	"the anti-America propaganda machine"??  How convenient.
    
	Such a simplistic view of life, calling anything you do not agree
    	with 'anti-American'. I'm surprised at you doctah.
    
    	Debating what is in our best American interest is not being
    	anti-Amercian. Claiming unpatriotism toward someone whose view-
    	points you do not agree with is an old, too easy tactic, doctah.
    
    	As for what the real reasons are for us wanting to fight this war 
    	- other people have discussed that in 553.  
                                                                     
                

.14> Now that we have the three most renown ultra-conservatives
.14> and militarists .....

    "Three Men and a ....." ....oh ... forget it ....

    Jerry

	And by the way...

>    	two noters you objected to. I've met them both. I consider
>    	them to be two of the finest people I know 

	I've met  both  of  them  too.  As I have met with members of REAL MEN.
	Nothing has been said about who is 'finer', nothing has been said about
	either  group  being  the  'better' people.  They both simply represent
	different  philosophies.   The  difference  being that the more liberal
	male view tends not to be as represented here in male space as the more
	traditional "macho man's" conservative male view.

	Presenting the other side is my very humble and much considered desire,
	which  I  have earned the right to have as a patriotic 100% American by
	my  own  blood  and  sweat  in  the US military.  If some men here feel
	threatened   by   that   view,  fine.   But  don't  you  dare  call  me
	anti-American, nothing could be further from the truth.

	Having an  open-mind  to  consider  both  sides  of argument instead of
	rushing  into the arrogant "*MY* side is always Right" attitude is very
	much an American Yankee attribute.
	
	Whether or  not American lives should be lost is very serious business,
	and likewise deserving of very serious debate. 
    
	-Erik

    re: 'three men and'
    
    	Serious debate. Not resorting to the classic male response of
    	questioning one's 'manhood'.  
       

.27> ... classic male response ....

    Hey! Muchas Gracias! Now I'm a (1) famous and (2) classic male!

    I'm on my way to Los Angeles ... I'll pop back in this evening to see
    if more accolades have been bestowed upon me ... and ... see if any
    intelligent questions have been posted in this ..... debate.

    Beauregard

    
    Yup Jerry, you sure are a classic! And a Texan one to boot. (There's
    another accolade for you to hold high).         
                                                                      
    Glad you appreciate the accolades. How about throwing some nice ones my
    way for once too. :-)                            
                                                                      

>Oh, your side is "releases of information".

 The pentagon is "my side"? I did not realize I had such powerful cohorts. :-)

>	Such a simplistic view of life, calling anything you do not agree
>    	with 'anti-American'.

 You have no lack of chutzpah, I'll give you that. You make the statement that
if nobody wanted the war, we would not be in it (plain and simple)," yet you
call a straw man you erected that purports to be my views "simplistic." That
takes nerve, if not intellectual integrity.

.27>   	Serious debate. Not resorting to the classic male response of
.27>   	questioning one's 'manhood'.  

 Juxtaposed with:

.3>	BIG-DICK DIPLOMACY
.3>  "wimp factor"

.4> HOW MUCH BLOOD WILL IT TAKE TO PROVE YOUR MANHOOD?
.4>I  feel the military is built around the concept of BEING MACHO.

.13> Betcha that threatens all your macho  fun  fantasies  of being Rambo. 

 Get the picture?

>(a men's group anti-male?? That says more about  you than the group).

 This here is a classic. Why don't you now tell us about "internalized
    phobias." According the above statement, if you believe in
those concepts "That says more about  you than the group."

 You can't engage in rhetoric, be treated to return fire, and then claim you're 
being attacked with rhetoric. It doesn't hold water.

 The Doctah
    

    Thanks, Doctah ... you know ... I wonder ... 10 Marines died last night
    in a fire fight ....

    I wonder what they would think (would have thought) about this REAL MEN
    bilge in this note?

    No accolades Erik ... your philosophy stinks ... you, as an individual
    are probably a fine person (note, moderators, I'm attacking the note,
    not the noter).

    Jerry

    I feel that this so called real mens group is something to be avoided.
    The war is basically to prevent some country from stomping over
    another.
    It really dosen't matter what the stomped on country's internal
    politics are. They did not deserve to get stomped on this way. 
    As for a womens point of view, my daughter, age 23, wanted to 
    volenteer in the military, she was upset that they don't allow 
    women in combat. I was willing to support her. I was quite proud of 
    her. But i told her she would not make it past the physical as she
    has tendinitis in both hands and arms for which she is currently
    undergoing therpy . 
    The polls and the usually liberal channels are
    reporting something in the mid 70's percintil supporting Bush. 
    I personally don't like Bush for his tax increase and gun control 
    positions but I support The use of force to free Kuwait.  

	In this world of REAL MEN...thank you God for UNreal men
	like ::BEELER, ::LEVESQUE, ::MODICA and the like....
	and the men who serve in the Marines, the Navy, the
	Air Force and the Army.

	
	kits

Excuse me folks, but don't you think it's kind of ridiculous to 
dismiss a group based on one action?  For example, have the Republican 
party and the NRA ever done something that you really disagreed with, 
yet you still pretty much believed in what the group was trying to 
accomplish?

The goal of REAL MEN is to have men take more responsibility for the 
violence that we perpetuate and commit.  It's very clear to me that 
you object to this current tactic of theirs and that you object to the 
rhetoric.  

But how about the goals?  Don't you think it's a worth while thing to 
have men look into ways that we can reduce violence against women and 
violence in general?  And, if you disagree with their tactics, are 
there any other tactics that you can recommend (besides "get in line, 
and shut up") that you think would be more effective in meeting the 
goal?

[I'm just concerned about the whole sale dismissal of this group 
because of its stand on the war.  Do you really know enough about the 
group to dismiss it that quickly?]


							--Gerry

    Well, I guess I'll just continue to thank my Higher Power for men who
    are willing to denounce violent behaviour at every level.
    
    E Grace

    And, E Grace, I'll continue to shake my head in sorrow at males on both
    sides of divisive issues who think that posturing and rhetoric are
    going to do anything towards solving it.
    
    Erik, I have a great deal of respect for the stated goals and some of
    the past actions of REAL MEN.  I find your recent broadsheets to be
    calculated to inflame and exasperate people who are wrestling with a
    political crisis of very wide implications, that has wide-ranging
    complications and affects the responsibilities we as a nation have
    previously accepted.  You are triggering exactly those reactions in men
    that you claim to decry; it looks to me like you did it deliberately.
    
    Attacking men will not convince them to oppose violence.  You are
    becoming what you hate.  Reverse your tactics; illustrate the ties
    between macho and war with love for your fellow men, not shame for what
    society has taught them to be.  You give them no way to accept your
    point without damning themselves.
    
    DougO

>But how about the goals?  Don't you think it's a worth while thing to 
>have men look into ways that we can reduce violence against women and 
>violence in general?

 I think I addressed this in my first reply to this string.

.7>While they may indeed have some reasonable attributes and goals, the way
.7>they go about acheiving them inspires annoyance and resentment from the very
.7>group that they purport to be attempting to change.

 The Doctah

re: kits in .33
    
>	In this world of REAL MEN...thank you God for UNreal men
>	like ::BEELER, ::LEVESQUE, ::MODICA and the like....
>	and the men who serve in the Marines, the Navy, the
>	Air Force and the Army.
    
 	Unless I'm mistaken, ::BEELER, ::LEVESQUE, ::MODICA aren't
    	presently in the military. 
    
    	However I know several REAL MEN members who are, presently. And
    	other members are also war veterans. I don't hold the concept that
    	people in the military are all of one 'macho' mold, if that is 
    	what you were inferring. 
    
    	BTW, kits and others - Guard units are having a very hard time
    	finding recruits. Since you are so FOR this conflict, will you go
    	with them and match your actions with your words. It's a volunteer
    	force - if you truly believe this is the most necessary and worthy
    	effort, will you join up? Anyone can. Especially the 'strong
    	believers.'  Can I pass your names to the recruiters?
    
    	Or does that change your viewpoint about how worthy of life,
    	especially potentially yours, this conflict really is? [Gerry
    	Fisher asked this question earlier, I believe].
    
    	-Erik
                                                     

re: DougO in .36
    
>    Erik, I have a great deal of respect for the stated goals and some of
>    the past actions of REAL MEN.  I find your recent broadsheets to be
>    calculated to inflame and exasperate people who are wrestling with a
>    political crisis of very wide implications

	Bingo. I think you have it. 

	My guess  is  that  the  broadsheets  were  meant  to incite people, in
	particular  men,  to become involved in this discussion.  And hopefully
	come  to the next REAL MEN meeting to help create the next phase of the
	effort.   Whether  men  hate  them  or like them, the feedback this has
	generated  has been fabulous.  I'll be taking some of the feedback back
	to  the  group  with me, but hopefully other men will come too.  If you
	disagree,  come shout out your opinion.  If you agree, shout out yours.
	These  men  don't have all the answers, come add your sentiments to the
	group.  The next meeting is at 7:30 tomorrow night, call for directions
	at...

               REAL MEN                 
               P.O. Box 1769            
               Brookline, MA 02146      
               (617) 782-7838           

	This whole  effort  is  leading  up  to  a panel discussion REAL MEN is
	hosting  at MIT on Febuary 20'th.  It will feature some leading foreign
	policy  experts, a well-known  feminist  author, social experts in male
	gender  roles,  and  some honorable Vietnam Veterans.  A real mixed bag
	group, which should make for some excellent discussions.
                                        
	To recap,  I  believe REAL MEN's whole goal was to generate discussions
	about masculinity, in men, and not to just sit around listening to CNN,
	resigned  with  "well  I guess it's just gotta be that way." If they're
	not doing it right, help them change that.

	Anyone want to come to tomorrow's mtg with me?

	-Erik

>        <<< Note 535.39 by CYCLST::DEBRIAE "the social change one..." >>>


>	My guess  is  that  the  broadsheets  were  meant  to incite people, in
>	particular  men,  to become involved in this discussion.  And hopefully
>	come  to the next REAL MEN meeting to help create the next phase of the
>	effort.   Whether  men  hate  them  or like them, the feedback this has
>	generated  has been fabulous.  I'll be taking some of the feedback back
                                      ______________________________
>	to  the  group  with me, 
      ______________________

	That is against DIGITAL policy. What is written/said in a
	DIGITAL Notes Conference is not to be used outside the company.
 
	kits
	

    
    Erik,
    
    	Though I haven't said much here, I am stating now that
    anything I enter in mennotes is to stay here. I give
    no one permission to extract, copy, etc. anything I've entered here.
    That applies to outside DEC or other notesfiles.
    
    						Hank

Good to see how a "real man" stands behind what he writes, eh?

				Niggle

    Erik
    
    Ask them for me; ...but do they double clutch?
    
    Steve

    I mean what I say and I say what I mean.  That notwithstanding, I'll
    not have things that I write in this or any other conference presented
    outside of Digital Equipment Corporation unless I give my explicit
    written consent.  What I say here stays here.  I'll not have something
    taken out of context and "interpreted" in my absence.

    Clear? Good.

    Jerry

    Erik, I can't come, the plane fare is too dear.  While tactics of
    stirring people up to get reactions may suit your purposes, I don't
    think it does much to encourage feelings of peaceableness or of
    cooperation.  Perhaps REAL MEN will learn that manipulating people
    doesn't reach many of them favorably.  Perhaps REAL MEN will learn
    tactics that show respect for others.  And perhaps they'll learn them
    quickly enough to gain back some credibility.  But most groups only 
    get to experience one such disaster.  Good luck.
    
    DougO

    re: beeler
    
    >Thanks, Doctah ... you know ... I wonder ... 10 Marines died last night
    >in a fire fight ....
    >I wonder what they would think (would have thought) about this REAL MEN
    >bilge in this note?
    
    	I don't know Jerry. Why don't you ask their wives, and children...
    

    Some of Erik's questions have merit.  First, though, it is necessary to 
    correct two fallacies from ::LEVESQUE:
    
.23> Our entry into hostilities was driven by one man, Saddam Hussein. Had he
.23>reversed his illegal and immoral acts, no hostilities would have existed.
    
.23> No. Any who die will have died as a result of the complete intransigence of
.23>one man, Saddam Hussein.
    
    These statements do not stand up.  Despite Hussein's actions, Bush had
    the option of ignoring them, as America has so often ignored aggression
    of this kind.  The fact the he chose to act, the manner of action
    he chose, and the public response thereto are therefore worthy of
    consideration.
    
.16>  - Will tens of thousands of children, women, and men dies because George Bush
.16>  sees negotiation as "backing down"?
    
    While it can be argued that George Bush did not take diplomacy far
    enough, it nevertheless is manifestly incorrect to imply that he failed
    to attempt negotiation.  However, negotiation by definition requires
    at least two sides, and a degree of good faith.  Hussein has
    consistently refused over a considerable period of time to discuss
    the issue of Iraqi sovereignty over Kuwait.
    
    Both sides see issues of principles, and principles by definition are
    not negotiable.  Bush has made much of the principle of protecting
    weaker countries against agression.  Hussein has made much of the
    principle of regaining what for centuries prior to British colonisation
    was coherent territory ('Kuwait' was part of the Basra province even in 
    the Ottoman Empire).
    
    If these 'principles' are indeed principles then negotiation may not be
    possible or viable, and it is to neither leader's demerit.
    
.16>  - Why  is the gender-gap so high? Does the projection of U.S.  military power
.16>  make  American  men  feel  more  secure  about  their  masculinity? Does U.S.
.16>  military  prowess  enhance their self-image? Does national power translate to
.16>  feelings of personal power?
    
    As a non-American I find these questions pertinent.  On my observation
    I think that national power does indeed enhance feelings of (male) personal
    power, more so in America than elsewhere.  I think this trend is
    tied in part to America's remarkable ethnocentrism , in part to
    American international dominance since WWII, and in part to a natural
    desire to identify with, and belong to, a group with power.
    
    Repeated studies have shown an appalling level of ignorance by Americans 
    about the rest of the world.  At the same time, a succession of
    military victories which left America the most powerful nation in the
    world have coincided with the development of some curious myths about
    their r�le in it.  For example, in his State of the Union speech Bush
    came frighteningly close to making the accidental legacy of WWII
    (America as the world's policeman) into some kind of semi-divine
    national destiny.  That sort of talk frightens me.  I'd much rather
    America settled into a new world order where it was but one of the
    countries in the world.
    
>  - What  role  has  the  U.S.  defeat in Vietnam played in damaging American's
>  men's collective self-confidence? Is "kicking Saddam's ass" a big step toward
>  reclaiming  the  old  "USA  is #1" feeling that was ingrained in the American
>  male psyche after WWII?
    
    I think the loss in Vietnam was a horrific shock to the American
    psyche.  Other countries seemed not nearly so affected by it.  American
    publicly invested so much pride in that war that its first major loss 
    was a psychological disaster of large proportion, hence the emphasis on
    'this will not be another Vietnam'.  You don't hear the French, for
    example, publicly chastising themselves in this manner.
    
    While I would hesitate before asserting in any way that such feelings
    pushed Bush into military action, I would say that they contribute in
    large measure to the level of his public support.
    
.16>  - If  the  war  is  "successful",  will  that  help  to  reaffirm traditional
.16>  masculine  values such as physical aggression, competition, proving strength,
.16>  and  hierarchies  of  power?  Traditionally  in  war,  men  are the important
.16>  players,   and   women   are  relegated  to  dependency  on  their  "powerful
.16>  protectors." What long-term effect will this have on gender relations?
    
    There's no need to put successful in quotation marks.  It has clear
    political and military aims, so its success can be judged.
    
    First, if Iraq is driven out of Kuwait, under the UN principle of
    countries being free from aggression and attack, then surely the point
    is not that any masculine tradition of physical aggression has been
    reinforced.  Rather the opposite I would have thought.  Aggression was
    met and defeated by collective action.  Is this not a worthy goal?
    
    Secondly, I see no special damage to gender relations.  The military,
    by its very nature, is not absolutely representative of society, and I
    don't see why women in particular should feel threatened that it is doing 
    its job.  
    
.17>	- Why *does* the military exclude gay men from the service?
    
    Generally it is because gays traditionally have been portrayed as
    pseudo-women, and hence weak and unsuited to combat.  If you use
    unnatural in the Thomist sense then the theory goes that since
    homosexuality is unnatural then homosexual sex must imitate
    heterosexual sex, with one partner assuming the 'feminine' role.  In
    the same sense of natural, any man who assumed or developed such
    characteristics obviously lacked the masculine characteristics
    essential to fight.
    
    Despite the theory's historical and other inaccuracies the military is 
    deeply conservative and will resist changing its attitude for a long time.
    
.17>	- What *will* happen when female POW's are taken and shown on TV?
    
    If you are implying this will happen in the Gulf then it's extremely
    unlikely.  Of course, if it did, expect to see the veneer of gender 
    equality in America disappear quicker than the eye can see.
    
.17>	- What  *will*  happen  to  American opinion when daughters are drafted
.17>	along  with  the sons? Will the war still be worth it, or will we start
.17>	to  hear  more  people  saying "No, this war is not worth my daughter."
    
    This is an extremely interesting and important question that I'd like
    to see debated a lot more, because it touches deeply our feelings about
    gender-r�les.  I really don't think America is ready for this yet.
    
.14>> How much do masculinity concepts tie into your feelings about the war?

.20>They don't.
    
    Jerry, you can't be serious.  In .20 you acknowledged the importance of
    masculinity issues in the military.  You know yourself that when, as a
    young man, you joined the Marines that contemporary masculine notions
    of honour and so forth influenced your decision.  You indicate a
    preference that women not be put in combat roles.
    
    How then can you expect us to believe that notions of manhood,
    masculininty and the like are not influencing your reaction to the
    current crisis?
    
.14>>	- How  much  is our exciting military prowess being used to enhance our
.14>>	American  male  self-image?

.20>You gotta be kiddin'?  Is this a real question?
    
    I think it is a real question.  America's military technology is
    dazzling, so why then should it be strange that American men, brought
    up in a tradition of international dominance, not want to identify with
    these symbols and tools of power?
    
.14>>	How  much is our defeat in Vietnam playing
.14>>	into our decision to make "USA #1" again?

.20>Zero.
    
    As I indicated above, I don't believe this for one second.  Again, I won't 
    suggest it as an overt motive, replacing the stated (and honourable)
    reasons, but I do believe America desires to purge the stain of defeat
    and perceived dishonour.

Peacenicks that protest the war are undermining the support given to those in
the uniform that are confronted with a life and death situation.  This kills
support and morale.  It happened in VN and Saddam hopes it happens now.  Saddam
has offered his "personal thanks" to all the peacenicks.

So in that regard, if you're protesting the war, YOU ARE supporting Saddam's
efforts.  That's a fact, whether you accept it or deny it.

-db

    re: .47
    
	"Hussein has made much of the
    principle of regaining what for centuries prior to British colonisation
    was coherent territory ('Kuwait' was part of the Basra province even in 
    the Ottoman Empire)."
    
    
    	I think this argument would justify Britain taking back Eire by
    force, and Italy taking over most of the rest of Europe. A history of
    what parts of Europe the Austrian empire owned, and for how long would
    be instructive, and we should remember that this part of France was
    Greek for several hundred years, until the Romans pushed them out, much
    like the British pushed the Ottoman empire out of the Arabian
    subcontinent. A Tukish diplomat has been heard to remark that Turkey
    has more right to both Iraq *and* Kuwait than the current Iraqui
    government has to either if you believe historical justification.

    re .49
    
    What you say is correct, but to an extent misses the point.  My point
    there was that if either or both sides claim to base their stance on
    principle, then no amount of wishful thinking will transform that into
    negotiation, which implies compromise.
    
    It would go far to explain the consistency of Hussein's stance.  For
    unlike more than a few I do not believe he is in any way mad or insane.
    
    The fact is that Iraq has never accepted the British mandated borders
    in the Middle East.  Combine that with an assertive Arab nationalism
    and an aggressive Arab definition of masculinity, and it is easy to see
    why, despite his other brutalities, Hussein might actually believe what
    he is saying.  
    
    In the West we have a tradition of scepticism towards our leaders.  I
    wonder how much that has blinded us to the fact that Hussein generally
    has said what he thought, and done his level best to see that his
    desires happen.
    
    Some commentators have mentioned the Arab masculinity, summing it up in
    an Arab saying: "Better to be a cock for a day than a chicken for a
    year".  There is a school of thought that sees Hussein going down in
    flames, because even if (and when) he lose the military war he will
    have won the ideological one.
    
    If this is so, then Bush's approach may have been wrong.  I am not
    saying that his attempts at diplomacy were insincere, but that they may
    have been misdirected.  His reaction was swift and aggressive, hoping
    clearly to frighten or pressure Hussein out of Kuwait through world
    opinion, economic sanctions and the threat of overwhelming force.
    
    This begs the question.  On the one hand, an aggressive stance was
    likely to rub Hussein up exactly the wrong way to achieve the West's
    desired goal, but on the other if Hussein really meant and means what
    he says about Kuwait being part of Iraq then would Bush's approach
    really have mattered?  This is very difficult to answer.
    
    However, it does point up the pertinence of Erik's question about
    Bush's attitude to negotiation.  Far from being a wimp, he has acted
    consistently within the Western philosophical framework of stating your
    position and your limits up front, and attempting dialogue within those
    parameters.  However, it may be that he backed himself into a corner,
    because having stated his limits he was obliged to adhere to them or
    lose enormous standing in the world.  Then, he would truly have been
    The Wimp.  Had he been less publicly aggressive in the beginning we may
    not be at war right now.  I say _may_, I guess we'll never know.

    
    Re: .42
    
    Is that necessary Niggle?
    
    

>    The fact is that Iraq has never accepted the British mandated borders
>    in the Middle East.

 This is a rather humorous statement, given the fact that Iraq was created
by the British.

>Had he been less publicly aggressive in the beginning we may
>    not be at war right now.  I say _may_, I guess we'll never know.

 Please notice that the key words here are "right now." Indeed, like many
other unpleasant things, we might have deferred it for a while. But to think
it would not have happened ever shows a remarkable lack of historical
perspective. We could have put off the war, making it more costly and painful
in the long run. That's about the size of it.

>    These statements do not stand up.  Despite Hussein's actions, Bush had
>    the option of ignoring them, as America has so often ignored aggression
>    of this kind.  The fact the he chose to act, the manner of action
>    he chose, and the public response thereto are therefore worthy of
>    consideration.

 The statements do stand up. Even though Bush could have ignored them for
a while, he (or the next president) would have had to deal with the problem
eventually. Even if Dukakis were president, he'd have to do something to
deal with the problem. This said, what Bush did was make it very clear a
long time ago that Hussein had to face that fact that the world was not going to
allow him to annex Kuwait. Bush was only a spokesman. He gave Hussein every
opportunity to get out with his military intact. Hussein was belligerent, 
bellicose, and unyielding. Of course, it's his soldiers and his country that 
are paying the price for that. And, of course, so are the coalition forces.

 The Doctah

    re .52
    
> This is a rather humorous statement, given the fact that Iraq was created
>by the British.
    
    No humour at all.  Right from day one the newly created Iraqi state was
    saying that that little triangular bit down there is ours, and we're
    going to get it back one day.
    
> Please notice that the key words here are "right now." Indeed, like many
>other unpleasant things, we might have deferred it for a while. But to think
>it would not have happened ever shows a remarkable lack of historical
>perspective. We could have put off the war, making it more costly and painful
>in the long run. That's about the size of it.
    
    I lack no historical perspective.  What I was exploring was
    possibilities.  If Hussein means what he says about never giving up
    Kuwait then ultimately it would have come down sooner or later into a
    choice of throwing him out or leaving him be.  On the other hand, if it
    was largely rhetorical then the possibility exists that the crisis
    could have been resolved diplomatically, had the West taken the trouble
    to accomodate the face of their posture to allow Hussein room to
    manoeuvre.
    
> The statements do stand up. Even though Bush could have ignored them for
>a while, he (or the next president) would have had to deal with the problem
>eventually. Even if Dukakis were president, he'd have to do something to
>deal with the problem. This said, what Bush did was make it very clear a
>long time ago that Hussein had to face that fact that the world was not going to
>allow him to annex Kuwait. Bush was only a spokesman. He gave Hussein every
>opportunity to get out with his military intact. Hussein was belligerent, 
>bellicose, and unyielding. Of course, it's his soldiers and his country that 
>are paying the price for that. And, of course, so are the coalition forces.
    
    The statements do not stand up.  Bush had options.  He could have
    ignored Hussein (and we all know how much precedent there is).  He
    could have held out hope on the embargo.  Instead he chose military
    action.
    
    It is entirely feasible, given America's track record, that Bush (or
    maybe another President) could have come to terms with Hussein. 
    America has financed, armed, propped up and otherwise supported a small
    army of dictators around the world for decades.  Faced with an
    accomodating America Hussein could have offered strategic influence,
    cheap oil, all sorts of things in turn for recognition, support and so
    on.
    
    Instead, for a variety of reasons, Bush decided to hammer him hard an
    fast.
    
    I don't make comment here about the correctness of that decision.  I
    merely demonstrate that it takes two to make war, and thus your blanket
    statements are demonstrably false.

RE: .47 by BIGUN::SIMPSON 

>  Some of (the) questions have merit. 

	Thank you! At least one person has accepted the questions in the proper
	light  -  to  do  personal introspection and examine the possibility of
	masculinity  and  gender role issues in ourselves during these times of
	war.

re: dougO

	Since you  mentioned  your  concerns, I took out the original pamphlets
	again  last  night  and  re-read  them.   I  honestly did not find them
	offensive  in  any  way.   Out  of curiosity I showed them to two of my
	female  friends.   Their  reaction was very positive - they felt it was
	'right on'.  I then showed them separately to three male friends, their
	reactions  were  the  opposite  of being overbearing or offensive.  The
	general  feeling was that they "weren't strong *enough*".  They felt it
	wasn't  indepth enough.  That it was 'too gentle' because it left it up
	to  the  reader  to put much of the concepts together.  That all it did
	was  nudge  people  into  personal introspection to see what the topics
	loosely  touched  upon by the questions might have to do with their own
	masculinity and gender role feelings.

	The memory  of  how  many  negative  reactions  the  Andrew  Dice  Clay
	pamphlets  drew  from  men  came back to mind too last night.  I didn't
	find those pamphlets (what I call broadsheets) offensive either.

	But I ask that you do not base your opinions of the REAL MEN group just
	upon  these  broadsheets  and especially not on any of my possibly poor
	representations of the group.

	The best  way to get a feel for the group is by coming to the open Wed,
	February 20 panel discussion REAL MEN is hosting at MIT, featuring some
	leading  foreign  policy  experts, a well-known feminist author, social
	experts  in  male  gender  roles,  and some honorable Vietnam Veterans.
	REAL  MEN  members will be there too.  It will be the best way to judge
	the  true  feelings  and  sentiments  of the group, by listening to the
	reactions  from  the  REAL  MEN  members  to  the panel and to the open
	audience of mixed viewpoints.

	-Erik

    
    	PS- I have a tiny bit of self-doubt here that my typing in the
    	broadsheets the way I did, what I chose to capitalize, what I chose
    	to asterisk, underline, ect. to somehow translate the broadsheet of
    	different fonts, sizes, and darknesses into ASCII, might have
    	somehow added to the effect of bitterness or attacking or being
    	overbearing or that they were yelling, ect, ect.
    
    	Please don't judge the tone of the group on the tone of my ASCII 
    	translation of the broadsheets. 
    

.54> At least one person has accepted the questions in the proper......
              ^^^
    
    Does that tell you something?

    RE .57
    
    I seem to recall that a much higher % of former Marines are CEO's in
    this country than from any other service.
    
    FWIW
    
    Steve

.58> I seem to recall that a much higher % of former Marines are CEO's in
.58> this country than from any other service.

    Could be true ... leadership is a quality that is the hallmark of a
    Marine.

    Jerry

    
    
      First off, Mr Debraie, I'm sure Oprah Wifrey would absolutely LOVE
   to have you on her show.
    
      I know, by your comments, you are trying to draw out some of the 
    classic "machismo" responses to your REAL MEN posturing.  Reminds
    me a great deal of the newly formed Queer Nation.  To confront what
    they percieve as a problem, they meet it "head on" (pardon the pun).
    
      Sooo, to give you some comments that you and your oh so enlightened
    REAL MEN cohorts can get some grins and giggles on, I'll give you just
    a couple responses.  
    
      People who act such as you usually are trying to pass themselves
    off as more *enlightened*, on a *higher intellectual level* or maybe
    this one - *free thinking*.  Alright, coming from one close-minded,
    conservative (i.e.a person who can't think for himself or follower 8')
    republican, I think you are so far out of reality - that, frankly,
    a good old fashioned nuckle-sandwhich would be a waste of time. 
    (yea, I know,.....classic Machismo Barbarism - save it).
    
      your note
    
    >.38 
       "BTW, kits and others.  Gaurd units are having a very hard time
        finding recruits.  Since you are so FOR this conflict, will you go
    
       I'm sure if needed, they would, in a heart beat, as would I.  But, 
       going one step further.  Using your same idiotic logic.  If you 
       need clothes - go make em' yourself (why have someone else do it?)
       If you want to drive your car - go process your *own* oil into
       gas.  
    
       Mr. Simpson
     .47
       "These statements do not stand up.  Despite Hussein's actions, Bush
        had the option of ignoring them, as America has so often ignored 
        agression"
    
        First of all, why is everything with you BUSH, BUSH, BUSH?  What
        about the other nations and leaders of the United Nations?  Oh yes,
        I forgot - we are the evil Satan - jeesh, I keep forgetting that
        all evil perpitrated throughout the world is our fault.  Maybe
        if we really want to delve into this psychiatric psychobabble,
        maybe liberals are the one who have the problem....uh? Thank God
    we have a President who knows what it's like to have a pair(I know,
    more sexuality intertwined with manhood)... 
        
    
        (I luv this......)
    
        continuing;
    
        >"this will not be another Vietnam!"  You don't hear the French for
         example, publicly chastising themselves in this manner,
       
         The *French*...hmmmm.  Doesn't suprise me either!  Guess it's 
         just that damn Machismo US again.  So excuse us for not accepting
         defeat.  (Guess that just shows how hung (Damn, there I go again
         with those Freudian slips!) - up we are on winning.  
    
         I get so fed up with being made to feel GUILTY for wanting to 
         succeed or win.  It is *not* a crime.   The bleeding heart
         (usually democratic) Liberals will have you believe it is, tho'!
         Don't let em...
    
         .53
    
         > "Could have been resolved diplomatically, had the west taken 
            the trouble to accomodate the face of their posture to allow
            Hussein room to "
    
            There it is again - the whole damn thing is our fault.  I'm
            sure if the Kurds had only taken the "diplomatic route" maybe
            good old boy Saddam wouldn't have gassed em', eh?  
    
            I will end here by saying, I will not get into an argument 
            with the opposition to the war, but I will defend to the death
            their right for me to save them from future destruction.  And
            I (in my unenlightened state) will not even have the smarts
            to ask for a "thanks"!
    
            Sincerely,
    
            a REAL MAN
    
                                               

.60> I know, by your comments, you are trying to draw out some of the 
.60> classic "machismo" responses to your REAL MEN posturing.  Reminds
.60> me a great deal of the newly formed Queer Nation.
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Any analogy between a bunch of maladjusted adolescents and anything with
    even marginal intelligence is totally without merit.

    Suffice it to say, Mr. DYBEN ... I'm in total agreement with you. 
    Thank you for having the courage to stand up to say what needs to be
    said.

    I'd sign myself as a REAL MAN but wouldn't want to be accused of
    flaunting anything ... so .... just sign me ...

    Jerry

re: .60

	Yes, indeed.  You explained the opinions of the select few men like you
	very well.  It spoke very loudly.  Great sound bites.  In fact I'd love
	to have you continue with...

> Alright, coming from one close-minded,
> conservative (i.e.a person who can't think for himself or follower 8')
> republican, I think you are so far out of reality - that, frankly,
> a good old fashioned nuckle-sandwhich would be a waste of time. 
> (yea, I know,.....classic Machismo Barbarism - save it).
> > > Sincerely,
> > > a REAL MAN

	So as  a close-minded, conservative republican who enlightens people to
	your  philosophy  via  knuckle  sandwiches,  I  think  it would be very
	instructive  for  you  to  us what it is exactly that you think a 'real
	man' is?

	Go ahead, teach us some more... your notes are very educating. 

	In your mind, what makes a male a 'real man'?

	Also, what is a 'real woman'?

	-Erik

If folks don't stop insulting each other, I'm going to have to shut down
this topic.  I really don't want to have to do it, and would prefer that
folks on both sides stop personalizing the issues.

				Steve

    re .60 Dyben
    
    all I can add is:
    
    
    ditto!
    
    thanks,
    fred();

I like the goals of REAL MEN.  In general, I support them.

However, I think it's fascinating that this group is using a 
traditionally-male technique to try to get men to stop being so 
traditionally male.  Using an in-your-face style, designed to irritate 
and incite, is very aggressive.  The aggressive response (knuckle 
sandwich) to this initial technique is not surprising.

There are lots of ways to attack someone.  Joining the marines and 
charging Iraquis is one way.  Verbally tossing a "put this in your 
pipe and smoke it!" letter bomb is another way.  But both ways are 
aggressive and "male."


							--Gerry

>Peacenicks that protest the war are undermining the support given to those in
>the uniform that are confronted with a life and death situation.  This kills
>support and morale.  It happened in VN and Saddam hopes it happens now.  Saddam
>has offered his "personal thanks" to all the peacenicks.
>
>So in that regard, if you're protesting the war, YOU ARE supporting Saddam's
>efforts.  That's a fact, whether you accept it or deny it.

Actually, I think that Saddam is trying to get people like you to
attack your own countrymen and women.  If he can incite internal
strife, then that can undermine the war effort.  The protesters alone
are not causing internal strife.  They are not attacking other
Americans' patriotism, like you are doing; they are simply exercising
their first-amendment rights. 

You might want to emulate your President, here.  He said that the 
protesters are absolutely necessary to keeping a dialogue going on the 
war.  (I think it's just the protestor's drums he objects to.  ;-)  )


							--Gerry

.62> I  think  it would be very instructive  for  you  to  us what it is
.62> exactly that you think a 'real man' is?

    I think that you may have inadvertently stumbled onto one of the traits
    of a real man ... I doubt seriously that you can goad or force him into
    any kind of a response...for to deal with a real man by force is as
    impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.

    Jerry

>Actually, I think that Saddam is trying to get people like you to
>attack your own countrymen and women. 

 I disagree. I think he's really trying to cause such a backlash against US
policy that the war is not popularly supported and hence more difficult for
the president to continue. That there is rancor between the pro-UN sanctions
enforcement and the anti-UN sanctions enforcement groups is merely a
byproduct of this effort.

>They are not attacking Americans' patriotism,

 What they have said even in this string is that those of us who support the
use of force do not support the troops in the gulf. If that isn't an
accusation of a lack of patriotism, I don't know what is.

> they are simply exercising their first-amendment rights. 

 So are we. That they don't like what we have to say exactly parallels
our position on their "first amendment exercises."

 The Doctah

>>They are not attacking Americans' patriotism,
>
> What they have said even in this string is that those of us who support the
>use of force do not support the troops in the gulf. If that isn't an
>accusation of a lack of patriotism, I don't know what is.

I guess this just showcases how powerful "positions" are.  From the 
point of view of the protestors, they are not attacking your 
patriotism by saying, "Your support of the war is not supporting the 
troops."  Why?  Because they aren't saying, "You are un-American and 
aiding Saddam by supporting war."

On the other hand, if you look at it from a more traditional 
perspective, any accusation that someone doesn't support troops is an 
attack on their patriotism.

Depends on how you look at it.

The only point I am making is that the only people explicitly 
attacking the other group's American-ness is the war-supporting side.  
I don't see how you can refute this.


							--Gerry

    I've pretty much stopped reading this note and the other
    note in which Real Men (oops, I think is it REAL MEN) is
    being discussed.
    
    The words REAL MEN, when applied to a group, are a kind of
    judgment on those who are not in the group.  (I'm not in the
    group, and I feel judged by those who are REAL MEN.)
    Maybe the judgment is warranted, maybe not, but it does not
    make me want to learn more about the group.  Instead, it
    puts me on the defensive -- makes me feel like I'm going to
    have to defend myself in a win/lose situation.  If I'm not
    a REAL MAN, then what am I?  Fake?  Half?  Immature? a boy?
    
    I can't get past the name, without feeling under attack.
    
    So I'm inclined to walk away.  I figure the men in REAL MEN
    have got some ax to grind, and maybe it will do some good,
    for them, or for other men who will be encouraged to look at
    themselves and their actions, or for women even.  But I'm
    not inclined to approach the group, and even if I did, and 
    I found that I was such a REAL MAN, then I'd have the problem
    of belonging to a group whose name seems to be a judgment
    on other men.
    
    If there is one thing I've learned in these years of being
    in the men's movement it is that there are a lot of ways 
    to be a man and I really need to keep the focus on myself.
    I'm curious about other men, and I'm willing to talk about
    what being a man means to me and what it feels like, and I
    like to hear other men's stories and try to understand where
    they're coming from.  But I try to only offer judgments when
    they're asked for and then only to offer them, not to impose
    them.  A kind of "live and let (men) live" philosophy.
    
    Wil

    RE: .65 Gerry
    
> However, I think it's fascinating that this group is using a 
> traditionally-male technique to try to get men to stop being so 
> traditionally male.  Using an in-your-face style, designed to irritate 
> and incite, is very aggressive.  The aggressive response (knuckle 
> sandwich) to this initial technique is not surprising.
    
	Interesting commentary.  Gerry, what do you find 'aggressive' about the
	REAL MEN group? 
    
	I'm not questioning any of your feelings, I'm just curious where or
	from what they came from.  The broadsheets? The tone of writing? One or
	two words used? Or my (and I'll admit it) sometimes falling back on
	aggressive 'male' noting techniques? [Which, though bad, I don't feel
	sticking up for your points strongly in debate is anywhere even near in
	quite the same boat as physical violence (against women or otherwise)
	or threats of physical violence (knuckle-sandwich, etc)].  
    
	Personally, I don't feel the group is aggressive. Especially not like 
    	most other male groups I'm in, say like, even our sports team striving
	for the championship title.  It knows its philosophy, but it is not
	aggressive in feeling.  IE, I don't feel threatened by the group if and
	where I don't agree.
    
    	But some intersting thoughts you touched upon... 

	How long have feminist women been using so called 'non-traditionally
	male' techniques?

	How far has it gotten them? _Especially_ with men?

	Will having men do this work add something and make it catch on more
	finally? _Especially_ with men, where women might have so far failed? 

	Will having men do this work change the way it's being done? 
    
	These are thoughts we (and I 'fess up, throw the punches guys, I've
	become a core member of this group since the ADC protest and CEASEfire
	action week) in the group struggle with in determining where this
	virgining area of the men's movement is heading.

	Interesting thoughts... Fascinating thoughts.
     
    	-Erik

    
    Mr Debriae,
    
    > I think it would be very instructive for you to tell us what it
    > is exactly you think a 'real man ' is
    
      Well I think Capt Beeler said it all.I'll give you a little insight
    tho'. I believe man was made in the image of God, and that we must
    struggle everyday to re-capture this image, it is the "Road less
    traveled " for far to many men have taken the scenic route..If you
    want to know anything further I suggest you try to understand the
    nature of God, henceforth you will know who I idolize as a "Real Man".
    
    Sincerely,
    I sign for all the "REAL MEN".   p.s. I think the Israeli military
                                    as well as our own contain alot of
                                    REAL MEN..HOOOOORRRRRRAAAAAAAHHHHHH

    
>   If I'm not
>    a REAL MAN, then what am I?  Fake?  Half?  Immature? a boy?
>    
>    I can't get past the name, without feeling under attack.
>    
>    not inclined to approach the group, and even if I did, and 
>    I found that I was such a REAL MAN, then I'd have the problem
>    of belonging to a group whose name seems to be a judgment
>    on other men.

	This is  truly  amazing.  I think you missed the whole point of why the
	name was chosen, and the whole point of the group period.

	Someone questions  "What  a  'real  man'  is?", and someone feels under
	attack? Why?

	The group  is  not  branding  the label 'real' on anyone.  The name was
	chosen precisely to deflate that very social concept of what 'real men'
	are.   And  that foced judgement, on men, often by men.  No where is it
	seen  that  the  group said "Men who do XYZ are not real men." Hogwash.
	No  one  can, because the group is precisely against that.  That 'real'
	term especially. 

	They simply  question  "What  is a 'real' man?" And that is threatening
	for some? I think the important question is "Why?"

	-Erik
    
    	PS- Wil, your being comfortable with being male and that your just
    	being male and being yourself is the key vs. enforcing someone
    	else's view of what they feel 'a real man is' is exactly the point
    	of the group's name. 

    re: .70
    
>    The words REAL MEN, when applied to a group, are a kind of
>    judgment on those who are not in the group.  (...)Instead, it
>    puts me on the defensive -- makes me feel like I'm going to
>    have to defend myself in a win/lose situation.  
>    I can't get past the name, without feeling under attack.
    
I feel this way, too.  I feel some of their _stated_ goals may be lofty, and 
worthy, but, like Wil, I too am inclined to "walk away".  

    I am also "put off" from empathizing with this group by this string. 
    If there is one way to attach credibility to REAL MEN, this is not it.
    
    tony
    (who recognizes he has a long way to go to perfection, but is still a
    real man)

    

    I said I "feel" judged, Erik, by the title of the group.
    It's a feeling.   I've been known to change my feelings,
    but not because someone tried to logically argue me out
    of them.  I am open to changing my feelings when the 
    feeling is heard, understood and acknowledged by the other 
    person.  Sometimes, I already have such a sense of trust
    between me and the other person, or the group, that this
    process of being "received" is easy and rapid.  That has
    happened with a woman and with the men's group that I
    have been in for three years.  It is not likely to be
    very easy, however, with someone that I have just met.
    
    So, I am put off by the feeling of being judged.  I am
    willing to look beyond the feeling, and try to get some
    information, but having done that, I still feel 
    that this group is yelling at someone and it is not me.
    So, I am uncomfortable and I don't think the message is
    for me.   If this was the only activity that I could find
    that addresses what it is to be a man, I'd probably stick
    it out, and try to "get something" from it.
    
    But it's not the only activity, so I just walk away and
    try other things.
    
    Wil
    

    I have created a new US political party with the name;
    
    THE ONLY JUST AND TRUELY PATRIOTIC AMERICANS PARTY
    
    Want to join? Why not? Obviously from our title, if you ain't with us,
    your are against tohose ideals
    
    This is the problem with REAL MEN
    
    BTW my mail/notes header is a reaction to 'real men don't eat chiche'
    (sp)
    
    Steve

    re .60 (and related)
    
>        First of all, why is everything with you BUSH, BUSH, BUSH?  What
>        about the other nations and leaders of the United Nations?  Oh yes,
>        I forgot - we are the evil Satan - jeesh, I keep forgetting that
>        all evil perpitrated throughout the world is our fault.  Maybe
>        if we really want to delve into this psychiatric psychobabble,
>        maybe liberals are the one who have the problem....uh? Thank God
>    we have a President who knows what it's like to have a pair(I know,
>    more sexuality intertwined with manhood)... 
    
    It is a matter of record that Bush decided upon the quick and
    intendedly decisive reaction to Hussein's actions.  It was he who
    organised the coalition, partly via the State Department and partly by
    his own extensive list of personal contacts with various world leaders
    (for example, he rang my country's Prime Minister very early on,
    seeking support).  It is therefore proper to examine his motives and
    methods.  He, more than any other individual, is responsible for the
    shape and scope of the allied response.
    
    At no time did I say or imply that "all the world's evil" is America
    fault.  That is simply insecure projecting on your part.  What I said
    was that America has a track record of responding selectively to world
    problems, and not even you can argue away the historicity of America's
    support for dictators and other world "evils".
    
    I find it interesting that your response to legitimate questions about
    the why's and wherefore's of the actions of your President to be
    "psychiatric psychobabble".
    
>         The *French*...hmmmm.  Doesn't suprise me either!  Guess it's 
>         just that damn Machismo US again.  So excuse us for not accepting
>         defeat.  (Guess that just shows how hung (Damn, there I go again
>         with those Freudian slips!) - up we are on winning.  
    
    You've inadvertently hit the nail right on the head.  American culture
    is "hung up on winning".  One of the unfortunate consequences of this
    is a too often simplistic black/white win/lose view of the world, and a
    failure to appreciate (or even see) the subtleties, the shades of grey,
    in situations.
    
>         I get so fed up with being made to feel GUILTY for wanting to 
>         succeed or win.  It is *not* a crime.   The bleeding heart
>         (usually democratic) Liberals will have you believe it is, tho'!
>         Don't let em...
    
    At no time did I suggest or imply that you or any American should feel
    "guilty" about wanting to succeed.  I do, however, have serious
    reservations about the notion that the proper response to losing a war
    is to have another one, only better.
    
>            There it is again - the whole damn thing is our fault.  I'm
>            sure if the Kurds had only taken the "diplomatic route" maybe
>            good old boy Saddam wouldn't have gassed em', eh?  
    
>            I will end here by saying, I will not get into an argument 
>            with the opposition to the war, but I will defend to the death
>            their right for me to save them from future destruction.  And
>            I (in my unenlightened state) will not even have the smarts
>            to ask for a "thanks"!
    
    Did you take lessons on how to quote out of context?  At no time did I
    state or imply that "the whole damn thing is [America's] fault".  What
    I did suggest was that there may have been alternative approaches to
    resolving the crisis which, for various reasons, were not chosen. 
    Hussein having set the scene, Bush had choices about whether or not to
    respond, and if so in what manner.  The question is whether he made bad
    choices, and if so, why.
    
    At no time can you point to any of my notes (without distortion) and
    show where I made a concrete judgement that what Hussein did was right
    or that what Bush did was wrong.  One of the possibilities I canvassed
    was that Bush's response was correct.
    
    Your reference to the Kurds is fatuous and in exceedingly poor taste. 
    We all know of their sufferings, but beyond serving as an example of
    Hussein's brutality (something I acknowledged more than once) their
    experience offers no guide to how Bush should have responded and thus
    serves no purpose here.
    
    In fact, your whole note was so devoid of thoughtfulness and reason I
    have a very hard time deciding whether you actually mean what you said
    (an appalling thought, but possible), or whether it was a calculated,
    facetious wind-up.

    two weeks ago I saw a video (new broadcast/commentary) that it was
    (then) Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who came up with the
    "coalition" idea and urged President Bush into an aggressive stance.

    
    Mr. Debriae, by starting off in the first few notes *telling* 
    everyone WHAT a "real man" is...then you sit back on your 
    pompous chair and giggle and wonder why some men take an
    offense to your supposed question; "What is a real man?"
    I just have this mental picture in my mind of you chuckling,
    saying to yourself - SEE, Look at all those fragile little
    ego's that I stepped on.  Keep in mind, it is not the question
    but *your" answers that have pushed some buttons.
    
    
    You simply didn't ask the question...you asked it - then answered
    it for everyone.  Thus, the offensive responses.
    
    And if I would be so bold as to speak for Mr. Dyben.  His knuckle-
    sandwhich reference was in all probablility, NOT an aggressive 
    posture.  But had he perceived you, on his *own* terms, it may
    have been.  (i.e. had he perceived you as a real man, he may
    have meant it).  You perceived it to be aggressive - thus, you
    fell for his bait....hook, line and sinker!!!  
    
    Now - Mr. Simpson,
    
    >(for example, he rang my country's Prime Minister very early on,
      seeking support).  It's therefore proper to examine his motives and
    
    
      As I'm sure you know, Satan has that way about him.  To deceive,
      lie, twist and persuade otherwise godworthy people.   Boy Mr. Bush,
      I think they are on to you!  That was a pretty good ploy bringing
      Billy Graham into the white-house with you.  
    
    > At no time did I say or imply that "all the world's evil" is America
      fault.  That is simply insecure projecting on your part.  What I said
    
      Guess that's just that insecure machismo rearing it's ugly head
      again.  I'm extremely confident, Mr. Simpson, that you are one of
      the crowd (no matter what you may say) that is against war under
      any circumstances.  Just my hunch,  I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
    
      I do agree that the U.S. has always been good for "looking the 
      other way" when it comes to looking out for our own best interests.
      This is true - but, let's look at why THIS issue has come up.
      Could it be that Saddam's *linkage* to the Isreali - Palestine
      situation has "worked" and you are looking BEYOND the issue at
      hand.  Do you think Saddam gave a rat's rearend to that issue
      when he was taking over Kuwait?  No way...but it's people like
      YOU who he's banking on.  
    
      Sincerely,
    
      Bill Pinar
                                
    

    
    BILL,
    
      Ditto's. 
    
    Debriae,
      Bill's apologetics coverered all the bases regarding my knuckle
    sandwich remark,you may remove the hook from your mouth now....
    
    
    
    Regards,
    All Real MANLY MEN     p.s. No I won't explain what a real MANLY MAN
                              is....
    

    
    
    last;  Having known you for many years, Dave, I had a feeling where
           you were "coming from".  
      
           Some personal thoughts:
    
           One of the problems regarding how other countries (especially
           Arabic) perceive America, has to do with the media.  I am
           not suprised that we in the U.S. are seen as a perverted, 
           atheistic country.  Most of what other countries "see" is
           often from the hollywood left and "the left coast" (to quote
           my sole beacon of sanity - Rush Limbaugh).  
    
           They see and hear about the gaudy, the rich, the
           self-indulgence, the overabundance and waste.  
    
           What I'm hear to say is that this is true.  But only in a
           small proportion.  But because of the liberal press and 
           media - this appears to be the norm.   However, this 
           country was founded under God.  This country was founded 
           on a high moral value system and under a *strong* Christianity
           theme.  This country was founded on  faith, hard work and
           freedom.  And I believe, that is why God has blessed this country
           so.  
    
           Yes, you can find EXCEPTIONS.  And I emphasis, exceptions
           because that is truly what they are.  
    
           When I hear Saddam Hussein call George Bush and the rest of 
           us Americans - "Evil" or "The Great Satan"...I have mixed
           feelings.  On the one hand I think - he's just misinformed.
           On the other, I think what if Evil forces were really, indeed
           working on this earth?  If Satan and/or other evil "forces"
           were on this earth, would they not try to "turn things around"
           just a bit, to maybe appear as tho' somebody or something else
           where actually the Satan?  Would Satan say - "Hey look everyone,
           I'm Satan!"  No...he would do his best to make it appear 
           as tho' somebody else was!  He would try to appear as an 
           innocent entity, hoping for "mercy" would he not?
    
           I know this sounds somewhat fanatical- but, just something
           to consider.
    
           In summation, I believe George Bush and the vast majority
           of Americans have a sincere faith in God and a hope for peace.
           I also believe that the majority of people are firmly grounded
           in reality and believe that the U.S. has not only the ability,
           but also the obligation to fight against this Dictator.  And
           the people who say they are "against the war, but *for* the
           troops" are sitting on the posterior end of an oxymoron.  
         
    
           Sincerely,
    
           Bill 

    
    Simpson
    
    > It is a matter of record that Bush decided upon the quick and
    > intendedly decisive reaction to Hussein's action.
    
      First off it's either Mr. Bush or President Bush to you :-) Secondly
    you prove a point about real men here,they take action,decisive,not
    aggressive....
    
>  It is therefore proper to examine his motives and methods. He, more
>  than any other individual,is responsible for the shape and scope of
>  the allied response.
    
    Yeah most real men Lead,follow, or get out of the way, nice to know
    that PM Major is following us on this one..
    
>  Did you take lessons on how to quote out of context?

      Yes I did. B.S.101,after this I took Frontal labotomies,liberals, and
    You...
    
 > What I did suggest was that there may have been alternative approaches
> to resolving the crisis which, for various reason were not chosen.
    
    Yeah I know PRESIDENT Bush could have offered MADDAS Hussein a 
    free trip to Disneyland. Probably should have given him a free
    trip to San Fransisco where he could learn about alternate lifestyles
    to. Gimme a break Simpson,don't play Monday morning quarterback(that's
    a game we play this side of the pond)..
    
    BYE BYE
    Sir David MANLY MAN         

    re .83
    
>      First off it's either Mr. Bush or President Bush to you :-) Secondly
>    you prove a point about real men here,they take action,decisive,not
>    aggressive....
    
    Actually, I'm as sick of this 'real man' crap as you.  However, if you
    wish to persist with it then I would point out that it doesn't say much
    about 'real men' if their quick, decisive responses to problems turn
    out to be disasters because they couldn't or didn't bother to think it
    through from any but their own perspective.
    
>    Yeah most real men Lead,follow, or get out of the way, nice to know
>    that PM Major is following us on this one..
    
    Wrong Prime Minister.

    re .80
    
>      As I'm sure you know, Satan has that way about him.  To deceive,
>      lie, twist and persuade otherwise godworthy people.   Boy Mr. Bush,
>      I think they are on to you!  That was a pretty good ploy bringing
>      Billy Graham into the white-house with you.  
    
    I won't pretend to understand this bizarre passage.
    
>      Guess that's just that insecure machismo rearing it's ugly head
>      again.  I'm extremely confident, Mr. Simpson, that you are one of
>      the crowd (no matter what you may say) that is against war under
>      any circumstances.  Just my hunch,  I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
    
    You are as wrong as you could be.  At no time did I say or imply that
    war under any circumstances was wrong.  What I did say was that we
    should seriously consider the possibilities that alternative actions
    and reactions, which were open to Bush in particular, if employed would
    mean that we would not be at war now with the necessary qualification,
    of course, that the solution (liberation of Kuwait) remain unchanged. 
    
    I would support a necessary war.  I am not convinced that this war, at
    this time, was necessary.  However, given that it exists, I do hold
    that those who are fulfilling their oath to serve deserve whatever
    support can be given - and that includes mine.
    
    But, I'm under no obligation to offer your president unqualified
    support, nor do I take any pleasure in observing the unthinking,
    obsequious and degrading manner in which too many Americans have
    justified in their own minds the recent and forthcoming deaths solely
    on the basis that the president said so.
    
>      Could it be that Saddam's *linkage* to the Isreali - Palestine
>      situation has "worked" and you are looking BEYOND the issue at
>      hand.  Do you think Saddam gave a rat's rearend to that issue
>      when he was taking over Kuwait?  No way...but it's people like
>      YOU who he's banking on.  
    
    At no time did I say or imply that Hussein's attempted linkage to the
    Palestinian question was right or proper.  What I did say was that
    instead of glibly assuming the man is mad (which he clearly is not) we
    should understand where he is coming from, and observe his record of
    meaning what he says and saying what he means.  It is entirely
    conceivable that if Bush or any other Western leader truly based his
    strategy and goals on false assumptions (hence invalid conclusions)
    then we may have forced this situation unnecessarily.

    > Wrong Prime Minister..
    
    Yeah I know Mrs. Thatcher is'nt there anymore..
    
    Regarding my Presidents alleged half-thought out, half-cocked
    approach to planning this war,BULLSH*T.If the first 19 days of this
    war have proven anything it's that we did our homework on this one.
    You do watch the news over there right!!!
    
    David              p.s. All BS aside I am quite certain you do 
                         support your nations troops.

    
    Mr Simpson
    > on the basis that the president said so...
    
     Gee you do recall the UN resolutions?? Or was this simply a magic
    trick.. I can't help but feel your playing devils advocate..Your
    to complete in some of your re-buffs to have left yourself this
    wide open to criticism...Will the real MR Simpson please stand up.
    
    David
    

    
    
    Reply,
    
     Mr. Simpson
    
    >> I won't pretend to understand this bizarre passage.
    
    I'll spell it out for you.  George Bush had asked Rev. Billy Graham
    to spend the night in the white house with him on the eve' of the 
    beginning of the war.  My "tongue in cheek" remark meant that the
    anti-American (btw there are plenty of em' right here in America)
    crowd will probably just think it was just for "appearances" and
    that Geroge just wanted to "look like he was a god fairing man."
    I happen to believe that it was a very sincere quest for some
    religious counciling.
    
    Now, I found this passage of YOURS rather "bizarre" also.
    
    >>should seriously consider the possiblities that alternative actions
      and reactions, which were open to Bush in particular, if employed
      would mean that we would not be at war now with the necessary 
      qualifications, of course, that the solution (Liberation of Kuwait)
      remained unchanged.  
    
      
    >>justified in their own minds the recent and forthcoming deaths soley
      on the basis that the president said so.
    
      There it is again.  Exactly as I said.  Why can't people be given 
      enough credit for making up their own minds when following a leader.
      Why is it that when you agree with a leader that you are auto-
      matically assumed as a "follower" or just being led blindly like
      cows or something.  Part of it HAS to be that people in other parts
      of the world do not understand what freedom is?!  I have looked
      at the situation, I have evaluated what I have seen and I back
      the president of the USA 100%.  As do, I might point out, the 
      other 20 odd countries of the Allied forces!
    
      I will point out again.  Often times I get the impression that
      people (liberals) often like to disagree first (i.e. "Look at
      what a free thinker I am") and look at the situation secondly.
    
    >>instead of glibly assuming the man is mad (which he clearly is not)
      we should understand where he is coming from, and observe his record
    
      Well, I didn't want to get into semantics here.  But can we settle
      on "Cold and calculated murderer" then?  Some things, Mr. Simpson
      CANNOT be resovled by peacefull menas under all circumstances.
      I think we DO "understand where he is coming from".  And we are
      dealing with him appropriately in terms HE WILL understand.
    
      Regards,
    
      Bill
      
    
    
    
    

    re .86
    
    I hope yours will be the last windup - it's getting tiresome.
    
>    Yeah I know Mrs. Thatcher is'nt there anymore..
    
    Still wrong.
    
>    Regarding my Presidents alleged half-thought out, half-cocked
>    approach to planning this war,BULLSH*T.If the first 19 days of this
>    war have proven anything it's that we did our homework on this one.
>    You do watch the news over there right!!!
    
    At no time have I made any mention whatsoever of the effectiveness or
    otherwise of the planning or execution of the military campaign.  I
    referred only to political issues.

    
    > I hope this will be the last windup- it's getting tiresome.
    
      Terribly sorry if it's exhausting your limited resources old
    boy :-)
    
    > Still wrong.
     
      Okay okay, the suspense is killing me, who the hell are
    you talking about :-)
    
     Regarding President Bush's political disaster/incompotence, please
    enlighten us, what stone was left unturned. The only one I can
    see is the" Get  down on your knees and kiss Saddams a*s" stone
    was'nt tried..Enlighten us please...
    
    Wind up complete,
    
    David

    re .88
    
    Mr Pinar, I strongly suspect you haven't perused all the notes in this
    topic, particularly mine, else you wouldn't be bothering me with this
    rubbish.
    
>    I'll spell it out for you.  George Bush had asked Rev. Billy Graham
>    to spend the night in the white house with him on the eve' of the 
>    beginning of the war.  My "tongue in cheek" remark meant that the
>    anti-American (btw there are plenty of em' right here in America)
>    crowd will probably just think it was just for "appearances" and
>    that Geroge just wanted to "look like he was a god fairing man."
>    I happen to believe that it was a very sincere quest for some
>    religious counciling.
    
    I was aware of the instance but attached no special significance to it. 
    Nor can I see its relevance to this discussion.  All along I have
    maintained that it is possible for Bush to have made bad choices in all
    sincerity.
    
    Nor do I see myself as anti-American.  But, neither do I see myself as
    particularly pro-American, nor should I.  And I certainly won't shrink
    from criticising America where criticism is due.  If more Americans
    were dissuaded from the dichotomous mythology they have built around
    themselves (upon which I commented earlier) the better America would
    fit into the world community.
    
>      There it is again.  Exactly as I said.  Why can't people be given 
>      enough credit for making up their own minds when following a leader.
>      Why is it that when you agree with a leader that you are auto-
>      matically assumed as a "follower" or just being led blindly like
    
    If you want a thorough analysis of what constitutes leaders, followers
    and the ties between them see McGregor Burns.  In the meantime,
    peaceniks nothwithstanding, I am observing a number of reactions from
    Americans which give every indication of a callous, mindless, (and
    sometimes even joyous) aquiescence to the prospect of America
    reestablishing her military supremacy.  It is as if the cork containing
    their bloody passion disappeared, and woe unto anyone who doesn't share
    their zeal.
    
>      I will point out again.  Often times I get the impression that
>      people (liberals) often like to disagree first (i.e. "Look at
>      what a free thinker I am") and look at the situation secondly.
    
    On the other hand, some of us (not necessarily liberals) like to
    disagree when we have considered the situation and are unsatisfied.
    
>      Well, I didn't want to get into semantics here.  But can we settle
>      on "Cold and calculated murderer" then?  
    
    Why not?  Should we not be clear and precise?  After all, lives are
    stake.  If you reread my notes you will see several references to
    Hussein as brutal and so on.  Nevertheless, I do not take brutality as
    a necessary sign of insanity.
    
>      Some things, Mr. Simpson
>      CANNOT be resovled by peacefull menas under all circumstances.
    
    Quite so.  However, your axiom does not necessarily imply that in this
    situation options did not exist which may have resolved the problem
    peacefully, or more peacefully, than the current war.
    
>      I think we DO "understand where he is coming from".  And we are
>      dealing with him appropriately in terms HE WILL understand.
    
    No, I don't think you (generically) have a clue where he is coming from.  
    I really don't.  Given the appalling ethnocenticity of America I
    seriously doubt that many have given even token thought to Husseins'
    view of the world, his goals, aspirations for himself and his people. 
    I seriously doubt their capacity to do so.
    
    To consider such things is not to accept them - as has been and will
    continue to be charged by the mindless - but it is a necessary
    precursor to maximising the effectiveness of any coherent strategy for 
    dealing with him.
    
    The current strategy will undoubtedly be militarily effective at
    removing Iraq's army from Kuwait.  But there is a frightening lack of
    clear direction on the meaning of 'peace and stability in the region'. 
    Personally, I doubt that Bush and his cohorts have any such vision, or
    the means and strategies for implementing it.

    re .87
    
>     Gee you do recall the UN resolutions?? Or was this simply a magic
>    trick.. I can't help but feel your playing devils advocate..Your
>    to complete in some of your re-buffs to have left yourself this
>    wide open to criticism...Will the real MR Simpson please stand up.
    
    I certainly do recall the UN resolutions.  And I'm also aware of the
    role Bush played in having them formulated, and the combination of
    state and personal diplomacy he used to get them passed.
    
    It is equally true to say that with a word he could have had them
    vetoed (the US has veto power in the Security Council).  He could have
    ordered them formulated differently, or not at all.
    
    At no time have I said or implied that Bush was the sole player.  What
    I said was that he more than any other individual determined the
    nature, scope and timing of the allied response, and therefore it is
    proper to examine his motives.
    
    There is thus no contradiction in my arguments to date.

    re .90
    
>                           -< Bottom of the ninth.. >-
    
    No extra innings in this game...
    
>      Okay okay, the suspense is killing me, who the hell are
>    you talking about :-)
    
    Mr Hawke.  Bush also rang various other Prime Ministers, including,
    interestingly enough, the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
    
>     Regarding President Bush's political disaster/incompotence, please
>    enlighten us, what stone was left unturned. The only one I can
>    see is the" Get  down on your knees and kiss Saddams a*s" stone
>    was'nt tried..Enlighten us please...
    
    The 'disaster' mentioned was purely to complete your metaphor (although
    it remains possible that despite military victory Bush faces a
    political disaster in the Middle East).

    
    > there is thus no contradiction in any of my statements..
    
      Second opinions anyone!!!!!!
    
     Mr Simpson,
    
      Pretend for a moment that your elevated to the level of  UN
    secretary General..Now Mr Simpson what is your proposal,pick any
    date in the recent history of the Gulf area, and enlighten us....
    
    I anxiously await enlightenment Sir,
    David Dyben Warmonger of America
    

    
    
    >> rubbish.
    
    Good comeback.
    
    >> were dissuaded from the dichotomous mythology they have built around
    
    So, you are an expert on Arabic culture, peacefull means to resolutions
    and now the American psyche?  Amazing.
    
    >> Americans which give every indication of a callous, mindless, (and
     sometimes even joyous) aquiescense to the prospect of America
     reestablishing her military supremecy
    
      If you think that this is what this war is all about.  You are 
      so far out in "left field" you make Jane Fonda look like Jean 
      Kirkpatrick.
    
    >>some things, Mr. Simpson
      cannot be resolved be peacefull menas under all circumstances.
    
    >>Quite so.  However, your axiom does not necessarily imply that in
      this situation options did not exist which may have resolved the
      problem peacefully, or more peacefully, than the current war.
    
      Please state what options were available to the United Nations 
      and the Allied coalition (please note here that I did not say 
      what options were available to *Bush*)...I know the French 
      perceive themselves as great mediators (Dequaillar did a hell
      of a job, didn't he?).  Let us here YOUR solutions/options.
    
    >>clear direction on the meaning of 'peace and stability in the region'
      Personally, I doubt that Bush and his cohorts have any such vision,
    
      "Vision"...?  Bush and his "cohorts" would certainly like to 
      see stability in the region.  We all would.  I personally don't
      think it will *ever* happen.   But, this is not Bush's PRIMARY
      objective.  Liberating Kuwait is the allied forces objective.   
    
      The U.S will again take the brunt of pro-Saddam supporters criticism 
      ("meddling intruders").  But, if you think that the Arabic conflict
      would have come to some sort of peacefull resolution on it's own,
      I'd think it over.
     
       regards, 
    
      Bill
       

    re .95
    
>    So, you are an expert on Arabic culture, peacefull means to resolutions
>    and now the American psyche?  Amazing.
    
    While I have not claimed expertise (which is not the same as ascribing
    ignorance) I have studied Arabic culture, particularly the mythologies
    of the region and the rise of Islam.  I thus claim some small advantage
    over a nation which gives every indication of not even knowing where
    the Persian Gulf was until CNN showed it to them twenty-four hours a
    day.
    
    The American psyche is of no small interest to the rest of the world,
    as we struggle to fathom the enigmas and contradictions which contrarily
    govern its erratic and often unpredictable behaviour.  We are forced to
    confront it, often simply in order to define ourselves, to escape the
    pervasive and pernicious reach of American culture.  I confess that 
    America fascinates me, but I'm not sure I'd want to live there.
    
>      If you think that this is what this war is all about.  You are 
>      so far out in "left field" you make Jane Fonda look like Jean 
>      Kirkpatrick.
    
    I did not say that this is what the war is about.  I was, if you have
    the honesty to read only what I write, making an observation about certain
    behaviour patterns I had seen.  Certainly, no-one who knows me would
    imply I was left-wing.
    
>      Please state what options were available to the United Nations 
>      and the Allied coalition (please note here that I did not say 
>      what options were available to *Bush*)...I know the French 
>      perceive themselves as great mediators (Dequaillar did a hell
>      of a job, didn't he?).  Let us here YOUR solutions/options.
    
    You know, it's taken nearly a hundred replies just to get someone to
    acknowledge that the _questions_ are valid.  If you carefully peruse my
    notes you will see clearly that at no time did I state or imply that I
    had all the answers.  I have already though presented a variety of
    options (presented in a broad sense) and it needs little imagination to
    find variations upon those themes before subjecting them to the test of
    evidence.  My point, the whole time, has never been to determine,
    conclusively, that Bush was fundamentally and irrevocably wrong - it
    was to establish that it is proper to question his motives, attitudes
    and actions.  It is possible he was and is wrong; it is possible the he
    was and is right.  What got up my nose was that people - particularly
    Americans - wouldn't even consider the first alternative.
    
>      "Vision"...?  Bush and his "cohorts" would certainly like to 
>      see stability in the region.  We all would.  I personally don't
>      think it will *ever* happen.   But, this is not Bush's PRIMARY
>      objective.  Liberating Kuwait is the allied forces objective.   
    
    The two goals are inseparable in any meaningful political strategy.  It
    serves no-one's purpose to liberate Kuwait and have Hussein march
    straight back in again.  Nor does it serve to remove Iraq totally, with
    perhaps Iran (even more anti-Israeli) assuming a greater role in the
    region and so forth.  
    
    Liberating Kuwait is the allied forces stated military objective.  You
    must be foolishly na�ve to believe that it is their only political
    goal.
    
>      The U.S will again take the brunt of pro-Saddam supporters criticism 
>      ("meddling intruders").  But, if you think that the Arabic conflict
>      would have come to some sort of peacefull resolution on it's own,
>      I'd think it over.
    
    I sincerely hope you are not including me as a pro-Saddam supporter.
    
    But your question has the merit of pointing (perhaps inadvertently) to
    the validity of my fundamental stance.
    
    One of the fundamental problems with the style of 'debate' so far is
    that it is very narrowly focussed.  What I've tried to do is step back
    up a level, and so far few have shown themselves willing to do this.
    
    Thus, instead of taking the stance of 'Hussein invaded Kuwait, how
    shall we respond?', I begin with 'Hussein has invaded Kuwait, shall we
    respond?'
    
    So, to your question I can legitimately say that yes, if Bush had
    closed his eyes to the whole affair, and had vetoed any UN action,
    then most certainly the problem would have come to an ultimately
    peaceful solution (in the sense that Iraq would have absorbed Kuwait
    and one day the issue would be an historical curiosity).  Now, that 
    solution may or may not be desirable, and at no time have I said or 
    implied that it is.  But I see the question of 'shall we respond?' 
    to be necessarily first.
    
    It may be, in the final analysis, that this war was necessary, that it
    was just.  It may be that Bush's response was timely and proper, and
    his gathering of the allied coalition and manipulation of the UN
    Security Council masterful.  It may be that everything he and his
    advisors and supporters did was correct down the last detail.
    
    But I, for one, won't accept that on faith.  I won't accept that until
    we've asked the questions, heard the arguments, done an awful lot of
    thinking, and then, that is the considered conclusion.

    
    Simpson, whatever the Presidents "other" motives may be, the fact is,
    what we're doing is right.  You nor I, nor anyone else in a little
    notes conference has a clue as to what else may surround the event.
    

    I wonder if the authors of the last several (more than twenty, i
    believe) replies could take this rathole off line?  
    
    

    
    Bean,
    
    -1    Why then this note would be dead...........

RE: .77 

  Thanks for replying Gerry.  I have a better understanding of your
  perspective.  Like you, I'm down to my last quarter for this discussion too.

  Since you asked me some questions I feel I owe you a better view of my
  perspective.  Like you said, good deal.  Hopefully my quarter will last me
  three quick replies.

>  (Sometimes I                                
>get the feeling that you bait people, wait until they respond, and 
>then point the finger at them with questions.  I don't like being 
>manipulated.  I certainly hope that I am misjudging your actions.)

  I don't feel that asking questions which get to the heart of the matter is
  really baiting.  IE, like asking the question of Compaq, "How well can your
  company network my company's systems?" It cuts to the root of the matter.
  Often it is also the weakest point, but is it really baiting? Maybe, but I
  don't think so. 

  Asking a person totally grounded in being a 'real-man' what it is exactly
  s/he feels a 'real-man' is and also what a 'real-woman' is, gets right to the
  heart of the matter, gets right to gender roles and masculinity issues.
  Baiting? I dunno.  I don't feel that way.  Depends on your definition of
  baiting I suppose...  To me it is like a challenge in a core group setting.
  When I challenge you to look and see if racism is playing in your feelings
  about something, is it baiting?, or is it trying to explore what your
  feelings are on the matter, and trying to better fully understand your views?

>  Just because something "isn't as aggressive" as 
>taking up arms, doesn't mean that it isn't "aggressive."

  Agreed.  However, what is 'full of passion' to some is also 'aggressive' to
  others.  Matter of personal definition again I guess.

>As a core member, you are not a casual observer of the group.  In 
>fact, you probably have access to the intimate details as to how these 
>brochures were put together and what their goals were.  
>And then you say, as if you really were not connected with the group:
>>	My guess  is  that  the  broadsheets  were  meant  to incite people, in
>>	particular  men,  to become involved in this discussion.  And hopefully
>>	come  to the next REAL MEN meeting to help create the next phase of the
>>	effort.   
>Your "guess"?  I don't think so.  I think you have always known 
>exactly what the brochures meant to do and what kind of response you 
>expected from MENNOTErs. 

  Gerry, you misjudged me again.  But I can understand how.  Yes, I am a core
  member.  However the reason I said 'my guess is that the broadsheets' vs.  'I
  made the broadsheets to' is that I was not present when those broadsheets
  were made.  I wasn't there to hear what members felt the broadsheets should
  say, and why, and what types of reactions they had hoped to get with them.
  As it turns out, they were in fact created separately by the two founding
  members of the group who (fwiw about your views of their writing style), just
  happen to be, interestingly enough, schooled media journalists.  Not that
  that necessarily means anything though... :-)

> In fact, you even seem to expect a little 
>recruitment to come out of it, since you listed the phone and address 
>of the group in this particular note.

  About recruiting...  I included their address and number just for the sake of
  completeness.  My real-life experience and the more cynical side expected to
  get the conservative non-progressive male reaction the notes did in fact draw
  here.  That is, I was not by any means shocked and surprised.  So no, this
  was definitely _not_ for 'recruiting', but to see if this group of men was
  receptive to doing this kind of work.  I got the answer. 

  -Erik

RE: .77 Gerry

> It's a series of sometimes thought-provoking jabs.  

  Indeed.  It turns out (after speaking with them), that is exactly what the
  creators of the pamphlets made them for.  As I said to someone else...

"They were one page pamphlets that offered questions to nudge people a little
bit and have them think about masculinity in their own mind.  IE, when the
pamphlets gives the 'kick their *ss' quote from Bush, it wasn't meant as proof
positive that masculinity is involved in war.  It was meant to nudge people
into personal introspection.  For me, my reaction was "Wow.  That phrase really
does tug at my notions of masculinity.  That phrase elicited a reaction from me
that was much MUCH stronger than what 'attempt to restore world order' would
have made.  It made my first male reaction of "Yeah! Kick their butt!".  Wow.
How'd he do that to me? Why did I erupt like that? What does it have to do
with any of my notions of masculinity?" "

> Why manipulate us ("incite") into heated argument? "Incite" is often used with
> the word "riot." It is aggressive, and, at times, violent.  A core member
> describes the brochures as meant to incite.  I agree.  Inciting is aggressive
> (to me).
> Jabs irritate.  Get ready for the backlash.  No big deal.

  Interesting.  This is confusing me a bit.  Yes, they were thought-provoking
  and personal introspection-inciting 'jabs' (I call them 'challenges').  But
  to you that is aggressive? Does that definition of aggressive follow through
  with you so that you also feel core groups are aggressive too? Curious idea.

  Yes, thought challenges and personal introspection challenges do irritate
  people at some level.  But to me that is what is so rewarding about core
  group and Valuing Diversity settings.  At some level deep down, it does
  irritate people to think where and from what their attitudes and feelings are
  coming from.  However, a personal-introspection challenge is not the same as
  an attack or accusation.  It is a question.  Incite personal introspection =
  riots? Well, yes, maybe sometimes yes.  A group of African Americans
  challenging others to see if any racism is involved in their decisions does
  sometimes create riots.  A group of men challenging men to see if masculinity
  issues and gender roles drive any of their decisions does sometimes create
  riots too.  Challenging = aggressive? Core groups = aggressive? Interesting
  concept...  I sort of agree but still do not link the word aggressive with
  core groups or with making people do personal-introspection.  'Passion for
  the personal growth work' fits much better with both (to me). 

  I hope a men's core group does some of this personal growth work of personal
  introspection and of challenging each other's masculinity assumptions and
  doesn't result as it did here.  I hope it is not a bunch of men sitting
  around making sure no one says something that is not 100% traditionally
  American-masculine or that has a chance of hitting someone else's hot button.
  I'd hope it is not a bunch of men who create the stereotypical male reaction
  of returning threats of being roughed up if another person challenges them
  with masculinity issues.  That personal growth work is what a core group is
  all about (to me).  Or would that have to be specifically labeled a
  "progressive men's core group" instead? :-(

  -Erik

	This is my last quarter right here.

>  Why can't you just talk to us?  
> Why manipulate us ("incite") into heated argument? 
[ie, just go with the flow, just talk football & pass the bud like all the
other guys]
						
  I _am_ talking with you (plural).  [Except when I put in broadsheets word for
  word obviously.] That is just the whole point.  This is me talking to you
  now.  This is my free speech, unhindered by the group pressures here to get
  in line and get PC with men's expectations of 'real-men'.  This *me* talking,
  not me acting the role of a 'real-man'.

  You want to know what I did this weekend.  I spent the entire weekend
  COLLUDING (from Barbara Walker's dictionary) with other men.  In an extremely
  sexist entirely male environment (that I am not proud of and will be leaving
  shortly). 

  I am a supervisor in charge of over 250 men.  I know all about what it is to
  be a 'real-man', because I act out the real-man Role every weekend.  I am
  required to have the men's respect so I 'collude' in this role of Real-Man.
  I know all about the hospitalizing 'blanket parties' they throw for non-
  'real-men' they disdain (in fact one of my very own chiefs was booted for
  putting one of my men in the hospital for 2 weeks via this old male 'ritual'
  practice carried over from his active duty military days - I got a lot of
  good male stories from him boy) and all about the tough-male-I-am games that
  have to be played in there.  I think Jerry can attest to the importance of
  being viewed as a 'real-man', especially in combat.  If the men think you're
  not worthy, not having you irritate them is just one quick bullet shot in the
  back away.  Many annoying 2LT's and 1LT's were quickly dealt with that way in
  'nam.  I eat with the guys, I party with them, and just hang out with them on
  free time.  Just one of the 'real' guys, like them.  So I guess I'm as pretty
  good at the acting out the role as the rest of them are.  I collude in this
  real-man role and I go with the flow.  But at the same time I am also acutely
  aware of the violence given men who do not fit the American 'real-man'
  standards.

  It is my personal feeling that many men collude in this way.

  If by "just talking to us" people here mean talking about the standard male
  topics about sports, how violent and tough I can be, and devaluing comments
  about women and the female body, I've spent the whole weekend doing exactly
  that; _colluding_ with other men, all acting out this scripted 'real-man'
  role.  If not actively, at the very best passively by never saying anything
  and just going with the flow and justifying my passivity with 'boys will be
  boys' or with fears of violence coming my way.  If people here rather have me
  "just talk with the guys" like that, I'm sorry, but I'm entirely too tired of
  that collusion.

  And I will not take part in it here. I will continue to speak my mind.

>  Get ready for the backlash.  No big deal.

  Yeah, if you fail to collude with everyone else in this 'real-man' game we
  play, get ready for the backlash, get ready to be roughed up, get ready for
  the blanket party on your way home after work.  Just the usual, guy, you knew
  that, that's just the way it works in male circles...

  Well not in my male circles.  So relax.  I won't "just talk with the guys"
  here in the REAL MEN note about these non-typical male topics which are not
  about our personal military prowess or sports.  This file has established its
  group feel (to me) to be so unfriendly toward examining gender roles and
  masculinity issues, as well as men's issues and the issues of sexism, and
  particularly men confronting men about any of these, that I feel I have to
  butt out of 'just talking' here, if at least for a while.  However I will not
  collude here either. 

  So borrowing another 'BOXers tactic of surviving in a hostile environment,
  I'll just post published material and fliers here in the REAL MEN note that I
  feel I owe to the people who sent me supportive and interested mail, but will
  not participate in this discussion for a while.  I'll funnel that work to
  other male circles where I feel 'safe' (in a core group sense, & I don't feel
  that here) and enjoy the group feel.  "If it ain't fun, stop doing it..."

  No big deal...  Just like at an arcade, you put a few quarters into a one
  group's game, and if it's not a good one, you just move on to the next one.
  Despite hearing things like "I have no real male friends, we're sixty and all
  we can still talk about is only football," I feel many American men are just
  enforcing their own misery by enforcing these traditional rules for behavior
  with other men.  _Colluding_ with other men.  It is a primary men's issue (I
  feel).  FWIW, I don't find European men in such dire need as we American men
  are to prove to everyone that we are really such tough-sounding macho
  'real-men', as if we felt a constant 24-hr pressure to play the 'real-man'
  role to reassure our buddies that we're not 'like a fag or anything.' But to
  each his own.  I'm spending my quarters for this work in other less solidly
  conservative male groups I enjoy being in.  Thank you, but this just isn't my
  game.  Nor is it the only one in town. No big deal.  So it goes.

  Peace, love and politics...
  -Erik

    Erik: I would invite you to re-read the Sport (basically many here
    don't care for) note. I think you are confusing a normal turn-off
    reaction to an abusive/irrating note attitude (this one)with lack 
    of ability to discuss these topics and 'macho-ness'. If you take a 
    non-abrasive attitude to a 'macho' subject like liking sports 
    (as was done in that particular note), you will se that we can discuss 
    some/many un-macho things.
    
    My $.25 worth
    Steve

    
    
    Mr. Simpson, I'll just have a few more follow up reply's to this
    discussion. (Or rathole for some)
    
    >>The American's psyche is of no small interest to the rest of the
      world,as we struggle to fathom the enigmas and contradictions which
      contrarily govern its erratic and often unpredictable heavior.
    
      We are not unpredictable and erratic.  All you have to do is look
      at what situation will be in the best interest of the U.S...and we
      will do our darndest to make it happen.  8')
    
    >>evidence.  My point, whe whole time, has never been to determine,
      conclusively, that Bush was fundamentally and irrevocably wrong. 
      It was to establish that it is proper to question it's motives, 
      attitudes and actions.  It is possible he was and is wrong; it is
      possible that he was and is right.  What got up my nose was that 
      people - particularly the Americans - wouldn't even consider the 
      first alternative.
    
      I can respect that you have tried to take an objective look at this
      situation.  I also will inform you that many Americans did consider
      other alternatives.  Many Americans did (and still do) think Bush
      is wrong.  I just wish you would get off of the fence.  You remind
      me a great deal of our own Congress, Mr. Simpson.  The Democrats
      are trying to play both sides of the fence, and in blunt terms,
      it just don't cut it.  If America "fails" in this war, the Democrats
      will be saying "SEE, we didn't support this war, the only reason
      we voted to be behind this is to we could support our troups!" 
      And if we "win" this war, the Democrats will then be slapping 
      themselves on their backs telling everyone that "without Congress'
      support this victory could never have happened."  You just want
      to be able to say you were "right" - REGARDLESS of the outcome.
    
    >>Liberating Kuwait is the allied forces stated Military objective. 
      You must be foolishly naive to believe that it is their only 
      political goal.
    
      I will admit to being naive at times.  And maybe foolish too.
      I realise there are other items on the political agenda.  One,
      being, and although our government won't come out and say it,
      is to kill Hussein.  Another is to provide a free flow of oil
      from that region.  Another is to destroy Hussein's increased
      capability for mass destruction.  And others I'm sure, which
      are much more subtle.
    
      And finally, this...
    
    >>then most certainly the problem would have come to an ultimately
      peaceful solution (in the sense that Iraq would have absorbed Kuwait
      and one day the issue would be an historical curiousity).  Now, that
    
      You seem to be a very literate, intelligent and informed man, Mr.
      Simpson.  It's unfortunate you do not seem to be able to deal with
      one of the most important concepts we have - reality.  If you 
      believe this, than you can have absolutely no credibilty with me
      whatsoever.  But, if you will do with this statement, which you
      have done with practically every other statement you mentioned, 
      and just dismiss it once again as "just a possibilty", you still
      will not have told me anything.  Just that you seem to have a 
      firm grasp on the theoretical.
    
      the end,
    
      Bill Pinar

    re the recent dialogues with our fine gentleman of Australia and his
    three state-side opposition:
    
    rather completely stated, I think.  Mr Simpson has laid out a
    reasonable position for a bloke from the other side of the globe,
    and I must say I think him a remarkably tolerant chap, he did get
    quite a lot of provocation before the baiting ceased.  And I do 
    see the points our three US debaters have made.
    
    I do want to observe a few specifics with regard to Bill's last.
    
    >> >>The American's psyche is of no small interest to the rest of the
    >>  world,as we struggle to fathom the enigmas and contradictions which
    >>  contrarily govern its erratic and often unpredictable heavior.
    >>
    >>  We are not unpredictable and erratic.  All you have to do is look
    >>  at what situation will be in the best interest of the U.S...and we
    >>  will do our darndest to make it happen.  8')
    
    Whilst Don did get a trifle pushy, I think we're all misinterpreting
    his ambiguous pronoun.  I believe he was referring rather to the
    character of our government's consistency in policy, than to our each
    and every own psyche.  Because that happens to accord with my view.  
    We do have to admit it, our foreign policy vacillates in two or three
    major directions with every administration, usually once every time 
    Congress seats a new class of freshmen, or, every time a President has
    a hard lesson taught to him, or, as in 1978 for example, both.  One
    must only look at such incidents as Iran-Contra to realize that without
    the capriciousness of a Congress that had passed five contradictory
    Boland Amendments in the space of as many years, regarding conduct of
    affairs with Nicaragua, that such perversions as the Poindexter-North
    efforts of resorting to subterfuges for FUNDING of clandestine foreign 
    policy making wouldn't even be necessary.  Mr Simpson is right to chide
    America's conduct of foreign affairs as "contrarily govern[ed]...
    erratic and often unpredictable [be]haviour."  Drat it, he's right.  At
    least, I think that's what he meant.
    
    Likewise, with respect to his position that it's ok for someone
    watching the US conduct itself in the Gulf Crisis, to inquire as
    to what George Bush is really after, because he's sure driving at
    something.  We Americans tend not to even want to dwell upon how
    much trust and confidence we give to our President, because, drat 
    it again, someone's got to hold that power.  We don't like to look
    at that too closely.  And when someone like Mr Simpson makes us do
    it, we don't even identify that what we're really defending is our
    institution of the Presidency, the Executive Principle Embodied.
    It rather feels like Mr Simpson doesn't quite understand that Americans
    can be touchy about our Presidents, because we all understand how
    much trouble we're in if we elect a loony, and we don't like to think
    about it.  But we have to dwell on it this time, because the world is
    maybe a little worried about this American President and his gargantuan
    war effort in the Gulf.  Some citizens of the world, anyway.  Again, I
    may be wrong, but that's what I think Mr Simpson was talking about, and
    with a reasonable attempt at being careful of our sensitivities, too.
    
    Anyway- thank you all for the obvious attempts to stay reasonable.
    I got a lot out of watching that discussion.
    
    DougO

    
    DougO
    
      Your welcome..
    
    
    David

    
    
    Mr Simpson,
    
      I understand what your saying now..If you were a leader of a
    nation clearly this would have been an option. In my opinion it
    would have been a cowardly one, yet still a option..I doubt that
    history would have recorded it as being insignificant, the decline
    of civilization is a rather noteworthy event..When man fails to
    respect another mans property, and neighbors choose to blow it
    off,then a quote from Dantes will become even more haunting.
    "The deepest part of hell is reserved for those who remain neutral
    during a moral crisis"..
    
    David          p.s.Another question..IF you were the President would
                        you have ignored Iraqs action? Somehow I doubt it..

    re .107
    
>    policy making wouldn't even be necessary.  Mr Simpson is right to chide
>    America's conduct of foreign affairs as "contrarily govern[ed]...
>    erratic and often unpredictable [be]haviour."  Drat it, he's right.  At
>    least, I think that's what he meant.
    
    Close enough for the purposes of this discussion.  I would extend my
    definition to cover more than just foreign policy, but not here.
    
>    It rather feels like Mr Simpson doesn't quite understand that Americans
>    can be touchy about our Presidents, because we all understand how
>    much trouble we're in if we elect a loony, and we don't like to think
    
    The rest of us in the world are also touchy about your Presidents,
    because if you elect a loony _we're_ in trouble...
    
>    about it.  But we have to dwell on it this time, because the world is
>    maybe a little worried about this American President and his gargantuan
>    war effort in the Gulf.  Some citizens of the world, anyway.  Again, I
>    may be wrong, but that's what I think Mr Simpson was talking about, and
>    with a reasonable attempt at being careful of our sensitivities, too.
    
    Thank you.  I must admit that I half-expected to be accused of being
    'un-American' at times...
    
    Regards,
    
    David

    re .104
    
>      is wrong.  I just wish you would get off of the fence.
    
    I will confess that you have inadvertently struck a nerve, in that I had
    not considered my position to be fence sitting.  My purpose was to
    challenge certain fundamental assumptions, and in doing so shift the
    argument.  I will, however, give consideration (not here) to this idea.
    
>      You seem to be a very literate, intelligent and informed man, Mr.
>      Simpson.  It's unfortunate you do not seem to be able to deal with
>      one of the most important concepts we have - reality.  If you 
>      believe this, than you can have absolutely no credibilty with me
>      whatsoever.  But, if you will do with this statement, which you
>      have done with practically every other statement you mentioned, 
>      and just dismiss it once again as "just a possibilty", you still
>      will not have told me anything.  Just that you seem to have a 
>      firm grasp on the theoretical.
    
    One thing that has become very clear is the inability of many people to
    step back and consider a statement purely on its merits, without
    interposing their own beliefs and context.  You asked if a peaceful
    Arab solution could have been found.  My answer is entirely
    possible, but I specifically avoided judging it.  Thus, picture
    a history book some centuries in the future, which makes passing
    reference to a small, insignificant military action in 1990 whereby
    Iraq invaded and absorbed its tiny neighbour.  This history book makes
    note also that nobody took much notice, and this action had little if
    any discernable effect on the region.
    
    Such a scenario is conceivable, and stands on its own merit.  It
    obviously does not satisfy your feelings and desires, but it does
    satisfy the requirements of your question.  If you want a different
    answer, ask a different question.
    
    Similarly, when I suggest that one of Bush's options was to do nothing,
    your response seems to be that he had no such option because he
    didn't exercise it.  Indeed, the option did exist, and was ignored, and
    my statement stands intact.
    
    I consider that I do have a grasp of reality, and it involves far more
    than an acceptance of present reality, which is what you seem to
    require.  That I put a specific argument, in a specific form, for a
    specific purpose, and refused to be drawn from my position to
    satisfy your or someone elses purposes does not imply any lack of a
    grasp on reality.  It does imply that I am prepared and able to stand
    my ground.  Perhaps next time you might ask yourself the question: "Why
    has he taken the position, and adopted the style, he has?  What is is
    his purpose for arguing thus?"
    
    I wasn't arguing that either Hussein or Bush were right or wrong.  I
    was challenging the assumptions that if either were right or wrong then
    such was inevitable.

    re .109 
    
    >              p.s.Another queston..IF you were the President would
    >                   you have ignored Iraqs action? Somewhow I doubt it..
    
    In fact, he (and his predecessor) *did* ignore Iraq's action the last 
    time Hussein wantonly attacked a neigbhor in a border dispute. Ten
    years of economic and political support for Hussein for attacking
    Iran.. Right up to August 2 the administration was fighting off
    attempts to impose sanctions because of his use of gas on Iranians and
    his own people. Torture of children, support of terrorists, gas,
    aggression -- all this was known before August 2.  Why now?  This is
    what those of us who oppose both Hussein and the hypocrisy of our
    government ask.
    
    And you know who's next in this nightmarish 1984 scenario? Our
    friend/former enemy/likely enemy again, Assad of Syria.  He's no less a
    scoundrel than Hussein, and for all the same reasons.
    
    You can play some sick Kissengeresque realpolitick game, or you can
    talk about the morality of foreign policy. You can't have it both ways.
    When we say that the freedom and independence and self-determination of
    other peoples are at the top of our national interests, and act
    accordingly everywhere, then -- and only then -- can you talk about
    stopping aggression as if there were a moral dimension involved. Until
    then, we have no right to get on our holier-than-thou horse, even when
    we inadvertantly *do* support what is morally right.
    
    Kit

    re .110
    
>    When we say that the freedom and independence and self-determination of
>    other peoples are at the top of our national interests, and act
>    accordingly everywhere, then -- and only then -- can you talk about
>    stopping aggression as if there were a moral dimension involved. Until
>    then, we have no right to get on our holier-than-thou horse, even when
>    we inadvertantly *do* support what is morally right.
    
    Want to hear the irony?  The only US President in living memory to have
    attempted a foreign policy based on anything like those principles was
    Jimmy Carter.  He regularly gets lampooned by Americans, but he sure as
    hell got a lot of respect from the rest of the world.
    
    I think he was starting to get a grip on the Presidency towards the end
    of his term.  He probably would have made a much better second term
    President.

    I don't believe it: a positive statement about Jimmy Carter. Thank-you!
    I've been an entirely-isolated Carter fan for a long time now.
    
    Among Carter's distinctions were a minimum of men killed in combat. In
    my lifetime there's been Eisenhower and Korea; Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon in
    Viet Nam. Jerry Ford didn't do too badly: he got about forty-five
    Marines killed storming the Mayequez (sp?). Reagan left the Marines on
    the Lebanese runway too long, and about 240 died when they car-bombed
    the barracks.
    
    Jimmy Carter lost exactly six men in combat, when two helicopters
    collided during the sad attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages. I think
    it is a great testimonial to Jimmy Carter that he RESISTED the easy
    course of bluster and force which Bush is displaying now. Carter could
    have sent in the troops. The American people would have supported him,
    as they are rallying behind Bush now. I have no doubt that it would
    have assured Carter's re-election. He resisted the easy course, though,
    and as a result ALL the hostages lived to come home, and several
    hundred/thousand American soldiers DID NOT DIE.
    
    I think that Jimmy Carter had what this REAL MEN note was originally
    about: the self-confidence and integrity to RESIST the name-calling and
    slights of manhood which are so widely used to manipulate men.
    
    - Hoyt

.112> I think that Jimmy Carter had what this REAL MEN note was originally
.112> about: the self-confidence and integrity to RESIST the name-calling and
.112> slights of manhood which are so widely used to manipulate men.

    Considering the above statement ... I wonder why the hostages were
    released as soon as Reagan took the oath of office?  I submit that one
    man, Carter, was perceived as weak ... the other, Reagan, was perceived
    as strong.  An adversary loves to deal with the weak ... they can have
    their way ... an adversary doesn't particularly like to deal with a
    strong person ... now, which would you rather have as a President?
    
    Jimmy Carter killed more people than you can imagine ..... it's just
    that the body count wasn't immediately obvious ...

    Jerry

    Wasn't Syrus Vance (sp) his sec of state?  If so, wasn't he the one who
    talked table size and shape with the N. Vietnamese for months while US
    solders were being killed in VN? 
    
    Great!
    
    defend that one....
    
    
    Steve

    .111 Bingo.  Carter is the only post-WWII president to have even
    attempted to carry out a foreign policy that sees freedom and
    self-determination for other nations as central to our aims, not as a
    cynical tools to be used or ignored based on other less admirable aims.
    This, no doubt, was one of the reasons for his defeat -- a president
    trying to be just and moral in foreign policy in this day and age
    doesn't stand a chance against the forces that will tar him as a wimp.
    (Washington, Jefferson, and Madison no doubt are rolling over in their
    graves -- but what did those old fogeys know anyways.)
    
    .113 Rubbish.  The deal with the Iranians was done and sealed in the
    Carter administration.  The Iranians just wanted to rub his face in it,
    so waited until Reagan came to office to let them go.  There is,
    incidentally, strong evidence that RR -- or those working on his behalf
    -- contacted the Iranians before the election to make sure the hostages
    were not let go when it would help Carter get re-elected.
    
    Kit 

�    Considering the above statement ... I wonder why the hostages were
�    released as soon as Reagan took the oath of office?  I submit that one
    
    I wonder too, but I remember hearing about an awful lot of
    international money shuffling on Inauguration Day.
    
    Hey, Hoyt, I guess I'm soft on the Carter thing too.  I don't think he
    did a great job -- wasn't enough of a politician, for one thing; for
    another, even if Reagan's people only got the hostage situation
    straightened out through sleazy underhanded methods, Carter should've
    known enough to use 'em too; and, like it or not, TV presence is a job
    requirement nowadays -- but he sure did better than any of the other
    presidents I've been around for.  A lot of his problems remind me of
    Thomas Jefferson's administrations, which is middling high praise.
    
    Ray

    re .113
    
>    man, Carter, was perceived as weak ... the other, Reagan, was perceived
>    as strong.  An adversary loves to deal with the weak ... they can have
>    their way ... an adversary doesn't particularly like to deal with a
>    strong person ... now, which would you rather have as a President?
    
    Why don't you ask Egypt and Israel?  Reagan was incapable of
    visualising, let alone implementing, the most significant peace process
    in the Middle East in recent times.
    
    As a non-American I'll tell you what I saw in your Presidents: Carter
    was a naive idealist, who unfortunately took nearly to the end of his
    term to master the Presidency.  That is why I say he would have made a
    good second-term President.  But he won a great many friends around the
    world for his honesty, consistency and sincere respect for our ways of
    life and thought.
    
    Reagan on the other hand was a senile, incompetent, rambling ratbag who
    frequently expressed his belief that the Biblical end of the world was
    nigh.  He's the only world leader who has ever frightened me - and my
    country is a long-time ally of America's!  He had absolutely no
    understanding of the complexities and subtleties of foreign policy, and
    the thought of his controlling the world's most powerful nuclear force
    still makes me shudder.

    
    
    I guess I'll try again....seeing as tho' my last note has mysteriously
    disappeared.  I'm sorry I don't always VALUE anti-American sentiment.
    
  >>Reagan on the other hand was a senile, imcompetent, rambling ratbag who
    
    Why is it o.k. for Mr. Simpson to say this - but not for me to defend?
    I'm not just going to sit back and let him get away with an idiotic
    comment like that!?   Whatta joke............
    
  >>nigh.  He's the only world leader who has ever frightened me and my
    
    I will submit AGAIN!!!!
    
    Ronald Reagan brought together the 2 worlds super-powers to a never
    before know relationship.  He, NOT GORBY, was primarily responsible
    for ending the cold war.  If Mr. Simpson, you were "frightened" by Mr.
    Reagan, then at least I know you must have had a miserable decade.
    
       I LOVE IT!!!!   8')     8')     8')
    
    I hope you enjoy another 5 years of RR's right hand man George!!!
    teeee-heeee.....giggle giggle......
    
    The American people, (yes, I know sometimes RR tended to spend
    a great deal of effort on the domestic side - I will apologize
    that he didn't put other countries interests in front of OUR OWN),
    faired EXTREMELY well in the 80's. 
    
    Exluding the huge deficit problem (which I will ALSO submit to you
    was that ALL 8 of RR's budget proposal's to congress during his 
    term were pronounced DEAD ON ARRIVAL by congress!), we saw Industrial
    output grow, jobs increased, taxes lowered, double digit inflation
    cut and MOST importantly (and I know this really ticks SOME people
    off) - a renewed faith and spirit in OUR country!  OOOOOOUUUCH!
    
    
    later dude,
    
    Bill 

    > ALL 8 of RR's budget proposal's to congress during his 
    > term were pronounced DEAD ON ARRIVAL by congress!

    That is an exaggeration.  Several were, but not all.

    DougO

    
    
        Wrong....ALL 8 WERE PRONOUNCED DOA.
    
      

This topic is about the REAL MEN organization.   Further contributions here
which are not on topic will be returned to the author.

Thanks for your cooperation.

			Steve - co-moderator

    Better than two weeks ago I called the phone number listed in the base
    note ... I left a message on the answering machine asking that any
    information on the organization be sent to me ... I've received
    nothing.  If someone's going to the next meeting, could I have you to
    pick up something and mail it to me?

    Thanks,
    Jerry

			  Men to End Sexual Assault (MESA)

					 is
				    sponsoring...


				 ** A HOUSE PARTY **


	       to benefit the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC).


	The party  features guest speaker John Stoltenberg who is the author of
	the  book  "REFUSING  TO  BE  A  MAN", and founder of the NY group "MEN
	AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY".

	The event is on April 26, Friday (tomorrow) from 7 PM to 10 PM and will
	be  held  at  43  Wabon  Road, Newton, MA.  A suggested donation can be
	accepted at the door.

	Call (617) 628-4802 for directions or more details.

				 "IRON JOHN"

				   and the

				 ROBERT BLY
				 CONTROVERSY

		(and the debate on the "new" Men's Movement)


     ************************
     * 8:00 PM	            *
     * Thursday, May 16     *
     * Arlington St. Church *
     * Boston, MA	    *
     ************************
     (351 Boylston St, corner of Arlington and Boylston Streets)


		       - Why is ROBERT BLY so popular?
	  - What sort of vision of masculinity is he offering men?
	     - Where do women fit in his mythopoetic world view?
    - What is the relationship of feminism to Bly and the so-called 'new'
			       Men's Movement?

     Join us in discussing these questions with:

     ROBERT SMITH
     	Organizer of the New England Men's Retreat (at which Bly and
     	others have taught), founder and editor of Yellow Moon Press

     SUZANNE GORDON
     	Regular contributor to the Boston Globe Focus section, author
     	of "Prisoners of Men's Dreams: Striking Out For a New Feminine
     	Future"

     DAVID LISAK
	     Professor of Psychology, UMASS-Boston


     		 OPEN AND FREE TO THE PUBLIC


     [Sponsored by REAL MEN, an anti-sexist men's group. For more information,
     call (617) 782-7838]

    
    	PS- I'll be away on vacation that day and can't make it. Appreciate
    	it if someone else could go and enter a report of what it was like,
    	this should be an excellent and informative discussion...
    
    	-Erik

    
    	-2
    
    	Did anyone attend the discussion on "IRON JOHN" and Robert Bly? I
    	am curious to hear what it was about and how it went by either Mail 
    	or notes...
    
    	-Erik

    I did not go.  Two men that I know went and I asked them about it.
    They said something like this:
    
    Suzanne Gordon and David Lisak came very well prepared, 
    and presented well-stated arguments that were against many of
    the things that Bly argues for in Iron John (mainly against
    Bly's idea of a "positive patriarchy").  Robert Smith did
    not have a well prepared, well stated argument.  His main 
    point was that we have to evolve to a point where men and 
    women can talk about themselves without a lot of heat -- 
    he told stories of men doing what is described in Iron John.
    Gordon and Lisak put their heat into being "academic", Smith 
    put his heat into being "mythic".
    
    If it was a debate, it sounded like Bly's viewpoint lost.  
    ------------------
    
    Wil

    
    	Thanks Wil. Sounds like it might have been an interesting
    	discussion, hopefully I can get a video-tape off of one the 
    	members in the group... someone usually videos each event
    	I believe.
    
    	-Erik

    it was videotaped and the videotapes were offered for sale...

***********************************************************************
    "Football, Feminism, and Other Contemporary Contradictions"
***********************************************************************
	  Jackson Katz, Speaker and Founder of REAL MEN *
	       Tuesday, March 24th, 9:00 to 11:00
		   Maynard C.R., PKO3-1/D8	

The women's movement has had an enormous impact on the changing roles
of women and men, sex, and relationships in the post-60s generations.
This presentation examines these changes with a special focus on how
men have and have not adjusted, both on a personal and political 
level.  The ideas presented stimulate dialogue between the sexes by
helping to illuminate how the problems of individual women and men
are linked to larger social forces.

This presentation offers an unusual perspective -- that of a former
jock -- into what have been traditionally "women's" issues:  sexism,
rape, date rape, violence against women, and sexual objectification
in pornography and media.

Jackson Katz was a high-school football MVP and all-state linebacker
who became the first man to graduate from UMASS/Amherst with a 
degree in women's studies.  In 1988, he founded REAL MEN.
Jackson has appeared on numerous television and radio programs
coast-to-coast, including "Phil Donahue."  He is currently completing
work on his second book, "The Feminist Fullback."


*  REAL MEN is a political/educational organization of men committed to 
   working against sexism and violence against women.

***********************************************************************
This event is being sponsored by the PKO Cluster Valuing Diversity 
Committee.  For more information, call Kendra Theriault, PKO Cluster 
Valuing Diversity Program Manager, 223-3728.
***********************************************************************

.131>  I'll be there.

    Mercy me how I wish I could be there!  I'd love to talk to this guy
    (then again, maybe he don't like people with the nickname of 'Bubba'?).

    Guarantee you ... had he tried to interfere with my wife and I watching
    the Superbowl ... my wife would have seen to it that he sang high
    soprano in the church choir ...

    Bubba

.133> So, Jerry, did you used to beat on your wife after football games..

Only when the Dallas Cowboys lost ... :-)

.133> A good football game never seems to put me in the mood to go pummel
.133> on a woman.  I guess I'm abnormal or something.

Yeah .. I guess I'm abnormal also ... I must admit that I was somewhat
startled to hear that someone actually *believed* that football contributed
to wife-beating ... but ... it takes all kinds to make a world.

Hey, Mike ... if you make it to this hoe down .. tell this guy that in
the South a pervert is defined as one who likes sex more than football.
This applies to both males and females ... straight and gay ... people
of color ... all national origins ... rednecks and "arts & croissant"
crowd ... wimps and real men.

Bubba

 It's just anopther case of projecting one's own feelings onto others.
Jackson wanted to pummel women following football games, so he assumes the
rest of us feel the same way...

    I don't care for football and don't recall feeling anything other
    than boredom last time I watched a game.  But isn't it possible that 
    *some* men might react the way this Jackson guy says?  He didn't say 
    categorically that every man (or even most men) who watch football, 
    beat on their female companions, did he?  He doesn't *really* "assume 
    the rest of us feel the same way" does he? (might such an "explanation" 
    just be Mr. Levesque projecting his own feelings about Mr Jackson?)

    FWIW, in the past when I reluctantly sat thru football games (just
    to be 'one of the guys') I never saw any indication that the excitement
    over the game was somehow being transformed into a desire to inflict
    physical harm on someone - so I can certainly understand people who do
    enjoy football being highly skeptical....even outright critical of such 
    a suggestion.  I do wonder about the erruptions of violence in the
    stands that you hear about on occasion, though.  And I wonder why
    people cheer so loudly when a brawl errupts on a baseball diamond or
    during a hockey game....

    That said, I think Jackon's is basically an irrelevant point (if I
    understand it at all).  If any men are made to feel violent by watching 
    football, and more importantly if they *act* on such feelings by beating 
    people up, it would seem to me something *else* is wrong...something more 
    fundamental.  If aggressive sporting events alone could "cause" violence 
    against women, how come boxing isn't the prime target?  It is a much more 
    direct form of aggression against a person (in addition to being an 
    expression of skill and dedication...though I'd rather see skill and 
    dedication as expressed in basketball, skiing or competetive diving than 
    in the act of turning another human being into a bloody pulp...)

    Jackson's idea may be flawed, but I'd find value in anyone's search for 
    possible reasons for spontaneous inappropriate violence.

    /Greg