Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I think it's keen!
    
    Ray

    re:.0
    
    How can you enjoy being a member of the oppressor class?
    
    That's disgusting!
    
    
    	in sisterhood
    	michael (getting in touch with my feminine side ... ooh-er!)

    I'm so glad
    I'm so glad
    I'm sad, I'm sad, I'm sad.
    

    Mike,
    
    Can I touch that fem side too oo-er!

    
    
    The questions here is "Why wouldn't you want to be a woman"?
    
    
    djm
    

    
    spend less on clothes, for one thing.
    
    can go bald and not feel selfconcious, for another.

    .-1

    on this subject, i over'heard one day in the frozen-section that some
    women do not mind men who are bald too, iam not worried too much about
    it myself because it is hereditary, but if i did get bald too i'll
    also not be self consensus, the way i look at it , if a woman wants
    to love me for my hair then i dont need her love, we are tired to
    be look at by women as just hair on some heads, we are much more
    than that, yes we are too.

    /nasser

     Glad to be a man? Well, not this minute, but usually I am...

    re: .1
    	Shaving???
    
    	All of the hair on my head gets a trim at about the same time, and
    no, I don't shave the top of my head every day.
    
    Bald head, long beard = probably male
    Bald chin, long hair  = ??
    
    	Dave, slightly balding, but having a hell of a job disentangling
    his chin whenever he is forced to wear a tie...  ;-)

    re .7
    
>    No, the question is, "why are you happy to be a man?"  It is not
>    necessary for men to define themselves in terms of women, you know.
    
    If this were so then why the anguish about masculinity and femininity?

    I'm genuinely curious to see how you would argue that you define one
    without reference to the other.

    Forgive my frivolousness, Mike, but I chuckled at the turn of
    pharse "short end of stick" when discussing men in that sentence.
    I am haning my head in shame!
    
    Seriously, I do think it is possible to make comments regarding the
    goodness of manhood/womanhood without necessarily comparing the two.
    I can tell you what I think is good about being a woman without making
    the comparision, at least verbally, to men.  Perhaps there is an 
    inherent comparision at work on a sub-concious level, but I don't
    think one needs to bring up an opposing/complimentary attribute of
    a woman to state something good about a man.
    
    Christine

	...and why would men call innate parts of themselves 'feminine' instead
	of seeing all of it as being themselves, men, and therefore masculine
	(too).

	I agree, it is not necessary for men to define themselves in terms of
	women.  But they do it all the time, particularly when they alienate
	parts of themselves and some of their natural qualities (being a male)
	by calling them 'feminine' or "their 'feminine' side" which suggests
	that it's not masculine (too) and that it should not be there in them
	in the first place (as a male) and that it is a weakness or a
	deficiency to hide from other men and to be ashamed of.  Calling it
	feminine makes it easier to stomach as it makes it 'other' instead
	accepting that it is still being a (natural) man and being (naturally)
	masculine as well.

    Seems I'm in the minority again, but I simply don't see how masculinity
    and femininity have any meaning in isolation.  To say, "I'm glad to be
    a man" automatically excludes the statement "I'm glad to be a woman". 
    So, what is it about manhood that is so great that it should be
    celebrated?  
    
    Don't get me wrong.  I do think that men and women are not identical
    psychologically, that there are states of being called manhood and
    womanhood which can only be understood by those of the appropriate sex. 
    But, given that this nebulous thing (in the case of manhood) is not
    womanhood, or humanhood, can you define it in reference only to itself? 
    I don't see how you can, given that we define humanhood as the sum of
    manhood and womanhood.  If you define manhood (or masculinity)
    otherwise then you are taking it outside general humanity.
    
    This leads to some interesting conclusions.  If, manhood can indeed be
    defined in reference to itself, and without reference to womanhood,
    then there is no possibility of the two ever understanding each other.

>    This leads to some interesting conclusions.  If, manhood can indeed be
>    defined in reference to itself, and without reference to womanhood,
>    then there is no possibility of the two ever understanding each other.
    
    I must've missed some of the intervening logic in the proof.
    
    BTW, I would _never_ define an aspect of myself as "feminine".  There
    always seem to be more accurate adjectives.
    
    Ray

 I think that manhood can be defined without reference to womanhood, but
I think that without the contrast you tend to lose some of the richness
you otherwise find. I think you get a more complete understanding of what
it is to be a man when you don't endeavor to exclude what it means to be
a woman.

 This said, I am sensitive to Mike's position regarding the use of contrast
when defining manhood. Men are frequently looked down upon as being barbaric
and other unsavory adjectives particularly when compared to women. As there
are sufficient such instances, we should avoid that entire morass in order
to maintain decorum if nothing else.

 I certainly think that we can define and describe men and manhood without
resorting to talking down women and womanhood. I think that should be a
goal in this discussion. And I also don't think there is any good reason
to try to make it seem that either gender is 'better' than the other. That
seems to merely detract from the conversation.

 I'd like to see a positive discussion on what it means to be a man, what 
we consider manhood to be, etc that focuses on the essence of man. By positive
I mean that we should refrain from saying things like "well, we're not weak"
with the implied "like women" and stuff like that. And it's perfectly ok to
describe limitations of being a man, shortcomings etc.

>	I agree, it is not necessary for men to define themselves in terms of
>	women.  But they do it all the time, particularly when they alienate
>	parts of themselves and some of their natural qualities (being a male)
>	by calling them 'feminine' or "their 'feminine' side" which suggests
>	that it's not masculine (too) and that it should not be there in them
>	in the first place (as a male) and that it is a weakness or a
>	deficiency to hide from other men and to be ashamed of.  Calling it
>	feminine makes it easier to stomach as it makes it 'other' instead
>	accepting that it is still being a (natural) man and being (naturally)
>	masculine as well.

 This really says alot, IMO. I see this all the time, in myself and in other
men.

 I'm reluctant, sometimes, to behave according to how I feel because sometimes
I concern myself with what I think I ought to be doing or how I should be
reacting to a particular situation. Two examples I can think of right off
the bat are hugging and crying. Some situations make me want to cry; there
was a section of a program that showed the AIDS quilt, and I could see the
pain and love that quilt represented. I could have cried, it affected me so
deeply. But instead I simply detached myself from that emotion and within seconds
I no longer had to fight back the tears. There just weren't any coming. It 
wouldn't be "manly" for tears to flow, so I've suppressed that side of myself.
It's now at the point where it's pretty rare for tears to well up in my eyes
even when it would be ok for them to do so. It's almost like I _can't_ cry,
especially when something bad happens to me. 

 I love hugging. It makes me feel good emotionally and physically. I hug
(some of) my friends fairly regularly. But I'm only comfortable hugging 
female friends. To hug a male would be considered unmanly. "What if they thought
I was gay or something?" I find myself thinking. I'm not sure how much of
my uncomfortableness would be a product of simple socialization and how much
would be more innate, but I would not be comfortable at all hugging another guy.
With the exception of guys in my family. And if I knew the guy was gay, that 
would _really_ make me uncomfortable and eager to get it over with. Hugging
shares warmth and loving and caring. These may not be considered to be 
traditionally male characteristics but I submit they are part of being a guy
and are therefore masculine.

 Even the biggest, toughest bastards I've ever met have had these feelings
of warmth and caring and love. Every one. Sometimes you really had some
armor to pierce to find it, but it has always been there. The most heartless,
despicable man you've ever met has this soft, white underbelly. It's this
vulnerability that many men fear more than anything. it's not an easy thing
for men to share or even talk about. It's easier to deny, that's for sure.
But in the end, whom do you think that denial shortchanges?

 The Doctah

    re:.18
    
    Darn, just when I thought I had PC NewSpeak down pat, someone goes and
    changes all the mantras on me!
    
    I guess it's un-PC these days to use the phrase "feminine side?"
    
    Please excuse me!  I'm such an oppressor! I'm ready for my 10 lashes
    with a wet noodle now ...

    Mikey, one does not flog a child, not even a smarty-pants little boy. 
    
    One does, however, sometimes attempt to reason with a child.  Therefore
    I ask you:  Are you  constitutionally unable to allow others to conduct
    a civilized discussion, or do you play these games in an attempt to get
    attention?

    re:.24
    
    "Child flogging?"
    
    Hey, if that's what you're into, who am I to judge?

    
    I don't mind being male.  It's what I am, I have no desire to 
    change that.
    
    I just don't like the stereotype that is associated with my gender.
    
    /Mitch.
    
    
    

    re .26
    
    Mitch, to be absolutely clear, is it that you are glad simply to be who
    you are, to which being male is incidental?  Does it follow that to you
    being a man is nothing particularly special?  I ask simply to
    distinguish between this and those who feel being a man is somehow
    special and worthy of celebration, to whom I then ask (as I have): why?

    Men can drink out of pint glasses respectably.
    
    Men can go out at night on their own without being seen as " forward"
    or " cheap ".
    
    Men can command respect and authority far easier than women, who have
    to fight and complain about " equal rights " to extract it, or else be
    two to three times better than a man in the same job.
    
    Men are better fighters and seldom get robbed, molested .....or worse...
    
    Men can overtake other men on the road without being subjected to a 
    "Harvey Smith".
    
    Men can dawdle down the same road at 40 m.p.h , blocking a long line of
    traffic without being called " a typical lady driver".
    
    Men don't get severe back-strain and funny tummy troubles from a second
    pregnancy.
    
    Nor do they have to endure labour.
    
    Men are not socially obliged to enter into childcare, it is still
    optional for them.
    
    Working fathers don't get blamed for juvenile delinquency, drug-taking,
    rising crime, the recession, rap music, or ravers on ecstacy.
    
    Men can become priests,bishops,archbishops and popes and get to say
    nasty threatening things about sin and damnation to their flocks.
    
    Non-clerical men do not take these nasty things about sin and damnation
    very seriously.
    
    Men, or should I say boys, did not have to wear school uniforms in my
    day. ( I notice that they have to wear them nowadays and find it very
    humiliating.)
    
    20-30 years after equal rights legislation, men still earn more money
    than women.
    
    

    What's a "Harvey Smith"?
    
    -- Mike

    Harvey Smith is a well-known show-jumping star, who, some years ago
    made TV history by giving an obscene gesture to the judging panel
    during a televised event. THe well-known gesture which is a reverse of
    the Churchillian "V" for victory and has a totally different meaning.
    
    It is well beloved by macho drivers and others in this country.
    

    
    I'm glad I'm a man because I don't have any excuses for failure.  If
    I want something, I _have_ to go out there and get it rather than wait
    on some law to be passed or some government program to give it to me.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .33  Fred
    
    > I'm glad I'm a man because I don't have any excuses for failure.
    
    ...none, that is, except claims of reverse discrimination, male-
    bashing, bias in the family court system (when it comes to divorce
    and child custody disputes,) etc., etc., etc.
    
    > If I want something, I _have_ to go out there and get it rather than wait
    > on some law to be passed or some government program to give it to me.
    
    Does this mean you don't support changes in the family court system
    that might eliminate possible bias against men?

>     Mitch, to be absolutely clear, is it that you are glad simply to be who
>     you are, to which being male is incidental?  
    
    You got it.
    
>    Does it follow that to you
>     being a man is nothing particularly special? 

    Being a man is not particularly special to me.  Some people have to 
    be male, some have to be female, or else it's difficult to propogate 
    the species.
    
    Being Mitch Lichtenberg is special.  There's only one of me, and
    for better or worse, I'm glad I'm the only one.  It doesn't matter 
    what type of casing I'm housed in... at least it shouldn't.

    The messed-up stereotypes and expectations of our societies impose
    all these brain-dead ideas of separating people by what role they
    play in reproduction.  It's silly.
    

    ... bottom line ... every time I see the long lines at the women's rest
    rooms ... and I can go diddy-boppin' in the men's room - no waiting - and
    do my thing ... I'm darned glad that I'm a man.
    
    Bubba

    re .33
    
    >Does this mean you don't support changes in the family court system
    >that might eliminate possible bias against men?
    
    It means that if I had set around waiting for this to happen my
    kids would still be living in the getto.
    
    fred();

    RE: .37  Fred
    
    >>Does this mean you don't support changes in the family court system
    >>that might eliminate possible bias against men?
    
    > It means that if I had set around waiting for this to happen my
    > kids would still be living in the getto.
    
    If you weren't able to get custody of your kids, it would have been
    entirely your own fault, then?  (And other men who still don't have
    custody of their kids are to blame for *their* failure, is that the
    idea?)
    
    Your original note did say: "I'm glad I'm a man because I don't have
    any excuses for failure."  Doesn't this apply to other men, too?  
    Don't they also have no excuses for failure?

    re .38

    >Your original note did say: "I'm glad I'm a man because I don't have
    >any excuses for failure."  Doesn't this apply to other men, too?  
    >Don't they also have no excuses for failure?

    What this means is that you don't waste any time setting around
    waiting for some government program to hand you something.  If it's 
    going to be done, then you'd better get out the and get after it. 
    You can't make the excuse that your failure was due to the lack of
    some goverment program.  You have to look at what really went wrong
    and try to correct it.  Then when it's done you can take pride in your 
    accomplishments, knowing that they were due to your abilities and not 
    to some hand-out.
    fred();

    RE: .39  Fred
    
    > What this means is that you don't waste any time setting around
    > waiting for some government program to hand you something.  If it's 
    > going to be done, then you'd better get out the and get after it. 
    
    Oh, now you're describing my life, too.
    
    > Then when it's done you can take pride in your 
    > accomplishments, knowing that they were due to your abilities and not 
    > to some hand-out.
    
    Ok.  Thanks - I *do* take much pride in my accomplishments, so I guess
    your note comes under the subject "GLAD TO BE A MAN OR WOMAN."
    
    > -< It's a lot sweeter when it's earned >-
    
    You bet!  It's even sweeter to know that I don't have to rely on
    looking down on others to feel good about my accomplishments.

    re Mike
    
    Don't mind Suzanne too much.  We can always use a good example. 
    
    fred();

    RE: .41  Mike
    
    > Just can't help trashing notes about men, can you?
    
    Is it really so hard to accept that some men and women have aspirations
    and self-determination in common?  (Does it ruin too much of the fun
    and/or status of being male?)  :>
    

    RE: .42  Fred
    
    Is there anything at all that makes you "GLAD TO BE A MAN" that
    doesn't involve some perceived 'advantage' (your term) over women?
    
    You don't have to say so, but I couldn't help noticing that the
    'advantage' was the only thing you found worth mentioning in your
    first response to this topic.
    
    Never mind.

    	As soon as men begin enjoying themselves, some woe-man has to come
    in and ruin it.....sort a like that b*tch Eve who made a mess from the
    start........she even changed the wording from woe-men to women to fool
    everyone.....
    
    	Anyway, I like being a man. I enjoyed the four years of mayhem
    in the Far East, too bad it had to end........it fixed the the kid who
    was always picked on......it felt great coming back and extrcting some
    measure of revenge. Tostesterone.....hormone of champions!!!!
    
    K
    
    8^) What a way to end the day..... 

    re .44

    >Is there anything at all that makes you "GLAD TO BE A MAN" that
    >doesn't involve some perceived 'advantage' (your term) over women?

    Advantage _over_ women?????   There are no government programs giving
    _me_ preference over _anyone_.  To the contrary I am on the short end
    of the stick of said programs.  Therefore I _know_ that what I have
    and what I have accomplished have been, if anything, in spite of said 
    government preferences and programs.  What's more, no one can accuse me 
    of it either since there are _no_ programs of preferences where 
    I'm concerned.

    fred();
    fred();

    RE: .46  Fred
    
    > -< It's easy for me to know >-
    
    It also makes it easy to lord it over all women since you can assume
    that none (or very few) women are successful because they worked hard
    for it.
    
    > Advantage _over_ women?????   There are no government programs giving
    > _me_ preference over _anyone_.  To the contrary I am on the short end
    > of the stick of said programs.  Therefore I _know_ that what I have
    > and what I have accomplished have been, if anything, in spite of said 
    > government preferences and programs.  What's more, no one can accuse me 
    > of it either since there are _no_ programs of preferences where 
    > I'm concerned.
    
    Without knowing anything at all about a person (except the color of
    his/her skin and/or the fact that she's a woman,) you can make all
    the false assumptions and accusations you like about the person's
    ability or hard work.
    
    Yes, this is an advantage.  You can claim to be better than someone
    else strictly on the basis of your skin color and sex.  (So what
    else is new?  We've known about this for centuries.)

    RE: .47  Mike Smith
    
    > It's just that for once, I thought it might be nice...
    
    It would be nice to think there's more to like about being a man
    beyond being able to lord it over women.
    
    As the mother of a son, I'd very much like to know the good aspects
    of being male (beyond the obvious one of having the 'advantage' of
    being able to lord it over women.)  I get the impression that my son
    isn't too interested in that one anyway.

    re .49, maybe there aren't any other advantages to being a man than
    being able to lord it over women!!!  (Bigger, stronger, make more
    money, can't get pregnant, don't have menstrual cramps, can stand-up
    going to the bathroom....)  What else is good about being a man?  
    
    I can't think of anything else, but then I'm not a man.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Lorna,
    
     Lordy lordy you forgot the most important one of all. One of the
    greatest trills of being a man is to listen to the cackle of the
    women :-) And then go to the bar and talk about them. What do you
    say guys, beer ans shots onme tonight :-)
    
    Incoming,
    David

    
    Mike,
    
     If you remember, please bring that Ken and Barbie male domination
    kit. I still need practice keeping barbie barefoot and pregnant
    in the kitchen... :-)
    
    David

    
    Great male bonding demo, you guys.
    
    Now all you need to do is spit on the same spot and belch.
    
    :-)
    

    
    
    ...only if there are no ladies present :-)
    
    Scratch scratch
    :-)

    re Suzanne,Lorna

    The biggest advantage I have is that I don't have a lot of 
    "minority leaders" telling me I can't do something unless there
    is first some government program or special consideration handed
    to me.

    re Mike,David,
    Sorry, won't be able to join you.  I'm going to have to go home
    and build my self esteem back up by bullying and ordering my wife
    around after Suzanne and Lorna so masterfully tore me down to size.
    ;^).
    fred();

    
    i'm convinced they're subspecies of the hasan mutlu virus. 

    
    
    -1
        I hate it when I don't know if i've been insulted :-)
    
    David

    *Sigh*.  And it was such a promising topic...

 No such thing as a promising subject anymore. Make a serious attempt at
discussion, and you get ignored. It's so much more fun to just one up each
other with insults and disparagements. When I saw the number of replies had more
than doubled, I thought there might be a chance that some communication had
taken place. Silly me!

>I thought there might be a chance that some communication had
>taken place. Silly me!
    
    Me too.
    
    Anyway, I think Fred has missed the boat.  I'm not concerned about
    being a man in society, I'm concerned about the notion of manhood (or
    masculinity), which should be universal, hence my question to Mitch
    way, way back.

    
    -1-2
    
      Okay I will pay my pennance. Here goes. Being a man has never changed
    in regards to the hardware requires, however, the software is being
    re-written everyday. Hence, I believe for myself as a man the most
    important things are to decide for myself what is right or wrong, and
    to be a man by acting on these convictions. Do not let others force you
    into accepting the new software without analyzing it thoroughly....
    
    David

     I'd like to take a stab at answering David's (UTROP1::SIMPSON_D)
     questions...
    
.27> Mitch, to be absolutely clear, is it that you are glad simply to be who
.27> you are, to which being male is incidental?  Does it follow that to you
.27> being a man is nothing particularly special?

     Yesterday, I turned forty.  Statistically speaking, my life is half over.
     There's NO one else (male or female) whom I'd rather be...  Circumstances
     in my life have caused me to lead a life that has been very deliberate as
     opposed to serendipitous, and, I see the last half of my life being even
     more deliberate than the first half (it is my belief that deliberation
     breeds maturity).  I have an inclination to want to agree with Simpson's 
     conjecture that "being a man is nothing particularly special", however, I
     am not so sure of my ability (nor anyone else's) to be mentally androgynous
     although it's an exercise I often perform.  Being a Man has allowed me to
     be HUSBAND to my woman and FATHER to my children.  I made a commitment to
     do justice to the terms HUSBAND and FATHER and would expect women to 
     likewise make the same type of commitment to the terms WIFE and MOTHER but
     what I see happening is women committing to the term WOMAN, instead.  This
     note in this file is backlash to the term WOMAN.

     Both Men and Women can't be "captains of their own destiny" on the Sea of
     Serendipity...

    I'm glad Im a man, as opposed to being a flatworm.  I like to think my
    appreciation of the world around me is better than the average
    planarian's.
    
    -dick

    re .64, I don't understand what you mean by your last statement that
    "both men and women can't be captains of their own destiny."  Why not? 
    Or, what does it mean?  Does it mean that somebody has to be the boss? 
    I don't get it?
    
    And, actually I really do wonder why men might be glad that they are
    men.  I can think of pluses and minuses to being either gender.  I'm
    glad I'm a woman, but I don't think I would be if there were no men. 
    If there were no men it wouldn't make any difference.
    
    Lorna
    

    re. 62
    
>    Anyway, I think Fred has missed the boat.  I'm not concerned about
>    being a man in society, I'm concerned about the notion of manhood (or
>    masculinity), which should be universal, hence my question to Mitch
>    way, way back.
    
    Is there any difference?  Do you dare say anything good about being
    a man without getting thoroughly trashed by the envy/hate groups?
    
    fred();

    re .66
    
>    glad I'm a woman, but I don't think I would be if there were no men. 
>    If there were no men it wouldn't make any difference.
    
    Does this mean that you agree with my very early statement that manhood
    and womahood cannot be defined or understood without reference to the
    other?

    re .67
    
>    Is there any difference?  Do you dare say anything good about being
    
    Yup, there's a big difference.  If you like being a man because in
    society this means you get to do x, then that's not what I'm talking
    about because it's quite possible men don't get to do x in another
    society.
    
    I'm wondering what it is, universally, that would make a man glad to be
    a man and hence not a woman.
    
    For example, (NOTE: men means men generally and women means women
    generally, but I'm not going to type the qualifier every time), men
    like large muscle movement.  Women don't.  There are sound
    physiological reasons for this.  For men, large muscle movement
    (swinging of the arms through their full extension, the hip movement
    during intercourse, etc.) is distinctly pleasurable.  It's just part of
    being a man.  Therefore, question: is this part of what we mean when we
    say we are glad to be men?  Or do we mean something quite different?
    
    Why is it that to a certain extent men like being only with men?  Is it
    purely cultural?  Or is there something about being a man to which only
    men relate?

    RE: .67  Fred
    
    >> Anyway, I think Fred has missed the boat.  I'm not concerned about
    >> being a man in society, I'm concerned about the notion of manhood (or
    >> masculinity), which should be universal, hence my question to Mitch
    >> way, way back.
    
    > Is there any difference?  Do you dare say anything good about being
    > a man without getting thoroughly trashed by the envy/hate groups?
    
    *Is* there anything good about being a man beyond launching into your
    own envy (about what you regard as handouts and special programs)
    and hate about it?
    
    It would be like asking women why they're glad to BE women and giving
    the "Fred" response of "Yeah, I'm glad to be a woman because it means
    I don't need to spend all my time resisting the urge to rape and murder 
    others."
    
    Isn't there something good about being a man that isn't simply a
    putdown of women?  (I have a son - I'd really like to know.)

    
    
    Then lets try the age old fact that nobody is going to try to mug
    something that looks like it's going to mug them first, and if they
    do try, I am more capable of defending myself and loved ones from
    such attack.
    
    fred();

    RE: .71  Fred
    
    Ok, Fred.  I can see your point on this one (this reason.)
    
    (By the way, I don't regard myself as the best protection for anyone,
    but the safest I've ever felt in my life was with a woman friend who
    took me around Boston.  She's had extensive training - similar to
    the training police get - in firearms.  She's also won awards at such
    events over all the police present.  She's not extremely tall, but
    I was aware during our trip around Boston that she was ready and
    capable of protecting us as much as anyone I've ever known could be.)
    
    This is one reason why I'm joining the NRA, by the way.

    re .68, yes, I think I probably do agree with your earlier statement.
    
    Lorna
    

    Perhaps we can gain something from the experiences of transexuals. 
    Those who become men report generally a feeling of strength; those who
    become women report increased passivity.  Why?  The extensive hormone
    treatments, obviously.  Is this what it boils down to?

    	It seems that a subject that started out fairly inoccuously has
    become a 'let's bash each other' discussion.  Why can't people just
    say, "hey, this is what I like about (fill in the blank)" without 
    having to explain themselves to everyone.  What ever happanned to 
    respecting others' opinions and tollerance????  I've just started 
    reading this conference (about a week ago) and so far all I've seen
    is mud slinging.  I'm really starting to think that the only reason
    people respond in this file is to get everybodies gander up.  Why
    doesn't everyone try acting like an adult and stop using stupid
    incorrect spellings, and "yes you are, no I'm not" discussions.
    I believe that there is a middle ground on every issue but society
    seems to want to swing to either the left or right on every issue.
    Let's just see what other people think for a change and not pass
    judgement.
    
    There....that feels better 8^)
    
    Tom

    RE: .75  Tom
    
    > There....that feels better 8^)
    
    It does feel good to speak your mind (even if bothers some others,)
    yes?  This is why it's been so popular here (and elsewhere.)
    
    Watch out, though.  It can be habit-forming.  :>
    

    	Tom....
    
    	After you've been in this file for awhile, you'll realize that you
    are not politically correct unless you are of color, gay, or some other
    minority. If you do not embrace the feminist agenda, you are part of
    the problem of the world. If you do embrace homosexuality as a true
    form of alternative lifestyle, you are a homophobe. This was a
    notesfile of topics of interest to men.......as long as the topic
    includes a liberal viewpoint.
    
    Ken

    
    
    re .39
    
    Does this mean that women just "waste time seeting around
    waiting for handouts"?  
    
    Just curious,
    Michele

    re. 44  advantages only etc.
    
    The very nature of the question: "What makes you glad to be a man" sort
    of demands an advantages type answer doesn't it?  If being a man is
    exactly the same as being a woman, (and being a man IS partially the
    same as being a woman) there is no difference and therefore no
    discussion, right?  In my eyes the differences are mostly disadvantages
    (can't have a baby) OR advantages (generally physically stronger). 
    Its all in the eye of the beholder as to whether a given difference
    is an advantage or disadvantage don't you think? 
    
    Jeff

    Why can't men and women HAVE their respective differences, advantages
    and disadvantages without the other sex tearing the opposite sex to
    pieces for enjoying those differences?  Nothing I could do about being
    born a male, I had no choice that I know of.  Since I am a male I am
    going to enjoy the attributes being a man gives me.  If I were a woman
    I would do the same thing except as a woman.
    
    Barbie barefood and pregnant huh?  Well I thought it was funny.
    
    Jeff

    re .80, well, I guess the problem comes in when one considers that in
    some areas men have had many more advantages and choices than women
    have had, especially concerning the opportunity to make a lot of money,
    and pursue certain professions.  If you have been a female, who came of
    age in the 1930's, for example, and had had a burning desire to be an
    engineer, or brain surgeon or President of the U.S., you would have
    perhaps led a rather unfullfilling life.
    
    THis has all been said a zillion times before,though, so I find it
    tiresome that there are people who aren't aware of it.
    
    On the other hand, if you were born male and had a burning desire to
    wear dresses, make-up, and get pregnant, you'd also be unfulfilled,
    even today.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .79  Jeff
    
    > The very nature of the question: "What makes you glad to be a man" sort
    > of demands an advantages type answer doesn't it?  
    
    Sure.  It's also possible to state such answers WITHOUT using [paraphrase
    alert!] "I'm just glad to be 'x' because it means I don't have to be a 
    rotton ole 'y' and do all the terrible, awful things they do."
    
    As mentioned before, it would be like saying, "I'm glad to be a woman
    since it means I don't have to spend all my time trying to keep myself
    from raping or murdering others."  [No, I don't really feel this way.]
    
    Is it really necessary to describe the good things about being x or y by
    describing them in terms of how horrible it would be to have to resort
    to the perceived or stereotyped actions/behaviors of y or x?  I hope not.
    Geeesh!

    
    
    .. I liked the Barbie thing too.
    
    Suzanne -1
    
      Good point.....
    
    David

>    re .80, well, I guess the problem comes in when one considers that in
>    some areas men have had many more advantages and choices than women
>    have had, especially concerning the opportunity to make a lot of money,
>    and pursue certain professions.

 This begs the question- even granting that your observation is true, does that
mean this is a good place to bring that up? We've heard the complaints about
how unfair life is for women, how men have all the advantages, etc millions
of times. I find it somewhat odd that in a place where men are trying to feel
good about who they are, that this has to be brought up (again.) In fact, I'd
venture to say that if a man were to use this sort of tactic in =wn=, he'd be
accused of derailing the topic and trying to prevent women from discussing
things.

 The fact that even given an absolute lack of female introduced distractions,
that we'd be lucky to acheive a dozen replies before a topic became bogged 
down with flailing is not lost on me.

    re .Mark, I was only attempting to respond to .80's question about why
    isn't it possible for people to say what is good about being either a
    man or a woman, without having someone of the opposite sex complain
    about the reply.  I was attempting to say that I think the reason some
    people might complain is because there are some people who aren't happy
    with whatever sex they were born, for various reasons.
    
    I wasn't trying to derail the topic, I was simply responding to his
    quetion.  I, also, haven't complained about anybody's reason for being
    glad they're a man.  I'm genuinely curious about why men would be glad
    they are men, since it's something I obviously can't experience myself
    - being glad I'm a man.
    
    Sorry if it seemed I was trying to derail the topic.  That wasn't my
    intention.
    
    Lorna
     

    RE: .85  Lorna
    
    > I was attempting to say that I think the reason some
    > people might complain is because there are some people who aren't happy
    > with whatever sex they were born, for various reasons.
    
    It's also possible for people who are HAPPY with whatever sex they
    were born, for various reasons, to question it when someone else's
    happiness is expressed in terms of "I'm glad I'm 'x' because I couldn't
    stand being a nasty ole 'y'" [paraphrased.]  Imagine how offensive it
    would have sounded if someone had asked the question, "Are you glad 
    you're white?"
    
    Meanwhile, as Mom to a son, I dislike the idea that some men seem to
    feel that there isn't much left to celebrate about being a man without
    sounding like they're lording it over women (or whatever.)
    
    As a Mom, especially, I wish there were some better answers.

>    have had, especially concerning the opportunity to make a lot of money,
>    and pursue certain professions.  If you have been a female, who came of
>    age in the 1930's, for example, and had had a burning desire to be an
>    engineer, or brain surgeon or President of the U.S., you would have
>    perhaps led a rather unfullfilling life.

Hmmmm.  1992-1930 = 62 years.  Any more recent examples?

    
    well this is the typical whine that we hear, mindless of the fack
    that today wimmin with the will and intestinal fortitude to be
    brain surgeons, do so.
    
    those that lack the initiative/gifts to brain surgeon amd cannot accept
    that they might have lacked something in the execution fall back on 
    pointing to ghosts of long-dead patriarchs and cry about the unfairness 
    of it all.
    

    RE: .88  Robert Holt
    
    > those that lack the initiative/gifts to brain surgeon amd cannot accept
    > that they might have lacked something in the execution fall back on 
    > pointing to ghosts of long-dead patriarchs and cry about the unfairness 
    > of it all.
    
    You could also say that those men who lack the initiative/gifts to
    be custodial parents and cannot accept that they might have lacked
    something in the execution fall back on pointing to imagined injustices
    in the family court system and cry about the unfairness of it all.
    
    But, of course, you'd never even think such things about men.

>    You could also say that those men who lack the initiative/gifts to
>    be custodial parents and cannot accept that they might have lacked
>    something in the execution fall back on pointing to imagined injustices
>    in the family court system and cry about the unfairness of it all.
 
 Yeah, but that would be a lie.   

    RE: .91  The Doctah
    
    >> You could also say that those men who lack the initiative/gifts to
    >> be custodial parents and cannot accept that they might have lacked
    >> something in the execution fall back on pointing to imagined injustices
    >> in the family court system and cry about the unfairness of it all.
 
    > Yeah, but that would be a lie.   
    
    Yeah, right.  It's only true when similar statements are made about women.
    
    (And then, after such statements are repeated yet again, they're followed
    by claims that the only 'unfairness' against women came from some long-
    dead ancient patriarchs and never, never, never from the totally and
    completely innocent men alive today.)
    
    It's a pretty decent scam you folks have going there, all in all.

    re .88, equality between the sexes is not when a female genius can
    achieve the same as a male genius, equality is when an average female 
    schmuck can achieve the same as an average male schmuck.  We're a long
    way from that day, otherwise there would be a lot more average female
    schmucks in engineering and middle management, and a lot less average
    male schmucks in engineering and middle management.
    
    re all the men who write in here - Don't blame me or Suzanne if you are
    all too unimaginative to be able to come up with an interesting
    discussion on why you are glad you are men.
    
    Lorna
    

    Glad to be a Man because:
    
    	Mankind (especially Men) have created the greatest masterpieces of
    art and literature.
    
    	Because I enjoy being a strong shoulder for my wife.
    
    	Carrying on the tradition of my family's name, something my sister
    ordinarily can not or will not do.  Giving my father's father's name to
    our children, and the history of the Men who have borne it.
    
    	Because I like being the one the family expects to help out my
    grandparents.  My grandfather is unable to work in his yard anymore,
    but he likes it when I come over to help him.  My grandmother is
    appreciative of me doing things about her house and getting granddad
    out of her hair for a while.  They do not expect this of my female
    relatives.
    
    	I do not like the idea that because I am a Man who happens to be 
    gentlemanly, people expect me to be some sort of vile, oppressive 
    chauvinist.  I, as a Man, do not like being blamed as the reason women
    feel that they do not have equality of opportunity.  I'm all for
    guaranteed equality of opportunity, but I am against guaranteed equality 
    of outcome.
    
    	I like opening door, holding chairs, offering my seat on a bus or
    train to a woman or elderly person, and rising when ladies come into a
    room - I know my grandparents would be proud and I feel good doing so. 
    Manners seem to be going out of style, and I for one, regret that fact.
    
    George
    
    room 
    
    	

    RE: .95  Mike Smith
    
    Obviously, in a society dominated by males, it's going to get a bit
    touchy when males respond to questions like "why are you glad to be
    a man" with evidence that they take credit (as men) for all or most
    of the good/important things that have been accomplished by our
    species.
    
    It reminds me of David Duke (in his "rights for whites" movement)
    when I saw him state that the whole foundation of our country for
    the past few centuries has been built on the talent and hard work 
    of white people (white males in particular.)  He doesn't bother to
    acknowledge that it's kinda difficult to offer such talents when
    you're chained up as the property of someone else or not allowed
    to participate as a full citizen.  Less than half of the people
    in our country even had voting rights (until this century.)
    
    Bragging about the fruits of domination is bound to be a touchy
    subject.

    re: .96
    
    	Most of the great works that I appreciate were created during the
    Renaissance.  At that time, women achieved nearly the same level of
    "rights" as men (talking about the noble, merchant or artisan classes,
    peasants had little rights, male or female).  Many women were de facto 
    dukes or princes in their own right, without needing to be shored up by 
    men.  So yeah, I do like the tradition of creation that goes with being a 
    Man.  I may not be able to give birth to a child, but if I have the talent
    and inclination, I can create a work of art.
    
    George
    

    RE: .97  George
    
    > So yeah, I do like the tradition of creation that goes with being a 
    > Man.  I may not be able to give birth to a child, but if I have the talent
    > and inclination, I can create a work of art.
    
    **IF** you have the talent and inclination, you can create a work of
    art.
    
    The same is true for me (or any other woman.)

    By the way, George, your remarks about "creativity" also remind me
    of the statement my co-workers made to me in 1974 (during my junior
    year of college) when I started working as a television camera
    operator.
    
    They said something along the lines of "Women can't do this job."
    When I asked why (since the cameras were on wheels, after all, and
    didn't need to be carried across the studio floor,) they said, 
    "Running camera takes creativity and sensitivity."
    
    I laughed, "And you don't think women are creative or sensitive???"
    
    They changed their minds about all this later, of course.

    re: .98
    
    	We all have a bit of the Divine within us, that spark that men call
    a soul.  Artists and poets, et al. have expressed their soul throughout
    the millennia through their art and skills, striving against the dark.  
    How can I *not* try to nurture that same spark within me?  How can I
    not strive to make something good for those who follow?
    	Artists and all have laid down the tradition with their works, who
    am I not to continue their example?  Just as we strive for a humane &
    just world, shouldn't we strive for our kith & kin too? 

    re: .99
    
    	Sorry, never have said nor ever believed women were not at least as
    creative or sensitive as men, nor do I believe there are many jobs they
    can not do.  Hell, women have men beat hands down when it comes to
    creation, they can bear children.  All we men can do is help with the
    initial conception and then stand around with our thumbs up our
    collective a$$es until the birth happens.
    	Women have also written and sculpted and painted things that have
    affected me as much as men's works, but there just isn't as much of it
    out there.  It is not a denigration on women, but men have created most
    of the lasting works of art in our history.  I'm not saying that is
    right or wrong, but it is the way things are and nothing we can do will
    change that.

    RE: .100  George
    
    > We all have a bit of the Divine within us, that spark that men call
    > a soul. 
    
    Whatever it's called, it does exist in *all* of us (not just men.)
    
    > Artists and poets, et al. have expressed their soul throughout
    > the millennia through their art and skills, striving against the dark.  
    > How can I *not* try to nurture that same spark within me?  How can I
    > not strive to make something good for those who follow?
 
    Fine.  Nurture the spark all you like.  Just recognize that it isn't
    a spark confined only to men.  (And please, if you have daughters,
    don't tell them not to bother striving for the same thing since they
    are not men.)
    
    > Artists and all have laid down the tradition with their works, who
    > am I not to continue their example?  Just as we strive for a humane &
    > just world, shouldn't we strive for our kith & kin too? 
    
    Strive all you like.  Just keep in mind that the key criteria for such
    goodness is not a Y chromosome.
    
    Prejudice against half the human race isn't a good tradition to keep
    passing down to more and more generations.  We've had enough of it.

    RE: .101  George
    
    > It is not a denigration on women, but men have created most
    > of the lasting works of art in our history.  I'm not saying that is
    > right or wrong, but it is the way things are and nothing we can do will
    > change that.
    
    It doesn't mean, however, that you (as a male) have any more claim to
    pride for these works of art than any other human being (including
    women.)
    
    When you say, "So yeah, I do like the tradition of creation that goes with 
    being a Man.  I may not be able to give birth to a child, but if I have 
    the talent and inclination, I can create a work of art" - it sounds to
    me as if you're saying that this 'ability' is a difference between men
    and women.
    
    It isn't (and you can't change this.)

    
    Been a while. Thought I'd see if mennotes had become mennotes yet.
    Nope, same as it ever was with the same old doing the same old.
    
    The lack of respect for the men who for some reason continue to
    note here continues to amaze me. The lack of reasonable moderation,
    however, doesn't. 
    
    

    RE: .106  Hank
    
    The level of whining about men not being able to get away with claiming
    their rightful place as Superior ("Men" with a capital M) over women
    and the discussion this attitude generates never ceases to amaze me.
    
    (It's *never* surprised me, though.)
    

    re: .94.  George, I think you hit the nail on the head.  Why is it that
    the two women who are the primary respondants to this note have to
    denigrate every word placed in this note?  Every accomplishment of
    every man that has evered lived is not due to domination over women,
    some are actually because of talent.  While I agree wholeheartedly
    that women were not allowed the same opportunities and choices as men
    for creation of that type, they have been endowed with a much more
    important and beautiful for of creation.  And I do think that women and
    men should both be given the same choices but I also think that because
    of the way that men and women are (for whatever reason) we will make
    different choices.  
    	I also have trouble agreeing with the statements that history has
    been nothing but one big oppression of women by men.  There were
    reasons beyond some kind of 'hard-wired' oppressive nature of men
    for the division of labor and the differences between the sexes.
    These reasons may not be valid now, but please realize that men
    do not have the sort of inclination towards domination for domination's
    sake that Suzanne and Lorna would have us believe.
    
    
    	Tom

    
    	"...I, as a Man, do not like being blamed as the reason women
    	feel that they do not have equality of opportunity..."
    
    It's amazing that women are considered worthy enough to be mentioned in
    the same sentence as deities.
    

    	Come off it will you?  You are really being childish and there is
    no reason for it.  If you have nothing but anger for men, than please
    find another topic because you are not contributing to any kind of
    constructive discussion here.
    
    Tom

    re: .111, I'm just sorry that one person is able to reduce a topic to this.
    
    And by the way, I also agree with much that I've seen from the feminist
    point of view in this file.
    
    Tom

    
    
    
    > " Women can't do this job"
    
    
       So are you able to see past the tree to the forest, or has the
    forest take on a new look beacuse of one tree?
    
    David

    
    
    > is not due to domination over women
    
     
     What, and I heard Michelango's succes was primarily due to the number
    of women he oppresed :-)
    
    
    Lighten up folks,
    David                  p.s. Why don't we create a side note for
                              discussing these NON- Glad to be a man
                              topics"..

    RE: .110  Tom
    
    > Come off it will you?  You are really being childish and there is
    > no reason for it.  If you have nothing but anger for men, than please
    > find another topic because you are not contributing to any kind of
    > constructive discussion here.
    
    I'm responding to the anger and hatred I see for women in this topic.
    
    I can't even imagine what it would be like to be so convinced that
    I belong to the only part of the human race that is capable of works
    of art.  
    
    The level of hatred for women must be staggering for so many human
    beings to hold such a belief (and I think the number of such humans
    is still, sadly, quite substantial.)
    

    RE: .114  David
    
    >> " Women can't do this job"
    
    > So are you able to see past the tree to the forest, or has the
    > forest take on a new look beacuse of one tree?
    
    Obviously, I knew it was a lie.  I knew (even before I won the
    Creative Writing Award for my entire school of 24,000 students)
    that women are creative.  I knew my male-coworkers were simply
    ignorant.
    
    As mentioned before, they did change their minds about this later,
    of course.

    re: .102
    
    >Fine. Nurture the spark all you like.  Just recognize that it isn't
    >a spark confined only to men.  (And plese, if you have daughters,
    >don't tell them not to bother striving for the same thing since they
    >are not men.)
    
    	Just how eaten up by this are you?  I *never* said nor intimated
    that women do not have souls.  And if I did have daughters, I'd be more
    than happy to support them in whatever they want to do.  
    	Look, you seem to be on something of a high horse.  You might want
    to come down from that rarified air to the real world.  Your
    expectations of men in general and me in particular have you
    misinterpreting just about everything I have placed in here.
    
    >Strive all you like.  Just keep in mind that the key criteria for such
    >goodness is not a Y chromosome.
    
    	Never said or thought that it was.
    
    >Prejudice against half the human race isn't a good tradition to keep 
    >passing down to more and more generations.  We have had enough of it.
    
    	Fine.  Attack someone who actively propagates it rather than
    jumping the case of someone who doesn't.  I do not now, nor have I
    ever, done anything to subjugate women or anything else you might find
    objectionable to women.  I do not strike them, nor do I "put them in
    their place" or do anything to keep them out of certain types of
    employment.  I've got too much to worry about when it comes to my own
    goals than to place obstacles in someone else's path.
    
    George
    
    

    re: .104
    
    	Just how flippin' PC do I have to be before you won't think I'm
    putting women down or saying they do not have souls?
    
    	I have not said that the ability of creation lies in men alone, but
    I have said that most of our lasting works of art and literature are
    the products of men's creativity.  I have made no observations on how
    just this may or may not be, nor have I said that women are
    intrinsically inferior to the male gender.
    	You are beginning to remind me of a bloodhound we once had.  His
    ability to find the true quarry got shot to hell, so he starting baying
    at everything he saw.  I think you may be barking up the wrong tree in
    this case.
    
    George
    

>    I can't even imagine what it would be like to be so convinced that
>    I belong to the only part of the human race that is capable of works
>    of art.  

So, anyone who makes the claim that "men" have such a monopoly should be
forced to go out and paint/compose/create a work of art :-).
    
>    The level of hatred for women must be staggering for so many human
>    beings to hold such a belief (and I think the number of such humans
>    is still, sadly, quite substantial.)

In your opinion, of course.  How many people here, other than you, felt
this level of hatred for women?

    RE: .118  George
    
    > Just how eaten up by this are you?  I *never* said nor intimated
    > that women do not have souls. 
    
    Nor did I claim you said this.  We were talking about creating works
    of art.
    
    > Your expectations of men in general and me in particular have you
    > misinterpreting just about everything I have placed in here.
    
    Fine.  If you didn't mean that artistic creativity (works of art)
    is a talent (or advantage) that men have over women when you wrote
    this, I apologize for misunderstanding you.  [If you did mean this,
    my other comments still stand, though]:
    
	    "So yeah, I do like the tradition of creation that goes with 
    	    being a Man.  I may not be able to give birth to a child, but 
            if I have the talent and inclination, I can create a work of art."

    	I first became interested in this file because it was supposedly
    for men's issues.  So far it seems like a file devoted to women who
    want hate men issues.  Suzanne, why don't you start a new note, like
    was suggested for the issues that you have.  I, and I would think any
    other noter, would have no problem with that, but this note was created
    for a different reason and if you haven't anything to say on the topic
    why don't you just create a new one?  I understand that you have alot
    of anger and frustration but it's no reason to try to crush every
    single thing that men feel that they can be glad about.  Just because
    you don't agree does not make them wrong and you right, it just means
    that you don't agree.  There is no right and wrong in being a man or
    woman, there is just being a man or woman.  There are great things and 
    not so great things about both.
    	One reason that I'm glad to be a man is simply becuase that's what
    I was born as and I'm glad to be me.  I am also glad to be a man
    because I'm able to enjoy the companionship of a woman and I feel that
    it helps both of us to grow.  Now you could also switch this around and
    I'm sure there are women who would say the same.
    
    Tom

>    Obviously, I knew it was a lie.  I knew (even before I won the
>    Creative Writing Award for my entire school of 24,000 students)
>    that women are creative. 

Well, your writing here certainly is creative, and imaginative :-) :-).

As you inferred, the best way to deal with these 'cannot do blah' is to
challenge the people saying them on the spot.  It may get brain cells to
fire enough so that they realize that person X really could do the job
(and without a whole lot of looking around actually HAS been doing the job).

    re: .107
    
    >The level of whining about men not being able to get away with
    claiming
    >their rightful place as Superior ("Men" with a capital M) over women
    >and the discussion this attitude generates never ceases to amaze me.
    
    	Do you mean to say that your interpretation is based on me using
    a capital "M" in Man and Mankind?  Man & Mankind has long been used as
    a collective to mean the entire race, both male and female, regardless
    of race, religion, sex or national origin.  This form has been used in
    literature for a coupla hunnerd years.  
    	If your interpretation is based on this, please, go back and view
    what I said without this particular bias.  I doubt you will find much
    to which you can object.
    
    George
    

    	Stop the presses.  I just realized that the best thing about being
    male to me is that I get to be a Father.  I can think of no other
    aspect of being a man that is so basic to our nature.  Being a Father
    has no connection with any kind of dominance over women, but it does
    have a connectivity to women that is more spiritual and visceral.  
    So that's it then, being a Father is the best perc of the job of being a 
    man.
    
    
    Tom

    RE: .124  Tom
    
    > I understand that you have alot of anger and frustration but it's no 
    > reason to try to crush every single thing that men feel that they can 
    > be glad about. 
    
    You don't seem to understand that I'm only responding to the hatred
    and anger I see here against women.
    
    > Just because you don't agree does not make them wrong and you right, 
    > it just means that you don't agree. 
    
    If someone implies that people of another sex or race are inferior,
    it's not too surprising to see others push back (no matter where the
    individuals happen to be.)
    
    The following statements are very close to how I would describe my
    enjoyment of being a woman:
    
    	"There is no right and wrong in being a man or woman, there is just 
    	being a man or woman.  There are great things and not so great things 
    	about both.
    	
    	"One reason that I'm glad to be a man is simply becuase that's what
    	I was born as and I'm glad to be me.  I am also glad to be a man
    	because I'm able to enjoy the companionship of a woman and I feel that
    	it helps both of us to grow.  Now you could also switch this around and
    	I'm sure there are women who would say the same."
    
    You said all that without describing the other sex as inferior in any
    way.  Thank you.
    
    It wasn't so difficult, was it?

    re: .108
    
    Tom,
    	There has to be some basis for Suzanne's & Lorna's actions - some
    truthful root to what they have to say about men.  Some man or men did
    something to them, but...
    	I just happen to like being a man.  I don't like it because I get
    to dominate women (I don't get the chance and don't see the appeal) but
    because of what I am as a man.
    	Men in general get a lot of bad press for the results of our
    forefathers' societies.  We as specific cases catch a lot of that same
    flak, even when we are not guilty of the oppression of which we are
    accused.  With any luck, that will change at the same rate that women
    gain equality and EEO & AA are no longer necessary.
    
    George
    

    	O.K.  I see where you are coming from but I think you misread what
    the other men in here are saying.  I don't see anger and hatred towards
    women.  I see a bunch of guys just letting off stream.  Don't women
    ever get together and have a man bashing session?  It's not only
    healthy it connects us to those of our own sex but it also lets us see
    just silly we can be sometimes when we really think about it.  I don't
    know many men who would say that they think women are inferior.  In
    fact many men I know are envious of women and really appreciate,
    respect, and admire them, myself included.  
    
    Tom
    
    

    re: 121
    
    Shelterer & Sheltered:
    	Okay, I'm probably setting myself up for some more lambasting :-),
    but yes, I do feel "protective". Or perhaps a feeling that I want to make 
    this person's life secure & comfortable, or shield them from the worst that
    the world has to offer.  I think it also happens to be an integral part
    of love, that each wants to make life easier for the other.
    
    George
    

    RE: .130  Tom
    
    > I don't see anger and hatred towards
    > women.  I see a bunch of guys just letting off stream.  Don't women
    > ever get together and have a man bashing session? 
    
    When a woman-bashing session starts describing women as not earning
    our positions in the world (as implied earlier in the topic) and not
    being capable of artistic creativity (as implied more recently,) it
    comes down to the notion that women are flat out inferior (and it's
    being stated where we WORK, for God's sake.)
    
    If we weren't involved in a centuries-long epidemic of women being 
    regarded as inferior in our culture, I wouldn't complain.  Who cares 
    what some of these guys think, after all.  
    
    Since we *are* involved (still) in such an epidemic, I see no reason
    not to push back against it (especially when I see it where we WORK.)
    
    > In fact many men I know are envious of women and really appreciate,
    > respect, and admire them, myself included.  
    
    Well, that's nice to hear.  Meanwhile, we still face the perceptions
    of inferiority in our culture (the centuries-old propaganda that does
    still, unfortunately, sometimes have negative effects on women's lives.)  
    
    If you like us so much, doesn't it bother you to know that these 
    implications of inferiority sometimes puts obstacles in the way of some 
    women's self-determination and aspirations?  If so, it isn't necessary
    to put up with it.

    
    
    
     Susan,
    
      Take a breath would yah please. I can guarantee you that you are
    loosing ground when the other noters perceive you as out of control.
    Create a seperate topic!!!!!
    
    David

    re: .133   Touche

    RE: .125  Joe
    
    > As you inferred, the best way to deal with these 'cannot do blah' is to
    > challenge the people saying them on the spot.  It may get brain cells to
    > fire enough so that they realize that person X really could do the job
    > (and without a whole lot of looking around actually HAS been doing the 
    > job).
    
    Actually, my 'challenge on the spot' only went as far as asking them if
    they really believed that women were not creative and sensitive.  They
    had no answer.  (I was new to the job of being a camera operator, so I
    couldn't claim to be already doing it.)
    
    Some of my co-workers were nice enough to let me know that I couldn't
    afford to ever make a serious enough mistake to stop tape, though,
    during television production.  They said that the one or two women
    who had tried camera were removed from the position permanently for
    one single mistake (and they were removed mid-show.)  Men were just
    yelled at for the same mistake.
    
    So - I came in on my days off to learn the job and I practiced during
    breaks before (and between) actual taping of the shows.  When everyone
    else took breaks, I urged them to sit on the set while I practiced zooming 
    and panning the camera between them.  I also came to work early to scout
    out the director (to find the camera blocking so I'd know which camera
    would have the most difficult/challenging shots in any show.)  I would
    put my sweater on the camera (to dubs it for myself) before anyone else
    knew what the camera blocking would be.  If someone got to the camera
    ahead of me, I'd bribe him with promises to clean up after BOTH our
    cameras if he'd switch with me (and they almost always went for it 
    since they knew they'd have plenty of other chances to get experience.)
    
    When we had special guests (with unusual opportunities for close-up
    camera work, such as plants with special tiny buds or blossoms on
    them,) I'd find out from the guests where these buds or blossoms were
    (and I'd ask them to point them toward my camera during shooting and
    to refrain from touching the plant or the table while my red light
    was on.)  No one else could ever find these tiny details on camera
    when guests would start talking about them.  No one ever seemed to
    notice that I would take the guests aside and plan out my shots ahead
    of time.  We did the tapings (video magazine style) so quickly, no
    one else ever took the time to get such details except me.
    
    I marked the TV guide every week for my shows (so I could critique my
    camera work for every show) and I showed up at the studio for post-
    production every chance I got (to watch my work on the studio monitors.)
    I went to post-production so often, they started scheduling me to do
    it as another job (since I was there anyway.)
    
    Shortly before I stopped working there, the studio supervisor was
    telling new cameramen to come in on THEIR days off to watch me (to
    catch all the little things I did to be good) so that they could
    learn.
    
    I never did make a mistake that caused the tape to be stopped, but
    I did react fast enough (more than once) to cover a director's
    mistake to KEEP tape from being stopped.

    RE: .133  David
    
    My name is Suzanne.
    
    > Create a seperate topic!!!!!
    
    Calm down!!!!!
    
    Geeeesh!  :>

    Sheltering:
    
    When I feel down or overwhelmed or a little lost I appreciate a little
    sheltering from my wife.  She is capable of that.  And sometimes she
    needs the sheltering and I play adult and provide it for her.  
    
    					- Vick

    
    
    S-U-Z-A-N-N-E :-)
    
    > calm down
    
      Fine, and while I am at it I will create the new topic " Suzanne's
    Axe to grind"..
    
    David

    I stopped reading this topic when I saw men responding along the lines
    of "I'm glad to be a man because that means I'm not a whining wussy who
    gets everything handed to them on a silver platter".  Well, that kind
    of implies that some group classified as "non-men" don't have to work
    to get recognition, comfort, whatever.  I assumed that this group must
    be "women" (although, judging from the file's past history, a more
    accurate classification would be "my ex-wife, that bitch"), a group
    among whom I include many friends, acquaintances, and heroes who've
    been forced to work harder due to their non-male status.  In fact, one
    of the reasons I'm glad to be a man is that I have things easier than
    women do. 
    
    I just looked at how the topic's developed.  No surprises, since I
    should've been able to predict the apparent later modification to "I'm
    glad to be a _white_ man..."
    
    I've had my differences with Suzanne, but she and Lorna have a point
    here.  They also have a lot more patience (stubborness, whatever) than
    I do.
    
    Ray

    RE: .140  jB^)
    
    > I took a look into womannotes it doesn't look like any of you 
    > women are glad to be women ?? 
    
    > or you would have started a topic over there .... 
    
    Oh, gee.  By this reasoning, then I guess you don't think any of the
    men here were glad to be men until the day THIS topic started, eh?
    
    C'mon.

    
    -.1 
    
    your right.. most men didn't think of this subject before,or I wouldn't 
    have had to think of it...  8^)  

    By the way, one advantage I see about being born a woman is that
    I was spared the 'trial by fire' that boys seem to have to go through
    while growing up in our culture (to prove themselves.)  I remember
    the times I'd pick up my 4 year old from school only to find him
    rolling on the ground in mortal combat with some other small boy
    (with both of them bleeding and their clothes torn.)  It seemed
    so unfair to me that boys should be put under that kind of societal
    pressure so soon (to prove themselves worthy of some of the physical 
    expectations our society holds for men.)
    
    I think society's high (and sometimes unreasonable) expectations of
    men puts them under more pressure to excel (and thus, at more risk
    of suicide) than most women.  Sure, it can also give a good boost
    to some men, but I'm not at all sure that the boost is worth the
    pressure it seems to put on some men.  It makes me concerned for
    my son.
    
    I wish the situation would change.

    
    > I was spared the 'trial by fire' that boys seem to have to go through
    while growing up in our culture(to prove themselves.) 
    
     unfortanetly you did experiance 'trial by fire' that's  part of life
    on life's terms.. besides   (to prove themself ? ) 
    
    jB^) 

    
    
    > I wish the situation would change
    
    
     It is. You women are jumping in to the " Trial by fire ".. Have fun
    
    
    David

.143> I remember the times I'd pick up my 4 year old from school only to find
.143> him rolling on the ground in mortal combat with some other small boy
.143> (with both of them bleeding and their clothes torn.)

      Ha, all this proves is that your son takes after his mother!

      Have a nice weekend...

    
    how she manages to get around with the huge chip on her shoulders 
    is beyond me. 
    
    anyway it must be a habit, the rabid ataque technique she uses even
    on people who partially agree, as if she requires total dominance
    and the last word instead of being satisfied with an exchange of 
    views.
    

    RE: .144  jB^) 
    
    > -<  Im glad your yourself... >-
    
    Thanks!
    
    
    RE: .145  David
    
    > It is. You women are jumping in to the " Trial by fire ".. Have fun
    
    I'm trying.  :>
    
    
    RE: .146
    
    > Ha, all this proves is that your son takes after his mother!
    
    I guess so (as did many of the other little boys at his schools over
    the years.)  :>
    
    
    RE: .147  RAH (Robert Holt)
    
    > -< purveyor of outrayygge to the trade >-
    
    Now, now.  You know, I saw it when you accused a woman in Soapbox of
    acting like me.  She said she took it as a compliment and YOU responded
    that it was meant as such.  (You wouldn't believe how many people sent
    me copies of that particular exchange.)  :>
    
    Take care, all.

    This topic is, if nothing else, exemplary proof that this conference
    desperately needs restricted topics, as in =wn=.  A topic such as this
    should be restricted to men only.
    
    Suzanne, FWIW, sometimes you'd learn more by shutting up.  If 1000 men
    had entered replies and all of them were extremes of mysogyny that is
    *not* the point.  Why men feel as they do, what they say about whether
    or not and why they are glad to be men, is as it is.  If this topic had
    been left to its own devices, and most particularly not derailed by
    you, then who knows what nuggets we might have found when sifting
    through the usual detritus of noting?  We might have found out
    something useful or important.
    
    As it is you've succeeded, yet again, in turning a topic by men, about
    men and presumably for men into an ideological battlefield.  In so
    doing you have, almost singlehanded, destroyed an opportunity for men
    to discuss things about themselves in the hope of discovering
    something.  The question of whether there is something special and
    unique about being a man cannot be helped and is certainly hindered by
    extraneous and irrelevant sociological and philosophical arguments.
    
    I just hope you're satisfied.  I, for one, am extremely disappointed. 
    I really hoped this topic would go somewhere.

    I don't think even =wn= has restricted topics [anymore].
    
    ed

    It does.  See, for example, 52.0 and 54.0.

    
    those topics are restricted only according to personal courtesy.
    see womannotes 1.* for details.
    
    -Jody

    Whatever.  I respect those restrictions and I can see the value in
    them.  We need the same thing here.  We need to create a space where
    men can talk with men about being men without having the ideologues
    trashing it.

    RE: .149  David
    
    > Suzanne, FWIW, sometimes you'd learn more by shutting up. 
    
    If you thought it would be educational to hear yet another round of
    'I'm so glad I'm not a nasty ole x' in response to "Are you glad you're
    a man," you give way too much credit to the power of incessant, century
    by century, decade by decade repetition.
    
    Meanwhile, David, your most typical response to nearly everything
    people say in =wn= is "Rubbish" (in your attempts to be deliberately
    disruptive and offensive - or "blunt," as you call it.)  I haven't
    asked you to get lost over there, though.
    
    Perhaps you should rethink your own participation in =wn= before you
    criticize anyone else for their participation here.

    re .154
    
    What I do or don't do somewhere else is absolutely irrelevant to what
    you have done here, and the point I made.  You have done nothing but
    disrupt this discussion.

    Let's keep any discussion of what is going on in =wn=, over in =wn=,
    not here.  Thanks.
    						- Vick  (mod)

    RE: .155  David
    
    > What I do or don't do somewhere else is absolutely irrelevant to what
    > you have done here, and the point I made.  
    
    You brought up =wn= in .149, David, and I responded to it.  If you
    intended to get away with disruptive behavior there while criticizing
    me here, it would have been smarter to keep from bringing up =wn=
    yourself.  (Sure, let's drop any further discussion of =wn= now.)
    
    > You have done nothing but disrupt this discussion.
    
    Your whining about others' notes is a disruption.  (I'm sure you knew 
    that already, though.)

    re .157
    
    I chose to ignore your deliberately inaccurate and misleading
    description of what I supposedly do in =wn= because it was and is a red
    herring.  I refuse to refute here your distortions point by point
    because that would be to further your goal of disrupting what is
    arguably the most important question in this conference.
    
    My complaint about your persistent and dogged determination to derail
    this topic is not whining.  Neither is it in itself disruptive, since
    you achieved that already.  If I were to accept your faulty logic then
    no-one could ever complain about your disruptions for fear of being
    themselves deemed disruptive, and this is patently absurd.  In this, of
    all topics, your fanatical need to educate us men about ourselves is
    not only unwelcome but damaging.

As host-moderator of this conference, I will state once again that it is my
belief that restricting participation in a conference or topic to any select
set of individuals is a violation of corporate policy and will not permit
such in any conferences I moderate.  I also believe that it is a self-defeating
notion which serves only to increase the isolation and separatism which is
tearing our society apart.

				Steve

    RE: .159  David
    
    > I chose to ignore...
    
    Of course you did.  When you disrupt =wn=, it's in the name of the
    fight for 'free speech' (and the fight against 'political correctness.')
    
    When I participate here, it's in the face of an inherent cultural
    obligation for women to shut up (especially in the face of the
    increasingly hostile charges of someone such as yourself.)
    
    Meanwhile, I had more or less 'signed off' with "Take care, all"
    several days ago.  If you'd had enough self-restraint to refrain
    from starting this tirade against me, the topic would be clear now.

    
    
    Steve,
    
     Maybe you could enforce the concept of " Notes entered into a
    particular topic must discuss the basenote".  If persons having an
    axe to grind want to discuss something in a particlar topic, then they
    can create a seperate topic. Sounds reasonable hey Steve? Or is this
    segregation??
    
    David

    re .161, well, I for one think this is an interesting topic and I
    honestly didn't think I had written anything to indicate that I didn't. 
    As a matter of fact, I stated a couple of times that I was curious why
    men would be glad to be men.  I know I'm glad there *are* men, despite
    what some of the noters in this file may think.
    
    Lorna
    

> It might have proved educational for all of us, even for those feminists 
> among us who disliked the topic so, had they the wit to recognize it. 

Thank you, Michael, for not noticing that many of us *had* stayed out to let
the topic develop as it might have.  I, too, regret that it has not developed.

DougO

>Thank you, Michael, for not noticing that many of us *had* stayed out to let
>the topic develop as it might have.  I, too, regret that it has not developed.

 Unless you consider that "those feminists among us who disliked the topic so,"
to be the equivalent of all feminists noting here, your conclusion is fragile.

 re: the disruption

 folks, people who seek to disrupt can only be successful when the rest of
us let them. That is to say, if we pay attention to the disruptions and attempts
to refocus the discussion on them, we lose and they win. If, however, we manage
to hit next reply instead, we can have a focused discussion with only minimal
interruption. So when someone tries to redirect the conversation away from
the topic, ignore them- even if it means you let a challenge go unanswered.
People who happen upon the string will easily see who's baiting and taunting
and acting childishly.

 It is encumbent upon us to retain our focus if we value the discussion.

> Unless you consider that "those feminists among us who disliked the topic so,"
> to be the equivalent of all feminists noting here, your conclusion is fragile.

nope.  just me.  Leaving my conclusion not fragile at all.

DougO

Re: .163

Yes, I would be in favor of that.  Unfortunately, this topic developed while
I was away for a week and I'm not sure what can be done at this point.  Perhaps
if/when I have time to look it over, I may be able to think of something.
But history tells me that trying to keep such things on track is a futile
effort.

				Steve

    
    
    
    ...well I would be glad to assist you with the details of enforcing
    such an embargo if you would just give me that thar " Co-mod" title.
    
    
    David :-)  

    re .162
    
>    When I participate here, it's in the face of an inherent cultural
>    obligation for women to shut up (especially in the face of the
>    increasingly hostile charges of someone such as yourself.)
    
    The day you hang this tired old lie up to retire will be the day you'll
    find yourself contributing to this conference.  A note by a man asking
    men why they like to be men does not fall under any generic category
    whereby men and women can contribute equally.  It is clearly a special
    case, and one in which the best thing a fanatic like yourself can do is
    shut up and let those with something worthwhile to say say it.  Answers
    to the question of this topic are enormously hard to articulate at the
    best of times and it takes little by way of venomous feminist haranging
    to derail it.
    
    What you don't understand is that even if you were 100% correct and all
    of us 100% wrong it wouldn't matter in this particular topic.  It is
    still better if you keep your hatred away.  This sort of issue needs a
    lot of time and space to develop and if a lot of crap is spouted up
    front then fine, let it be and deal with it later.
    
    So, congratulate yourself on your putative success at ensuring that
    Mennotes is not a place where men can feel free to be men.

    RE: .170  David
    
    >> When I participate here, it's in the face of an inherent cultural
    >> obligation for women to shut up (especially in the face of the
    >> increasingly hostile charges of someone such as yourself.)
    
    > The day you hang this tired old lie up to retire will be the day you'll
    > find yourself contributing to this conference. 
    
    Even as you claim it's a lie, you can't restrain yourself from using
    the words "shut up" once again (reinforcing my point.)
    
    > Answers to the question of this topic are enormously hard to articulate 
    > at the best of times and it takes little by way of venomous feminist 
    > haranging to derail it.
    
    The topic was thoroughly derailed long before I came along.  However,
    I suppose it helps you in some way to blame women/feminists (and to
    continue your persistent whining about it and your name-calling.)
    When you get a chance, read the notes prior to .33 and see how far
    the discussion had gotten (and ask yourself who kept the topic from
    getting off the ground.)  HINT:  It wasn't women nor feminists.
    
    > What you don't understand is that even if you were 100% correct and all
    > of us 100% wrong it wouldn't matter in this particular topic.  It is
    > still better if you keep your hatred away. 
    
    I *responded* to the hatred against women, David.  This is what *you*
    do not understand.  If the best part of being a man is being able to
    hate women and throw bigotry at us all, then fine.  Obviously, we can't 
    stop it here.  However, I can respond to it if I so choose (no matter 
    how many names you call me for it.)
    
    > This sort of issue needs a
    > lot of time and space to develop and if a lot of crap is spouted up
    > front then fine, let it be and deal with it later.
 
    Each person is free to make his/her own decision whether or not to
    respond and participate in a discussion, whether you like it or not.
    
    > So, congratulate yourself on your putative success at ensuring that
    > Mennotes is not a place where men can feel free to be men.
    
    If being 'free to be men' means characterizing a group as inferior in
    the workplace in some way, it's unlikely to happen unchallenged in a 
    forum where we work.  Once the idea is introduced into the discussion,
    it's fair game for a response (unless the original comment is deleted.)
    
    Now, unless you have more names that you haven't yet called me (that
    are burning a hole in your keyboard,) let's drop this.  "Talking about"
    talking about something is not the same as talking about it.

    RE: .171  Mike Smith
    
    > I know you consider yourself a feminist, DougO.  What I don't know is
    > if you consider yourself a feminist that disliked the topic.  Based on
    > what you wrote, though, it seems that you do not belong to that
    > particular subset of feminists.  Therefore, my previous comments do not
    > pertain to you whatsoever.
    
    Unless you read minds, you can't possibly know who liked or disliked
    this topic (in and of itself,) so your comments don't necessarily
    pertain to anyone.
    
    When someone disagrees with a particular comment (and responds to it,)
    it's absurd to suggest that it's an indication that the person disliked
    the topic itself. 
    
    Thanks in advance for *your* apology about this.

    	
    	I worry that being a man to my son will not be the same as it is to
    me. I fear that a passive society will diminish his ability to defend
    himself, his family, his country. I sense a forboding change in the
    wind that women will make a dangerous change that will eventually lead
    to armed confrontation and a bloodbath. Fringe groups such as the 'pink
    panthers' prowling the streets to 'protect' gays, radical 'take back
    the night groups' prowling the streets looking for trouble. I have
    found that those who look for trouble usually find it and often suffer
    horribly for it. Women have thrown down the gauntlet and are
    challenging men to pick it up, relying on common practices of the past
    that men will not hit women. When they in fact do get smacked, they
    scream abuse, abuse and cry and moan that they have been yet again
    physically beaten and mentally demeaned. In the same vein, they want
    exemption from being found guilty of murder of a spouse or boyfriend
    who was 'abusive'! That they were as cold hearted and abusive is of
    little matter........This is not freedom, this is not equality, this is
    nothing more than revenge. People do not attack other people without
    some form of provocation. People who consistently challenge are subject
    to retribution. 
    	I come from a generation born shortly post WWII. I grew up playing
    with toy soldiers and tanks and planes. I played baseball, football,
    basketball and cowboys and indians. I believe that my generation was
    taught to be wary of the night, that sneak attacks do occur. 
    	I was taught to stand up when a women entered the room, to hold a
    door for a woman, to be gentle and considerate in the presence of a
    woman. The difference is that I write women today and was taught that
    'LADY' was not a dirty word or anything demeaning. It was a title of
    respect for a woman who respected herself and others around her. The
    term gentleman was a compliment for someone who was respected for his
    actions in mixed company and whose parents were proud when he was
    addressed as such.
    	I'm sorry that my son is entering a world that frowns on his
    maleness. I'm sorry that the society that I killed for is losing it's
    identity. I'm angry that men are being made to apologize for being men.
    I'll be damned if I'll apologize for something I never did.......
    
    K

    RE: .175  Mike Smith
    
    > I have no way of knowing for certain who the people are who like this
    > topic, and who don't. 
    
    You just label and characterize for your own purposes, regardless of
    the truth.  Fine, as long as you're willing to admit it.
    
    > However, when a person disagrees with a comment made in a topic, and
    > then goes wailing on, and on, and on, and on, about a how terrible it
    > is ...
    
    I made some comments in a topic and you've been wailing on about them
    (and wailing on and wailing on and wailing on,) so I guess you must
    dislike the topic.
    
    Who cares?

    RE: .175  Mike Smith
    
    > In any case, you will receive no apology from me, Suzanne.  I have
    > neither said nor done anything that warrants it.
    
    DougO neither said nor did anything that warrants an apology to you,
    Mike.
    

    .174
    
    Just a nit...but have you ever *been* to a Take Back the Night?  Or
    have you witnessed one?
    
    I've participated in several from Hanover, NH to Baltimore, MD and
    never once has it been "radical" or "looking for trouble"
    
    Take Back the Night is usually a candlelight march and vigil and it is
    of importance to *anyone* who has reason to fear for her/his safety.
    
    Daniel

    RE: .174
    
    > I worry that being a man to my son will not be the same as it is to
    > me. I fear that a passive society will diminish his ability to defend
    > himself, his family, his country. I sense a forboding change in the
    > wind that women will make a dangerous change that will eventually lead
    > to armed confrontation and a bloodbath.
    
    I hope future generations of men see their manhood as being something
    more than the fear and hatred of others.  When we reach equality,
    it won't be as necessary.

Mike, yes, I dislike this topic.  Insofar as it ever had much potential,
I expected quite a lot of it to consist of the sort of thing that one finds
in the daily prayers of the orthodox Jewish male; something along the lines
of 'thank you, Lord, that you didn't make me a woman.'  In other words, I
disliked the topic because I expected it to bring out sexism in men.  Not
that it had to; which is why I kept silent and hoped for the best.  And in
that event, I did not appreciate your original comment about feminists who
disliked the topic as not having the wit to shut up and let it happen; for
that is precisely what I *did* have the wit to do.  No, I shan't apologize
to you for pointing out your error.

DougO

Hey, if you liked everything you read, life would be rather boring, wouldn't
it?

			Steve

    I know this topic has been through the ringer but I came across
    something positive about men being men! Not all of these things are
    true about all men, nor are they all things that women like about
    men but overall I thought it was nice.
    
    27 reasons we like men just the way they are
    
    1.  When you're dancing, the big of their hand on the small of your
    back.
    
    2.  That they don't take everything personally.
    
    3.  Their healthy affection for their body-as-is.  We get hysterical
    when we don't fit into our tightest jeans.  Men only start worrying when
    they don't fit into the car.
    
    4.  The way they get blissed out listening to a smart woman talk.
    
    5.  The open and trusting manner in which they'll point to a restaurant
    menu item and ask "do I like this?"
    
    6.  French-kissing
    
    7.  When they drape their jacket around our shoulders on a chilly
    evening.
    
    8.  If you ask them "Who's prettier, me or Julia Roberts?" they
    instinctively know that correct answer ("That pig?  Compared to you?  No
    contest!")
    
    9.  Their tendency to fall in love with some goofy aspect of you that
    you nevernoticed before:  "I'm crazy about the way your ear curls like
    a potato chip."
    
    10.  Their refusal to take the blame when they know they don't deserve
    it.
    
    11.  Their buns
    
    12.  That they aren't exactly sure when you're wearing make-up and when
    you're not, and can't remember whether mascara is the tube thing or the
    pencil thing.
    
    13.  Their knack for memorizing dialogue from The Godfather (as long as
    they don't say "I want you to arrange a meeting of the heads of the
    five families" more than once a week)
    
    14.  The stricken/ecstatic look on their face when they're holding a
    friend's baby and suddenly, for the first time, they can imagine themselves
    doing this for real.
    
    15.  The smell of Right Guard and honest sweat battling for dominance.
    
    16.  They'll kill hairy insects the size of Latvia for you, even though
    they don't much relish the task either.
    
    17.  They're willing to let you off at the entrance, any entrance, and
    park 16 blocks away.
    
    18.  The graciousness with which they allow us to pick at their dessert
    when we've declined to order one.
    
    19.  Talking to them in the bathroom while they shave.
    
    20.  Sleeping like spoons.
    
    21.  Fighting with them after you've both gotten the hang of doing it
    fairly.
    
    22.  They make such fabulous brothers.
    
    23. The way they look in well-worn jeans and a white dress shirt with no
    tie.
    
    24.  When they tell us they'd be friends with us even if they don't
    love us.
    
    25.  The way they assume we have an opinion on the designated-hitter
    rule.
    
    26.  When they say Pat Schroeder would make a great president, and it's
    not even to get us into bed - really.
    
    27.  They cried at Fried Green Tomatoes, too.
    
     

    re .172
    
>    Even as you claim it's a lie, you can't restrain yourself from using
>    the words "shut up" once again (reinforcing my point.)
    
    You left out, as is your wont for deliberate distortion, in this topic.
    
>    The topic was thoroughly derailed long before I came along.  However,
    
    No, it wasn't.  It was finding its feet.
    
>    I *responded* to the hatred against women, David.  This is what *you*
    
    Your kneejerk response was to what you saw as hatred against women.  It
    was not to what was being said.  I repeat, it is hard enough to
    articulate answers to this question at the best of times.
    
>    If being 'free to be men' means characterizing a group as inferior in
    
    This topic was never about being 'free to be men'.

    re. 184
    
    Thanks for the breath of fresh air!! WHile the battle continues to
    wage around it, your reply brought a smile to my face this morning.
    
    Cindy
    

    Ditto!!!   Thanks!  I like the idea a while back.  If we just skip over
    the arguments and read the good stuff, this topic will be much better
    to read.  I've been doing that the last day and I like it more already.
    
    Tom

    RE: .185  David
    
    >> Even as you claim it's a lie, you can't restrain yourself from using
    >> the words "shut up" once again (reinforcing my point.)
    
    > You left out, as is your wont for deliberate distortion, in this topic.
    
    Yeah, I didn't bother quoting your newest "shut up" (I knew you'd know
    where to find it.)  So what?
    
    >> The topic was thoroughly derailed long before I came along.  However,
    
    > No, it wasn't.  It was finding its feet.
    
    ...in your opinion.  My opinion differs.  So what?
    
    >> I *responded* to the hatred against women, David.  This is what *you*
    
    > Your kneejerk response was to what you saw as hatred against women.  It
    > was not to what was being said. 
    
    You characterized my responses as "hatred," although it was only what
    *you* thought you saw as hatred.  (If you're allowed to characterize
    something as hatred, surely others are allowed to do the same.)
    
    > This topic was never about being 'free to be men'.
    
    I was quoting your own words.  (The basenote is long gone, so we have
    no guidelines to follow about the content of the topic except the
    replies to the missing basenote.)  You wrote "free to be men," so I
    responsed to it.
    
    Let's drop all this.  Obviously, it's going to get touchy when one
    group defines its worth on the basis of the faults of another group.
    The Doctah tried to direct the topic away from such replies back in
    .21, but it didn't keep someone else from coming along to do it in
    the next dozen or so replies.  I didn't respond to the topic at all
    until this happened.
    
    You can blame me for all this for the rest of your life, but it
    won't do much good.  When a group characterizes another group in
    ways that imply negative attributes in the work force, someone is
    bound to object.  In a conference open to the whole company, you
    can't stop this objection.

    I'd like to know why its bad for a man to point out that there may
    be something he may do that can be *perceived* to be better than a
    the way a woman can do it and then extrapolate it as sexism.  
    
    If I asked my husband why he's glad to be a man and he answered:
    
    cause I can mow the lawn
    
    I don't believe that's sexist.  I can certainly mow the lawn too,
    but I don't want to, and that's partly why I'm glad that he's a
    man. :-) 
    
    It also occurs to me that a man can list something he's glad about
    that is not indiginous to being male, but doesn't inherently imply
    sexism.  Just because one fails to say, 'yes, women can do X too'
    IMO doesn't imply that women cannot X, it simply says I'm glad I
    can do X.  After all, this topic is for men to say why they are 
    glad to be men.  Why does it have to be compared to being glad to
    be a woman?  
    
    I also loved the answer many notes back about being glad to be a
    man cause he can be a father.  It's a wonderful sentiment.
    
    Christine

    re:184 & 189
    
    Thanks........

    RE: .189  Christine
    
    > I'd like to know why its bad for a man to point out that there may
    > be something he may do that can be *perceived* to be better than a
    > the way a woman can do it and then extrapolate it as sexism.  
    
    I'm sorry, but I forget what your job is (you don't have to tell me
    in this topic now, or anything.)  I just want to use it as an example.
    
    Suppose you are a software engineer.  If your husband said to you,
    "I like being a man because it makes me a competant software engineer,"
    would you object to the implication that women (including you) are not
    competant engineers?  As your husband, it might not bother you too much,
    but what if a co-worker said it?  Would it be sexist?  You might not
    think so (perhaps you don't care if some men imply that it takes a man
    to do your job,) but others might object.
    
    If others do object, it's perfectly reasonable to do so.

    Suzanne,
    
    I suppose it depend on the person and their life experiences.
    
    If my husband or a co-worker made such a comment, I don't believe
    the implication would be that a woman couldn't be a competant 
    software engineer.  If the statement was made in a context which
    made it clear that the comment inferred such, I would object.  All
    I'm saying is that the statement itself IMO doesn't always imply
    sexism.  I didn't mean to imply that you still couldn't object,
    but it seems when one objects and the 'offender' explains that of
    course women can do it too, then that should really be the end of
    it.  
    
    Christine

    RE: .192  Christine
    
    > If the statement was made in a context which
    > made it clear that the comment inferred such, I would object.  All
    > I'm saying is that the statement itself IMO doesn't always imply
    > sexism. 
    
    Well, gee, I never said that such a statement must **ALWAYS** (in
    every possible circumstance on the face of the earth) imply sexism.
    
    I took the statement (in this topic) in context and objected to it.
    
    > I didn't mean to imply that you still couldn't object,
    > but it seems when one objects and the 'offender' explains that of
    > course women can do it too, then that should really be the end of
    > it.  
    
    THANK YOU!  The person who made "the comment" to which I objected
    didn't come along to explain that "women can do it too."  Instead,
    people have been wailing about the fact that there were objections.
    
    You're right - it should have been the end of it.  Objecting in the
    first place was NOT that big of a deal, really.

       I live in Colorado.  Right now it's about -30 outside with the wind
       chill.

       I like being a guy because if I have to take a leak outside on days
       like this I don't have to expose half of my body to do it.

       patrick

    Be careful, Patrick, if it is that cold outside you may find yourself
    frozen to a tree...
    
    Don

    
    
    -1
      Laughing :-)
    
    David

           <<< Note 840.195 by SOLVIT::SOULE "Pursuing Synergy..." >>>
                      -< Not the voice of experience... >-

    Don,

       I'll remember that.  I just thought I would try and lighten this
       note up a bit.

    Patrick   

    Well Patrick, since you brought that out into the open, so to speak, I
    had meant to enter that peeing off the side of a bass boat is something
    I am ideally equipped for.
    
    Karl

    Hey, Karl, does it help you catch fish?  Would you want to eat them?

    Pardon me but you certainly bring new meaning to "chumming the
    water"...

    
    -1
    
     :-)
    
       Who knows, maybe we will see it as the lastest fishing technique
    shown on a fishing show :-)
    
    David

    RE .198
    
    There are 'attachments' that a woman can buy that will allow then to do
    it standing 'at the rail with your man' as the ad I saw said...
    
    How does one locate this device fore and aft in nautical terms, never mind I
    will leave this up to my imagination...
    
    
    RE Basenote.
    
    +++
    
    Being able to love a woman and a child in a special (ie man only) way.
    Being able to p easily
    Far fewer 'plumbing' problems
    Physical strength (generalization)
    Leaness (generalization)
    
    
    ---
    
    Being blamed for lots of the ills of the world today
    Having real sensitive parts of ones anatomy exposed to...
    Repressed/supressed emotions  (generalization)
    Other males agressivness
    
    Steve

    I was hoping somebody would say they were most glad to be a man because
    they can make love to a woman.  (I know that women can make love to
    other women but it's different.  I don't know that from experience but
    it just seems like it *has* to be for obvious reasons of anatomy.)
    
    I think the reason I'm most glad to be a woman is because I can make
    love to a man.  (I could still make love to men if I were a man, but
    there again it seems to me it would be different.)
    
    read .202, good list.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
     I am happy to be a man because I can make love to woman..
    
    
    Happy now :-)
    
    David              p.s. Especially when she lets me be the man :-) :-)

So far, the reason I liked best was about being a father, but it does not
apply to me.


Personally, I am glad to be a man for a lot of trivial reasons and one which
seems to me important right now:


I can try to be a *good* man.  I may never make it, but even trying makes me
feel good and (I think) is a benefit to the people around me.

    I was thinking of this topic last weekend when this rude young lady
    was crowding me in the supermarket checkout line.
    
    As luck would have it, I was in a most gaseous state, able to release a
    silent methane bomb upon the unsuspecting youth behind me.  It was so
    bad she tossed her ice cream and cookies back into the hand basket and
    went into another aisle.
    
    Being a guy, you can do that with no remorse.

    re .207, women can do that, too, Mike, and regardless of what you may
    have been led to believe, also without remorse.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    -2 zarlenga
     
     :-)
    
    -1 Stilhaire,
     Yet another victory for the women's movement :-) :-)
    
    David

    
    One of the best things about being a man, is you get to be Santa Claus
    
    
    Ho, Ho, Ho
    
    
    gb

Re: .209

Not only can they, but they have been.

		Steve

    
    Well if thats the case Steve, it might be worth while visiting Santa this 
    year and sitting on her lap. 
    
    gb.

There's a cute story featuring a woman in the job of a mall Santa in the
November or December issue of Asimov's (or was it Analog?)  Anyway, though
it's unusual, women and other non-traditional-type people have done stints
as Santas in stores and malls.

				Steve

    Well they'll have to fight for my job as P�re No�l, bein s�r.
    
    �d

    There's a real cute joke re: female Santas andChristmas stockings.
    
    But, alas, I like my job, so I won't tell it here ...

    
    well mail it to me then!