Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    re .0, so, in other words, you're looking for a woman who will pay her own
    way if you ask her out to dinner.
    
    Lorna
    

    Patrick,
    
    If I'm hearing you correctly, it's not so much as issue of "tomboy vs.
    pseudo-tomboy" as "non-manipulative vs. manipulative."
    
    I don't care for being manipulated, either, by men or women, but I
    don't agree that "former [true] tomboy" is the only desireable set of
    characteristics for women in business. There are many women who never
    played softball or other team sports (to use one example), who pay a 
    lot more attention to things like makeup and manicures than do (us) 
    former tomboys, who do a fine job at their jobs. 
    
    I don't think "tomboy" is really the issue, so much as responsibility
    for one's self.
    
    IMO.
    
    Lynn

    Lorna

I look for women with character and integrity.  In my life I have found
that probably about 75% of women have character and integrity.  I have, at
times let myself get sucked into debates with women who lack both.  I have
reminded myself that they don't represent the whole.

patrick

    Lynn

You are correct!  There are women who never played baseball etc. and I'm
certainly not trying to infer that they are not quite as good.  But they
are not telling people that they were Tomboys.  They also know how to turn
down a dinner invitation with a "No thank you."  I'm saying that an
inordinate amount of attention is given to the pseudo-Tomboys who don't
deserve the attention.  I'm saying lets celebrate the women who shoot
straight and play fair.

patrick

    re .3, I like men with character and integrity, too.
    
    I, also, agreed with Lynn's .2.  I think it was your comments about
    tomboys, playing baseball, etc., that annoyed me a bit.  I've never
    played baseball or team sports, but I do think that in life I play
    fair.
    
    If a man at work asked me to dinner, I would either say, No, thank you,
    or I'd go, if I wanted, but I wouldn't insist on paying my half
    (especially if I knew he had a good job, because I've had money
    problems lately).  I could never imagine going to personnel because a
    man invited me to dinner - unless he kept asking me a hundred more
    times after I had said No, thank you - then maybe in desperation I'd
    ask for help in getting rid of him.  (that's never happened to me, tho)
    
    Lorna
    

    If I asked a women out and her first observation was to say I was
    looking for somebody to share expenses, I would change my mind.
    
    
    
    				herb

    Patrick,
    
    What a great letter! I thank you for sharing some of your childhood
    experiences with us. My remembrances of tomboys are very positive. In
    South America the term "tomboy" does not exist. We just saw that form
    of behavior as another facet of girls who, in general, were a mystery
    anyway. This type of girl was also more "liberated" and curious about
    everything which made for some very interesting experiences but I guess
    that should go on another subject.
    
    Undoubtedly, in my life, I have sought that independence and self
    assurance in grown women later. I have to say, though, that in the US
    and perhaps because of poor mother-daughter relationships, the above
    traits are rare, hard to find. Self esteem is at the very root of those
    character traits.

    If what is being said is that non-tomboys lack self esteem, then I
    have to disagree.  And I've certainly known tomboys who lacked self
    esteem.  In fact, I think that sometimes they are very unsure of 
    themselves, vis-a-vis, femininity.  In addition, and for example,
    my daughters are both jocks.  My 14 year old one first place in her
    stroke at the state swim meet last year and my 12 year old is
    considered one of the top 4 players in the recreational basketball
    league here in town.  And they are both quite competent softball
    players.  Yet both of them are very feminine.  They are by no means
    tomboys.  And neither of them have any self esteem problems.  I was 
    somewhat confused as to exactly what point was being made in the basenote.
    
    					- Vick

    re .6, Herb, the only reason I made that comeback to Patrick was
    because he expressed such admiration and joy, in .0, over having a
    woman insist on paying for her own dinner.  If a man invited me to
    dinner, I would never suggest, out of the blue, that he was just
    looking for someone to share expenses.  
    
    Lorna
    

 I think it is a mistake for parents to raise their children with one set of
rules for the boys and another set for the girls. I don't think that it is 
necessary or even helpful for girls to be given special dispensation from the 
rules of games or whatever, because I think it encourages them to expect
special treatment and to rely on getting exceptions from the rules. Life does
not often offer exceptions from the rules.

 I think that children grow up to fulfill the expectations of the parents in
many ways. If you set low expectations for a child, you usually are making
a self-fulfilling prophesy. If children are not instilled with a sense of
confidence, they will be afraid to try new things, to try something they aren't
sure they can do. Making special rules for girls (for example) is really
supposed to prevent failure, as if failure is the most horrible thing that
can happen. It doesn't really work, though. Learning to try things out and
pick yourself up from failure and learn from mistakes is a vital lesson, a
lesson that is too often denied those who can benefit from it most.

 I really think that boys and girls really don't benefit from different 
treatment based on gender, particularly in this day and age. Why build up
artificial walls that you will only have to tear down when they become
adults?

 There are surely some elements of gender that are important to remember,
to celebrate, and to enjoy. What concerns me is that gender is not used as
a reason to prevent someone from doing something they want to do. 

 I'm very fortunate (in some ways) to have a daughter that always asks
"why?" when I tell her something (particularly "no".) I often find myself
using an excuse which doesn't cut the mustard, in which case I invariably
reverse myself. I find that I've reacted reflexively, in the manner I've
picked up mostly from my own parents, "little girls don't do that." "Why?"
"Umm, go ahead..."

 The Doctah

> If a man invited me to
>    dinner, I would never suggest, out of the blue, that he was just
>    looking for someone to share expenses.  

 Suggesting that a man is looking for someone "to share expenses" is ludicrous
on the face of it, whether you go dutch or not. The cost to him is not
going to go down whether he eats alone of goes dutch, so it isn't sharing
expenses at all.

    re .11, I think it's ludicrous, too!  I didn't suggest it.  Herb did in
    .6.
    
    Patrick indicated in .0 that he would be pleased and impressed if he
    invited a woman to dinner and she insisted on paying for herself, so in
    .1, I said that it sounds like he's looking for a woman who will pay
    for her own dinner.  I didn't say he was looking for someone to share
    expenses, I said he was looking for someone to pay her own way, and I
    was really kidding anyway.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .9
    
    .6 was my way of saying something like, if somebody starts off a
    conversation antagonistically, that is likely to short circuit the
    conversation.
    Patrick showed more patience than I typically do when responding to
    some people. It looks like that patience was a good investment.
    
    				herb

>I look for women with character and integrity.  In my life I have found
>that probably about 75% of women have character and integrity.  I have, at
>times let myself get sucked into debates with women who lack both.  I have
>reminded myself that they don't represent the whole.


	This is what the base note is about IMHO. Don't take euphemisms
    literally.
        
>    If I'm hearing you correctly, it's not so much as issue of "tomboy vs.
>    pseudo-tomboy" as "non-manipulative vs. manipulative."
 
    		Big BINGO.
       
>    I don't care for being manipulated, either, by men or women, but I
>    don't agree that "former [true] tomboy" is the only desireable set of
>    characteristics for women in business.

    	You had it before and lost it here. It's not really about tomboy
    traits.
    
>    I don't think "tomboy" is really the issue, so much as responsibility
>    for one's self.
 
    		Back on track again.   

    
 
 	Honesty and integrity in women. I believe most have it and would
    show it if we could stop playing games.


    		HAND
    		Wayne

Yes, my basenote is about manipulation.

Yes I like straight forward women.  The 'frightened fawn look' does not
appeal to me.  The 'Hey you big strong handsome man can you rebuild my car
engine.' also does not appeal to me.  What does appeal to me is a woman who
knows what she wants and is also balanced with integrity.

patrick

    re .0
    

>I was forced to involve her in all my activities from baseball to Parchesi.
>The problem was that she invented a new set of rules for everything.  We
>pitched underhand to her and we could never send her men back home in
>Parchesi.  If we insisted that she play by the rules she went crying to our
>mother who told me to either quit the game or let her play it her own way.

    I think this is one of the things that has bothered me about a
    lot of the "women's movement".  They want to play with the "big boys"
    but they want their own set of [beneficial] rules to play by while
    the boys have to play by another set.
    
    I, also, have more respect for the real tomboys.
    fred(ERA supporter);
    

    >but they want their own set of [beneficial] rules to play by while
    >the boys have to play by another set.
    
    Anyone will play by the rules most beneficial to them.  It isn't a 
    matter of sex.  It's called enlightened self-interest.  But regardless
    of what rules they are playing by, the game is still (so far) called 
    catch-up.
    
    					- Vick
    

    RE: .0  Patrick
    
    I'm still "bowed out" of Mennotes, but I just had to comment about
    this.  :-)
    
    My family played *a lot* of games when I was kid, and I find it
    impossible to conceive of changing the rules so a certain kid
    could participate.  In my family, if we weren't old enough to
    play by the rules properly, we didn't get to play at all until
    we were ready.  
    
    Suzanne (Although I wasn't a tomboy at all - I played with dolls,
    tea sets and wore dresses every day - I was a fair baseball player
    by the 6th grade.  I was often employed as a "ringer" by neighborhood
    baseball teams when they played teams that didn't know us.  I ran
    around the bases in my dress.)

<<< Note 712.17 by R2ME2::BENNISON "Victor L. Bennison DTN 381-2156 ZK2-3/R56" >>>

>    >but they want their own set of [beneficial] rules to play by while
>   >the boys have to play by another set.
    
>   Anyone will play by the rules most beneficial to them.  It isn't a 
>   matter of sex.  It's called enlightened self-interest.  But regardless
>   of what rules they are playing by, the game is still (so far) called 
>   catch-up.
    
>
>   					- Vick

So if some nobody gets in the ring with Evander Holyfield and he decides that
he would have a better chance of winning if he changed the rules so that he
could hit below the belt but his opponent couldn't this would be called
"enlightened self-interest"?

patrick

    
    I have interesting memories of kickball as a child. We had one definite
    NON-tomboy. Not quite at the "oh no, I'll break a nail!" point, but
    close. But, she suffered through kickball because it was the only game
    in town! And we didn't bend the rules for her. We were co-ed, about
    50-50, so there was no point.
    
    I guess I was something of a tomboy, but the rules were already bent in
    my favor. I decked a few guys as a youth, but they couldn't hit back; I
    was a GIRL. I didn't make those rules, but I took advantage of 'em.
    
    I think there will be fewer tomboys are the roles of girls and boys get
    fuzzier. We have far more girls entering athletics, getting involved
    with outdoor activities, finding themselves interested in worms and
    poliwogs. We're learning that curiosity and exercise are no longer an
    exclusive male province. And so, our girls can do these things and
    STILL be girls.
    
    But I'm not sure that men can expect the rules not to change. I think
    it makes sense that when you are in a position to exert power or
    authority, you do so by making, changing, modifying the rules. And now
    that women are starting to recognize the power they have, this is one
    of the ways it will manifest. At the same time, I hope that EVERYONE
    can try to be open-minded about what these changes may bring. For
    example, women are one of the reasons for "flex-time". But lots of men
    also benefit. Before women hit the workplace in numbers, "paternity"
    was recognized by a few cigars. Women have now opened doors for MEN to
    assert their needs to spend time with their newborns. Equal employment
    opportunity is similar. The entire point was to bust through the
    good_ole_network. But in reality, there are millions of MEN who were
    crowded out of the picture because of THEIR lack of contacts. Equal
    opportunity gives many men a much fairer shot at jobs than the old
    system.
    
    I honestly hope that an outgrowth of "equal rights" will be more
    flexibility for ANYONE who doesn't fit a mold, so that all of the
    talents and skills that we collectively hold can be appreciated,
    instead of our current norm of typecasting people and setting rigid
    roles and standards which not everyone can adhere to. Is there any REAL
    reason why no one should have any hair touching a collar, outside of
    combat or near complex machinery?  Is there really no room in this
    world for change?

>So if some nobody gets in the ring with Evander Holyfield and he decides that
>he would have a better chance of winning if he changed the rules so that he
>could hit below the belt but his opponent couldn't this would be called
>"enlightened self-interest"?
    
    If he could do that and get away with it and if he felt no moral
    qualms about it (everything fits into the equation somewhere), then
    absolutely.  I'm reminded of the scene in "Butch Cassidy and the
    Sundance Kid" where one of them has the "fair fight" with the bad
    guy and wins by kneeing him in the groin while they are discussing
    the rules.  If it weren't for "enlightened self-interest" they wouldn't
    need a referee in the ring during the fight.  :^)
    
    					- Vick

re .20

I agree that some rules need to change.  I just feel that they need to
change for everyone so that everyone plays by the same rules.

re. 21

Interesting philosophy.  I don't agree with you but I am very curious.
Does this mean anything I can get away with is ok?

patrick

Tomboy.  Now, there's a word I don't have much use for.  Tomboy: what you
call a girl who doesn't act like a girl.  What her mother says in disapproval,
what her peers say to discourage her.  A derision.  A vicious, hateful way of
enforcing gender-based roles upon children, perpetuating the distinction that
little girls (for some inexplicable reason) "shouldn't" act in certain ways,
and will be labeled disapprovingly if they persist.

Now, perhaps boys and men don't always use it this way.  Perhaps mothers and
other little girls don't either.  But in my experience, "tomboy" has been
used as an epithet of social control, controlling girls' behavior by shaming
them, for activities that are NOT shameful.

A useless word, in my universe.

DougO

    re .21
    
    So "enlignteened self-interest" ( aka cheating ) is ok so long 
    as you don't get caught!!!   Remind me to never play cards or do 
    buisness with you.
    
    re. last few.
    
    I don't have a problem with that fact that some things need to change.
    I don't have a problem with "equal rights".  I do have a problem 
    with establishing two sets of rules in order to benefit one side
    *or* the other and calling *that* "equal rights".
    
    fred();
    

    Ah, but it's what your conscience lets you get away with as well.
    I said that was part of the equation.  
    							- Vick

>    Ah, but it's what your conscience lets you get away with as well.
>   I said that was part of the equation.  
>   							- Vick

Vick,

Understand that I'm not trying to be antagonistic but this is something
I've never heard before.  How does this work with a Sociopath?

patrick

    Vic:
    
    I feel the need to say that an awful lot of your entries come across
    very professorial to me. How much of that is based on my mind set of
    who you and how much of it is based on what you are actually writing
    remains open to some question. But, I feel I owe you the honesty of
    saying that I feel that much of your writing has a "not quite, fellas,
    this is the way it is" dimension to them that I find offensive.
    
    
    				herb

    re .23, I think it used to be used that way, but in the last few years
    I've heard it used by other women, in a bragging sort of way, to other
    women, implying that women who weren't tomboys were inadequate wimps.
    
    Lorna
    

    Guys,

    		You must understand Vick is relating New Age thinking. This
    is not a cut at Vick but New Age psychology allows adults to be self
    centered any thing they like type people. It's all about their needs.
    So, they can do and say anything they like and if you disagree you are
    insensitive and or ignorant ( ** you must read these books ** ).



    			HAND
    			Wayne

    re .23
    
    I couldn't agree with you more.
    
    Lynn (former tomboy)

    Wayne:
    
    >You must understand Vick is relating New Age thinking. This
    >is not a cut at Vick but New Age psychology allows adults to be self
    >centered any thing they like type people. It's all about their needs.
    
    By labeling it New Age thinking, which it is not, you are insulting
    the argument without dealing with the argument.
    
    It also reveals your lack of knowledge about the 'New Age' movement,
    which does not allow people to be any self-centered type thing they like.  
      
    What Vic is really talking about is human psychology. People are
    naturally self-interested, and it is a healthy thing to be. That
    self-interest is balanced by conscience, and responsiblity to others.
    His note was an observation of human behavior, not a validation of it.
    
    -roger
      

Lorna, that's interesting; I interpret that as some women having reclaimed the 
word 'tomboy' to negate the implied shame; and then, taking it even further to 
control people the other way (deriding them as 'wimps' if they aren't 
'tomboys'.)  Its still a label, its still an attempt to impose a role based on 
gender.  Reversed from traditional, but still imposed.  I still don't like it, 
still find no justification for using such a manipulative word.

DougO

    RE. .32
    
    Lighten up, Doug! Not everyone thinks it's such a bad word. I think
    it's kinda cute, actually.
    
    "Wimp" is a whole lot worse and I don't see women getting upset over
    its use.

    Herb,  I'm not sure I understand what is offensive in one saying
    "not quite, fellas, this is the way it is."  That would make me far
    from unique among noters here and in other files.  I had an English
    professor in college who told me not to write things like "in my
    opinion" or "I think" when discoursing, because when one is
    discoursing, it should be clear to everybody that one is expressing
    one's opinions.  I don't follow that dictate rigorously, but I do
    follow it to some extent.  Anyway, I was a professor for a couple of
    years way back when.  Maybe it didn't all wear off.
    
    					- Vick

    .31
    
    Thanks, Roger, that is exactly what I was trying to get across.  You
    said it so much better.
    
    Frankly, I don't even know what the term "New Age psychology" means.
    I've listened to New Age music.  But I don't know how "New Age" is
    applied to anything else.
    
    					- Vick

Ah, you see things "light" if you want to; I prefer to identify the things
that affect peoples' behavior and point them out so folks can think, openly,
consciously, about them.  In this case, the basenoter talks about 'real'
tomboys he can respect and ersatz tomboys he can't.  The first thing I wanted
to respond to in his note was the word tomboy itself, and how it is used to
attempt to control girls by shaming them for behavior that isn't shameful.
Even Patrick said so in the basenote, "...Tomboy was a pretty degrading term 
to call a girl."  

I submit for consideration, the idea that having a word like "tomboy" be
generally recognized as a "pretty degrading term to call a girl", means that
the culture/socie1ty has BUILT-IN, some specific, manipulative enforcements,
or protocols of behavior, which are demonstrably cruel and hateful.  It is
these sorts of things, the very language we use, that affect even the youngest
children and begin to warp them into rigid gender roles.  "Tomboy" as a term
of derision for girls, and "wimp" as a term of derision for boys, are words
which shape our children by hurting them unneccessarily.  

Is that too heavy a concept for you, Jorge?  So sorry.

DougO

 Not everybody sunscribes to the notion that "tomboy" is a negative term. In
my life, the vast majority of times I've heard the word used it was used
in a positive manner. It seems to me that perhaps some people continue to
harbor negative connotations of the word which may or may not exist in
the term's general use. I certainly do not consider tomboy to mean anything
derogatory whatever. To me it's simply shorthand for "non prissy female,"
sorta. (I can't imagine a clever description that captures the essence of
what I'm trying to say without leaving room for hostile interpretations.)

 The Doctah

    RE .37
    
    Doctah,
    
    I would agree with your general definition of "tomboy" as meaning
    (generally) non-prissy female. 
    
    The difficulty, of course, for the subject tomboy is in knowing that
    what you describe (generally) as non-prissy female behavior is, in
    fact, something to be admired, emulated, etc. -  while being told by
    society, parents, family, etc. (generally) that aforementioned
    non-prissy female behavior is in fact not appropriate for
    aforementioned person of the female persuasion.  
    
    In short, it's a hard row to hoe (just as it is (generally) for 
    boys who don't fit the "norms" of athletic, "masculine", etc.etc. - , 
    and I have a lot of sympathy for the girls who choose to
    become manipulative instead. Which is worse, fighting all the "norms"
    you hear about and knowing, inside, that you're sticking to your
    beliefs and values; or giving in to the "norms" and know that you're
    selling out to yourself. 
    
    Thank goodness this seems to be changing with succeeding generations;
    not fast enough to suit me.
    
    Lynn (age 43, who did her major tomboying in the 50's and early 60's) 
    
    

    
    re .37
    
    I also sense that whether or not "Tomboy" was okay has a lot to do with
    the year, the place, the culture. I grew up in the 1970's, after latest
    round of Women's Lib had taken off. Young girls were trying many
    different things and ran the spectrum in their interests from very
    "standard male" activities to very "standard female", without too much
    labeling. I would bet that Tomboy pre-dates 1970's children from my
    neck of the woods.
    
    As for "claiming" the term, it comes as no surprise that some of the
    women in a computer company with technical careers were tomboys in
    their youth.  I would guess that those childhood experiences did a LOT
    to prepare women for working in and holding their own in predominantly
    male work environments.

    Re. .36
    
    Doug, 
    
    I am just as concerned as you are (as a parent) with placing unfair
    expectations or pressures on children. However, the words are probably
    not going to disappear because you or some other people don't like
    them! We can only influence (sometimes) a small sector of mankind: our
    immediate family, maybe a few friends and co-workers, etc. unless you
    get into politics.
    
    I will probably concentrate my efforts in making my children less
    sensitive to criticism, less interested in peer approval, more
    self-accepting and self-assured. In other words, stronger.

    re "reclaiming `tomboy' as a positive term"
    
    it's been a positive term for a long time - look at little girls' books
    - nancy drew, ramona the pest, trixie belden, harriet the spy, meg of
    little women: each of these girls was presented as *admirable* in their
    aggressive boyishness.  they were often chided for not being girlish
    enough, but persisted and did great things - thus showing either that
    you didn't have to be "girly" to be a good girl, or that you had do be
    "boyish" to do great things (which interpretation you prefer shows a
    lot about your politics, i think).
    
    re real preferable to fake tomboys
    
    guess i was a fake tomboy (kind of a wuss as a kid), but i like to
    think of myself as kinda tough now.  but i DO agree with the
    implication in .0: straight-forward women are indeed preferable.
    
    lee

    I grew up as a Tomboy.  I was called a Tomboy because I was
    consistently out climbing trees, having adventures, and getting skinned
    in the process, in most of my "pretty balerina" pictures, I had a bruised 
    something or other.  
    
    I grew up doing what I enjoyed doing.  When I hit junior high I realized 
    boys and girls were categorized ie the boys played football and took 
    woodshop and girls played field hockey and took home economics.  I was 
    pretty good at playing football and the thought of baking cookies because 
    "I was supposed to" turned my stomach.  I encouraged my best friend to 
    join me and play football and take woodshop.  The guys always treated
    us well, ie I wasn't a tough broad trying to prove something but girls who 
    were having fun.  Being called a  tomboy in this context was positive.
    
    I'm happy when I see little girls who look like Tomboys because I
    remember how much fun I had/have, they always seem to be happy, scraped
    knees and all.
    
    Tami
        
      

    I was, and am, something of a tomboy: uninterested in feminine frills,
    fashion, or makeup; prefer to wear clothes I can run around in, get
    dirty in, climb trees in if I feel like it; walk very fast, with a long
    stride (or as long a stride as a 5'3" person can manage); prefer going
    to a really gruesome movie to getting flowers; that kind of thing. 
    
    The only thing that bothers me about the term is the implication that
    all the fun things are the province of boys or men, and that acting
    "like a girl" is feeble (see "throws like a girl," "runs like a girl,"
    etc.), and acting "like a lady" is boring ("ladies never raise their
    voices," "ladies do not whistle"...).
    
    "Acting like a man" meant being strong, brave, capable, and so forth.
    I don't recall anyone ever mentioning what "acting like a woman" meant.
    
    So I did the things I liked to do, and got called a tomboy for it.
    
    -b

  I was never really a tomboy growing up. My sister had that role. She was/is
  *quite* the athelete. Yet I never was much into dolls and frills and stuff
  like that either.

  Now days, I absolutely *love* working on cars, around the yard, and around
  the house. Yet I enjoy being able to dress and feel like a woman too (';
  I guess I still must be confused, eh?

  iks, michelle

    No, Michelle, not confused, maybe balanced???  :-)
    
    Karen

>  I guess I still must be confused, eh?

 Not confused at all. More like "not bound to someone else's view of proper
gender roles." I admire that quality.

re. 44

Michelle,

Good for you!  If you know how to do many traditional 'mens' jobs you don't
need to go out and find a man to do them for you.  This is great.  You may
not know how to overhaul an engine but you can hire someone to do that and
when you talk with them they won't be able to 'snow' you.

When I was a boy my father insisted that I know how to cook, sew, wash
clothes, iron, mend and clean.  I also knew how to hunt, fish, rebuilt
engines, guns and washing machines etc etc.  The guy stuff was optional for
my sisters as he softened the rules for them.  My father now agrees that he
erred.

I teach/taught my girls many of these things.  I think it makes them more
independent than watching the Hill/Thomas hearings.  I also have them pay
their own way on dates.  A man who marries a woman because he needs a
housekeeper is a very troubled hombre.  A woman who marries a man because
she needs a beast of burden is no better.

patrick

	Patrick (.47), well put (especially the part about homemakers
	and beasts of burden!)

	From my grandmother I learned cooking, sewing, housekeeping;
	i.e. the traditionally female jobs. From my uncle, I learned
	how to use a hammer and saw and drill, and basically fix 
	anything in the house that had to do with wood or paint or
	wallpaper. Somewhere along the way I picked up gardening and
	lawn care, I guess from my grandfather.

	I'm sure that exposure to both types of work helped form the
	attitude that I can do just about anything, I just haven't
	gotten around to trying some things yet.

	My son, similarly, was exposed to a wide range of jobs and
	learned a wide range of skills; when he needed to learn how
	to do something in order to accomplish some goal, he asked
	whoever had the skill and learned.  According to him, he's happy
	we "didn't bring him up with any kind of sexism" because *he*
	feels he can do just about anything, just hasn't gotten around
	to trying some things yet.

	Lynn

    re .47, I don't think very many people, if any these days, get married
    because they want a housekeeper or a beast of burden.  I think most
    people get married because they are in love and someone to share their
    lives with.  Ideally, couples for partnerships and whoever is more
    suited to a particular chore will be the one who does it.  I don't see
    a problem if who does the chores tends to fall within gender
    stereotypes most of the time, as long as the two people involved are
    happy with the arrangement.
    
    Lorna
    

RE. 49    
    Lorna

I don't know where you live but here in Colorado my 16 year old daughter's
friends talk about marrying a man who is RICH!  They are looking for
someone to take care of them, someone who can provide the things that they
want ie cars, condo in Vail, house etc.  The hottest show on TV right now
for these girls is Beverly Hills 90210.  It is a show about very rich kids.
I have asked them what their side of the marriage is and they basically
look at me with a very bewildered look.  They still expect the boys they
date to pay for everything and the most popular boys are the ones with jobs
and cars.

patrick

> look at me with a very bewildered look.  They still expect the boys they
> date to pay for everything and the most popular boys are the ones with jobs
> and cars.
    
    Welcome to results of the backlash against feminism. 
    
    Ray

>    Welcome to results of the backlash against feminism. 
    
>   Ray


Is that what it is?  I don't know.  I'm not sure these young women even
know what feminism is.  It's like they want the best life has to offer but
they don't want to work for it themselves.  It's easier to have some guy
get it for them.  I've reminded my daughter that in some circles this is
called prostitution.  I look and hear and realize that these young women
are not different then when I was 16.  They are still basing their success
on their looks and figures.  They still see potential mates as meal tickets
and lifetime providers.  The reality is that the balloon will probably
burst one day through divorce and they will become bitter because their
dreams were shattered.  Frightening.

patrick

    
    re. 49  ...  Lorna
    
    I'm with patrick.
    
    I don't think most people explicitly talk about the roles they expect
    but usually if you listen to enough of there vision of the future you
    can get a picture of what they expect (even if they don't).
    
    
    ** Warning ... HUGE generalizatins follow **
    This story is supposed to serve of one example of how the explicit and
    implicit messages often are different.
               
    
    Basic Young Couple .....
    I want to marry a women/man I love, we'll be equals and share our lifes.
    
    Then ask them about careers etc ...
    
    Many folks will also talk about high-pressure time-consuming jobs. 
    These folks usually have not considered the actual sacrifices often
    needed to maintain 2 equal careers and/or to raise a family.  This
    career focus often implicitly implies a partner subordinating their
    career to yours and the family.  My experience is that more young men
    talk about their future in these terms.
                       
    Likewise many folks will talk about wanting to focus on family,
    volunteer, etc efforts.  These folks usually have not considered the
    actual effect of this choice on their partner.  This often implicitly
    implies they expect to be supported at some point in their lives.  My
    experience has been more young women talk about their future in these
    terms.
    
    
    Take care,
    Greg
    
    

> Is that what it is?  I don't know.  I'm not sure these young women even
> know what feminism is.  It's like they want the best life has to offer but
    
    If they don't know, then the backlash was successful.  If they do know
    but think it's (technical term follows) lame, then the backlash was
    successful.  Either way, you gotta admit they're letting Men Be Men and
    Women Be Girls.
    
    Here's hoping the boys are smart enough to kick back,
    Ray

    re .50, first, I was talking about sharing chores, not about how rich
    people may or may not be, and, second, I was talking about why adults
    (in their late 20's, thirties and forties) get married, not what kids
    *think* life is going to be like.
    
    I agree that no girl today should grow-up expecting to have a man
    support her in life and get her whatever she wants, since it's very
    unlikely to happen.
    
    I live in Massachusetts, and all my 17 yr. old daughter has been
    talking about lately is how much she wants to be accepted by Brown
    University.  :-)  She's a senior.  I don't know if she'll make it into
    Brown, but she definitely has the grades to get accepted somewhere. 
    I've told her from the time she was a little kid that if she wants to
    be able to afford expensive things in life that she'd better get good
    grades and go to college and get a high paying job so that she can get
    them for herself.  I realize that not all of her girlfriends were told
    these things and some of them no doubt still expect to get married and
    be supported by a man.  It's too bad because it's not realistic.
    
    re .53, but, even if most men don't expect to have to give up their
    careers to have a family, and even if most women (I don't see how most
    could in this economy!) expect to be supported by a man for some
    portion of their adult life, this doesn't mean that the two individuals
    involved can't love each other and be happy in the roles they've
    chosen, does it?  If a couple work out the logistics of this to their
    own satisfaction, I don't see the problem.  Just because some people
    have had marriages that didn't make them happy, and so now they feel
    cynical and bitter, doesn't mean it's that way for everybody.  
    
    For instance, I honestly believe that my parents were very happy
    together.  She never worked outside of the home but my father didn't
    consider supporting her to be an unfair burden.  He loved her and
    enjoyed having her companionship through life.  I think they considered
    themselves to be partners, each with their individual role.  My mother
    didn't sit around all day watching tv.  She took care of a lot of
    things around the house.  She had a huge vegetable garden in the
    summer, mowed the lawn, shoveled snow, etc.  I realize that,
    unfortunately, this lifestyle is not open to most people these days due
    to the state of the economy.  But, I don't understand this new
    generation of men who suddenly seem to begrudge anything that they
    might have to do for their wife - work more hours, supply more money to
    the budget, pay for dinner on the first date!  My father didn't
    begrudge doing those things for my mother because he knew she added
    value to his life, too.  If men are going to have such a bitter,
    cynical attitude what can women do except turn to the feminist movement
    for direction?
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .55  Ray
    
    > Here's hoping the boys are smart enough to kick back,
    
    Perhaps the boys will turn to young feminist women (who will most
    likely earn a good paycheck of their own, so they can do far, far
    better as a dual-breadwinner-income family when the time comes to
    settle down.)
    

    re .56
    
    		Lorna,
    
    			Women can't have it both ways. It is either equal
    or it is not equal....
    
    		Ray,
    			That is not backlash, that is the way women have
    looked st men through out history. The more things change the more they
    remain the same.
    
    
    				HAND
    				Wayne

    re .58, I don't even understand how your comment "women can't have it
    both ways" makes any sense in relation to what I wrote in .56.  Women
    can't have *what* both ways?  Be wives and be equal too?  Why not?  I
    don't get it.  Why can't some women be wives who don't work, and some
    women be high paid professionals?  Why can't individual women have the
    freedom to choose which they want?
    
    Are you saying that if I let a man who likes/or loves me buy me dinner
    that I then have to be a slave and let him boss me around forever?
    
    I think that's b*llsh*t.
    
    Have *what* both ways?  Be feminists and be wives?  Why the hell not?
    
    Lorna
    

>    value to his life, too.  If men are going to have such a bitter,
>    cynical attitude what can women do except turn to the feminist movement
>    for direction?
    
    Wow, Lorna, you make it sound like becoming a drug addict or voting
    Democrat or something...  (: >,)
    
    It does seem to me that a lot of men here, like the women they're
    complaining about, want it both ways.  They don't want high alimony
    payments but they deny the glass ceiling.  Hey, if you want to give up
    some responsibility (god knows I do) you have to give up some rewards;
    that goes for both sexes.
    
    I PERSONALLY meet more want-my-cake-after-eating-it men than I do
    women, though.  You'd think from the Rush-Limburger-melts that every
    women's room was chock full of castrating lesbians plotting to steal
    their husbands' money and turn their sons into transvestites, but I
    haven't met one yet.
    
>    looked st men through out history. The more things change the more they
>    remain the same.
    
    If you truly believe that '50s sitcoms showed life the way it has to be,
    I'm sorry for you.  I know it's not true. 
    
    Ray

>    I PERSONALLY meet more want-my-cake-after-eating-it men than I do
>    women, though.  You'd think from the Rush-Limburger-melts that every
    
    Special reply-to-myself for Hoyt:  Yeah, yeah, if I hung around tennis
    courts or bridge games (is it still bridge games, or did that stop in
    '63?), the proportions would probably even out....
    
    Ray

Lorna,

You make a good point.  My parents are still married after 57 years!  And
they did it because they love each other.  But my mother isn't like modern
day feminists.  Ann Richards (Gov. of Texas) could never be married to my
father.  Her needs are much different than my mother's.  I'm not saying
that either Ann Richards or my mother are wrong about their beliefs.  What
I am saying is that women today have a lot more choices than they did 57
years ago when my mother married my father.  I'm also saying that the young
women I hear in my house are saying that they want to be more like my
mother than the character Sigorney Weaver played in 'Working Girl'.  I
realize that they are 16 and 17 year old girls but with their current
mindset they could very well be changing diapers in a couple of years.

patrick

>mindset they could very well be changing diapers in a couple of years.
    
    Oh, Jeeves, be a good man and see that Junior's diapers are sent out.
    
    :^)
    

    Lorna,

    		I don't think you could put yourself in a man's place of totally
    supporting a woman while she is demanding he do 50% of the internal
    house work ( outside is man's work of course ). When I think equal, I
    think 50% on everything. 

    			I have been in the position of providing sole
    support and "trying to meet her needs". Then I woke up one day and
    looked around and realized my needs were never in the equation. The
    women of today are going to have a hell of a time because now they have
    to consider a man's needs. No more free rides.

    			HAND
    			Wayne
    

>  	I don't think you could put yourself in a man's place of totally
>    supporting a woman while she is demanding he do 50% of the internal
>    house work ( outside is man's work of course ). When I think equal, I
    
    I don't think many MEN could put themselves in that place either. 
    Sounds like a pretty stupid place to be.
    
    Which feminist was recommending this, Wayne?
    
    Ray, who's currently working inside, thank goodness

    re .64, when did I ever say that I thought that men should work to
    support women who stay home, and that then the men should come home and
    do 50% of the housework, and then all the outside work?  I don't agree
    to that and  don't think most women of today do.   There may be a small
    percentage of manipulative bitches who have tried to pull that off, and
    if you happened to get stuck for a time with one of them, I'm very
    sorry.  However, this does not mean that the majority of women would
    *ever* attempt to put such a lifestyle over on a man.
    
    The majority of women also work 40 hrs. a week today and in light of
    this I think that both household and outside chores should be shared as
    equally as possible.  If it happens that the woman is best at typical
    female, household chores and the man is best at typical men's type
    chores then fine.  If, on the other hand, the man likes to cook while
    the woman would rather change the oil in the car or whatever, then
    that's fine too.  Whatever works out for the couple in question.
    
    I resent the implication that all women who have not worked outside of
    the home got a "free ride."  My mother certainly didn't get a "free
    ride" nor did she try to.  My father is the only one who brought any
    money into the marriage, but in return for it, my mother raised both of
    his children, cooked all of his food, cleaned the house, did all the
    laundry, mowed the lawn, kept vegetable and flower gardens, did all the
    ironing and always had a path shoveled from the garage to the front
    door if it had snowed during the day while he was at work.  In addition
    to this, she was his companion, his confidant and his lover for 37 yrs. 
    I really don't think either one of them ever saw it as a free ride!  I
    don't think my father ever so much as scooped himself a dish of
    icecream during the entire marriage!  This wouldn't be for everyone,
    but it certainly refutes the idea that all women who stay at home are
    after free rides.  Sometimes it's just the way a couple wants to share
    earning a living and taking care of the house and kids.
    
    Like I said, if both work a 40 hr. week then all of the other chores
    should be shared as well.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .66


    		It sounds like you and I agree for the most part. My situation
     is not all that unusual though. I understand where you are coming from 
    please understand where I am coming from, we aren't that far apart in our
    thinking on this subject.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

  Re. 50 (yeah, way back)

  Patrick,

  I used to live in Colorado (-: 

  What you said about marrying a man who is RICH...

  I've said that before (tongue in cheek though (-; with lots of winks)

  What really surprised me was when my step-daughter told me that just the
  other day, and she *really* meant it!

  As far as the other notes go, about sharing chores, etc. Topics like that
  just never came up when I was married (other things did, but not chores).
  Saturdays were cleaning days, and we all chipped in. If there was yard-work,
  car stuff, etc. we used to do that together too. It was fun working on the
  car together. I remember the first time I learned how to tell if the
  ball-bearings on a wheel were bad, and how to rebuild a carbuerator. I had a
  blast!

  I guess I never worried much about who was doing the most. I did my best to
  do my share and trusted him to do the same.

  iks, michelle

    I echo everything Lorna has said so far.  My mother never worked while
    me, my sister and brother were growing up and we never looked at her
    situation as a free ride.  She kept an immaculate home, took care of
    us kids as well as the cats and dogs (2 large dogs and 5 cats!), cooked
    all of the meals, etc.  My father rarely had to lift a finger and he
    appreciated everything my mother did for the family.
    
    What I resent most are the women today who stay home with children and
    do absolutely nothing in the home, spend the day at jimboree or out
    having lunch, visiting friends, and then Dad comes home to a sloppy,
    unkempt house, late dinner, no clean clothes, etc.  Even though it is
    none of my business what other couples do, when I see this happening it
    really frosts me (there are a lot of stay at home moms in my townhouse
    complex who are like this).  Heck, I work full-time, keep an immaculate
    house, care for five cats, cook all the meals, do all the laundry,
    maintain the finances, etc., without even being a stay at home wife! 
    I'm not fishing for compliments, just saying that I don't understand
    women who stay home all day and nothing ever seems to get done.  This,
    to me, is a free ride, and I feel sorry for their husbands.
    
    I always used to say I wanted to marry a rich man, but that's not what
    I ended up with!!  :^).  My husband comes from a wealthy family but
    they were not without problems, and they did not share any of their
    wealth with us.  In fact, judging from what I have seen with his
    parents and their circle of rich friends, more money = more problems. 
    Give me my comfortable, middle class family any day!!
    
    -Roberta
    

    How did we get into unkempt homes from defining Tomboys?
    I leave you alone for a few days and look what happens!
    Tsk, tsk!