Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    RE: .0
    
    
    				AMEN!

    RE: .1  Jerry Beeler
    
    > AMEN!
    
    Did your wife ever charge you with sexual harassment for telling
    her she looked nice, Jerry?  (The basenote implies that this is 
    what happens in marriages.)
    
    Has it happened to you?

    re. 0  or mayby I shoud say addendum .0
    
    One of my main points of confusion with all of this is how much
    is really an issue and how much has just become a PC cheap shot?
    
    If it isn't one thing it's another.  You just can't win.
    
    fred();

>>             <<< Note 709.2 by LAVETA::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
                                   -< BUNK! >-

>>    RE: .1  Jerry Beeler
    
>>  > AMEN!
    
>>  Did your wife ever charge you with sexual harassment for telling
>>  her she looked nice, Jerry?  (The basenote implies that this is 
>>  what happens in marriages.)
    
>>  Has it happened to you?

Do I understand you correctly?  Are you saying that you don't understand
how any man could feel this way?

patrick

>>             <<< Note 709.2 by LAVETA::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
                                   -< BUNK! >-

>>    RE: .1  Jerry Beeler
    
>>  > AMEN!
    
>>  Did your wife ever charge you with sexual harassment for telling
>>  her she looked nice, Jerry?  (The basenote implies that this is 
>>  what happens in marriages.)
    
>>  Has it happened to you?


Well, I read the basenote again, and again and I didn't get this implication
from the basenote.  

Hamp

    RE: .5  Patrick
    
    > Do I understand you correctly?  Are you saying that you don't understand
    > how any man could feel this way?
    
    Any man (on the whole planet?)  
    
    Sure - I can believe that some men are so afraid of their wives that
    they believe that a "You look nice tonight" will lead to being sued
    for sexual harassment.
    
    As a generalization, though - it's BUNK.

    RE: .6  hamp
    
    > Well, I read the basenote again, and again and I didn't get this 
    > implication from the basenote.  
    
    Read it again.  The "Her" and "She" in the basenote is the man's wife
    - (note the references to "me and the kids" from the woman's perspective
    as well as the "how often" they have sex.)
    
    It's either marriage or a relationship set up like marriage.
    
    Do you think it's any more likely that a woman living with a man (and
    having his children) would sue him for sexual harassment if he said,
    "You look nice tonight"?
    
    I don't.

Suzanne - the base note does not specify a spousal relationship in the
"you look nice tonight" line - it just references "he" and "she". To extrapolate
that "she" is "he"'s wife is unreasonable. Applying Occam's Razor, it's clear
given the context that coworkers are being implied.

In general, the conflicts in the base note are exaggerated and naive. The
exaggeration is understandable - it's a valid technique for making a point.
I won't speculate on the reasons for the naivet�.

.6> Well, I read the basenote again, and again and I didn't get this
.6> implication from the basenote.  

A lot of how the basenote is interpreted depends upon who is reading it?
I think that a man will read it differently than a myn and a female may
read it differently than a man or a myn.  That's what sort of makes life
great - a diversity of opinions.

Bubba

In re .8 - there's no reason to believe the base note is trying to describe
one specific male-female pair. It's clearly trying to capture conflicts across
the spectrum of male-female relationships - including both personal and working
relationships.

It's a silly enough note on its own; there's no reason to make it even sillier
by twisting it.

Suzanne,

Oh, well I guess I see how one can infer a spousal type relationship.
I read each item separately, i.e. the "he" and "she" of one is not necessarily
the "he" and "she" of another.

Hamp

    RE: .9 & .11  Paul
    
    > It's clearly trying to capture conflicts across the spectrum of 
    > male-female relationships - including both personal and working
    > relationships.
    
    Not so clearly, Paul.  The basenote mentions so many instances of
    "couples" (without differentiating between homelife and worklife,
    nor mentioning that different "HEs" and "SHEs" are being discussed)
    that one could easily assume he's talking about male-female pairs.
    
    .0> If you work hard you get "You never have any time for me and the kids!"
    
    .0> If he buys her flowers, he's after something; if he doesn't, he's 
    .0> forgetful and unromantic.
    
    .0> If she has a headache it's because she's tired; if he has a headache, 
    .0> it's because he doesn't love her anymore.
    
    .0> If he wants it too often he's over-sexed; if he can't perform on cue 
    .0> there must be somebody else.
    
    I agree with part of what you said next:
    
    > It's a silly enough note on its own;
    
    Sorry you chose to include a cliche after it.

>>             <<< Note 709.7 by LAVETA::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
>>           -< Please cite me one successful S-H case like this. >-

>>  RE: .5  Patrick
    
>>  > Do I understand you correctly?  Are you saying that you don't understand
>>  > how any man could feel this way?
    
>>  Any man (on the whole planet?)  
    
>>  Sure - I can believe that some men are so afraid of their wives that
>>  they believe that a "You look nice tonight" will lead to being sued
>>  for sexual harassment.
    
>>  As a generalization, though - it's BUNK.

Ms. Conlon (Sorry I don't know your first name),

I don't think this basenote is about sexual harassment.  I think it's about
frustration.  I would be willing to bet that the basenoter comes from a very
structured culture and family.  The role his father had never required him
to deal with the things that the basenoter has to deal with.  His father
was probably a breadwinner and his mother a breadbaker.  Things were secure
because the roles were clearly defined and nobody questioned those roles.

Often frustration and venting frustration is not rational.

patrick

    re .0
    
    I think we may have hit on something in the "Mixed Signals" note in
    that we are living in a changing world.
    
    I think my main confusion comes from the fact that the rules are
    changing and/or in a lot of cases there may well be no "rules"
    at all.
    
    1) A large percentate of women want it (life, the rules, etc) the
       "old" way.
    2) A large percentage want it the "new" (feminist, other??) way.
    3) A large percentage don't know *what* they want.
    4) And a big percentage want it *both* ways.  Which way they want
       it is whichever way will benefit them the most at the time.
    
    I have the most respect for the first two.  At least once you figure
    out what they want you don't step on any land mines later.
    
    fred();

    
    Fred you left out a 5th position.
    
    Some of us women want it both ways so that whatever works best for the
    parties involved is what happens. There are times when it is mutually
    beneficial to both a man and a woman for both parties to work. There
    are times when it is mutually beneficial for the family that the wife
    stays home with children. There are times when its most comfortable for
    the couple in a relationship to fall into the familiar traditional
    role-playing. And there are other times when these traditions are
    detrimental to a marriage. If your wife is BETTER at managing money
    than you are, should you really insist on doing it? If your wife has a
    higher income than you, should you really insist that she stay home
    with the children if she doesn't want to? 
    
    But hey, maybe you still think of this as category 4. I think the
    bottom line is that most women raised after 1960 are going to fall into
    this category. If you're lucky, we'll be willing to extend the test of
    "benefit" to include what works for the men we love as well.

    Here we go again, a male expresses his frustrations and feelings and he
    gets the H*ll thumped out him. 


    Suzanne you are so nasty it is incredible. Why don't the thumpers go to
    WOMENNOTES where they belong. 



    			HAND
    			Wayne 

    I put this note to see what opinions would be brought up.  I don't
    agree totally with the text of the base note.  I was just curious.  The
    person who wrote the original text comes from a society that is still
    very much male-dominated, Asian societies tend to be very conservative.
    His confusion stems just as much from culture shock as from male
    chauvinism.  He is confused and shocked by the more liberal attitudes
    of American or Western society.  I think this is why in many mixed
    marriages where you have an Asian and non-Asian.  The Asians tend to be
    women because they find non-Asian men to be less conservative.

    re -1 

    		That is OK. He is still entitled to his feelings and
    frustrations. I nor anyone else has to agree with them all but he
    deserves respect when expressing them.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    RE: .19  Wayne

    > I nor anyone else has to agree with them all but he deserves respect 
    > when expressing them.

    Funny, but you show such little respect for so many other people's
    "expressions" in notes - I wonder what you use as criteria when you
    bellow and trash noters (while ordering them to get lost)?

    I have seen him be respectful of _many_ people -and their offerings- in
    this conference.
    
    It's sad to me that you some how seem to think that since the author of
    .0 made some statements which if taken literally are silly that
    therefore you have a right -a responsibility?- to ridicule the
    comments.

    Wayne has also told people to "go away" many, many times here (which
    I don't regard as very respectful.)
    
    If expressing my opinions about the basenote bothers you so much,
    Herb, then why not have the basenote deleted to prevent opinions
    with which you disagree?

    Suzanne,

    		It is pretty obvious your role here is as an enforcer. You
    in no way are attempting to understand men and how they feel.



    			HAND
    			Wayne

    I wish you could finally, finally, at long last, please, understand that
    it is not the expression of your opinion that bothers me, rather it is
    the _way_ you express your opinion that bothers me.

    RE: .23  Wayne
    
    > You in no way are attempting to understand men and how they feel.
    
    Wayne, as a snide accusation, I'm sure it's a lot of fun to say this.
    
    In reality, you have no idea what goes on in my mind.  As someone
    who adores my son, my Father and another man I won't mention - I'm
    very keyed into "men's issues."
    
    However, I don't regard you all as "one entity" (with one brain, and
    with one set of unique feelings or attributes.)
    
    Men are all individuals, and the individual who wrote the text quoted
    in the basenote made a lot of statements (about male-female relationships)
    - some of which were preposterous, in my opinion.
    
    So I expressed my opinion about it.  Big deal.
    
    I didn't comment on the general frustration that some/many men seem
    to feel - I have no criticism of the way any man "feels" about things.
    
    I do have the right to comment on his description of male-female
    relationships, though, so I did just that.

    RE: .24  Herb
    
    Well, I haven't told anyone to "buzz off" or "stick it in [their] ear,"
    at least.

    of course you have the right
    
    just as you have the right to alienate people (if you so choose)

    RE: .27  Herb
    
    > ...just as you have the right to alienate people (if you so choose)
    
    Well, I suppose I could just label such people as "PC" (relatively
    speaking) and call upon God to damn them (more or less.)
    
    Not that I'm interested in crowding your act, Herb.

    The perceptions in the base note need to be explored. The peripheral
    prattle needs to be ignored.


    		That said, back on topic.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Wayne, I salute you.  You've moved from trying to kick people out 
    of the file to instructing others to ignore certain replies.  It's 
    an improvement.
    
    Happy New Year!

    Happy New Year Suzanne. I wish you well in the new year.
    
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    You always have those that just want to argue and don't take things at
    face value.  There are several of those in this note.  There's always
    got to be something between the lines.
    
    I agree fully with .0.   It'sa cathca 22.
    

    re: .29
    
    Wayne, having sidetracked the topic with his standard "go away"
    insults, now deems it appropriate to continue discussing the base note.
    
    Just be sure not to offer an opinion in opposition.
    
    Kit

    re .33


    		Nice tactic. Now that I have become the focal point I have
    a question: Do you know what my opinion is ( on the base note )? If so
    quote it verbatim. 

    		Please do not try and force me out of this conference just 
    because I think for myself, it won't work. That said, I will no longer 
    defend myself from PC prattle.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

re .34,

>		 Do you know what my opinion is ( on the base note )? If so
>    quote it verbatim. 

Oh I get it.  You can read others' minds...

>706.127 CSC32::W_Linville
>
>    		Suzanne is not here to learn about men, she is here to keep
>    us in line, I know it and so do other men here.

...but they can't read yours.

Can you say "hypocrisy"?

Dan

    re .-1
    can you say "sucker punch"?

>    re .-1
>    can you say "sucker punch"?

Are you suggesting it is unfair to expect noters to
apply the same standards to themselves as they do to
others?

Dan

    Herb,

    		You know and I know it is a losing effort to try and have
    discussions about men with men here. Unless other men stand up and
    reclaim respect for their opinions we will always be defending
    ourselves against constant threats and attacks. It is to bad some
    people are only happy after they brow beat someone into submission. 

    		If I am beaten into submission then a lot of men out there
    lose also. 


    			HAND
    			Wayne 

    But, Wayne, you are the supreme brow-beater.  If you can't take it,
    don't dish it out.  
    					- Vick

    Now Vick, your right in there with the best of them too. You can chase
    the fleas of a hound from 100yards with your keyboard. :-) 

<Are you suggesting it is unfair to expect noters to
<apply the same standards to themselves as they do to
<others?
    
    No (I hope not).

    re:  .40
    
    You bet I can.  But I'm not the one doing the whining.  :^)
    
    				- Vick

    Now Vick, I have heard wimpers and wines from you too on occasion. Lets
    be honest with ourselves.

    Name once (as my wife frequently says).
    
    					- Vick  :^)

    I don't whine but I know just how dangerous it is to offend certain
    people. I just don't know which noters that disagree with me have healthy 
    egos. If the ego is healthy we can have some outrageous discussions (
    I'm talking fun ). If the ego is unhealthy a lot things can happen and
    most are very bad. I don't want to be the focal point for someone who
    was pushed around by bigger kids when they were young and now they are
    going to make me pay for it.



    			HAND
    			Wayne

    You don't have to worry about me Wayne.  I'm a pussy-cat.  You will
    note that I have never told anyone to go away or stick it in their
    ear or anything like that.  But I put a sentence together very 
    effectively, and some people find that annoying.  And some people
    persist in seeing disagreement as a personal attack.
    
    There was a kid once who tried to bully me for awhile.  He was older
    and bigger than I was.  He confronted me once and took my pocket
    protector with all my pens and pencils (yeah, I was nerdish) and threw
    it onto a roof.  I knew it was pointless to start a fight.  I just
    stood squarely in front of him and said "You, son-of-a-bitch!"  He
    didn't know what to do next.  After a moment I got on my bike and rode
    off.  To this day I have never figured out why he never bothered me
    again after that.  I don't think you have anything to worry about
    concerning my ego.  I'm fine thanks.  When people disagree with me I
    don't take it as a personal attack.  I either rebut the argument, or
    change my mind, or shut-up.  I am frequently critical of people who are
    verbally abusive of others.  But like I said before, if you can't take
    it, don't dish it out.
    
    						- Vick
    
    P.S.  George,  Moot?  Really?  Come on, produce the goods.  Quote me
    where I'm was whimpering or whining.  Here's your chance to make me
    eat crow.
    						- Vick

    RE: .38  Wayne
    
    > If I am beaten into submission then a lot of men out there
    > lose also. 
    
    Are you "beaten into submission" if someone (a woman or a man)
    disagrees with you?
    
    You talk about having the right to be here, yet you spend a great
    deal of time telling others to "go away."
    
    If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, perhaps you should
    try a less dangerous medium for discussion (because no one in notes
    is EVER guaranteed that his/her opinions are "safe" from opposing views.)

    Funny, but most of the bashing I've seen is against people labeled as
    "PC."  
    
    If upper management at Digital reads notes at all, they must be
    horrified at all the insults hurled at "Valuing Differences," too.
    
    If the anti-PC and anti-Valuing_Differences folks are being beaten
    into submission - God, I'd hate to see their behavior if they felt 
    comfortable speaking freely.

    I agree with George that people who are incapable of noting without
    being offensive and breaking company policies and procedures should
    not note.  But the paranoia being expressed in various notes above
    is ridiculous.
    
    					- Vick

    
    Agreed, Vick!
    

    RE: .54  
    
    People label THEMSELVES as "non-PC" (it's not the other way around.)
    
    I've never seen anyone in notes say, "HEY, YOU AREN'T PC!!  GET WITH
    THE PROGRAM!"
    
    "PC" is an insult in our culture, so very few people call themselves
    by this label (except in self-deprecating humor.)
    
    LOTS of people claim they are "non-PC," though.
    
    It's obvious who is getting bashed over this (and it isn't the folks
    who label themselves by the "I am not a member of the group being
    insulted" term.)

    Huh?

    Getting back to the topic at hand ...
    
    It's my impression (after years of listening to men about their
    marriages) that the basenote is not describing the standard way
    men and women relate in marriage in our society.
    
    As the basenote author stated, the author of the quoted text in
    the basenote is from another culture so he may be suffering from
    his own confusion aside from what most "modern men" must deal
    with in our society.
    
    That said, I'll happily bow out of Mennotes.  I don't wish to create
    a disturbance here by debating my views (and God only knows that I do
    have strong political views about a number of subjects.)
    
    Take care, all.

>    a disturbance here by debating my views (and God only knows that I do

It certainly isn't ONLY God that knows that  :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 

    
    suzzane is going to hold her breath now ...

    Don't let the door hit ya, Suzzane.   :^)  (cuz a man won't hold it open
    for you)
    
    re: 0
    
    Hey... I got your drift, dude.  And the rest of these people did to. 
    Of course, a wymin isn't going to understand it and will be-little it.
    But we men don't give a rats ___!  
    
    I read somewhere how wymin try to confuse men so they can control them,
    their thoughts, their actions.  Only a weeie will submit to such.  I
    say if a wymin wants to wear pants and act manly, let her.  Let her
    wear her zipper down the front and let her marry a man that wears his
    on the side.  They deserve each other.
    
    If a man can't see through their BS, he's a fool.

    I don't think that it's only women who create the binds described in
    the basenote. I'm probably much more susceptible to _men_ considering
    me wimpy, for example; I expect to be appreciated by women as one of
    them new-fangled new age sensitive guys. Another of the binds is
    self-correcting: if I gave someone a gift and they saw it as
    manipulation, I'd think that was _their_ problem, and certainly they'd
    be off my gift list. With most of these, you pick a way to be, and if
    they can't take a joke...

    The classic bind I seem to always fall into is: 
    		I will be discussing something with my wife that requires a
    decision, I'm looking for her input but what I get is " Do whatever you
    want because you always do what you want anyway ". Damned if you do,
    damned if you don't. With that simple statement she is never
    responsible for a bad decision.



    			HAND
    			Wayne

    re .63, well, *do* you always do what you want anyway?
    
    Have you ever done what she suggested even if you disagreed with it?
    
    Lorna
    

    re -1
    
    		Of course. Why would I ask for her input if I didn't want
    it.
    
    				HAND
    				Wayne

    RE -2
    
    		In answer to your first question, No I don't always do what
    I want. 
    
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Wayne,  It doesn't sound to me like she's trying to shirk
    responsibility.  It sounds to me like for some reason she doesn't
    feel like you value her input.  This may just be because of the
    difference in male-female communication styles.  For example, say
    she gives you input that you disagree with.  Maybe you argue against
    it, give reasons why it isn't a good suggestion.  This is all well and 
    good when men are discussing things with each other.  We tend to see
    things as two sided, either-or, and one side has to "win".  But that
    isn't the way it works between women and is a source of problems 
    when men and women try to make decisions together.  So she sees your
    argument as pre-emptive, devaluing her input.  This is all speculation,
    as you didn't give us much to go on, but I wouldn't assume that she
    is saying "you always do what you want to anyway" because she has a
    problem.  It sounds like you two have a communication problem.  I
    recommend the book "You Just Don't Understand" by Tannin (? I think).
    
    					- Vick

    Vick,

    		I have been with this woman for 24 years, I do know how she
    shirks and accepts responsibility. Believe me she knows how to
    manipulate me, she is well aware of my buttons. Women are much more
    creative in manipulating a situation to their advantage. 


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Concerning reading the plethora of New Age books. I stay away from
    them. They are social engineering IMHO and I believe people should be 
    aloud to think and feel on their own, not by an instruction manual. Not
    a flame just an opinion.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Sorry, I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that you try out any new
    ideas.  I guess you already knew the answer to your "question" and
    were just venting steam by asking it.
    
    						- Vick

    I'll bit Vick, what question are you refering to??
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Oh, sorry, I thought your original note was phrased as a question, as
    in "why does she do this".  I see now that it wasn't.  
    
    					- Vick

    Vick, I agree about the book, "You Just Don't Understand."  I thought
    it was excellent.
    
    Lorna
    

RE:  Note 709.69  CSC32::W_LINVILLE 

>    Concerning reading the plethora of New Age books. I stay away from
>    them. They are social engineering IMHO and I believe people should be 
>    aloud to think and feel on their own, not by an instruction manual. Not
>    a flame just an opinion.

Hey Wayne, same goes for those dopey shrinks too!  After all, they are only
spouting "text book" logic.  Most of them are too damn lazy to get a real job
and have bigger problems than your own.

    A doctor may also suffer from worse diseases than I have.  That doesn't mean
    he isn't a good doctor for me.  All professionals recite material
    they've studied.  Part of the material a shrink studies is other human
    beings.  There are many ways to learn about yourself.  If you don't
    want to learn about yourself, then don't.  If you are happy, that's
    great!!  If you aren't, various professionals CAN help, if you want
    help.
    					- Vick

  How can men not be confused? The rules are changing. What used to not be
  accepted as a cultural norm (eg., crying) is now acceptable (or is it?)
  and vice versus. I've gone out with men, who, when it came time to pay the
  bill, there'd be this uncomfortable silence. I remember one guy who said
  later, "I was afraid if I offered to pay, you might think I was a womanizer,
  and if I didn't, you might think I was a tight-wad" (his words). We both
  laughed, yet I could really empathise with his frustration.

  As far as the list in .0, I just see it as a way of verbalizing his
  frustration, not at all unlike the situation I just described. The gentleman
  I had dinner with could have used a gamut of terms, other than 'womanizer'
  and 'tight-wad', but the underlying message was, he didn't know what was
  acceptable. And true, I could add, to me, cause I was the one he was with.
  Yet, the premise was, that he was going out with a woman he did not know, and
  wasn't sure what the rules were. In the 'olden' days, the man paid. No
  questions. That's the way it was. Today, there are questions. It's no longer
  'cut and dried'. And, until the 'rules' (i hate that term) are solidified,
  even if they may be a different way of communicating, I believe it's going to
  be frustrating to lots of people, both men and women, alike.

  I realize that I'm relating to this in the 'single' context, however, I
  believe that in the 'married' context, that men probably have a better idea
  around expectations, as they are dealing with a specific person.

    re .76
    
    I see it more as a metaphor and as an expression of frustration rather
    than either EITHER a joke OR an indictment.
    (welcome, Mike)
    
    
    
    				herb

G'day

I'm an Australian living in England and so have, perhaps, a different perspective
to this debate.

Like the noter -.2 or so, I think that the base note is more probably a joke that
plays, like the best lies and jokes, on a kernel of truth.  As men we all have a
joke or two that we can tell about the faults of women (just as they have of us - 
read Cosmo for examples of tongue-in-cheek humour about men and their foibles) but
neither party usually believes that the jokes content is actual daily reality; not
unless they're three coupons short of a toaster.  But to be able to have a laugh
and a giggle and a `collective' joke about women at their expense is healthy, as 
long as the vast majority of the populace treats it as the joke it was meant.  
Humour is a necessary part of the psychological makeup of people and cruelty, 
jokes at the expense of others, is part and parcel of it.  Remember when we were
kids - didn't we pick on the weakest sometimes and laugh at the misfortune of 
others?  Don't we find it funny that Wily Coyote can never catch the Roadrunner, but
just gets pummelled and blown up and falls off the edge of the cliff to cause that
wonderful sound of `crunch' followed seconds later by a little dust cloud (always
makes me laugh, that bit).

A comment that we Ozzies have about some Americans we see portrayed in the media is
that you guys sometimes lack a sense of irony (no, Virginia, not an understanding of
metallurgy) and can be somewhat fixated about `self'.  Hence, when I read Suzanne's
(I think it was her - Conlon) notes I see someone making a fair comment - I certainly
felt no malice in it nor any problem with how she expressed herself.  I don't know her
so can't make any personal observation about how she relates with/to men, but she
certainly seem erudite, intelligent and observant to me.

I for one don't believe that she has left this note/conference and would welcome her
views - she's is a woman and, by default, carries a different set of values and
experiences that I.  I certainly value her views, be they different and conflicting
to mine.  As someone else in this note said (paraphrased) only by the healthy
exchange of views can one make one's own conclusion - whether to agree, disagree, 
change one's own  point of view or create a new one.

Regards from wet and rainy Newbury, England
(by way of Adelaide, Australia)


Lee

  @ @
   >
  \_/ 

G'day

BTW - is PC the same as an MCP?

Lee

    
    	no, PC is politically (and some would hasten to add hypocritically)
    	correct.

G'day

Thanks -.1

So what *does* PC stand for (apart from Personal Computer)?

Lee

As she said, "Politically Correct".  Usually used in a derogatory manner.

			Steve

    
    	ye olde pessimist, ::LIONEL.... ;-)
    
    	lee, 
    	being flexible in one's thinking can be considered PC...
    	just so you don't offend anybody who lie in wait at the
    	extremes.
    
    	a chairperson as opposed to a chairMAN or chairWOMAN, for 
    	example.

    No no NOOOOO!!!!
    
    Chairperson smacks of specieism� and phylumism.�
    
    The correct term is CHAIR.  (Note there is no mention of humans, or
    huwomen, as the case may be)
    
    � specieism : oppresion of non-human animals by the dominant species
    
    � phylumism : the belief that one's particular class of organism
                  is superior to another
    
    
    If you want to be truly PC, you have to get the various terms for
    oppression dwon first ...

    Every time I think of a chairperson, I conger up ol Chairman Mau...
    Weird? :) Perhaps there is a hidden message here?:_)

G'day

Aaaahhhh !!  I understand now.

PC - as in The Postperson Always Knocks Twice (famous movie)
or `that person over there is a *real* personizer (instead of
womanizer/manhunter)' etc etc

Thanks for enlightening me.

Hmmm, makes me think that no-one in the States can speak without
running the fear of upsetting *someone*.  I know that in our office
and others like ours in UK we can engage in cheerful, non-derogatory
banter with members (freudian slip?) of the opposite sex in a way
that, according to someone here who recently visited the States, would
have had him arrested, locked up and sued for Sexual Harrassment.  Over
here the banter goes both ways, not just the obvious Male -> Female.

Is it *really* that paranoid over there and not just respectful (which
we believe we are - we don't usually engage in such conversations with
those we feel would take it the wrong way (freud again?!?)

Curious of Newbury

 @ @
  >
 \_/

    Re: .87
    
    Judith Martin - a.k.a. Miss Manners - put it rather nicely:
    
    "Indeed, it has never been easier to insult people inadvertently.  A
    gentleman opens a door for a lady because his mother taught him that
    ladies appreciate such courtesies, but this one turns around and spits
    in his eye because he has insulted her womanhood.  A young lady offers
    her seat in a crowded bus to an elderly, frail gentleman, and he gives
    her a dirty look because she has insulted his manhood."
    
    Basically, in the USA, you can get sued if you don't make nice to
    someone - and you can also get sued if you do.  There is no such thing
    as PC, because if you are, you aren't.  Yes, we are *really* that
    paranoid here.
    
    -dick

    re:.87
    
    When I grew up, we had a rhyme : sticks and stones may break my bones,
    but names will never hurt me.  Nowadays, just using the wrong term (eg:
    handicapped instead of physically disadvantaged) can cause quite a stir.

    
    	i won't mention that time someone said something to you, Z
    	that made your bottom lip quiver and your eyes get all misty.
    
    	its just between you, me and your confessor.

G'day

To follow up on this topic of paranoia (as seen by those of us
outside of the US) there follows a transcript without permission
of an article by Andrew Stephen (journo) in Sunday's Observer.
The Observer is a `quality' newspaper over here and Andrew reports
from the States with his views every Sunday.

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Trespassers in a white man's sick world"

The other day, at about 1am, I was woken by a noise outside my
home in Georgetown. I looked out of the window in time to see
three youths huddled around my car; deftly, they got in and started
the engine, and I watched helplessly as the car disappeared.

This probably all happened in about five seconds, during which I
possibly had the opportunity to roll up the bedroom window and
shout `Oi!'  An hour or so later the police rang to say the car 
had been found about half a mile away - crashed into two other
cars and with damage worth thousands of dollars.

It was the second time in a month that my car, a Honda, had been
stolen from outside my house.  This time, I went to the crash 
scene as soon as the police called me; there, sitting in the back
of one of several police cars, sat one of the youths, sullen and
handcuffed.  `These people,' said one of the policemen, `don't
care if they're in jail or outside.  It's all the same to them.'

He added that it was a good thing I had not shouted from my
bedroom window.  Between them the young men would have been 
certain to have had at least one gun, he said, and they would
probably have swung around and opened fire on me; life, after all,
was cheap for them.

There was one key unspoken fact in all this, which Political
Correctness prohibited one from acknowedging: the three youths
were black - trespassing, it seemed, in a white man's world.
The first time the car was stolen it was found in north-east
Washington with a metal baseball bat left in the boot, and the
CD case of a black `rap' singer.

For me, these were revealing vignettes of what happens when two
entirely alien cultures meet - young American blacks, in this
case, at violent odds with a prosperous, white American 
Establishment.  There was no racism in the white policeman's
manner when he said that black youths in the nation's capital
do not care whether they are in prison or outside; he was just
speaking a truth that is unpalatable and usually unsaid.

If anyone is tempted to think that the US has solved (or is
solving) its race problems - specifically the alientation of
blacks - there are constant reminders that this is not so.  The 
Los Angeles riots came as an unwelcome sign that there is still
a reacial sickness in America.

Driving home from the Democratic Convention in New York, for
example, I came across a jarring scene that served as another, 
more personal, reminder.  Two cars had been involved in a minor
collision at a motorway an exit from a motorway in Maryland;
police were taking details from each driver.  In a surrealistic,
American kind of way, it seemed perfectly normal that one of the
drivers - a black, of course - was handcuffed to the pole of a
road sign.

The most disturbing thing is that racism in America is being
driven underground.  It is rampant in practice, but in theory
it no longer exists; this means that politicians are reduced to
speaking in code when appealing to white fears.

A current battleground is in the field of rap music - an
industry now worth $700 million (390 pounds million) a year.
President Bush describes the lyrics of one record - `Cop Killer'
by one `Ice-T' - as `sick'.  Vice-President Dan Quayle things
them `obscene' and 60 mainly Republican Congressmen find them
`depraved'.  They are quite right, of course, if you listen to
the words :
   I got my twelve-guage sawed off
   I got my headlights turned off
   I'm `bout to bust some shots off
   I'm `bout to dust some cops off
   ...My adrenalin's pumping
   I got my stereo bumpin'
   I'm `bout to kill me somethin'
   ...DIE, PIG, DIE, DIE, DIE!

The trouble is that the wicked provocations of such mass-marketed
words merely allow politicians to posture as guardians of family
values; everyone knows, but on one says, that when they attack
the record they are really, in code, letting off racist steam
and attacking blacks.

Young blacks thus become victims both of such commercial con-
artists as `Ice-T' - coming to see his vile nonsense as some
kind of acceptable, streetwise alternative to the white status
quo of Bush, Quayle & Co - and of the act of racial rejection.

It is here that the American Establishment finds itself in a
tangle.  Ice-T is actually Tracey Marrow, a man supposedly in
touch with his roots but who now nonetheless lives in Hollywood; 
his femal counterpart, one Sister Souljah (`We're at war/That's
what I toldjah') is in real life Lisa Williamson, sometime
student at Cornell and Rutgers universities.

And `Cop Killer' is marketed by Time Warner, the biggest media
conglomerate in the world - part owner of Cable News Network and
Home Box OFfice as well as Time itself and, you could say, the
acceptable face of American capitalism and corporate
respectability.

In other words, Marrow and Williamson, while mouthing incendiary
incitements to the young masses are, in effect, big commercial
properties for a $30 billion (17bn pounds) money-making machine.

The corporate machine of Time Warner says it will not withdraw
`Cop Killer' because it values the First Amendment of the US
Constitution on freedom of expression and speech; odd bedfellows
like the American Civil Liberties Union aligh themselves with
Time Warner.  Both come from different positions: yet their
combined forces impose an undeserved degree of respectability
and ever-greater sales on what is an open incitement to racial
hatred and, yes, murder.

Political Correctness, commercial greed and political complacency
have united to produce a dangerously explosive vacuum over race
in America.

The contradictions over racism in modern America, be they those
at the scene of my car theft or the code banalities uttered by
Bush and Quayle (or Clinton), are avoided by practically
everyone.  Yet, on the streets, they get worse.  They will have
to be faced one day, or else.

    When an earlier noter said that some women get angry if he opens the
    door for them, I wonder when is the last time that happened?  I really
    doubt that this is a common occurance.  
    
    What IS common in the U.S.A., and is really despicable, is the sheer
    lack of courtesy in both sexes.  Person A (either sex) opens the door
    for Person B (either sex).  I suspect it is rare that Person B will
    have the courtesy to say "Thank you."
    
    Personally, I make a point of saying "Thank you" when someone does me a
    kind deed, even a small gesture.  I would train my children (boy or
    girl) to do the same.
    
    There is a noticeable increase in uptightness in the U.S.  People are
    getting much more snappish, more chip on the shoulder cases.  What a
    drag.  I think it relates to the sustained recession and the steady
    high unemployment rate.  The post-WWII economic boom is over.
    
    L
    

    The biggest difficulty I have with "racism", "sexism", and most other
    "ism"s is that they are presented as a one way prolem.   If someone
    had removed the word "pig" from "Cop Killer" and inserted several
    other racial slurs that I could name,  Time-Warner would likely
    be a smoldering ruin by now.
    fred();

    I thought "pig" was an occupational slur, not a racial one.
    
    Anyway, I've heard plenty of racial slurs in rap and rock, with no
    smoldering ruins resulting.  And try NOT to hear sexist slurs...
    
    Ray

    Yea why is everyone saying cop killer is racist? They ARE talking
    about cops, bad ones at that. Is it guilt your feeling for the Rodney
    thing? Because l;ast time i looked there were more than white police to
    kill....So please no more insert a racial name for cop because they are
    two different things........

>            <<< Note 709.95 by LUDWIG::SANTANA "Step in my arena" >>>

>    Yea why is everyone saying cop killer is racist? They ARE talking
>    about cops,
    
    In this case, I view the use of "cop" as having heavy racial ( as
    in "white cop" ) overtones.
    
    > bad ones at that. 
    
    So who gets to be the judge, jury, and exicutioner.
    
    > Is it guilt your feeling for the Rodney thing?
     
    I also find thinly vailed racial overtones in this statement.
    
    > Because l;ast time i looked there were more than white police to
    > kill.
    
    I didn't follow the Rodney King thing close enough to tell--Were
    any of the Police involved in that black?   Would have there been
    nearly as big an outcry if they had all been black?
    
    It's funny how these "minority" groups think they're immune from
    biggotry themselves or that thier biggotry is perfectly justified.
    
    fred();

    re:.95
    
    At least you've stopped trying to convince people that when Ice-T says
    "I'm gonna dust some cops off, die die die pig die" he's talking about
    bad cops killing black people.
    
    You tried that in Soapbox for about a month until the lyrics were posted.

From a letter to the editor in today's Boston Globe:

Would the executives of Time-Warner Inc. release songs saying, "Kill the
record label executives," "Kill the Hollywood studio chiefs," "Kill the
publishers and editors" or "Kill all the media magnates"?

G'day

Re. .98

Yes, what *would* Wierd Al do with this song?


...Lee

    Does Mojo Nixon's great hit "Don Henley Must Die (Don't Let Him Get
    Back with Glenn Frey)" count?
    
    I forget who does "Bring Me the Head of Jerry Garcia".
    
    Ray

    I'd love to see your CD collection someday.   ;')

    re .100, .101, me too!  :-)
    
    Not Don Henley!!  he's too cute to die!  (oh, and nice voice, too)
    
    Lorna
    

    For a good friend at Halloween, I decided to put together a tape of
    music which incites to violence, with an emphasis on psychotic
    killers.  Turned out I have at least 3 hours worth, not counting the
    operas. (: >,)
    
    Hard to believe that MENNOTES should make a fuss about the
    non-sex-specific "Cop Killer" when a great rap like Roxanne Shante's
    "Fatal Attraction" has been out a couple of years...
    
    "Used to be big but now it's kinda small
     The thing you're missing is floating in a pickle jar"
    
    Ray

    Ray, do you have the soundtrack to Pump Up The Volume?

    I COMPILED the soundtrack to "Pump Up the Volume".
    
    Ray

       
            GQ'S PENSIVE POUTS HAVE NOTHING OVER ON BUBBA'S OVERALLS

                	    by Dennis Rogers

 
  Guys, let's talk hip.
 
  Serious male hipness. Hip, like in Gentleman's Quarterly. Of course if
you're a really hip kind of guy, you call it GQ.
 
  This is a magazine that features male models wearing greasy hair combed
straight back so the comb marks show, sports coats with the sleeves pushed up,
and pensive looks. I'd look pensive, too, if I'd just dropped $350 on a shirt
that needs ironing.
 
  In its most recent issue, which I swear on the grave of Hank Williams is the
first one I ever bought, there is an article titled "99 things every
30-year-old must know".
 
  It says, for instance, that by the time you are 30, you guys should: have
bailed a buddy out of jail, have been to a half a dozen major league ball
parks, have had your heart broken, have had a one night stand you're ashamed
of, be able to politely say no to a woman, have thrown out your Aqua Velva,
have given up air guitar, have said something to a boss and lover that you'll
regret for the rest of your life, have all your posters in frames, own socks
in colors other than blue, brown and black, and have spent one night in either
jail, a bordello, a monastery, a youth hostel or a Motel 6.
 
  It is stuff like that that makes you hip, GQ says.
 
  But this is not hip. This is pretending to be hip. Real Hip is Country Hip.
Real Hip is knowing that Hank Williams Jr.'s mama's name was Miss Audrey and
being able to sink a two-rail pool shot the long way. 
    
    Real Hip is Bubba Hip.
 
  It takes a different set of skills and experiences to be Bubba Hip. While GQ
insists that to be hip you must own a tuxedo, Bubba says you must own at least
one pair of bibbed overalls that you wear without a shirt.
 
  GQ says you should own a power drill by age 30. Bubba says make that a chain
saw and not one of those dinky suburban ones either, but a full throttle
monster that can cut through a Plymouth.
  
  GQ says 30-year-olds should have had six nights that you could not remember
the day after. Bubba says you should wake up at least six mornings and not
remember where you left your pickup or the name of the street where you are.
 
  GQ says you should know how to pronounce "Chassagne-Montrachet and when to
drink it". Bubba says you should know how to pronounce "chitterlings" and
have the guts not to eat them when those around you are making fools of them-
selves.
  
  GQ says you should know which is worth more, a flush or a straight, and why.
Bubba says if you don't know, you are welcome to play poker with him any time.
 
  GQ says that you should own a hat that is not a ski, baseball or cowboy hat.
Bubba says why?
 
  GQ says you should be able to carve a turkey by the time you are 30. Bubba
says that you should never carve a turkey that you didn't shoot, either in the
woods or at the rescue squad's annual fund-raising turkey shoot.
 
  GQ says you should "have used a good one-liner if perchance, God forbid, by
some quirk of fate occasionally you were unable to perform sexually". Bubba
has no idea what they're talking about.
 
  GQ says you should have had "an adult sports experience that equals in glory
a childhood sports experience". Bubba adds that it should involve shotguns,
pool cues or a bored and stroked '69 Mustang.
 
  GQ says you must have one restaurant where you are known and still welcome.
Bubba says you must have one tavern where you are known -- and not welcome.
 
  GQ says you should be able to pick a ripe cantaloupe. Bubba says you should
be able to grow a ripe cantaloupe.
 
  GQ says you should, by the time you are 30, have skinny dipped with someone
worth bragging about. Bubba says you should never swim nekkid with a lady then
brag about it.
 
  GQ says you should be able to speak a foreign language by the time you
are 30. Bubba says that speaking English is tough enough for him by 11:30 on
Saturday night.
 
  GQ says you should be able to hum the entire score of "Guys and Dolls".
Bubba says you should be able to complete the following country music lyric:
"I was drunk the day my mama got out of prison...".
 
  GQ says you should have worn an earring by the time you're 30. Bubba says he
thinks he understands the problem with GQ hip.
 

    re: .106
    
    Ah' big ol' 10-4 on that!  Bubbas do know best.
    
    Your's truly,
    Bubba

    Gee Bubba, I didn't know all that! Wow! I guess there will be a
    different way to look at you know!:_)

    
>  GQ says you should have had "an adult sports experience that equals in glory
>a childhood sports experience". Bubba adds that it should involve shotguns,
>pool cues or a bored and stroked '69 Mustang.
    
    I knew I was getting old when a co-worker of mine thought a 
    fully-blown, bored and stroked goat was something dirty. 
    ;^}
    
    fred();
    

re:>106.....

    NOW *THAT* was a classic.....I'll be laughing for days over those 
comments.......That one beats the list I saw months back of how to tell if 
you are a real redneck....and I'm still luaghing when I think of those 
lines!
    	Vic

PS: Last one, bored and stroked goat.....what I wouldn't give to own one of 
those....they were great!

  	re .106


		<sigh> and it's sad that the bubba's are
		becoming extinct.