Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    This was discussed at some length in (I think) WOMANNOTES-V3.  The
    consensus there was, if I remember right, that women as a group tend
    not to fight for ideals (land, flags, honor, etc.) as men do, but
    rather they fight for things they think matter, like survival.  It's a
    brutal commentary on the male mind, IMHO.
    
    -dick

    Last weeks (or maybe the week before) edition of Time magazine had a
    picture of a female sniper firing from behind a chair in her living
    room into the building across the street.  Women are every bit as
    capable at this type of "insanity".

I was listening to a news report from BBC World Service this morning, on the
subject of the fighting in Pakistan (I think), and there was a reference to
a cease fire which had been brought about mainly by the efforts of women - I
wasn't familiar enough with the situation to know just what they meant, but
I found it fascinating.

				Steve

    Women work for ceasefire like other officially designated victims or
    caretakers-of-victims (priests, say) do.  Since they're not fighting,
    they're the natural ones to strive for peace.  The responsibility of
    the pedestal, so to speak.
    
    Women who are _actively_ involved in revolutionary or guerrilla
    movements (Irish and Vietnamese histories come to mind) don't seem all
    that peaceable.
    
    Ray

    I saw a news report about a detention center in Saravo (sp).
    One of those interviewed was a woman who had been cought with
    a sniper rifle out the window and expended cartriges on the floor.
    She was doing a real good job of, "I just don't know whyyy I'm
    here and whyyyy their picking on me. sob, sob".
    
    Women are just as deadly as men.
    fred();

    re .6, women are capable of being just as deadly as men.  However,
    statistics show that most violence and warfare is still committed by
    men.  So, while it would seem that both genders have equal capability
    to be violent, percentage-wise men have a greater propensity for
    violence (and warfare).
    
    I don't think that any noters have ever tried to claim that no women,
    ever, anywhere, commit violent acts.  Violence, is, however, still a
    field where men predominate.
    
    Lorna
    

re .8:

>    I don't think that any noters have ever tried to claim that no women,
>    ever, anywhere, commit violent acts.  Violence, is, however, still a
>    field where men predominate.
    
Institutional violence, yes.  Domestic violence, no.  See 432.3.

    There was a feature in the paper here about a Bosnian woman who was
    a commando leader and lead scouting parties into Serbian territory. It
    seemed to me that she was rather heavily "involved".
    

    
    It seems that there is no end to this "women are sweet and innocent
    and men are mean and ugly" b.s.  This is another reason I question
    the credibility of the "feminist" supporters.
    fred();

Re: .11

Fred, from where do you get the idea that "feminists" say "women are sweet and
innocent and men are mean and ugly"?   I don't doubt that there probably are
a few who do say things like that, but the majority don't, just like the
majority of men don't rob convenience stores but there exist men who do.

What's got you so upset?

			Steve

>Fred, from where do you get the idea that "feminists" say "women are sweet and
>innocent and men are mean and ugly"?   I don't doubt that there probably are
>a few who do say things like that, but the majority don't, just like the
>majority of men don't rob convenience stores but there exist men who do.

    It certainly appears to me that this "minority" is strongly supported
    by the majority.  Any questioning of this "minority" is met with
    immediate and withering attack.
    
>What's got you so upset?
    
    I am just fed up with the hypocrisy and double-speak.
    
    fred();

>    It seems that there is no end to this "women are sweet and innocent
>    and men are mean and ugly" b.s. 
    
    fred();, go back and read my reply please.  Despite the statistical
    evidence, I believe women are just as "innately" (whatever that means)
    prone to violence.  In real life, peacemaking groups often consist of
    women because of the sexist BS that women are supposed to be sweetly
    maternal and men are supposed to go out and kill.  But in the right
    circumstances, women don't seem to have that much extra trouble
    convincing themselves that they're supposed to go out and kill.
    
    The statistical (and biological) evidence is pretty interesting,
    though...
    
    I will admit that I think men are _ugly_.  Especially when they have
    stubble.
    
    Ray, well-known feminist

    re .9, I disagree.  At least 13 women, in Massachusetts alone, have
    been killed since Jan. 1, 1992, by either their husband, boyfriend,
    ex-husband, or ex-boyfriend.  The percentage of female to male violence
    cannot begin to compete with that.
    
    Lorna
    

re .15:

Did you read 432.3?

    I also saw the story about the woman in Sarajevo, I believe it was, who
    was an excellent shot, experienced since childhood, in shooting and
    handling guns. She is now a sniper, for which side, I forget....helping
    her side in this ongoing conflict. When will it all end ????
    
    Also, I don't like the wording of the base note. Can't men AND women
    stop making blanket statements about how 'bad' the 'other' group is ?
    Only my opinion....

    re:.15 and .16
    
    Abuse may go unreported, but murder doesn't.  So name me 13 men who
    have been murdered by women in Massachusetts since January 1.
    
    				- Vick	

re .18:

Did you read 432.3?

    Re .19:
    
    Did you read 826.18?
    

re .20:

I sure did.  I don't keep track of such things, but the note I referenced
refers to studies that do.  I suggest you read it before you make claims
about domestic violence.

> I sure did.  I don't keep track of such things, but the note I referenced
> refers to studies that do.  I suggest you read it before you make claims
> about domestic violence.
    
    I'm hurt.  You didn't ask me whether I'd read 432.3.
    
    I sure did.  It doesn't answer .18's question.
    
    Incidentally, what makes you think I'm making claims about domestic
    violence?  (The only time I can remember writing anything about domestic
    violence in this notesfile was when I said men were sometimes victims
    of it.)
    
    Ray

from 432.3:

      Also in 1974, a study was released showing that the number of
 murders of women by men (17.5% of total homicides) was about the same
 as the number of murders of men by women (16.4% of total homicides).
 This study (Curtis 1974), however, showed that men were three times
 as likely to assault women as vice-versa.  These statistics came from
 police records.
 
      [The murder statistic was no big news, by the way.  In 1958, an
 investigation of spousal homicide between 1948 and 1952 found that
 7.8% of murder victims were husbands murdered by wives, and 8% were
 wives murdered by husbands (Wolfgang 1958).  More recently, in a
 study of spousal homicide in the period from 1976 to 1985, it was
 found that there was an overall ratio of 1.3:1.0 of murdered wives to
 murdered husbands, and that "Black husbands were at greater risk of
 spouse homicide victimization than Black wives or White spouses of
 either sex" (Mercy & Saltzman 1989)]

    re .23, I don't know where you're noting from, but you're citing
    studies done several years ago.  You mention a study done in 1974.  My
    daughter was born in 1974 and she's going off to college tomorrow!  In
    other words, that's not current news.  Since you seem unaware, I'll
    fill you in on it.  One of the great concerns in Massachusetts this
    year is the alarming rise in the murders of women by men, who are their
    husbands, boyfriends or ex's.  It's been all over the papers.  A couple
    of weeks ago the Boston Phoenix did a feature article on this horrible
    phenomenon, including photos of the dead women.  I'm sorry I didn't
    save the paper, or I would send it to you through interoffice mail.  IN
    fact, maybe I still have it.  I'll check when I go home tonight, and if
    I have it, I'll bring it in on Monday and mail it to you.
    
    Lorna
    
    ps - I wish I could remember the exact quote that was so alarming.  I
    think it was something like "Every 8 days a woman in the US is murdered
    by her husband or boyfriend."  Something like that.  I'll look for the
    paper at home tonight.
    

Do you have statistics that indicate that the ratio has changed?

    re .25, the whole point is that more and more women are being killed by
    their husband and boyfriends every year.  
    
    It has been in the papers that 13 women have been murdered by husband
    or boyfriends, in Massachusetts since Jan. 1.  What are you saying? 
    That you believe that even more men have really been killed by their
    wives, but the information is somehow being supressed?
    
    Where do you live?
    
    Lorna
    

    The whole point is more and more PEOPLE are being killed every year. 
    Not surprising that the number of wives being murdered is on the
    increase as well.  And of course, you can always claim that those
    husbands who were murdered by their wives had it coming.

    And yes, the recent spate of wife-killings in Massachusetts is
    appalling, and certainly ought not to be ignored.  But you can't damn a
    whole gender based on what may very well be a statistical anomaly.  
    
    Let me rephrase that; you can damn a whole gender, but if you do, no
    one other than the terminally logic-impaired will give your idea the
    credence you seem to be seeking.

    Mike

    re .27, I honestly don't know why you think I "damn a whole gender"! 
    When did I do that?  I doubt that the man I went out with Friday night,
    or the man I spent yesterday with think that I have damned the whole
    gender!!
    
    I was only pointing out that a disproportionate amount of violence
    seems to be directed from males to females (and usually husbands or
    boyfriends, or ex's).  I honestly don't see how pointing this out is
    damning a whole gender.
    
    Lorna
    

re .26:

>    It has been in the papers that 13 women have been murdered by husband
>    or boyfriends, in Massachusetts since Jan. 1.  What are you saying? 
>    That you believe that even more men have really been killed by their
>    wives, but the information is somehow being supressed?

I'll bet that until you read 432.3, you thought that wives killing husbands
was much rarer than husbands killing wives.  I'm assuming you read the papers.
Why do you suppose that you had the impression that domestic violence was
largely one-way?

You reject the statistics in 432.3 as too old.  If the ratio was close to
50-50 between 1948 and 1952, and between 1976 and 1986, what makes you think
that it's different in 1992?

I have no idea how many wives have killed their husbands in Massachusetts
this year.  If you're interested, I suggest you call the Attorney General.

>    Where do you live?

Why do you care?    

    re .29, why are you so rude?
    
    Domestic violence is wrong no matter who does it.  Why is it that the
    minute a woman voices a concern over men's behavior, there are some men
    whose only reaction is to point out what women have done to men in the
    past.  
    
    The only reason I asked where you live is because if you live
    somewhere far away then I could understand that you were unaware of
    the concern that most people have with the rising rate of male to
    female violence in Massachusetts.  I just noticed by your personal name
    that you work in Spitbrook, though, so I assume you live in either NH
    or MA.
    
    Lorna
    

>    Domestic violence is wrong no matter who does it.  Why is it that the
>    minute a woman voices a concern over men's behavior, there are some men
>    whose only reaction is to point out what women have done to men in the
>    past.  

Perhaps because women are so ready to do the same to men...

    Guys,Guys,Guys

    	Don't you see what the feminist crowd is doing, they are pulling
    our chain, again. I had my note .5 deleted because I reacted to
    aggressively to suit the moderators. I will state now that this type of
    Gestapo tactics won't work. I and others will not be beaten into
    submission. The feminist hysteria is not that impressive, just annoying.
    People are dying on the streets at an alarming rate yet all Lorna
    wants to talk about is women, to bad, it shows me some people don't
    really care about men and children who are dying every day too. Single
    gender issue people are dangerous only if lawmakers listen to them,
    unfortunately they have been. Come November men need to vote and change
    the way we do social business.



    			Wayne

re .30:


>    re .29, why are you so rude?

I'm not rude, I'm just argumentative.
    
>    Domestic violence is wrong no matter who does it.

I agree.

>                                                       Why is it that the
>    minute a woman voices a concern over men's behavior, there are some men
>    whose only reaction is to point out what women have done to men in the
>    past.  

If you look back at how this topic changed from Yugoslavia to domestic
violence, you said in 826.8 that violence is predominantly male.  In .9,
I countered that that's not the case as regards domestic violence.  I think
there's an important distinction between institutional violence and domestic
violence.  Blindly saying "Men are violent; women aren't" doesn't help
prevent either kind.

And by the way, you've presented no evidence that domestic violence against
husbands is something that "women have done to men in the past" and not
something that they continue to do today.  Note that I've nowhere said
that men don't act violently against their wives, or that there's not an
increase in such violence, or that we should give one kind of domestic
violence priority over another.

    This subject has veered somewhat, but so what.... it has ceratinly lead
    to some lively debate.
    
    As a matter of interest, I started it because there are times when I am
    ashamed to be a man - times like when I see the innocent women and
    children in these conflicts, suffereing the way they do.
    
    I know - men suffer too. 
    
    It's all shades of grey and never black and white but a previous note
    said it all I suppose...... *people* are dying, for why?
    
    Their skin is the wrong colour? Their religion differs from their
    neighbours.
    
    Where do these aggressive b******* get off on pushing people around? We
    have only one world - there's no where else to go. No one has any more
    right to be here than anyone else.
    
    The sooner men *and women* get this through their thick heads, the
    better it will be.
    
    But I ain't holding my breath..............
    
    andy
    

re .34
        
    >As a matter of interest, I started it because there are times when I am
    >ashamed to be a man - times like when I see the innocent women and
    <children in these conflicts, suffering the way they do.
    

     	First if you are ashamed to be a man change your sex. Second if
    that is really not the case and you want to help not whine we have to
    understand a couple of things.

    		1. The over whelming majority of men are just fine 
    		2. Men do not have a lock on violent behavior

    If you want to help try:

    		1. Lobby the lawmakers to stop coddling criminals and
    punishing the victim.
    		2. Lobby for fair divorce laws so men aren't pushed to the
    point of panic.


    	Just a couple of things so you won't have to go around and bemoan
    your sexual gender.

    
    re .34
    
    Sounds like you've been sucked into the message of the hate groups.
    This is not a male/female issue.  This is a good-people/bad-people
    issue.  Both genders are capable of gread evil---and great good.
    If you are lucky you get to choose which side you want to be on.
    Sometimes, though, it is not all that clear which side is which.
    Choose wisely.
    
    fred

    Re: .35
    
    > First if you are ashamed to be a man change your sex.
    
    I'm going to accept this remark at face value and make one - AND ONE
    ONLY - attempt to educate you, Wayne.
     
    Being ashamed that one is a man doesn't have the remotest connection to
    the deep psychological problem that results in transsexualism.  So
    you'll understand this distinction in the future, I will explain that
    transsexualism happens when a person is so utterly, irrevocably
    convinced that he/she is living in a body of the wrong sex relative to
    his/her psychological gender that he/she takes action to have the
    perceived genetic error corrected surgically.
    
    All Andy was saying, I believe, is that he is the victim of guilt by
    association.  When I read replies like .35, I tend to feel the same.
    (If there was more to your reply, I failed to read it because I was so
    put off by the quoted remark.
    
    -dick

    re .37

    		You should have read the rest of the note and continued
    your education. Inflammatory statements like " I'm ashamed to be a man"
    is just that inflammatory! My statement on a sex change was facetious, I
    would have thought an educated person such as yourself would have
    figured that out, guess not. I'm curious as to why some people note
    here if they feel guilt by association.



    			Wayne

    Re: .38
    
    Wayne,
    
    You've missed the point of .37.  The facetious sarcasm of your "change
    your sex" remark in .35 was so offputting as to vitiate whatever
    serious you might have put after it.  If you want people to take you
    seriously and hear what you are saying, don't make smartass cracks - at
    least not without a smiley face or a "sarcasm alert" or both.
    
    -dick

>>    Wayne,
    
>>    You've missed the point of .37.  The facetious sarcasm of your "change
>>    your sex" remark in .35 was so offputting as to vitiate whatever
>>    serious you might have put after it.  If you want people to take you
>>    seriously and hear what you are saying, don't make smartass cracks - at
>>    least not without a smiley face or a "sarcasm alert" or both.
    
>>    -dick

	I must compliment you on your lucidity, Dick.  After having
	read this conference for a while, I'd have to say that you
	make a great deal of sense a great deal of the time.

	Just an observation.
	Di

    		( SARCASM ALERT )
    
    huggy huggy kissy kissy ;) ;) ;) wink wink geewiz golly gee
    
    
    
                                 wayne

    Re: .41
    
    SARCASM ALERT
    
    Wayne, you suck face divinely.
    
    Nudge nudge wink wink.
    
    -dick

    > First if you are ashamed to be a man change your sex.

    O.K. if your ashamed to be a man because of your politics of corrected
    posture. Opt a lobotomy! Winky-winky. Nudge-nudge.:)