Conference quark::mennotes-v1

> I have an interesting observation to share. There are may words that at
> one time were just fine in describing men, but now are used in a
> negative context. I would like to use this note to reclaim those words
> and put them back in their rightful context

So far this is great! I'm with 'ya man.

> I will start off with the first word "MACHO".

Whoops. False start.

> MACHO means masculine, characteristic of, or befitting the male
> sex. It sure does not have a negative denotation. The connotation
> that some women have given the word is outrageous. Let's take it back
> and use it properly. It's OK to be MACHO once again.

Macho comes to us from Hispanic culture. Do you have any knowlege of the
history or tradition of "machismo?" I would guess not. Macho does not just
mean manliness or masculinity, though it does mean that, it also has
very clear connotations of male domination. These connotations were not given
to the word by "women" and your claiming such is what is outrageous. They are
an inherent part of the meaning of the word and have always been.

The word hasn't changed, our attitudes have - for the better.

Let's reclaim some other word instead. How about "manly?" Manly is falling out
of favor as an adjective. Let's reclaim it.

	-- Charles

    TRY denotations not connotations. Denotation is the real meaning
    connotations are percieved meanings ( in other words not the real
    meaning).
    
    
    		I'll keep trying. If we can't reclaim this there are a lot
    of others.
    
    			Wayne

    I think you'll be banging into a brick wall, figuratively speaking,
    if you try to reclaim your alleged denotation of "macho."
    "Macho and proud of it" will only get you grief.  I agree with
    Charles, "macho" was taken from the Spanish for its negative
    connotation, whatever its denotation was in Spanish.  In
    (American) English, the denotation and connotation are the same.
    
    Try using "gay" in its original meaning (not that it can't be
    used to mean happy, it's just rare that it is these days, because
    of its strong connotation), I think you'd have the same problem.
    
    Richard

    Re .0
    
    > The connotation that some women have given the word is outrageous. 
    
    Actually, Wayne, there are a fair number of men who agree with
    and support that connotation. They are looking, constructively
    and without feeling emasculated, for other words to reclaim 
    (or inventing new ones) that are free of possible negative
    connotations *for all of us*.
    
    You do seem to have a very firm idea of exactly what "male" and
    "masculine" is. Would you define this for me? (honest question -
    no chain pulling)
    
    'gail           
    
    
    
    

    Re: .0 and .1
    
    I agree with Charles; if you want to pick a word to rehabilitate,
    try "manly."  Here's a word that has taken on some of the negative
    connotations once associated with "macho."  To be manly doesn't mean
    to be macho, with macho's implicit sense of domination and control.
    
    					andrew
    
    P.S. Andrew is a name taken from the Greek; it means "manly."

machismo - An exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing such attributes as
physical courage, virility, domination of women, and aggressiveness or violence.

macho - 1. Machismo 2. A male characterized by machismo.


From The American Heritage Dictionary, 1981 edition. 

Bruce

Out of all the words we could discuss here, amazin that MACHO was
the first one...

    re -1


    	Why not discuss it here. Is the word to hot to handle. Does it have
    to remain negative. I don't think so. When a group of men gather for a
    social event ( sports etc. ) you don't think macho behavior exists.
    Sure it does because it is part of the male makeup. It does not have to
    be negative just simply male. 

    	Now let us try a new word "aggressive". As we all now realize this
    word when used to describe a male can be very negative. So have at it.

    Gail,
    		I would never be able to explain how I feel in this media
    because of complexity of what makes up me. If you would like to talk
    offline feel free to call.


    		Wayne

> Why not discuss it here.

You mistake me. I think discussing it is a fine idea. I think trying to
reclaim it is a mistake.

> Is the word to hot to handle. Does it have to remain negative.

Nope, neither. It's just not a word that *I* want to reclaim, for the
reasons I've stated.

"Agressive" is another interesting word. I don't think it needs reclaiming
either, because to me it doesn't carry negative connotations. It's a purely
descriptive word for a particular behavior. Now if you want to rehabilitate
peoples' opinions of agressive behavior, that's another issue. I claim the
word "agressive" is out of favor because agression is out of favor. If you
are trying to bring agression back into vogue; well I'm not particularly
interested.

	-- Charles

    How about "patriarchy?"
    
    It seems to me that Robert Bly is trying to reclaim that word
    by putting the word "positive" in front of it.  He talks
    about a "positive patriarchy."  He's quite ready to agree
    with feminists that "patriarchy" has been going sour for
    a long time and that both men and women have been screwed
    by a culture that makes bad caricatures out of both male
    and female virtues.
    
    I don't have an opinion on the word or the value of reclaiming
    it, just curious if others do.
    
    Wil
    

I tend to agree with Charles, here, and I wonder if the desire to "reclaim"
words such as "macho" and "aggressive" is really a desire to condone the
attitudes and behaviors that the words describe.  I am one male who does not
think that being "macho" is part of being a man.

				Steve

"Macho" is (in my opinion) undesirable and a lost cause.  You're on 
your own, here, Wayne.

However, I think that "manly" and "aggressive" deserve another look.  
Robert Bly (actually, I think it was Michael Meade) speaks of a 
"ferocity" being very male.  This is the type of ferocity that one can 
apply, for example, as a driving force in finishing a project, 
building a house, or completing any difficult project.  I think that 
"aggressive" is similar in that it has a lot of positive applications 
that get the short end of the stick.   I do believe that there are 
times when men are told not to be aggressive, and that there are times 
when we should push back on that, as long as the aggressiveness is not 
being expressed as violence or in another unfair manner.

I think that I can be very aggressive and ferocious, and it has led to
a lot of wonderful accomplishments. 

							--Gerry

    I think the key to making "aggressive" a positive word, or any of these
    words positive, is whether or not the behavior involved is beneficial
    or harmful to those around the individual exhibiting the behavior.
    There is no inherent reason that others must suffer from aggressive
    or manly behavior.
    
    "Macho" is mindless masculinity, when what is needed is a mindful
    masculinity.
    
    -roger
    
    
    

    Look guys I'm not trying to offend anyones sensitivities. All I'm trying
    to do is get a little life in this file. There any many issues that
    bother a fair amount of men. This is the place to get them out and
    discuss them. They don't have be right or wrong they just have to be. I
    see ROBOMAN being created,he walks, talks, and acts according to his
    prime directives. How about being an individual. For myself I cannot
    walk around on egg shells, I want to be free to be me(whatever that
    is). Before we can value differences we must accept difference. IT was
    amazing to see men distance themselves from a simple word. Am I the
    only man that is tired of feeling like I'm the cause of all the misery
    in the world. I am a white male and I sure feel like a target. I have
    done nothing in my life to deprive another person of their rights. This
    was a little bit of a vent but for me necessary exercise. I would just
    like to see you guys come alive and stop reciting the thought of the
    day.

    		Wayne 

> I think that I can be very aggressive and ferocious, and it has led to
> a lot of wonderful accomplishments. 

Yes. I see what you mean. "Agression" properly targeted can be a very effective
force, and one that is characteristically masculine. I like it.

	-- Charles

    RE: .14
    
    I don't think anyone is telling you not to be you, Wayne.
    
    In fact, I think most men in here would applaud your
    statements.  What people are objecting to are the use of
    the term "macho", because they have decided that for them
    it describes negative aspects of being male.
    
    If for you, it describes positive aspects, then by all
    means you ought to reclaim it and apply it to yourself.
    The people who have responded here will not understand
    your meaning, and perhaps many others will not understand
    it.
    
    Here's a parallel:  I am 55 years old.  I could describe 
    myself as "a young man."  To a 75 year old, I may appear
    to be a young man.  In some ways, I am a young man in spirit.  
    But I don't go around trying to reclaim the words "young
    man" for my own use, because I am probably going to be 
    somewhat misunderstood.  I go along with the rest of society's 
    general definition of young man, which probably is reserved 
    for men under 30.  It's relative, right?
    
    "Macho" is the same way, it's relative, and most of the
    people replying here are telling you that on their scale of
    positive to negative male values, macho is a term that is 
    firmly fixed to the negative end of the scale.  It's firmly
    associated with an attitude and a behavior that 
    
      . swaggers,
      . demeans others, 
      . is surly and uncaring, 
      . has a chip on his shoulder, 
      . is ready to provoke anyone to an argument
    
    Those are the negative aspects of being
    
      . proud of one's abilities
      . aware of one's place, vis-a-vis others
      . aware of one's boundaries
      . able to take care of oneself
      . able to muster the "ferocity" to defend oneself (or others)
    
    This second list is what many of us regard "manly" qualities.
    When these "manly" qualities go negative, they become "macho"
    qualities.
    
    It's relative, how negative does being willing to fight for
    myself have to go, before I am called a bully? 
    
    Wil
    

    
    Re: .14 Wayne,
    
    		Nice note. I'd wager it expresses the feelings
    	of a lot of men, with the exception of "this is the
    	place to get them [issues] out and discuss them."
    
    							Hank

.14>  All I'm trying to do is get a little life in this file.

      Didn't realize the file was dying...  You know what happens when you try
      and force something?  It either breaks or you get hemorrhoids.

.14>  I see ROBOMAN being created, he walks, talks, and acts according to his
.14>  prime directives. 

      What's the matter with prime directives?  Do you have any?  Do/should 
      human beings have prime directives?  Do men and women have different
      prime directives?

.14>  How about being an individual. 

      I think people can't help but BE individuals and this I see is the 
      problem.  How can a bunch of individuals work together to achieve some
      prime directive?  Isn't Valuing Differences a necessary object of the
      prime directive (whatever that may be)?

.14>  IT was amazing to see men distance themselves from a simple word.

      Yes, this shows that when men equate "macho" with "barbarism" they wish
      to evolve (I use this word as I believe it to be better than "change").
      The means there is great Hope for Men...

RE: 599.* string 

   "Macho" is  a very undesirable word and has no value whatsoever to reclaim.
   You're on your own here with me too, Wayne.

>However, I think that "manly" and "aggressive" deserve another look.  
>Robert Bly (actually, I think it was Michael Meade) speaks of a 
>"ferocity" being very male. 

   This is a Bly concept I disagree with.  Saying that "ferocity" (a very good
   trait)  is  a _male_ thing implies that it is gender-based, and even worse,
   that it is not a _female_ thing period, or even a female thing _too_. 

   I don't  see  "ferocity" as a MALE thing, it has nothing to do with gender.
   Many  men  have "ferocity" and many women have "ferocity", it is not a male
   or female thing, but an individualistic trait, a HUMAN thing.  Some men AND
   women have "ferocity", other men and women do not. 

> I do believe that there are 
>times when men are told not to be aggressive, and that there are times 
>when we should push back on that, as long as the aggressiveness is not 
>being expressed as violence or in another unfair manner.

   I feel  the  same  for  the  word  "aggressive," it is a human trait vs.  a
   gender  trait.   But  where  do  men  here  feel  they  are  told not to be
   aggressive?  (Aggressive  as  in  being  self-confident  and determined vs.
   being physically violent that is).

   -Erik
                                                   

   >But  where  do  men  here  feel  they  are  told not to be
   >aggressive?  (Aggressive  as  in  being  self-confident  and determined vs.
   >being physically violent that is).  
    
    	PS- I feel women and little girls in our society are forced not to
    	act too aggressive or confident FAR more than men and little boys 
    	could ever even dream of being made to be... 
    
    	"Tommy you wear the pink dress and act cute around girls, Jane you
    	go out and play football hard and win that championship game..."
    

>    Before we can value differences we must accept difference. 

You got two out of the four parts of the process.  It's telling that 
you didn't mention Recognizing and Understanding.  

The push-back that you are getting in here--in my opinion--is that you 
are pushing for some kind of Acceptance of your ideas before we've had 
a chance to test them, discuss them, and compare them with our own.

I think the folks in this file have been really enthusiastic in 
response to your notes.  Or is the reason why you're disgruntled the 
fact that people aren't instantly agreeing with you?

Give us a little time, and let's chat for a while.  What's wrong with 
that?



							--Gerry

>>However, I think that "manly" and "aggressive" deserve another look.  
>>Robert Bly (actually, I think it was Michael Meade) speaks of a 
>>"ferocity" being very male. 
>
>   This is a Bly concept I disagree with.  Saying that "ferocity" (a very good
>   trait)  is  a _male_ thing implies that it is gender-based, and even worse,
>   that it is not a _female_ thing period, or even a female thing _too_. 

This is an incorrect paraphrasing of Michael Meade's comment.  In 
fact, he said that ferocity ("moving strongly in life with Purpose") 
is not only found in women but is highly desirable "by their men" 
[sic].   

>   I don't  see  "ferocity" as a MALE thing, it has nothing to do with gender.
>   Many  men  have "ferocity" and many women have "ferocity", it is not a male
>   or female thing, but an individualistic trait, a HUMAN thing.  Some men AND
>   women have "ferocity", other men and women do not. 

Meade's main point is that this ferocity is integral to most men, and
needs expression.  The fact that it is also present in women--by
virtue of Meade's discussion--was a moot point.  Just as women are not
defined by "what's in men," men are not defined by "what's in women." 

...and I know that you disagree with most of what Bly and Meade say, 
so I won't push the point any further.  I'll just agree to disagree.  

>> I do believe that there are 
>>times when men are told not to be aggressive, and that there are times 
>>when we should push back on that, as long as the aggressiveness is not 
>>being expressed as violence or in another unfair manner.
>
>   I feel  the  same  for  the  word  "aggressive," it is a human trait vs.  a
>   gender  trait.   But  where  do  men  here  feel  they  are  told not to be
>   aggressive?  (Aggressive  as  in  being  self-confident  and determined vs.
>   being physically violent that is).

Many times.  As one example, I was in a feminist-run meeting, and I
confronted someone whom I felt was dragging the meeting down with a
personal agenda. Tensions rose, my voice raised (not yelling, but got
louder).  When he attempted to cut me off, I spoke over him.  When he
threatened to leave the meeting, I said that it was okay with me.

After this had happened--despite the fact that most people were 
pulling their hair out at his childish antics--I was told that my 
behavior was inappropriate and that I should not have confronted him 
in such an aggressive manner.  I was flabbergasted.

That is one of many examples in which my aggression was painted as 
violent, counter-productive, and harmful.  I actually think that I was 
being more honest and direct in the context of the situation.


							--Gerry

>   >But  where  do  men  here  feel  they  are  told not to be
>   >aggressive?  (Aggressive  as  in  being  self-confident  and determined vs.
>   >being physically violent that is).  
>    
>    	PS- I feel women and little girls in our society are forced not to
>    	act too aggressive or confident FAR more than men and little boys 
>    	could ever even dream of being made to be... 
    
Absolutely true.  

But why are you refusing to discuss with us some of our feelings about 
cutting off all of our aggression when some of it might be useful?  
Just because there is a sexist problem with women being told that they 
can't be aggressive does not mean that men also have a problem, in 
some feminist circles, with being told not to be aggressive?

The two aren't mutually exclusive, Erik.  One side doesn't have to 
"win out" over the other.  I can see a win/win here.


							--Gerry

    I agree with Erik about "aggression" and "ferocity" being
    non-gender specific.  Consider most females of the
    species in the animal kingdom (lions come immediately to mind),
    who are ferocious about protecting their young (not the
    only instance of ferocity, I'm sure, just the most obvious).
    
    "Aggression" isn't a term that needs to be reclaimed for men,
    it's already considered a positive masculine attribute.  It's
    more important for women to claim aggression as a positive
    attribute; the stereotypical name for aggressive women 
    is, excuse my language, "bitch."
    
    
    Richard

>But why are you refusing to discuss with us some of our feelings about 
>cutting off all of our aggression when some of it might be useful?  

	I wasn't refusing to discuss it. I don't agree with cutting off
    	_people's_ useful aggression like you either, but for both genders. 
    	Saying "men should be aggressive" is not the same as saying "It is 
    	good for PEOPLE to be aggressive," the former implies that being
    	aggressive is a MALE trait, and not for females, as I said earlier.

    	I just have not witnessed men in any facet of my life being told
    	not to be aggressive, nevermind being told "because you are a MAN,
    	you cannot be seen to be aggressive or determined."

>Just because there is a sexist problem with women being told that they 
>can't be aggressive does not mean that men also have a problem, in 
>some feminist circles, with being told not to be aggressive?

    	True. But in all my experiences inside (even 'radical') feminist
    	circles was I never told that I was too aggressive. Especially not
    	in any way that would have also not been said to a woman (ie, 
    	"You're being insensitive by not letting her/him finish", etc).

    	And certainly no one has ever said "Because you are a MAN, you cannot
    	be determined or self-confident in this discussion." I wasn't there 
    	with you to see why your aggressiveness may not have been
    	appreciated by men and women in the room, but I'm willing to bet that 
    	the moderators would have said the same exact thing to woman acting
    	equally as aggressive or commanding or whatever it was they
    	disliked.

>The two aren't mutually exclusive, Erik.  One side doesn't have to 
>"win out" over the other.  I can see a win/win here.

    	Exactly. That's why I prefer "People should nurture the useful parts
    	of their aggression" vs. "Men should be aggressive". The first says
    	the same as the second, but without an implied "woman-shouldn't".
    	Both are supported.

    	-Erik

    There are philosophies that classify emotions and actions in terms of
    varying degrees of Yin and Yang.  Agression, interruption, resistance
    etc are classified as principally Yang.  Receiving, blending, yeilding
    are classified as principally Yin.  Some confusion arises because the
    concept of Yin and Yang are also applied to gender.  Yang is generally
    accepted as male and Yin as female.  This does NOT imply that males
    embody only Yang traits and females only Yin.  The distinction is fine,
    but it is there.  In fact, in a book called The Book of the Way (Tao Te
    Ching) it admonishes ALL people to "Develop the qualities of Yang but
    to live in the gentleness of Yin".  

What's bothering me about the "aggression is a human characteristic" 
(which I am not discounting, by the way) is that it implies that there 
are no significant differences between men and women.  From a pure 
philisophical standpoint, it sounds perfectly fine to me that both men 
and women are "aggressive," that both men and women are "nurturing," 
and so forth and so on.

Well, if this is all true, then where do the differences come into 
play?  If, every time we try to examine "what it is to be a man," 
someone pulls out the old, "women have that characteristic, too," then 
how do we ever get at the differences?  At what point does the attempt 
to foster "equality" lead to the devaluing of men and women?  

The Valuing Differences work that we do teaches us that there are
attributes that are characteristic of a subgroup, a subculture, a
minority, an ethnicity, or some other subset.  Not that all members of 
the subgroup behave monolithically all the time, but that there are 
strong characteristics that are predominant in certain groups of 
people.  

The VoD program also teaches us that it is not wise to try to smooth 
over or ignore differences, it is not a good idea to smooth over or 
ignore group characteristics.  For example, if I went to a group of 
African Americans and said, "The attributes that you are claiming are 
'black' are present in white people, too.  That shouldn't be a 'black 
thing'; it should be a 'people thing'", then I'd probably get a few 
people calling me a racist at worst and an enemy to cultural identity 
at best.  But in the particular note, it seems perfectly fine for 
people to say that, "It's not a manly trait, it's a people trait."  

I think that you are paying more attention to your philisophical views 
than you are to reality.  I look around me and I see different 
predominant group characteristics for both men and women.  Now, I have 
no idea how much of it is Nature and how much of it is Nurture, but I 
do see differences.  I realize that no men or women act according to a 
script 100% of the time, but that does not erase the fact that I see,
for example, a larger predominance of human nurturing in women and a
larger predominance of ferociously chasing after external goals in
men.  I'm not saying that men aren't capable of nurturing and that a
minority of men aren't doing it better than women.  What I am saying
is that I look around me today and men, as a group, do not nurture
anywhere near as much as the women do.  Just the facts, M'am. 

If we ignore these group traits then, in my opinion, we are 
ignoring our differences.  (How can you Value Differences when you 
are ignoring them?)   If we are lying about who we are at the current 
moment (ignoring differences is a form of denial or lying, in my 
opinion), then how can be build a better tomorrow?  From the Talking 
Heads: "We know where we're going/But we don't know where we've been." 
You have to know where you are coming from to draw a line to where you 
want to go.  If we want more men to do more nurturing in the future, 
we'd better stop lying about how little nurturing they are doing now.

Let me finish by telling a bit of my own story: For years, I worked 
with several feminist groups.  (I still consider myself to be a 
feminist.)  I used a lot of the rhetoric, techniques, and systems 
developed by women feminists, and I learned quite a bit.  I was very 
aware of a strong sentiment in those communities that women feminists 
have built a system based upon women's group characteristics that is 
fairer, more efficient, and better than the patriarchial system that 
men run.  And I believed it.

After a while, I began to notice a few things.  One, that sometimes 
the feminist system worked well and sometimes it stunk.  For instance,
the feminist process used to facilitate the civil disobedience
movement at the national gay march on Washington in '87 was excellent;
in other groups, the consensus decision making process was used as a
way to prevent decisions from being made or to constantly revisit
decisions.  I noticed that the partriarchial systems had some
advantages that the feminist systems didn't have and vice versa.  I 
noticed that I became "other" when I behaved a certain way: wanting to 
do something quickly, raising the issue of conflict openly, wanting to 
take action items offline, open expressions of my sexuality felt like 
an issue, and so forth).

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that feminist groups not being 
able to hold male membership is no accident.  A system that is defined 
according to women's group characteristics and does not value men's 
group characteristics is going to handcuff the men.  And the men will 
grow frustrated and leave, as I did when working with several feminist 
groups.  

No matter how much of a feminist a man is, chances are, he is going to 
behave...like a man.  At least in some ways. 

I think that part of my conflict with most feminist groups that I 
worked with stemmed from the fact that we all spent an awful lot of 
time pretending that, since we were feminists, we were "all the same" 
and could operate equally efficient under this system based on women's 
group characteristics.  

It was a lie.  The same lie that I hear her, when men say, "That's not 
a characteristic of men; that's a characteristic of people."

If we can acknowledge the differences, we can recognize the style
clashes when they occur.  We can build systems that work for the
people involved.  If we continue to broaden everything to "people
issues," we won't have any clue as to why huge numbers of people in
some groups feel "other" and peolpe in some groups don't. 

End of soapbox.  Summary: I think you are making a huge mistake if you 
put on the blinders that there are no significant differences between 
men and women.  I don't see evidence in the real world to support that 
thesis.  I only see liberal political correctness.


							--Gerry

    Ok guys drop MACHO. It's been shot,stabbed, stomped, and ran over. I
    would ask one thing though, ( and it will probably get me in trouble).
    Please discuss this this from a man's point of view, women can take
    care of themselves. That said, A NEW WORD " CONTROL ". THis word has
    been used to to beat about the head and shoulders of many a married man
    and boyfriend. I like being in control and sometimes I like to control a
    situation. I try to exercise my control with prudance and fairness.
    
    
    			Wayne 

    RE: .27
    
    Thank you, Gerry.    That is what I think too, but I haven't
    had the training and experience that you have in coming to
    that conclusion.             Wil

    I can relate to what Wayne is saying.  Take the subject of "traditional
    family" (Mom staying home with the kids, Dad working).  This is something 
    I have given much thought to and is what I wanted and is currently what
    I have.  I think it is best.  When I express my feelings on this
    subject I get trampled and labeled as an unenlightened male chauvenist
    pig (not all the time, but it happens regularly enough).  In another
    Digital notesfile a woman said her farewell, she was leaving DEC to
    become a homemaker.  I wrote a reply of support to her.  She wrote me
    offline saying that she was getting next to no support on her decision
    from other woomen in the workpllace.  I believe that it is these kinds
    of initolerances which Wayne is addressing.  Kind of a "socially
    correctness" type of thing.  I hold some traditional types of thoughts,
    although there are some things which have made life better by some of
    the newer ways of thinking.  For example, I absolutely LOVE being
    involved with my kids upbringing (this stereotypically was the role of
    the mother as you all probably know).  One other thing, in my house I
    have the last say on things.  This does not mean that I do not get
    input on decisions from my wife, and it doesn't mean that her reasoning
    cannot change my mind, but I am head of the household.  I told her this
    when we first started dating and she accepted it.  This does not mean
    that she is a spineless airhead either, she is one of the most sharp,
    and caring person I've ever known.  Six years and three children later,
    we are still going strong.
    
    Mike  

    RE: -1 <insert name here>
    
    I understand how circumstances change and I think that both men and
    woman can adapt and do what is needed to chose one: a)fill in the gap
    b)compensate for c)replace d)etc.  If something happened to my wife, I
    would take over what she has contributed (albeit probably not be as
    good, but I'd do my best and learn) and she would do the same if I were
    out of the picture.  Circumstance has much to do with ones actions.  I
    have a buddy whose wife decided she rather enjoyed cocaine more than
    her husband and daughter.  To get her cocaine she would go out with
    other fellows and do any and all sexual activities to get the coke.  My
    buddy kicked her out and got full custody of his daughter (he's not
    recieving any alimony though, doesn't want anything to do with his ex)
    
    Mike

RE Control

As long as it is negotiated and agreed upon, I don't see a problem.  I 
only see problems when someone takes it upon himself or herself to 
control a situation when others don't agree.

RE Traditional family

I think that in most ways, the traditional family is great.  I'd like 
to support it.  (In fact, I do support it with my mom, dad, brother 
and sister.)

All I ask is that we don't make the traditional family "mandatory" or 
more "right" than what I'm doing.  I have complete faith that, even if 
we removed the pressures placed on people to be a part of traditional 
families, they would survive just fine.  In fact, I think that all 
people involved operate much better without pressure and cohersion.


							--Gerry

re: .27

Gerry,

	Do you drink a lot of coffee?  ;')

	No place in my reply did I mention glossing over differences.  I was 
offering an altenative way of approaching this, or any other issue.  I also 
didn't say that there was no difference between men and women.  That's 
what you said I said.  

	If we look at it at your premise from the other side of the coin, 
then I can say, "I act like an agressive a$$#0le because I'm a white male.  
I'm supposed to act that way."  That to me is a cop out, no, it's a crock of 
s#!t.

	If I have certain traits, they may come from a whole host of 
sources.  If I'm agressive, I don't buy the fact that it's because I'm 
inherently so.  Look around at the society we live in.  All the advertising 
on television, radio, billboards everywhere you look, reinforces the idea 
that being white and male is where it's at.  (If we need to go into the 
gory detals and examples, fine.  But if you don't see it for yourself then 
I'm never going to be able to show you.)  Does that mean that everyone who 
is a white male is automatically agressive and overbearing?  They are if 
they want to be but I contend they (we) don't have to be just because 
society says so.  It's real easy to get up on a soap box and point fingers 
and say it's this and it's that.  It's less easy to realize that the only 
person you can change is yourself.  Just like the only person I can change 
is myself.

				Ron

    Hi Gerry,
    
    I have no problem with what you have said, I'd just like to see the
    traditional family get a fair shake.  It sure seems (and feels) like
    the odds are against us these days as far as economics and society
    goes.  It may be a misperception on my part, but I'm not the only one
    (see my last entry) whose feeling the pressure.
    
    Mike

RE:  599.27 by GFISHER 

   OK, Gerry.   You  brought this up in the Bly discussion and I left it there
   for  lack  of time to respond.  But now you're at it again, and I can't let
   it slide yet again.

   You and  I see the world completely differently.  I see and lecture Valuing
   Diversity differently than you see Valuing Differences.  I accept and value
   diversity  as  an  individualistic  trait  in  a  person,  whereas  you see
   difference as something to rigidly map onto people you yourself perceive as
   being  different,  to  the  point of creating difference for people because
   they belong to what you perceive as a 'group' whether they are different or
   not,  whether  that  GROUP feels it's their trait or not.  You map yourself
   and the differences you expect onto them. 

   Perhaps it  is  not  surprising  then  that  you  and  I view men and women
   completely   differently.    You  struggle  to  maintain  your  male/female
   paradigm, and it is you who have blinders on in order to maintain a hang up
   on gender roles.

> it sounds perfectly fine to me that both men 
>and women are "aggressive," that both men and women are "nurturing," 
>and so forth and so on.
>
>Well, if this is all true, then where do the differences come into                                                                  
>play?  If, every time we try to examine "what it is to be a man," 
>someone pulls out the old, "women have that characteristic, too," then 
>how do we ever get at the differences?  

   Key point: you are approaching this as wanting to, as _having_ to, create a
   difference  to  maintain your male/female paradigm.  You are beginning this
   assuming  that  there  'has  to  be'  a  difference,  or  else it makes you
   uncomfortable. 

   That phrase  you often use "what it is to be a man," distrurbs and confuses
   me.   I challenge you to describe "what it is to be a man." Make a list for
   me below,

		WHAT MEN CAN DO		WHAT WOMEN CANNOT DO
		(MALE THINGS)		(MALE THINGS)
		---------------		--------------------
		be aggressive		cannot be aggressive
		be ferocious		cannot be ferocious

   and I bet you cannot make a list of differences that is not purely that men
   and women have different private parts.  I'd also bet that such a list will
   unearth  sexist  ideologies.   These are individualistic human traits, they
   are  not  _gender_  traits.  Your going on about MALE THINGS is exactly the
   type  of rhetoric that used to (and still does) keep women at home with the
   kids.   It's  a  MAN'S  THING to go off to work, to be the bread-winner, to
   lead  an  effort  of  people, protect the family, etc, etc.  It's a WOMEN'S
   THING  to  be  nurturing,  submissive, non-ferocious, and unable to protect
   herself.  

   Whenever you  speak  of  men,  you  are  also saying something about women.
   Whenever  you  speak  of  women,  you  are also saying something about men.
   Men's  issues  and  women's issues are inextricably linked together.  There
   are  only  two  of  us, men and women, saying something about one also says
   something  about  the  other.   This  is  what  I  meant  earlier about MEN
   feeding/causing/creating  their  own  men's issues problems by perpetuating
   old macho mythologies. 

   MAN IN  A  BAR: "It's a WOMEN'S THING to take care of kids.  As a man, it's
   my  MALE  THING  to  be big and strong and protect the wife.  Men cannot be
   nurturing, any men who are are not _real_ men, they're women."

   {a week later the same man is in divorce court...}

   JUDGE: "It's  a  WOMEN'S  THING  to  be nurturing, caring, and be good with
   children."  [Implied:  It's  not  a  man's  thing].   It's a MAN'S THING to
   provide  for  the  family  and be the bread-winning for the helpless wife."
   [Implied:  These  are  not women's things].  "OK, you there, you are a MAN,
   you  cannot  get custody of the kids and you pay to support your wife.  OK,
   the  other  one there, you are a WOMAN, you get custody of the children and
   get support." Etc.  Etc.  Etc.

   Who pushes these macho concepts more, men or women? I feel we men do...  we
   can  help ourselves first and faster than women can.  By giving _ourselves_
   a break from these gender roles.
 
   Listing an individual's HUMAN characteristics like ferocity as a MALE THING
   sets  up  the expectation that these characteristics are created BECAUSE OF
   ONE'S GENDER.  "Oh she cannot do that, she is a woman." As if the mere fact
   that her private parts are female, dictates what she can and cannot do.  IT
   IS  A  COP  OUT!  And  one  with latent sexism at that.  It leads to people
   saying idiotic things like "Women are dippy, it's just biology."

   It is  people  sticking  to  this  concept, this male/female paradigm, that
   creates  the  screwed  up notion of "Well, she is a MAN in a women's body."
   Like  hell  she is! She _is_ a FEMALE! These people are so hung up on their
   male/female  paradigm,  that  in  order to maintain it they have to justify
   that  a  woman  is  really  a man, because she does not fit their paradigm.
   They  make  this  idiotic  statement instead of just recognizing that being
   ferocious  **IS**  a  'female  thing'  -  a female thing _too_ if you like,
   because  it  is  a  HUMAN  trait.  It is not based on gender.  "Your sex is
   female,  you cannot lead people, that is a _male_ thing." Yeah right.  Ugh!

   NOTE that  this  is  not  the  same  as  saying  that being aggressive is a
   "presently  American  male cultural thing".  The change is only terminology
   but  there  is  a  BIG difference in the concept.  It recognizes that these
   norms  are social, changeable, and highly dependent on cultural attributes.
   "Men  do  not  hold hands walking down the street" is true of American men,
   not  true  for  many  of  my  European  male  friends.   Etc.   Etc.   Most
   importantly, it recognizes the fact that these current social norms are NOT
   BASED ON THE GENDER ITSELF.  Saying something is a man's thing implies that
   a  man's  genitals give him ferocity, and women's genitals prevent her from
   being ferocious.
                  
   Some people  say  that "basketball is a black thing".  Does wanting to play
   basketball  make  you see yourself as a black man inside a white man's body
   Gerry? Saying that "hockey is a white's thing" sets up the expectation that
   an  African  American  boy (or girl) cannot play hockey, that if s/he wants
   to,  it  is  'unnatural'  for  an  African  American youth, it is not being
   'black' but white.  What BS!

   If I  were  a female with you as my manager, I'd be DEEPLY OFFENDED at your
   view that my ferocity is a MALE THING.  I'd feel that you'd view me as male
   when  I'm  very much, every BIT a FEMALE! Thank you very much.  I could not
   work  for  you, knowing that you see my accomplishments not as mine, BUT AS
   'MALE'.   How  does  Sandy  C.   feel  having  people  view  her  excellent
   aggressive  style  of writing as  being  MALE?  I'd be outraged.   My style
   is  my  style.   It infuriates me when people assign and map _their_ labels
   for  'male'  and  'female' onto other individual's personal traits.  "She's
   good at math, she's very male", "He's good with raising children, he's very
   female".   "She's  ferocious,  that's a MALE thing." "Those Italian men are
   hugging  each  other,  how FEMALE!" "She's good at fixing cars, she's a MAN
   trapped in a FEMALE body" Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  [I scream "NO, she with math is
   a WOMAN! She is _being_ a woman!" "He with children is a MAN! He is _being_
   a  man!"  "Being  able  to fix a car does NOT require a penis as one of the
   tools!"].

   Different people  are  good  at  different  things.   Different people have
   different HUMAN qualities.  I see you as trying to map your expectations of
   what  a  group  should  be  onto  other people.  I see you perpetuating the
   inequality  of gender roles, and of not encouraging people to be themselves
   (ie, "that's a MALE'S THING").

   -Erik

cont:

>End of soapbox.  Summary: I think you are making a huge mistake if you 
>put on the blinders that there are no significant differences between 
>men and women.  I don't see evidence in the real world to support that 
>thesis.  I only see liberal political correctness.

   Whereas I  feel  that  you  are the one with blinders on trying to maintain
   your  view  of  what  men  and  women _should_ be like, that they _must_ be
   different, to fit your male/female paradigm.

   You're in  a company full of people breaking the paradigm, but you still do
   not  see  it.  I don't know about you, but I am surrounded by competent and
   aggressive  women,  not  the  helpless little dippy feminine women that the
   male/female    differences    viewpoint   portrays.    They're   engineers,
   programmers, tech writers, etc.  They break your "female' and FEMALE THINGS
   mold.   Many  are aggressive and ferocious and show leadership and have all
   those "MALE THINGS" you mention, as do many men.  Many men here are not the
   VW-sized  bicep_men  who  can wrestle alligators as the "MALE THINGS" macho
   image portrays.  Many men around me here are sensitive, nurturing, feeling,
   use intelligence instead of brute strength in their work and have all those
   "FEMALE  THINGS,  as  do  many women.  Enough to give you the idea that the
   GENDER ROLE rules in your male/female paradigm do not hold true, that one's
   genitals  to  not drive one's individualistic human traits as much as you'd
   like to imagine.

   Yet you do not see it. You have blinders to it.

   You are  in  feminist  space.   Yet  you  did  not see that women there are
   aggressive,  determined,  ferocious,  and lead people in efforts.  The fact
   that  a  woman  put  you,  a man, in your place tells me that you witnessed
   women  with  non-traditionally  feminine qualities; women that have, as you
   would say, 'MALE THINGS'.

   You see   "liberal   political  correctness".   But  I  never  tow  any  PC
   party-line.   I  speak  my  mind.   I am a feminist but I do not agree with
   radical lesbian-separatist feminists whose paradigm is likewise determining
   an  individual's  characteristics  solely  by  their gender in that a woman
   doing  traditionally female things is not a 'real' and respectable woman in
   their eyes.  I am a proponent of men's issues but do not agree with the men
   on  the Bly side of men's issues that feel that MEN are mostly the victims,
   are  never  to  blame, need to reclaim our superiority over women, separate
   ourselves  FROM  women  by re-kindling macho concepts about how dominant we
   are, and that all our problems are the fault of women.  ('those silly dippy
   but somehow castrating women').

   We'll share - You see PC, I see a person whose sexual-personal existence is
   heavily  tied  to  his  desired  belief  that  men  and  women  are totally
   completely  different  from  each  other  in  ways other than just in their
   genital  form,  that  they  cannot  be  alike  in  sharing  the  same HUMAN
   characteristics,  and  has to maintain that difference or else his paradigm
   for  men  and  women is damaged and it sends him into deep personal turmoil
   over  the  nice  easy  roles  men  and  women play in his life.  I would be
   miserable  if  I  were  a  gay  man  who  truly believed that men cannot be
   nurturing,  how awful! I would miserable if I were a straight man who truly
   believed that women cannot be independent and self-assured, how awful!

   There is  way too much emphasis amoung men on "being a man" - whatever that
   is.   Males  already  are  a man.  Be yourself with your _own_ set of HUMAN
   characteristics.   Value  that,  be  happy with that.  Don't try to squeeze
   yourself  through  other  people's  hoops  and labels for "being female" or
   "being  a  real  women"  or  "being  a real man" or "being a true Texan" or
   "being  a  true  Italian", etc.  etc.  We'd have a lot less problems if men
   asked "What is it like to be me" instead of "am I being a REAL MAN?"

   -Erik

>	Do you drink a lot of coffee?  ;')

I'm a writer.  First drafts are sloppy and long, but only take me 
about 15 minutes to do.

>	No place in my reply did I mention glossing over differences.  

I don't recall accusing you of directly glossing over differences.

>I was offering an altenative way of approaching this, or any other issue.  

The timing and context of your offering of the approach is what I was
commenting on.  Some noters interupted (and continually interrupt) an
attempt to define how male behavior differs from women's behavior. 

For example, why did you choose to interrupt this discussion instead 
of starting another note, looking at things from the other side of the 
coin?  Perhaps because it was your intent to pit one side of the coin 
against the other?

>I also 
>didn't say that there was no difference between men and women.  That's 
>what you said I said.  

Don't take it so personally.  I was actually responding to several 
noters.

>	If we look at it at your premise from the other side of the coin, 
>then I can say, "I act like an agressive a$$#0le because I'm a white male.  
>I'm supposed to act that way."  That to me is a cop out, no, it's a crock of 
>s#!t.

This is an inaccurate summary of my points.  I made no mention of 
"supposed to" acting any way at all.  An accurate summary of my 
points would be: I look around me and I see more men acting with more 
aggression than I see women acting with aggression.  That's all.  
Nothing more, nothing less.  No "shoulds" about it.  And I'm not 
ruling out the fact that there are some women who are far more 
aggressive than a lot of the men I've men.  Again, I'm talking about 
predominant behavior patterns found in men, not absolutes.

>	If I have certain traits, they may come from a whole host of 
>sources.  If I'm agressive, I don't buy the fact that it's because I'm 
>inherently so.  

I never said that it was inherent (remember my mentioning that I was 
avoiding the Nature VS Nurture argument?).  When I look at men being 
predominantly more aggressive than women, I don't see any reason why 
people can't be fluid, change, and move throughout the continuum.  I 
see no reason why men, as a group, can't become somewhat less 
aggressive, and why women, as a group, can't become somewhat more 
aggressive. 

We have that power.

>Look around at the society we live in.  

Okay, but I'll have to leave my terminal!!!  (Oh, my!)   ;-)

>Does that mean that everyone who 
>is a white male is automatically agressive and overbearing?  

Of course not.  And I never said that they were.

(In fact, it's interesting that "white" creeps into your note a lot.  
I was really only talking about men and women, about gender.  But it 
can be applied to white, too.)

>They are if 
>they want to be but I contend they (we) don't have to be just because 
>society says so.  It's real easy to get up on a soap box and point fingers 
>and say it's this and it's that.  It's less easy to realize that the only 
>person you can change is yourself.  Just like the only person I can change 
>is myself.

Why are you implying that white males should change?  And, if they 
should change, how would that look?

Isn't that the meat of our discussion?

Hasn't my point been, in part, if men as a group are exhibiting 
anti-social aggression more than women, how much of that aggression 
should we male individuals work to suppress before we cut out "useful" 
aggression?  (It's the Baby-With-The-Bathwater question.)


							--Gerry
[Completed in 13 minutes...back to work.]

 <<re -1
 <<
 <<
 <<   	Why not discuss it here. Is the word to hot to handle. Does it have
 <<   to remain negative. I don't think so. 

Gee, I missed a few days of following this note,, the -1 referred
to my note, I geuss-- which was

	<<Out of all the words we could discuss here, amazin that MACHO was
	<<the first one...


Now, while I didn't mean this in a negative sense, I did find it peculiar
that this would be a word that 'someone' felt a burning desire to
explore and maybe even defend...

Let me clarify...  When I hear the word 'Macho"  I hear another word,
'Man'  when these two words come together, we get MACHO MAN,,

That leads me to the next level, and what do I find there?

			"The Village People"

				**********GASP***********

					No lie...

For the record, the implications of the word MACHO bores me to tears,
then again, I'll sit down and watch a Sly Stalone or "Arnold" movie
anytime..  Please, just don't do the 'Macho' thing and ask me
to Arm Wrestle...  something that I happen to find about as appealing
as 'claming' out a car window..

/r

>   You and  I see the world completely differently.  I see and lecture Valuing
>   Diversity differently than you see Valuing Differences.  I accept and value
>   diversity  as  an  individualistic  trait  in  a  person,  whereas  you see
>   difference as something to rigidly map onto people you yourself perceive as
>   being  different,  to  the  point of creating difference for people because
>   they belong to what you perceive as a 'group' whether they are different or
>   not,  whether  that  GROUP feels it's their trait or not.  You map yourself
>   and the differences you expect onto them. 

I don't see us as being quite as far apart as you say, here.  I 
actually agree with a good amount of what you say.  (When you say 
things that I agree with, I tend not to jump in and repeat it; I tend 
to respond--to all people in Notes--mainly when I disagree.  That's 
just the way I am.)

I align with Barbara Walker's Valuing Differences philosophy.  From 
her write-up entitled "Valuing Differences" from  March of 1987, 
page 2 [emphasis mine]:

	The "Valuing Differences" approach is based on the recognition
	of a fundamental reality--in important ways, we are all 
	different from one another--not only as unique individuals
	but, EQUALLY IMPORTANT, AS MEMBERS OF ONE GROUP OR ANOTHER
	WHICH SHARE A PERSPECTIVE ON THE WORLD UNLIKE THAT OF ANY
	OTHER GROUP.  VALUING PEOPLE MEANS VALUING THESE DIFFERENCES. 
	
So, Erik, I see your stated philosophy lining up perfectly with the 
first part of Barbara's statement.  And I would like to tip my hat to 
invidualistic differences; they are certainly important to examine and 
discuss.

What I was getting at in this note is the second half of Barbara's 
statement.  How can we get at "[men who] share a perspective on the 
world unlike that of [women]"  without examining predominant group 
characteristics?  Also, how do I understand how the group "men" (or 
the group "gay men" or the group "people from Milford, CT") influences 
my individuality if we aren't allowed to talk about the traits of men 
("they aren't traits of men, they're traits of people")?

Let me put it to you this way, Erik: maybe you have some method of 
examining group cultures and how those cultures affect individuals, 
but I haven't seen it.  If you can clue me in to how you do this (or 
maybe you think it's an invalid concept), my "issue" with your notes 
will disappear.

I strongly disagree with some of your notes, but it was not my intent 
to attack you.  I apologize if I hurt you or if you felt attacked by 
me.  Because we really do agree on stuff.  (I think.)

>   Perhaps it  is  not  surprising  then  that  you  and  I view men and women
>   completely   differently.    You  struggle  to  maintain  your  male/female
>   paradigm, and it is you who have blinders on in order to maintain a hang up
>   on gender roles.

Well, I'm not sure that I have a very strong male/female paradimn, in 
that I do not believe that my maleness drives my entire being.  I 
don't believe that my maleness writes out a script for me, from which 
I cannot deviate.

The only point that I continually try to make is that some of my 
behavior some of the time has been influenced by the fact that I am 
male.  And I try not to be surprised anymore when I exhibit certain 
characteristics that are attributed to the group called "men" (for 
example, I can get pretty aggressive and confrontational).  I'm also 
not surprised when I exhibit characteristics most attributed to women 
(for example, I can be very gentle and caring).

I find it pretty easy to shift from my maleness to my gayness to my
tallness to my right-handedness to my born-in-Connecticutedness to my
30-year-oldness.  I don't think that I'm stuck in a rigid man/woman
see saw. 

But I'll think about it.

>   Key point: you are approaching this as wanting to, as _having_ to, create a
>   difference  to  maintain your male/female paradigm.  You are beginning this
>   assuming  that  there  'has  to  be'  a  difference,  or  else it makes you
>   uncomfortable. 

Okay.  Let's assume I'm doing this, and that it's my "thing."

Simple question:  As you go through life experiencing men and women, 
have you noticed exhibition of predominant traits in either group?  
Are there any general tendancies that are seen by the behavior of 
these two groups?

>   That phrase  you often use "what it is to be a man," distrurbs and confuses
>   me.   I challenge you to describe "what it is to be a man." Make a list for
>   me below,

You seem to think that I have some kind of concrete notion of "what it 
is to be a man," and I don't.  Here's where we have an area of 
agreement, I think that each man has to define that himself.

I guess that what I am advocating, in regard to "what it means to be a 
man," is that men use the method of taking a look at traits that are predominant 
in men, figuring out what that means to you, figuring out how your 
individualistic traits fit into the picture, and then you get your 
customized version of "what it means to be a man [to me]."

The point that I continually try to get across is that I am not "a 
man" in a vacuum.  In the process of becoming the individual that I 
am, there were certain physical traits that I was given (a penis) and 
lots of information fed to me by society on men.

When I go to look at this group identity, no matter how nebulous it 
might be, I falter when people tell me, "Don't look at that as a man's 
trait, look at it as a human trait."  Which is true in one sense, but 
it doesn't help me get at this group influence thing.

>		WHAT MEN CAN DO		WHAT WOMEN CANNOT DO
>		(MALE THINGS)		(MALE THINGS)
>		---------------		--------------------
>		be aggressive		cannot be aggressive
>		be ferocious		cannot be ferocious

Also, when I look about me and see that there is a predominace of 
aggression in men, that does not say that "women cannot be 
aggressive."  Of course women can be and are aggressive.  But does 
their group display the same kind of aggressive nature that men do?  
Not from what I've seen.

And if feminists want to work toward making it more okay for more 
women to become more aggressive and for more men to become more 
nurturing and gentle, I can see that happening, I can support that.

Again, predominant group traits is not a rigid script.  People are too 
complex and dymanic for that.

>   and I bet you cannot make a list of differences that is not purely that men
>   and women have different private parts.  

This is a fascinating one, that would take on its own discussion.  
And, if you are talking about strict divisions, I agree with you 100%. 
However, despite the people who are in the gray area, men 
predominantly have penises and women predominantly have vaginas.  
Always?  No.  But predominantly.  Generally.

>   These are individualistic human traits, they
>   are  not  _gender_  traits.  

So you are saying that there is no such thing as gender.  Or, that it 
is irrelevant and that there are no differences between men and women.

What are you saying, here, Erik?  I don't get it.

>   Your going on about MALE THINGS is exactly the
>   type  of rhetoric that used to (and still does) keep women at home with the
>   kids.   It's  a  MAN'S  THING to go off to work, to be the bread-winner, to
>   lead  an  effort  of  people, protect the family, etc, etc.  It's a WOMEN'S
>   THING  to  be  nurturing,  submissive, non-ferocious, and unable to protect
>   herself.  

I remember writing  1) that women exhibit ferociousness, too, and 2) 
that a predominance of aggression in groups of males does not prevent 
a man from tapping into his human ability to stay home and raise the 
kids.  I think that the types of oppression that you are describing, 
Erik, lead from a simplistic and poor drawing of conclusions from 
predominant traits in groups.

It's like saying, "Since Gerry has a tendancy to be in touch with his 
thoughts first [and this is generally true], he is incapable of 
feeling."  The second part of the sentence is a poor, poor conclusion 
to the first part of the sentence, which contains a truth.  Just 
because aggression is predominant in men and nurturing is predominant 
in women, it is a poor judgement to conclude that men must go work 
while the women must stay at home.  One thing does not have to lead to 
another.

I thought the point of feminism was getting rid of stifling roles, 
getting rid of poor conclusions drawn from gender differences.  I 
didn't think that the point of feminism was to deny that man and 
women, generally, are different.

>   Whenever you  speak  of  men,  you  are  also saying something about women.

Not true. 

Gloria Steinam was brilliant when she said that, "A woman without a 
man is like a fish without a bicycle."  The reverse is true, as well.

For example, given change in society, I can see where "aggression" 
could be listed as a predomiant trait of women.  The two groups are 
not necessarily polor or linked, in my opinion.  (For example, 
overall "intelligence" is a trait that seems to play out semi-equally 
in both men and women.)

>   There
>   are  only  two  of  us, men and women, saying something about one also says
>   something  about  the  other.   

I thought you said that gender is irrelevant.  I thought there were 
only humans.

>   Listing an individual's HUMAN characteristics like ferocity as a MALE THING
>   sets  up  the expectation that these characteristics are created BECAUSE OF
>   ONE'S GENDER.  

"In part," Erik.  Like I said earlier, I want to get at the influence 
that "men" had on my maleness.  I agree with you (and others) that 
lots of stuff went into my individuality, but I feel stymied when I 
try to look at the group "men" and people tell me to ignore 
differences that I see.

>   "Oh she cannot do that, she is a woman." As if the mere fact
>   that her private parts are female, dictates what she can and cannot do.  IT
>   IS  A  COP  OUT!  And  one  with latent sexism at that.  It leads to people
>   saying idiotic things like "Women are dippy, it's just biology."

Again, all I am saying is: Look at the men and women around you, and 
report back any strongly exhibited generalities that you see.  That's 
all.  Again: I'm not talking about a rigid script.

>   It is  people  sticking  to  this  concept, this male/female paradigm, that
>   creates  the  screwed  up notion of "Well, she is a MAN in a women's body."
>   Like  hell  she is! She _is_ a FEMALE! These people are so hung up on their
>   male/female  paradigm,  that  in  order to maintain it they have to justify
>   that  a  woman  is  really  a man, because she does not fit their paradigm.

All I can say, Erik, is that it would be helpful for you to talk to my 
close friends and ask them if I exhibit the sexist behavior that you are 
describing here.  It's just so totally far away from the way that I 
behave and the things that I believe.  

But you'd have to spend time with me to see that, or you would have to 
talk to people who know me.

>   They  make  this  idiotic  statement instead of just recognizing that being
>   ferocious  **IS**  a  'female  thing'  -  a female thing _too_ if you like,
>   because  it  is  a  HUMAN  trait.  It is not based on gender.  "Your sex is
>   female,  you cannot lead people, that is a _male_ thing." Yeah right.  Ugh!

This is all I'm saying:

"From my experience, ferociousness is a human trait found in women.
I've met some women who are far more ferocious and aggressive than any
man I've ever met.  However, as a group, men exhibit aggressive and
ferocious tendencies and women, as a group, do not.  With work,
society can change this, but this is what seems to be happening around
me right now." 

>   NOTE that  this  is  not  the  same  as  saying  that being aggressive is a
>   "presently  American  male cultural thing".  The change is only terminology
>   but  there  is  a  BIG difference in the concept.  It recognizes that these
>   norms  are social, changeable, and highly dependent on cultural attributes.

Okay.  I agree with this.  Good point.

You can substitute "American male" for every instance of "male" in my 
notes in this string.

>   Some people  say  that "basketball is a black thing".  Does wanting to play
>   basketball  make  you see yourself as a black man inside a white man's body
>   Gerry? Saying that "hockey is a white's thing" sets up the expectation that
>   an  African  American  boy (or girl) cannot play hockey, that if s/he wants
>   to,  it  is  'unnatural'  for  an  African  American youth, it is not being
>   'black' but white.  What BS!

Is it fair to say that, predominantly speaking, there are more African 
Americans in the basketball college and pro ranks than white men?  
(I'm not sure if the breakdown is as dramatic in the women's 
collegiate game.)  Is it fair to say that, predominantly speaking, 
there are strikingly more white hockey players in the college and pro 
ranks than African Americans?

Now, the conclusions that you draw from predominant traits or facts
can be racist, but I don't think that pointing out the predominace is
racist.  Likewise, I don't think that pointing out predominance in 
gender is sexist.  I think that forcing people to do something based 
on the predominace is sexist (and fascist).

>   If I  were  a female with you as my manager, I'd be DEEPLY OFFENDED at your
>   view that my ferocity is a MALE THING.  I'd feel that you'd view me as male
>   when  I'm  very much, every BIT a FEMALE! Thank you very much.  

Feel free to talk to them, Erik.  I am confident that they will report 
to you that I am a good manager who does not map sexist stereotypes 
onto them.  They are:

	Ellen Vliet		WORDY::VLIET
	Belinda Hutchins	TOOK::HUTCHINS
	Suzanne Lipsky		WORDY::LIPSKY

Unlike you, who feel comfortable imagining all sorts of things about 
what it must be like to be a woman working for me, they know from 
first-hand experience.  Talk to them.  They are good people, and I'm 
sure they won't mind.  

>   I could not
>   work  for  you, knowing that you see my accomplishments not as mine, BUT AS
>   'MALE'.   How  does  Sandy  C.   feel  having  people  view  her  excellent
>   aggressive  style  of writing as  being  MALE?  I'd be outraged.   

An "excellent aggressive style" of writing is not male.  However, I 
see a predominance of aggressive styles in men.  The two statements 
are not equivalent.

>   My style
>   is  my  style.   It infuriates me when people assign and map _their_ labels
>   for  'male'  and  'female' onto other individual's personal traits.  

I agree with you.  That's why I say that each man should be the one to 
determine "what it means for me to be a man" for himself.

>   "She's
>   good at math, she's very male", 

As a group, boys predominantly score higher than girls in math and
science tests in school.  (I believe that girls generally score higher
in actual school grades, but I'm not sure.) 

>  "He's good with raising children, he's very
>   female".   

As a group, women show a predominant trait of nurturing and child 
raising skill.
	.
	.
	.

The predominant trait of one group is not static, it can change.  The 
predominant trait of one group does not necessarily make a comment on 
another group.  In my opinion, anyway.

Take care, Erik.


							--Gerry

    Erik, your statements lose all credibility when you start making the
    erroneous parallelism between race and gender.  I, for one, am glad
    that (for the most part) men are masculine and women are feminine.  I
    don't want to live in your world where there is no difference.  This is
    not to say that there is no crossing over but I am talking about the
    rule now and not the exception.
    
    
    Mike

>                                             -< What??? >-

Just me avoiding work on a sunny Friday afternoon.  Sorry!


						--Gerry

RE: Mike

>    Erik, your statements lose all credibility when you start making the
>    erroneous parallelism between race and gender.  I, for one, am glad
>    that (for the most part) men are masculine and women are feminine.  I
>    don't want to live in your world where there is no difference. 

   No difference?  No,  I don't want that either.  We'd lose a lot, I love all
   the fruits that valued diversity gives us.

   However, I  want  that  diversity  to  be  of  individuals.   Based on each
   individual's  differences,  not  strictly based on what groups s/he belongs
   to.   I  don't  want  "You're a female, you have to be play Barbie doll, so
   what  you'd  make  a good engineer" and "You're male, you have to play G.I.
   Joe,  so  what  if  you  have the rare qualities to be an incredible social
   worker."

   I see  a  lot  of  parallels between struggles for race equality and gender
   equality.  Race roles are as bad a gender roles.  "You're African American,
   you  can only make it if you play basketball for the NBA", "A Korean's role
   is  to  serve  Japanese  society but never assume a responsible non-servant
   role in it, much like a woman serves a man." Etc.  Etc.

   As my  outspoken  (women's  studies  college  professor) friend always says
   "Same shit, different group"...

   -Erik

RE: Gerry

   I have  no  big  beef here.  It was just that the combination Friday of the
   terminology  "MALE  THING"  used in conjunction with Robert Bly period, and
   then even specifically his awful statement that "ferocity is a male thing,"
   along  with  breaking  the genders of men and women around basic individual
   and  personal  qualities  (like  aggressive, sensitive, sweet, calm, funny,
   violent, etc), just pressed all of my hot buttons at once.  Thus the heated
   reaction.  This topic has hit 'em all.  [Good job Wayne :-)]

>I don't see us as being quite as far apart as you say, here.  I 
>actually agree with a good amount of what you say.  

   Good...  I  don't feel so distanced then.  [btw, I also don't repeat when I
   agree  in  Notes like you too (I think it's natural?), so much of your note
   I'll skip as I agree with what you said].
              
> Erik: maybe you have some method of                                                                                         
>examining group cultures and how those cultures affect individuals, 
>but I haven't seen it.  If you can clue me in to how you do this (or 
>maybe you think it's an invalid concept), my "issue" with your notes 
>will disappear.

   I have always been very aware or sensitive of cultural effects on people (I
   don't  know if this is something that anyone who has grown up split between
   two cultures has, but I suspect so). 

   I'm very  sensitive  to any group behavior.  In those with men and women, I
   always  try  to  differentiate between what's biological and what is simply
   upbringing (and thus strictly cultural). 

>The only point that I continually try to make is that some of my 
>behavior some of the time has been influenced by the fact that I am 
>male.

   For example, here I would isolate this further than just "influenced by the
   fact that I am male."

   This could  mean  that  because  "you  are  male  (ie,  have  a penis), you
   biologically  act  a  certain way (ie, aggressive)" [as I think most people
   sub-consciously harmfully think about it] or that because "I am male, I was
   brought up to act a certain way."

   That is  my  single  issue  here.  The fact that I have a penis or a vagina
   does  not  dictate  the  way I NATURALLY behave (sensitive, humorous, rash,
   aggressive,  etc).*  But  I feel most people associate the two.  It becomes
   "Because  they  have a penis, men show good leadership skills" and "Women's
   biology  make  them  dippy"  instead  of  "Because  women are brought up in
   America  to  downplay their abilities in the face of men, high school girls
   seldom act like they could make great engineers or leaders."

	* before  whatever  culture  I  grow up in forces me to change a trait
	which  may be natural to me (ie, if I were a woman good with mechanics
	and  tools) to whatever roles and standards it has set up for it's men
	and  women  (ie,  change  to  a  'girlish'  model whose job is to look
	pretty).

   So...

>Simple question:  As you go through life experiencing men and women, 
>have you noticed exhibition of predominant traits in either group?  
>Are there any general tendencies that are seen by the behavior of 
>these two groups?

   ...of course! Yes!

   Men and  women  are  wonderfully  different  from  each  other  physically.
   Currently  American  men  and women are also almost completely different in
   their  'most desired' group behavior too.  But BECAUSE they were brought up
   with  the  American  culturalization  for "what it is to be a man or woman"
   (forcing - our Americanized expectations of - gender roles).

   It's just  the point (yeah I know, "it's only terminology", but I feel it's
   a  big  deal  as it enforces the harmful "male=, female=" concepts lying at
   the  the bottom of all our terrible men's and women's issues) is that it is
   CULTURAL,  it  is UPBRINGING - it is not biology.  The lines "dividing" men
   and  women  in how they all behave are in reality very thin and negligible.
   Not  the  impenetrable  thick-set lines determined by biology like Mr.  and
   Mrs.  Ward Cleaver and our gender roles today suggest.

   It is  not UNNATURAL for a women to be good with tools, it is not UNNATURAL
   for  a  man  to  be sensitive and caring or to be an excellent caretaker of
   children.   It is all just our current cultural fads.  "Let's see, if I hug
   my male friends I am being an European male.  If I even touch another male,
   I  am not being an American male.  Is "no physical contact" a male thing or
   an American thing?" Growing up I quickly felt that the phrase "to be a MAN"
   was  such  a  trivial,  meaningless and silly saying.   [I'd ask, "'Man' to
   which  audience?  Obviously  this "what it means to be am man" thing is not
   set  in  stone;  it  is  not  law of physics or anything.") Men do not wear
   earrings.   (Now  they  do).  Women can only be housewives.  (Not anymore).
   Men cannot wear flowery embroidered clothes. (European male fad). Etc. Etc.

   I feel  things  are very seldom a  "male thing" or "female thing",  at most
   it  may  be  an "American fe/male cultural thing." End of soapbox - time to
   take a break from here...

   -Erik

    Erik-  There are roles in society which have to be taken up by someone. 
    God (mother nature if anyone prefers, takes your choice) saw it fit to
    make the women the childbearer (please don't jump to conclusions that I
    want women to be barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen) and the one who
    produces the milk to sustain the child.  Up until fairly recently there
    weren't any formulas to substitute for mothers milk as we know them
    today.  Also there are women who are <insert favorite race here>, does
    this make them even more discriminated against?  All I know is that you
    here males (white, black, oriental) etc making the same belly aches
    about women (and vica versa-famales belly aching about males).  Gender
    crosses all other differences, I guess that is where the big difference
    is.  To me it is a different subject matter and it confuses the
    arguyement when you mix the two.  
    
    
    Mike

>   I have always been very aware or sensitive of cultural effects on people (I
>   don't  know if this is something that anyone who has grown up split between
>   two cultures has, but I suspect so). 
>
>   I'm very  sensitive  to any group behavior.  In those with men and women, I
>   always  try  to  differentiate between what's biological and what is simply
>   upbringing (and thus strictly cultural). 

Cool.  Then how would you describe "male group behavior" and would it
include "generally aggressive"?  

>   That is  my  single  issue  here.  The fact that I have a penis or a vagina
>   does  not  dictate  the  way I NATURALLY behave (sensitive, humorous, rash,
>   aggressive,  etc).*  But  I feel most people associate the two.  

Really?  Do you really believe in such a big separation between the 
mind, spirit (however you may define this), and body?

For example, a woman becomes pregnant.  Her body goes through 
*tremendous* changes.  All sorts of chemical reactions.  A change in 
the shape and weight of her body.  Her eating habits change.  Her 
sleeping habits change.  She experiences what it is like to have a 
totally dependent human life inside of her.  And she experiences what 
it is like to have that human life separate itself from her during 
labor and birth.

From what I have read and heard about from women, the physical process
of being pregnant is a catalyst for all sorts of reflection.  Life,
children, dependence, body image, sex, and a lot of other things.
Women who have been pregnant, let me know if I am way off base by
saying this, but it seems fair to say that a woman who has gone
through a pregnancy has "changed."  Her physical experience has also
lead her through an emotional, intellectual, and spiritual journey
(different journeys for different women, but still a journey).  In
essence, she isn't exactly the same woman she was before she
experienced pregnancy. 

Wouldn't it be fair to say that this is a good example of a physical 
experience with a huge ripple effect into the very personhood of the 
woman involved?  Wouldn't it be fair to say that the ability to give 
birth and the experience of giving birth is a biological factor that 
ripples into an intellectual and spiritual difference that women have 
from men?  After all, isn't it impossible for men to experience 
directly the exact same thing?

Now, to shift gears for a minute, what kind of ripple effects does it 
have to have a more muscular frame, more hair, a penis, and all sorts 
of chemical reactions going on that influence the male biology?  My
having a penis, my having accompanying sexual urges, body frame, and
all the other accompanying biological features will have some ripple
effect into my psychology. It must in some way affect my personality
traits.  (Again, no two men will be affected in exactly the same way,
but almost all men will go through that shared experience of living
with those biological features.)  If I have some hardware that is 
meant and driven toward inserting, it wouldn't surprise me to have 
that carry over into a kind of aggression, an urge to "jump into 
things."

Here's a great example: in a recent interview in Rolling Stone 
magazine, Carrie Fisher asked Madonna, if there was one thing that men
can do that you would like to do, what would it be?  Madonna answered
that she wanted to know what it was like to be inside of someone
physically [language cleaned up slightly].  Now, Madonna is so much
more powerful and aggressive than most men I know, yet this wise and
shrewd woman understands, I think, that that particular kind of
physical penetration would open her up to intellectual, emotional, and
spiritual place that only men (or people with penises) can experience.
Not only does she want to be aggressive, she wants to tap right into
male aggression (a brand of aggression that her very body denies her). 

Now, where I part company from a lot of "it's a 'man' thing" 
proponents is that I believe that all men have "womanly" traits and 
that all women have "manly" traits.  Where this "man thing" comes in 
useful to me, personally, is that it helps me to explain why I--and a
lot of other men--tend to use certain traits as a kind of Pavlovian,
knee-jerk default.  It helps me, because, even though I might run
first to "intellectualism" or to "aggressive confrontation," I can
calmly say to myself, "that's my man stuff," and I can use a second
option of "feelings/sensitivity" (instead of intellectualism) or
"passive acceptance" (instead of aggressive confrontation).  And I
understand and fully accept that there will be some men who have those
traits reversed; I'm not interested in developing a life's script for
all men. 

And I will also tip my hat to your point that this recognition of
general traits that run through men can be badly, *badly* misused by
drawing all sorts of oppressive conclusions, like this: 

>   It becomes
>   "Because  they  have a penis, men show good leadership skills" and "Women's
>   biology  make  them  dippy"...

All I would want to say is that, personally, it has helped me to see 
myself always want to be in control, often want to take charge of 
groups, always want to push limits, and to finally understand that 
that first reaction of mine is very male.  

It allows me the freedom--freedom I never had before--to choose other
options.  Before I became a feminist, I was a prisoner to my male
traits.  Shortly after I became a feminist, I was a prisoner to using
"feminist" traits.  And, after doing some men's group work, I feel as
if I can accept my default reactions without guilt or shame, and I can
shift gears to my "feminine" traits if the "male" traits don't work. 
For me, recognizing my "male" traits has opened up more of my human
traits.  Weird as it may sound, that is what I think is happening to 
me.

And I know that biology--the simple fact of having a penis, for
instance--doesn't completely form a personality.  Far from it.  But I
do think that it counts for a lot.  The body drives you.  When you are
hungry, you eat.  Cut off an arm, and see if something in your essence
"changes."  When you are tired, you rest.  When you are thirsty, you
drink.  The body does not totally define you, but it powerfully 
ripples through you.  How can it not?  

[Speaking of cultures, this idea--the body, mind, and spirit being 
one--is very Far Eastern.  Western cultures seem intent on drawing 
sharper distinctions and separations.  No?]

							--Gerry

>Cool.  Then how would you describe "male group behavior" and would it
>include "generally aggressive"?  

   No, not  at  least  in the group of males that I hang around with and those
   that  are  my friends.  Not since I left high school. 

   Though I  do  feel  that _some_ men here are very macho-aggressive.  And it
   affects  me to become matchingly aggressive.  I often feel like I'm back in
   high  school  where  all men did together was compete *against* each other;
   who can piss furthest, talk toughest, act the most macho, punch other guy's
   arms the hardest, make the meanest public insult, etc, etc.  It's rare that
   I  feel  like I'm having an honest sharing of personal views or just a nice
   talk  here,  like  I generally can with women.  [hate seeing me as a result
   devaluing  men  myself  here].   [Though  I  do  enjoy  some  noters  here,
   mentioning no names :-)]

   I don't  see aggression as a necessary male trait.  I don't feel aggression
   when  thinking about the way my Grandfathers act, for example.  I don't see
   it in males who are my friends; whether European, American, or otherwise.

   I like  looking  at  my  Grandfather  for  an example of "what is genuinely
   male",  he  has lived long enough to realize that he doesn't have to do the
   macho  role-playing  for anybody - especially himself.  He is just his true
   male self, no acts.  I see a lot I like in my Grandfathers, I see a gentle,
   caring  and  loving  male  who  will  actually  hug people he loves without
   worrying "what those other guys are gonna think".  He verbalizes what he is
   feeling,  will tell you that he missed you, shares some of his mistakes and
   weaknesses  with you so you both can laugh at them and learn from them in a
   comfortable  way.   He  is  not  the  insensitive,  'no  physical contact',
   nonsharing,  uncaring,  super-aggressive  man  that  is  the  role  men are
   'supposed' to be.  I similarly look to my Grandmothers for hints of what is
   genuinely female. 

   I see  a  lot I like in my Grandfathers.  I see a lot of the good qualities
   that  being  male can be.  Qualities that are never shown for younger males
   in  public or on TV.  I was hoping Robert Bly would be like my Grandfather,
   I  was  excited  that  we finally had a visible gentle older man for a role
   model.

   I guess I'm opposite than most people in this, as it always seems that when
   people  talk about what is 'male' and 'female'; they reference the behavior
   of  high school age boys and girls.  I don't know about others but that was
   the height of my 'play-acting' expected roles stage and I do not feel those
   years where representative of what are truly 'male and female things'.

>For example, a woman becomes pregnant.  

   Ugh! This  is  always  tromped  out  about  women for all kinds of reasons,
   including  attempts  to  exclude them from the military.  I understand your
   point  though,  it  is  a  big  change and catalyst for reflection.  But so
   is breaking your legs, or men getting bald.

   But not all women get pregnant.  Not all men get bald.

   But even so, how much does someone getting bald or pregnant or having other
   life  experiences affect his or her abilities, ie, to work at Digital, lead
   people, etc? I shuffle these things in with personal experiences instead of
   bound  to  all  people  of  that  gender, in the same way I would someone's
   religious  beliefs,  outward-bound  experiences,  spiritual  seminars, etc.
   These things do cause reflection, but what's the point?

   You can't  base  (all) women on being pregnant, you can't judge all men for
   the trauma of becoming bald.  The differences these produce hash along with
   other  differences  (wo/men who go to church, wo/men who went to boot-camp,
   etc).

>  If I have some hardware that is 
>meant and driven toward inserting, it wouldn't surprise me to have 
>that carry over into a kind of aggression, an urge to "jump into 
>things."
                      and
>physical penetration would open her up to intellectual, emotional, and
>spiritual place that only men (or people with penises) can experience.
>Not only does she want to be aggressive, she wants to tap right into
>male aggression (a brand of aggression that her very body denies her). 

   This feels  too  close  to  relating male sex = aggression to me.  I do not
   relate  the two.  Insertee does not imply aggressive (as in violent) to me,
   unless  you  are  using  the  word  aggressive  in  the  way that women are
   aggressive  about wanting to be sexual too.  I do not feel that being male,
   having a penis, and living male sexuality to its fullest implies aggression
   in  any manner (to me).  Thinking about this splashes too close to my views
   on  sexual  assault  and 'biologically-excused' male sexual violence to say
   much more...

>Here's a great example: in a recent interview in Rolling Stone 
>magazine, Carrie Fisher asked Madonna, if there was one thing that men
>can do that you would like to do, what would it be?  Madonna answered
>that she wanted to know what it was like to be inside of someone
>physically 

   Of course.   You  always want to try something that you cannot do yourself.
   Many men would love to experience multiple orgasms too...

   I don't  think  Madonna  meant that as in she wants to feel aggression, the
   aggression of intruding inside somebody; a woman could get the same feeling
   from a strap-on too (as Carrie mentioned). 

   That was  a  great  interview  and  photo shoot with Madonna.  What did you
   think  of  her androgyny and bending gender roles in her pictures, her with
   "male things" and her male dancers with "female things"? Another quote from
   that interview was Madonna's provocative:

	"Straight men need to be emasculated.  I'm sorry.  They all need to be
	slapped  around.   Women  have  been  kept  down  for too long.  Every
	straight guy should have a man's tongue in his mouth at least once."            

   Yeah, I  can  see  that  as  possibly  changing  some mega-macho viewpoints
   here _real_ quick...  :-) 

   -Erik

    I was supposed to experience a trauma when I went bald???  Darn,
    another life experience missed!
    
    					- Vick

>	"Straight men need to be emasculated.  I'm sorry.  They all need to be
>	slapped  around.   Women  have  been  kept  down  for too long.  Every
>	straight guy should have a man's tongue in his mouth at least once."            

>   Yeah, I  can  see  that  as  possibly  changing  some mega-macho viewpoints
>   here _real_ quick...  :-) 

>   -Erik



	OK now let us get somethings straight. 

		1. I find this quote disgusting.
		2. If you want people to respect your sexual choices then
		   respect theirs.
		3. If you have a sexual agenda, take it home I don't want to 
		   here about it.
		4. I hug and love my children very much (sons and daughters).
		   The idea that I have to be less masculine and more 
		   feminine to do these things is absurd.
		5. You sound like a very sensitive person and from your note
		   I can understand why you prefer the company of women. You
		   do not understand male bonding (this should send some folks
		   ballistic).

		Wayne
    

    -1

    	Hey chill out boy, that was only lite banter. You'd better not read
    	the rest of the Rolling Stone interview if you're really
    	that faint of heart, you'd be scandalized for sure. 

    	And by the way, we were talking gender relations and differences
    	here, don't know where you pulled sexual choice from but it wasn't
    	me pal. Seems Madonna made _you_  be the one who went 'ballistic'. 
    	Boy I love her so...

                                                        

    Now why should I chill out. Her banter has about the same affect on me
    as Andrew Dice Clay's banter has on women. Now being that I am 43 years
    old I think it is safe to say I am not a boy. 

    		The last word I entered in this string was "CONTROL". 
    Madonna's comments could be construed as trying to control hetro males
    ( forcing them to do something they are not inclined to do ). 
    Your chastising me could also be construed as control ( trying to make 
    me back off ). As for Rolling Stone, I stopped reading that magazine
    after I grew up . The magazine is geared for 12 year old girls
    and groupies.

    	Now I will for rentry into the atmosphere.


    		Wayne 

 re: Wayne

>		1. I find this quote disgusting.

 We are talking about Madonna, here. That is precisely the effect she was 
attempting to engender. She is the queen of sexual shock. Don't expect
anything profound from her; she is just trying to get everyone to re-examine
their sexuality by shocking them. The old "use a hammer on it" routine.

>		3. If you have a sexual agenda, take it home I don't want to 
>		   here about it.

 If Erik has a sexual "agenda," I don't see any reason why that should be
suppressed beyond conformance to P&P. You can next unseen if something you read
is distasteful. 

>		4. I hug and love my children very much (sons and daughters).
>		   The idea that I have to be less masculine and more 
>		   feminine to do these things is absurd.

 Of course it is, especially when one recognizes that the very same people
that are telling us that we men have to be less masculine and more feminine
are also telling us that stereotypical male and female behavior is high school
stuff, that aggresssion is not a male trait, etc. They are trying to have it
both ways.

>You
>		   do not understand male bonding (this should send some folks
>		   ballistic).

 I tend to agree with you on this point, though it may just be that Erik does
not enjoy male bonding and does not find value in it. (And that's perfectly
acceptable, so long as he doesn't attempt to prevent those who do find value
in it from engaging in it.)

 re: Erik

> Hey chill out boy,

 You are too much.

 The Doctah

 > You are too much.

    	Actually, I was just thinking that of you Mark.

    	How nice of you to judge and know so certainly another person's
    	likes, dislikes and abilities Mark. You're unreal guy.

     	I've been male bonding ever since 
    	I was a boy. I spent 8 years male bonding in the military, which
    	is about as macho "male=warrior" space as you can get nowadays, and
    	is a lifestyle made up of being 100% limited to white middle-class
    	men for interaction and contact (at least in my units). I can male 
    	bond with the best of them, I can punch arms as hard as the next
    	guy, laugh at farting like men on 'wild-men' weekends, and all 
    	that 'male' jazz. (to me bonding is more than that 'group acting'
    	though...) 

    	And if I may borrow some of your 'know-for-another-person'
    	attitude,  I'd bet that my male bonds are stronger than yours
    	and many men who say they understand male bonding. I think I have a
    	good understanding too. 
    
    	And by the way, I didn't read anyone saying that men 'have to get
    	more feminine', that must have been your biases blinding what you
    	read...  There is a difference between "acting 'feminine'" and
    	being what is genuinely male in yourself. I haven't seen anyone say
    	men should do XYZ. I've seen people say that men and women should
    	be free to be themselves, their innate qualities. As usual, your
    	conservative bias translates that as "make men act feminine and
    	prevent male bonding". Yet you accuse me of biases (which I do not
    	discount, btw) as if you saw things so purely. Pure enough to know
    	for another person what they do and do not like, now _that's_ 
    	'too much', there buddy.

    	-Erik 

    	-Erik

Hey, folks - if you want to sling the mud at each other, do it somewhere
else, please?  I'd rather not have to start returning notes again.

				Steve

 re: Erik

 Ya just don't get it, guvnah.

    	PS- I have a great diversity of male friends - from the military,
    	to blue collar, to the very extra-masculine men where I go lifting,
    	to high school buddies, to competitive male athletes, etc, etc. It's 
    	not like I do not enjoy male space, do not participate in (or even 
    	enjoy) male bonding myself. It is not like I have all female friends 
    	and do not have any male friends or hang out with any men because 
    	"women are so much better."  If anything the opposite is true 
    	(presently have more male friends than female friends).

    	It is just that I get tired if _all_ I can talk about with a guy is
    	how the Celtics (or whatever local team is playing that time of year)
    	are doing. After a while it feels impersonal, like the bond or
    	acquaintanceship has not progressed to the personal, towards
    	friendship. And quite frankly I get bored if all I can talk about
    	with someone is the Celtics, that's fine if I only see them for five
    	minutes, but not enough to have a create any kind of bond. Luckily 
    	many men do not limit themselves to such purely macho 'male talk',
    	but several guys I know limit themselves this way, in fear that
    	straying from sports or "check out that babe" comments will make 
    	them appear unmanly (which makes me feel the same with them in 
    	return).  So our contact only last five minutes each day, like 
    	ships exchanging scores in the dark... :-)

    	I refuse to be painted as a non-male_bonder or anti-male or
    	someone without male friends; just because I believe many of our
    	men's issues problems come from ourselves and other men pushing
    	the old "men = macho" and "men = superhumans" roles on each other.
    	It is not making men 'feminine', it is not taking away 'male
    	things', it is simply (to steal Apple's phrase) "the power to be 
    	your best", not some macho script men push on each other. 

    	What's the big deal here?

    	-Erik


              

    re -1       Thanks for the insight. 
    	
    		Mr. Debriae keeps trying equate men in negative terms. 
    Men are many things and a most are positive. His contempt for the 
    word MACHO keeps reappearing. The word does not scare me so bad that I 
    equate anything perceived as male to be MACHO. All men exhibit some
    form of male behavior (that's right all men). Denying masculine traits in
    ones self is OK but trying to make others deny it is wrong and
    fruitless. This string was intended to bring back some positive aspects
    to a few words used to describe men. Mr. Debriae has been totally
    negative.


    			Wayne 

    I wonder if Erik's point is being missed because he is
    presenting it in such a typically aggressive male fashion?

    :-)

    I don't see Erik bashing men or malesness.  His whole point
    seems to be the separation of the characteristic from the gender.

    I don't know if I agree with him or not.  I tend to believe 
    there are "male" qualities and "female" qualities.  Whether they
    are constitutional or environmental...well that's a different
    question.  

    I think what is far more important than arguing over where the
    qualities come from and/or who has a monopoly on them, is the
    need to prevent assumptions about such qualities from limiting 
    the freedom and choices available to individuals, male or female.

    I think our civilization is at the point where we can overcome
    "natural" gender limitations (if they do indeed exist).  It seems
    to me, Erik, that you don't have to proove aggression is a "human"
    trait rather than a "male" trait in order to argue that it should
    be perfectly OK for women to be aggressive, or that gender should
    not be an issue when considering who's the right person for a job
    requiring an aggressive personality.
    
    /Greg
    

        re:  .56

        >>>>-< pal, buddy, guy, dude, boy = usual male bonding talk  >

        Is that the same as saying that if a man is against using these
        terms that he must be gay or something?

        >>>>And if I may borrow some of your 'know-for-another-person'
        attitude,  I'd bet that my male bonds are stronger than yours and
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        many men who say they understand male bonding. 
    
        That sounds pretty macho to me, pal.

I am mostly "read only" in these conferences, but I have a few comments on
the meaning of words.  

I think that perhaps a little more tolerance might be in order for those of
us who grew up in an earlier time, when various words had different meanings
than they do now.  A word or phrase that was perfectly innocent in the 50s
when I was growing up, might get a younger generation of people ticked off
when they hear it now. 

A few years ago I committed what amounted to political suicide at a Digital
facility where a group of women were being very unfairly treated by a 
sexist supervisor.  I am not an "activist" my any means, but I spoke out
against the treatment they were receiving because it was wrong.

The only reason I mention this is to demonstrate that a person doesn't have
to be from an "enlightened" generation to get involved with "valuing 
diversities".

Words like "sexist" and "diversity" were not a part of the every-day vocabulary
when I was growing up and even though it is everyone's responsibility to make
an honest effort to keep in touch with the times, I would ask for a little more
compassion for those of us from an older generation who may unintentionally
offend someone with an innocent remark. 

No one has more respect for women's rights than I do, but if I should 
inadvertently show my age by making an innocent remark like "My wife
is out with the girls," I would appreciate not having a hundred people
jump down my throat.

Wes

    RE .65 very true.
    
    My wife was born in 1950. Her name is Gay... Would anyone name their
    kid that today?
    
    I once introduced myself to a new neighbor "Hi. My name is Steve and my
    wife is Gay... No wait, I mean my wife's name is Gay" Damage done
    
    
    People (many who claim to be 'peaceful' people) use words like weapons
    especially to injure and stifle; sexist, racist, biased, biggoted, 
    etc. if you do not agree with their 'PC' agenda.
    
    Remember, what is considered the norm or 'PC' today will be considered
    xxx ist 20 years from now...
    
    
    Steve

>        >>>>-< pal, buddy, guy, dude, boy = usual male bonding talk  >
>
>        Is that the same as saying that if a man is against using these
>        terms that he must be gay or something?

I love statements like this.  It makes it sound as if "Male" and "Gay" are 
opposites, mutually exclusive.  And I wonder what "or something" means.   ;-)

Last I checked--and I do very thorough, close-up inspections--the gay 
men I've encountered have been male.  Trust me on this one!  You 
should have seen the Marine that I met at the Gay Pride Parade in 
Boston last weekend.  If he wasn't "male," I don't know what would 
qualify!  

We also engage in male bonding.  It looks a little bit different from 
heterosexual male bonding, but it has a lot of parallels.  If you
don't believe me, I invite you to hang around my gay softball
teammates this weekend.  There will be enough beer drinking, sexual
objectifying, lewdness, sports talk, and avoidance of core emotional
issues to fill up Fenway Park.  (But you know what?  Although it
doesn't fill all of my needs, expecially when I need some sensitivity
or emotional depth, but it definitely satisfies an important need 
for me.) 

						--Gerry

    
>    I once introduced myself to a new neighbor "Hi. My name is Steve and my
>    wife is Gay... No wait, I mean my wife's name is Gay" Damage done
    
What damage?

I look forward to the day when people will start to use the word "gay" 
(happy) again, and trust that folks are smart enough to get the 
meaning from the context of the sentence.  

I think that it is indicative of how much people fear (and sometimes 
hate) homosexuality that they are afraid to use the word "gay" in any 
context out of fear of misunderstanding, as if a misunderstanding 
could hurt them or "damage" them.


							--Gerry    

>I think that it is indicative of how much people fear (and sometimes 
>hate) homosexuality that they are afraid to use the word "gay" in any 
>context out of fear of misunderstanding, as if a misunderstanding 
>could hurt them or "damage" them.

 This strikes a discordant tone in your melody about the perils of gay bashing.
Surely if there is a gay directed hate crime, being thought of as being gay
as a result of a misunderstanding is as likely to engender harm as is really
being gay, n'est-ce pas?

 The Doctah

RE: Herb

>    But speaking those words as the self-identified feminist that you are,
>    many of the men here see it as an-outsiders comment.
>    
>    It seems to me that insofar as male/female discussions are concerned
>    many may see you as a [hostile] male with a chip on his shoulder,
>    looking for the opportunity to make demeaning comments about men.

   I think  you  may  be  closest  to  it.  Perhaps once people have the label
   "feminist"  in  their  mind, they eqaute it with "hates men," and no matter
   what one says it will still be viewed as "hates men." I thought most people
   had gotten past that wrong definition of feminist, but perhaps not.

RE: Wayne

> Mr. Debriae keeps trying equate men in negative terms
> Men are many things and a most are positive.
> The word does not scare me so bad that I equate anything perceived as male 
>	to be MACHO.
> Denying masculine traits in ones self is OK but trying to make others deny 
> it is wrong and fruitless.

   It is  amazing  how you keep pulling things out of thin air, or where these
   not  referring  to  me,  as  you just summarized much of what I was writing
   above.

   Men are   indeed  many  things  and  most  things  are  positive  (like  my
   Grandfathers,  for  example).  I am not male-negative, if I was I would not
   be  as  involved  or  concerned  about  men's issues as I am.  I'd just say
   "screw  'em,  let  some  experience some oppression for once too." I do not
   hate  myself,  and  consider  myself 100% male, 0% female.  And I have some
   wonderful  close  male  friends.   No,  I  am  not  male  negative.  I find
   accusations of me being male-negative a bit funny, inside, actually...  

   ..Especially in light of my concerns about how enforcing macho gender roles
   _hurts_  men.  The point of much of my writing is that I do NOT equate MALE
   with  MACHO,  in  fact,  I  push that being male has very LITTLE to do with
   being  macho  or  the  other  present-day  pressures for men to behave to a
   gender-separatist script.  [So you are not confusing someone being negative
   of  the  word  macho  (in  both 'macho women' and 'macho men') with someone
   being  male-negative,  are  you?].   Denying  any  traits  in  yourself  is
   horrible,  that's  the whole point of dreading the harsh macho gender rules
   against  men (cannot be sensitive, emotional, etc), and if it isn't already
   obvious,  the  reverse  (changing  men  who  like  football  to like ballet
   instead,  men  who do not like children to play with them, etc). 

   How could  you  have read anything I wrote and come up with the conclusions
   you  gave  above?  I  thought you were the one pushing male=macho and other
   gender  roles,  and  others  disagreed  with  you.  I don't follow you here
   guy...
	
   -Erik

    RE: .65, Wes

    Amen! ... er ... ah .. Amyn!

    I've always liked Justin Wilson's "femaleladywimmins" .. sort of covers
    all the bases.
    
    For the most part I've given up on the "younger croud"  (younger
    defined as 30 or less).

    RE: .66, Steve

    About 5 years ago a friend of mine went through the legal process of
    changing his name to "George Lee Young" ... from "George Alan Young".
    Monograms and initialed items created somewhat of a problem ....

    Jerry

RE: Greg

   Glad to have you in this discussion...

> you don't have to proove aggression is a "human"
>    trait rather than a "male" trait in order to argue that it should
>    be perfectly OK for women to be aggressive, or that gender should
>    not be an issue when considering who's the right person for a job
>    requiring an aggressive personality.

   I agree.   But I've seen this used to such an extreme that I always feel it
   necessary  to  make  that reminder.  It seems to all start snowballing from
   simply  calling  some  characteristic  a  'male  thing',  then  it  becomes
   associated  only  with males, and then people subconsciously begin to think
   of it as male-only.  You hear it, for example, in all the antiquated sexist
   arguments  men  in  the  military call on for why women shouldn't be in the
   armed  services.   Men are the aggressive _ones_, the tenacious _ones_, the
   ferocious _ones_, etc, etc.  It sets up the notion that these traits belong
   to  'one' (gender) and not the other.  You very rarely ever hear people say
   "women  are not aggressive", but that concept abounds just from saying "men
   are aggressive." It quickly turns into "men are the aggressive, _ones_" not
   too  long  after.  Just my viewpoint from what I've seen (especially inside
   the conservative military), but everyone is free to hold their own opinions
   on this...
 
>    I wonder if Erik's point is being missed because he is
>    presenting it in such a typically aggressive male fashion?

   Imagine, I've  gone  from  being  "a liberal's liberal" to a "too sensitive
   'new  age'  guy"  to  someone  who can't handle male bonding to someone who
   cannot  handle being in male space to being 'macho male aggressive'; all in
   the  eyes of different people in the file.  My God, what role am I supposed
   to  assume??  All  things to all people?? :-) [I'll stick to being myself I
   think].

   On reflection,  I do notice I do become a little more aggressive around men
   here,  a  little  more rough in my language, and color it with some typical
   male  wording  that  men  seem to use on other men they do not already know
   well  (a defensive "I'm as tough and real guy and non-faggy or non-wimpy as
   you" stance), words like buddy, pal, guy, etc.  That's some of my sh*t that
   society has pushed on me as a male, the default to defensive posturing with
   men  I  do  not  know.   (Ever notice that, the comments we men exchange to
   reassure  each  other  that  we are 'real men' - from jokes about the babes
   nearby to using 'rougher' sounding language than what we would not also use
   if  meeting new women instead, all in the first minute of talking - I think
   someone  once  termed  that "male posturing." It's something I am guilty of
   doing too).

>    I think what is far more important than arguing over where the
>    qualities come from and/or who has a monopoly on them, is the
>    need to prevent assumptions about such qualities from limiting 
>    the freedom and choices available to individuals, male or female.

   Thank you.    That   was   my  whole  point.   This  all  started  with  my
   uncomfortableness  with  Bly's  concept  that  "being  ferocious is a 'male
   thing'."  Neither gender has ownership of human traits, I feel, much to the
   dismay  of gender separatist people who seem like they want to keep men and
   women  as  opposite and isolated from each other (and fighting) as cats and
   dogs... in my opinion.

   -Erik

RE .69
        
>>    I once introduced myself to a new neighbor "Hi. My name is Steve and my
>>    wife is Gay... No wait, I mean my wife's name is Gay" Damage done
    
>What damage?
>
>I look forward to the day when people will start to use the word "gay" 
>(happy) again, and trust that folks are smart enough to get the 
>meaning from the context of the sentence.  
>
>I think that it is indicative of how much people fear (and sometimes 
>hate) homosexuality that they are afraid to use the word "gay" in any 
>context out of fear of misunderstanding, as if a misunderstanding 
>could hurt them or "damage" them.
>
>
>							--Gerry    
    >
    
    This was 1970. 'Gay' was not nearly as accepted as it is now. Do you
    know of anybody who would name their child Gay today? Kinda like a boy
    named Sue...

 Erik-

 You seem to have a problem with assigning traits the characteristic of being
"male" or "female" traits. I think you are taking things too literally. 

 There are probably no behavioral traits which are entirely bounded by gender.
There are, however, many behavioral traits which are predominately exhibited
in one gender or the other. That is what people mean when they say "nurturing
is a female trait." It doesn't mean that all women are nurturing. It doesn't 
mean that "manly" men are not nurturing. All it means is that if you took
all nurturing people and put them in a room (a big one), and then tallied
the genders- you'd find that there were a good deal more women than men. If
you took all happy people and put them into a room, you'd find roughly equal
numbers in each gender, which is why happy is not a typically male or female
trait.

 The Doctah

>>I think that it is indicative of how much people fear (and sometimes 
>>hate) homosexuality that they are afraid to use the word "gay" in any 
>>context out of fear of misunderstanding, as if a misunderstanding 
>>could hurt them or "damage" them.
>
> This strikes a discordant tone in your melody about the perils of gay bashing.
>Surely if there is a gay directed hate crime, being thought of as being gay
>as a result of a misunderstanding is as likely to engender harm as is really
>being gay, n'est-ce pas?

Fair enough.  Then I recommend that you do what I do: check to see if 
you are in a situation that poses a high risk of danger, and, if not, 
use the word freely.

For example, the logo on my softball teams shirt is a man dressed in
leather and the bar's name, Ramrod, inscribed below it.  A few weeks
ago, we practiced for a while (in Brookline) before one of our games,
and then decided that we wanted to grab a bite to eat.  The other guys 
wearing the shirt flipped the shirt inside out and put it back on 
before going to the Deli down the street.  I made the judgement that, 
being in the company of 6 large gay men and being in a very safe 
street in Brookline during the day, the odds of me getting beaten up 
or killed were nearly nil.  So I wore the shirt the way it was.

I recommend that you do the same thing about using the word "gay" to 
mean happy.  If you are in a read-neck bar at 2 in the morning, maybe 
it wouldn't be such a good idea to try it.  If you are with family and 
friends in your back yard--with people who know you and your 
wife/husband--then maybe it would be pretty safe to use the word.

Best I can recommend.  

							--Gerry

    Usually I manage to keep my mouth shut, but reading during lunch today
    in note 603 about phrases like "Father Mom" and "Mr. Mom" has provoked
    me to reply here.
    
    I would like to reclaim the word "Fathering".
    
    So many people talk about Fathers mothering, or Fathers babysitting
    their own children, or Fathers playing Mr. Mom.  It really bothers me
    that these people have lost the use of the word "Fathering" to describe
    the process of men nuturing and caring for their children.
    
    Women who nurtur are "mothering".  Fathers who nurture are "fathering".
    To my way of thinking Women can never be "fathering" by definition, nor
    can Men be "mothering".  Either mothering or fathering can be done with
    a variety of styles and success.
    
    What terrible process has demeaned the terms father and fathering to
    the point where so many people no longer feel these adequately describe
    a man in the act of loving and nurturing and caring for his children?

    
    	Hear! Hear! I agree.
    
    	It's about time we reclaim what it means to be 'a father',
    	something more than just "the guy who disappears out the door 
    	to spend all day at the factory and comes home for work all 
    	angry and grumpy."
              
    	A post-industrial age Dad?
    

    Yeah, "fathering" is a good word to reclaim.  Wil
    

    ...yeah ... I know where you're coming from with "fathering" .. but...
    one of my most MOST prized possessions is a piece of cross stitch that
    my daughter gave to me:
    
    			To My Daddy

    		Any man can be a father but it takes
    		a  very  special man to  be  a daddy.

    When one of my girls addresses me as "father" ... experience has taught
    be to brace myself for something monumental ...

    Daddy Beeler