Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    .0

    it wont bother me.
    it is ok with me if there is such a club for women only, or 
    a health club, or a restaurant or an apts complex or a university
    or whatever for women only, it never bothered me, i just go to the next
    restaurant or apt complex or university over that is not for women
    only.

    i dont see a big deal. if women want to have their own place, i dont
    look at it as discrimination against men, this is different than things
    like white-only or stuff like that which is discriminations, but for
    some reason i never thought of women-only stuff as discriminations
    against men or any one, iam not sure why, i guess it just seems harmless 
    thing to have and do. 

    /nasser


    /nasser

    Re .1
    
    > it is ok with me if there is such a club for women only, or
    > a health club
    
    There is such a health club in Manchester, New Hampshire.  The problem,
    as I see it, is that some women have historically refused to allow men
    to have all-male clubs.  Some of these women have brought the force of
    anti-discriminatory law to bear against such organizations until they
    gained admittance.  Then, some women (maybe the same ones, maybe not)
    set up an equally discriminatory club.  And you can bet they'd fight if
    men tried to gain admittance.
    
    Double standard, anyone?
    
    -dick

>Well, since you ask...is the existence of this club denying anybody the
>opportunity to discuss literature?  Oh, only with those particular women
>who are members?  You mean they're actually exercising their rights to
>freely assemble?  

Exactly the point I was trying to make.  They ARE exercising their freedom.
My other point is that they are NOT the only ones allowed to do so.  The
context you dragged this out of basically said that men should be fired for
not talking to women.

>advantages not available to non-members?  Like, safe space to discuss ideas
>without having to defend themselves from male styles of communication?  

Oh, the ever popular 'safe place'.  There is a notes conference on the net
that is supposed to be such a place.  Yet WOMEN attack WOMEN... Real safe,
for the in crowd....

>something I can label as 'sexism' I can also label 'beneficial'.  Simply;
>because it isn't hurting anybody- and, in fact, it is probably helping people.

So sexism practiced by women is beneficial and sexism by men is a no-no, right?

>I believe that men are taught more methods of dominance than
>are women during their socialization; that women, in fact, are actively 
>discouraged from learning such techniques.  

Any evidence of this?  A large number number of women I have met/talked to do
NOT seem to lack any such techniques.

>seen as male-style dominance techniques, in fact, they get hostile messages
>back.  

Well, it seems that when MEN use those techniques, they ALSO get hostile 
messages.  Maybe it is the technique and not the gender using it?

>Several researchers have documented this with specific counts of the
>number of interruptions in conversation, studies of listening modes, etc
>(men interrupt women far more frequently, for example.)

If you refer to the Faludi book, I would not count that as any serious study.
From reading it, most of the references are to works of fiction by other
authors.  And I have sat with a group of women who did indeed interrupt
each other.  When I pointed it out, they said they were not.  When men did
the exact same thing to them, it was considered interrupting.

>them as a given, and moving on.  Safe spaces- places for people to learn
>what their society has taught only to others- are a reasonable, temporary
>solution to the raging sexism (institutionalized male dominance training)
>inherent in our society.  

Sexism is institutionalized male dominance?  What is it called when women
are sexist, or can't that ever happen?  

>
>    i dont see a big deal. if women want to have their own place, i dont
>    look at it as discrimination against men, this is different than things
>    like white-only or stuff like that which is discriminations,

Do you believe that men should be able to have their own place as well?

    
    Well, one problem with all-male clubs has seemed to be that they become
    places where business is transacted, where deals are made, where idle
    chat becomes handshake agreement becomes contract or policy or job.
    
    One objection women have had is that they were being denied the
    opportunity to be privy or part of these agreements and business deals,
    and I think they were right to object.
    
    The womanspaces I frequent are often spiritual, friendly,
    conversational, or learning-based, and there is always the option of an
    equivalent malespace to counterpart it.
    
    If there were a men's spiritual discussion group, a men's writing
    group, or men discussing their feelings in a support group, I support
    that completely.
    
    It's the fact that certain opportunities become available in one, and
    not in the other - or a club of one gender exists without a counterpart
    for the other gender (and please don't tell me it's okay for women to
    make business deals in womenspaces - women can be excellent
    businesspeople, but by and large the POWER in corporate America belongs
    to men).....
    
    this is what troubles me about this topic.
    
    -Jody
    

    
>    Well, one problem with all-male clubs has seemed to be that they become
>    places where business is transacted, where deals are made, where idle
>    chat becomes handshake agreement becomes contract or policy or job.
 
    That was the essence of the Supreme Court decision regarding male-only
    business and social clubs.  In the modern business world, they provided
    and insider's advantage that was categorically denied to 50% of the
    potential work force.
    
    I don't think the same would be applied if men wanted to form male-only
    reading groups or similar organizations like the ones Doug mentioned in
    .0
    
    Doug's question seems especially relevant in making such a
    determination:  what advantages are denied to the people who would be
    excluded and can they find those advantages elsewhere?
    
    Daniel

>    Well, one problem with all-male clubs has seemed to be that they become
>    places where business is transacted, where deals are made, where idle
>    chat becomes handshake agreement becomes contract or policy or job.

Well, at DEC, the equivalent seems to be women groups that appear to do
precisely the same thing; one is 'ok', the other 'not ok'.
    
>    One objection women have had is that they were being denied the
>    opportunity to be privy or part of these agreements and business deals,
>    and I think they were right to object.

Sort of violates that right of free assembly some one recently mentioned.
I once had to sit in a recruitment speech for women's group here at DEC
(the meeting this occurred at was a cost center meeting; the recruitment
speech was an addition to that).  The "old boy's network" was trounced,
with all its disadvantages being brought up.  Then came the 'but let us
set up a women's group to network with people, help women advance, etc'.
The only difference I could see between the two descriptions was one was
called the 'old boys network' and was bad, while the other was called
a 'women's group' and declared good. 

Basically I see people saying that women need their space, but men are not 
allowed to have one of their own.

> 
>    That was the essence of the Supreme Court decision regarding male-only
>    business and social clubs.  In the modern business world, they provided
>    and insider's advantage that was categorically denied to 50% of the
>    potential work force.

Except that the assumption was that business deals were always being made.
So, men that were there strictly for socializing with other men (without
business deals being made), are unable to do so.

If it is determined that the same sort of business deals are being made in
women only clubs etc, do you support opening them up to men as well under
the same argument used against men only clubs?

 There is always a way to support continuation of a double standard,
if one is willing to be accepting of the arguments. 

    .8  If the same argument can be made and applied to clubs that have
    SIMILAR functions and purposes, of course I'd support it.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, no case of that nature hs come to court. 
    Can you find examples of women only clubs that are comparable to the
    men only clubs that were affected by the Supreme Court decision?
    The decision is not applicable to all male-only gatherings, after all.
    
    Double standards, real or perceived, ought to be able to hold up under
    CONTEXT SPECIFIC analysis.
    
    Just saying "Aha! Here's a group that is women only!" does not
    necessarily mean that group is equivalent to ALL male only gatherings.
    
    Daniel

.0>Well, since you ask...is the existence of this club denying anybody the
.0>opportunity to discuss literature?  Oh, only with those particular women
    
    Is the existence of a whites-only country club denying anyone the
    opportunity to play golf?
    
    Is the existence of a male-only fire department denying anyone the
    opportunity to fight fires?

.6> That was the essence of the Supreme Court decision regarding male-only
.6> business and social clubs.  In the modern business world, they provided
.6> and insider's advantage that was categorically denied to 50% of the
.6> potential work force.
    
    And women wouldn't do the same at a women-only literature society?

re: .7

    
>Well, at DEC, the equivalent seems to be women groups that appear to do
>precisely the same thing; one is 'ok', the other 'not ok'.
    
    I've heard of at least one male-only support/discussion group at DEC,
    and have volunteered to assist men in obtaining facilitation skills if
    they wanted to run site-based men-only support/discussion groups.
    
    When I set up the women's support group I facilitated, I invited the
    personnel people at my site to think about whether they wanted to have
    a men's group also, and offered to help train someone in facilitation.
    
    I handled it differently from the way you saw.
    
    You now have two data points - it can look differently than it did to
    you before....
    
    -Jody
    

    Mike,
      Your examples are of a private and a public institution. One is legal
    and the other is not.
    
    Karl

re .2-

Dick, you say that "some women have historically refused to allow men 
to have all-male clubs" and you go on to mention that some women have
used anti-discriminatory laws to that end.  Considering that such laws
haven't been on the books for even twenty-five years yet, I don't see
as much 'historical' essence there as you do.  That's contemporary.
And in the context of a society with formal institutions of ages measurable
in centuries or millenia, wherein power and economic privilege have long
resided, and considering that in the US women have had the right to vote
for less than one of those centuries, I'm even further away from appreciating
what you consider to be a double standard.  Exclusively female clubs do NOT
have the clout that exclusively-male clubs do; as such, the exclusiveness
cannot harm the excluded.  *That's* a historical perspective, tyvm.

DougO

    I simply reject the whole notion that men cannot be allowed to have
    the freedom to associate with other men in a setting of their own
    choosing, whereas women can.  True equality will never be achieved as
    long as one group has rights that another group cannot.
    
    In re the health club thing.  I know men who used to belong to a health
    club that catered to men only.  Some women forced the issue, so the
    club decided to admit women as well.  Surprise, surprise, next thing
    you knew, some of the women decided that they didn't want to exercise
    in the same area as the men; they claimed discomfort with the idea of
    men seeing them in their exercise costumes.  The club was then forced to
    create a women's only exercise area.  How is that for equality, eh?
                                                
    Mike 

re .3-

C'mon, Joe, try to write in complete paragraphs.  Chopping it up into
little bits may suit your analytical urges but doesn't lead to coherent
discussion.

You ask for evidence of dominance techniques; I cited Gilligan, not Faludi.
[ Faludi's evidence, by the way, documents something else entirely; which
is, a campaign against women's political organization. ] Gilligan studied
human interactions in small group and one-on-one, face-to-face discussions.
Next time you ask for evidence, please be familiar with what I've already
given you.  You also mention that maybe it is the dominance techniques 
themselves that get hostile reactions, rather than the gender of the people
using the techniques; I again refer you to Gilligan, and I might call your
attention to the recent hostile reactions a woman has been getting for
mixing it up in topic 844.  The putdowns have even gone so far as to include
a crude metaphor accusing that woman of "Always trying to show that yours is 
bigger, what a man:-)".  This example (and I could pull a dozen from that one
topic alone) are attempts to put that woman into her place, get her to shut
up.  They are crude and borish- and they are typical of the kinds of verbal
dominance inflicted upon women in this society.  Women also face physical
intimidation when they exceed the bounds that a bigger nearby male thinks
proper.  Men, too, get these kinds of challenges, from bigger, stronger males
around us, as we grow up; but boys are encouraged to defend themselves, are
taught to fight back; learn, too, to play one-upsmanship games, to challenge
those around us for position and respect.  The society expects us to learn to 
protect ourselves; and, with those expectations, most men do learn to snarl
at the right time, to challenge or to set boundaries.  Women are not given 
the same expectations, and do not learn these dominance, boundary-defensive
techniques to the same extent men do.  [repeat disclaimer; not all men or 
women, most.]

DougO

    
    > crude metaphors
    
     Dougo,
    
      How about crudely taken out of context in order to make a boring 
    point? As the author of the note I would appreciate it if you would
    place  it into context, not place it into yet another of your poorly
    managed, politically correct, droolings..
    
     Love always,
     Wanna them thar neandrethal types ( hiccup)

    
    
    ....oh and another thing.....  When I made that remark to Suzanne it
    was because Suzanne had compared the requirements that male fireman
    had to meet ( 60lbs clean jerk) to her lifting requirements at a
    previous job (75lbs).  I saw this as the very thing Dougo was
    alluding to -2.
    
    David

Thanks for the clear example, David; see, folks?  Suzanne was making ordinary,
logical comparisons about the topic at hand, indicating that performance tests
are not always adjusted nor slanted for females; and she got slapped with a
crude joke about "who's is bigger".  David can't even see how inappropriate
such a "joke" is; he'd probably not like to believe that his is a typical male
dominance technique used to discourage women from participating equally in the
discussion.  But that's what it looks like to me.    

DougO

Mark, there is always a way to support continuation of a double standard,
if one is benefitting from the status quo.

DougO

>    I simply reject the whole notion that men cannot be allowed to have
>    the freedom to associate with other men in a setting of their own
>    choosing, whereas women can.

Tell me, have you ever heard of women protesting "Sterling Men's Weekends"
or Robert Bly's drumming weekends?  How about gatherings like the second
annual Men's Conference, in Chicago a month ago (over 500 men attended);
any NOW protest?  No?  Ever wonder why?

I think that people object to men gathering together in places of
traditional, institutional privilege.  There is a huge awareness about
the way this society works that simply did not exist in the public 
consciousness thirty years ago.  Back then, people though that if you 
wrote to your congressman, they'd represent your views.  We now know 
a lot more about money, special interests, lobbyists, influence-peddling,
and the whole corrupt dynamic that really affects the way our civic
institutions work.  We know more because the media has finally seen fit
to let the rest of us in on the dirty secrets.  JFK ran around on Jackie,
but Gary Hart got nailed for the same thing.  As a result, people are not
willing to let such corruption thrive openly.  And since men gathering
with men is the traditional way such shady deals are cooked up, in local,
state, and national settings, people aren't willing to turn a blind eye
towards it.

It is sad that such abuses were so common as to make all exclusively-male
preserves suspect.  But people certainly don't have the same expectations
of abuses of power from women; which is why, I think, the society doesn't
object to women-only social situations, and frowns on men-only.  Perhaps
in twenty years, or fifty, when enough women are sharing in the established
power structures, the rules will change again.

DougO

    
    
    > Thanks for the clear example, David; see, folks? Suzanne was making
    > ordinary, logical comparisons about the topic at hand
    
      Tell me DougO, was the loss of reality slow and painful, or did it
    go all of a sudden??
    
    > David can't even see how innapproriate such a "joke" is; he'd
    > probably  not like to believe that his is a typical male dominance
    > technique us to discourage women from participating equally
    > in the discussion
    
      I suspect anything short of a " Mr Rogers neighborhood" approach is
     considered "typical male" to you DougO..  
    
    Welcome to my neighborhood,
    
      David

    
    DougO is welcome in *my* neighborhood anytime.
    
    His logical, rational use of the language is painfully easy to follow,
    and I generally find his opinions backed up with well-thought-out
    presentation.
    
    I believe I've yet to see him get irate and down-and-dirty in the
    namecalling area, and I really respect that.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    Jody,
    
     DougO is no doubt a man with a knack for writing. All that aside he
    quoted me out of context and referred to me, and others, as typical
    males. Now I know I cannot hear his tone of voice, I know I did not go
    to wanna those high cost colleges,( local state :-), but I suspect even
    with all these disadvantages I can safely assume DougO was not being
    " beyond the realm of down and dirty." After all you said it best
    "painfully easy to follow".. Ok!!
    
    David ( wanna them thar typical males)
    

    'Tis truly a pity when men like DougO decide they don't wanna be
    "typical" men anymore, isn't it, David?  Such denial of their very own
    DNA must come at a very high price to their psyche.
    
    Mike

    RE: .26  Mike
    
    > 'Tis truly a pity when men like DougO decide they don't wanna be
    > "typical" men anymore, isn't it, David?  Such denial of their very own
    > DNA must come at a very high price to their psyche.
    
    Now we get down to the real issue in all this:  the perceived threat
    to men (in the event of equal rights) is denial of men's own DNA at
    the expense of their psyches.
    
    No wonder some men fight equality as if it would mean their deaths.
    In some sense, perhaps they do see men as being threatened with
    something akin to death (or perhaps a fate worse than death) if they
    had to live in world where men and women were equal.
    
    DougO and a growing number of other men know better.

    
    
    > isn't it David
    
     I pray for him every night Mike :-)  
    
                        The mans prayer
    
           O heavenely typical male God who dost oppress the 
       down trodden.. Give us this day our daily quota of insensitive
      and uncaring remarks.. Helpest me to teach my  male child to value
      know ones difference unless they are macho and unfeeling..And above
     all, oh mighty manly man of a God, deliver those lost males that think
     not like the typical males from the clutches of whatever force dost
    cloud their otherwise gifted minds :-) :-)
    
    
    David

    
    
    > now we get down to the real issue in al this: the peceived threat
    > to men (in the event of equal rights) is denial of men's own DNA at
    
      Oh my God Mike she has found us out.. And to think that Mike and I
    have kept our secret for so long. Mike I've decided to "out" myself,
    and to "out" you too.. Suzanne please realize how painful this is for
    me to say, well here goes " Mike and I are DNA-PHOBIC." We are in
    therapy, I am doing a little better than Mike, but that's not his fault
    he had the misfortune to have been forced to play with, yes you
    guessed it, GI Joe dolls.. I am sorry Mike, I just had to get it out. 
    
    :-) :-) :-)
     If only I had a heart,
    David

    <I believe I've yet to see him get irate and down-and-dirty in the
    <namecalling area, and I really respect that.
    
    No, he's much too sophisticated for that. His tongue is more like a
    rapier than a broadsword, but it's none the less lethal.
    
    
    				h
    

    
    -1
     
     > more like a rapier
    
     Close.. I would say Levesque was the Rapier, DougO is the two shot
    pistol.. This is a fun diversion :-)
    
    Sincererly,
    David
    
    

    I don't think that Mark _lacerates_ people. (or intends to)

Mike, it's too bad you took two adjectives ("typical male") from a
four word phrase ("typical male dominance technique") and read them
instead as an adjective and a noun.  Man, what use is a rapier wit
if nobody can even parse the sentences correctly...

DougO

    q.e.d.

    Well Doug, I try, you know?  I seriously doubt that I shall ever reach
    the exalted heights which you have attained, but that is not sufficient
    reason for me to give up.  At least, though, you have retained enough
    of your male-ness to understand my poor attempt at sardonica. 
    Unfortunately, our current resident distaff member seems to be
    congenitally unable to do so.
    
    Mike

    
    
    > I don't think Mark lacerates
    
     Neither do I.. I simply meant that as a reference to his precision..
    
    
    David  

    
    This is interesting....
    
      I'm flipping thru the pages of my local NYNEX yellow pages, 
    ( Derry NH area ) looking for a health club.  There are just 4 ads 
    ( excluding the one line entries ).  2 of the 4 say "exclusively
    for women".  That's 50% folks !!!!!
      I've never seen any that say "exclusively for men".
    
      This REALLY cuts down my freedom of choice !
    
    Jack
    
     

    One can only hope, then, that no business deals are ever consumated, or
    that no plots are hatched to prevent men from reaching positions of
    power in those wimmin-only establishments.
    
    Mike

    re .38, you could always dress up as a woman and go in and spy on them
    and make sure nothing is consumated there.
    
    I think some women just feel embarrassed at the idea of having men see
    them work out, especially women who might not have a lot of confidence
    about how they look in those outfits.  Maybe the all women ones are for
    beginners, and then after they shape up and gain confidence they go
    onto the ones where there the men are.  (Except maybe then they look
    too good, and are afraid of being hit on by unsavory characters, who
    happen to be men....)
    
    I think, tho, if I were going to try to exercise I'd rather not have
    any men watching me.  (I don't care as much if I look stupid in front
    of other women.  Not sure why.)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    -1 
     
     An honest exlanation..
    
    > you could always dress up as a woman
    
     Not after the last time. Someday I will have to tell you a story
    about my sixteenth birthday :-)
    
    David

    Re: .39
    
    Actually, being a daddy of two former teen-aged daughters, I can attest
    to the distinct dislike that some women have for working out in the
    presence of men.  Even their own father. 
    
    And now that I'm in a reasonable mood, I can even understand why a
    business would want to cater to that need.  Fact is, I have no crushing
    desire to enter into such places to invoke some sort of Constitutional
    crisis.  I figure I'm secure enough in my own sense of life that such
    things as women-only institutions really don't threaten me or my
    ability to make my way in life.
    
    Real big of me, ain't it?  :-)
    
    Mike                                                   

careful, Lorna.  Go on like that and they'll realize you're talking about
that nasty old 'safe space', which is so bad and nasty and unacceptable.

DougO

    You mean it's one of ....THEM... places?  
    
    <GASP>
    
    Mike

>    
>    I believe I've yet to see him get irate and down-and-dirty in the
>    namecalling area, and I really respect that.

So, 'come on, try to write in complete paragraphs' is not insulting?

-Joe

>    
>    I think some women just feel embarrassed at the idea of having men see
>   them work out, especially women who might not have a lot of confidence
>    about how they look in those outfits.  

So, men cannot be equally embarrassed?  Hardly justification for women only
but not men only.  How about a women only section AND a men only section AND
a joint section.  Then perhaps all can be accomodated.

>    too good, and are afraid of being hit on by unsavory characters, who
>    happen to be men....)

Or perhaps other women, as I have heard from a woman who experienced it
first hand. 

-Joe

>
>careful, Lorna.  Go on like that and they'll realize you're talking about
>that nasty old 'safe space', which is so bad and nasty and unacceptable.

   No, it is the lack of realization that the other gender (remember them?)
might also want such a place.  

   It was a dark and stormy note... Suddenly there was reply at the door...


Please note the paragraphs above, and the neat, non-standard indentation. :-)

re .45:

>So, men cannot be equally embarrassed?  Hardly justification for women only
>but not men only.  How about a women only section AND a men only section AND
>a joint section.  Then perhaps all can be accomodated.

Is there anything other than market forces that's preventing someone from
opening a men-only health club?

    Yes.  The potential threat of a femniac-inspired lawsuit to open it to
    both genders.  
    
    Mike

    re .45, .46, I understand that there are probably some men who would
    feel embarrassed to have women watch them work out, and I personally
    have no problem with men having their own health spas or whatever.  I
    simply didn't happen to think to make a point of saying so in my
    previous reply.  I don't see why there shouldn't be three choices
    available: women only, men only and co-ed.  
    
    As .47 mentioned, it would seem to me that if men only fitness centers
    don't exist, I bet the main reason is that it doesn't seem to the
    owners of these businesses that they would make a profit.  Isn't that
    the way it works?  If a business can make a profit, it exists?  If it
    can't make a profit, it doesn't?  If men only fitness centers don't
    exist, then someone needs to know that the need is there.
    
    I can't help but wonder, though.  If there aren't any men only fitness
    centers, and if there *are* women only fitness centers, I wonder if
    it's because a lot of men prefer to workout where they can watch women,
    while a lot of women prefer to workout where men can't watch them.  
    
    I remember from my high school phys ed classes that whenever we had a
    rainy day, or whatnot, and the gym teaches decided to make the classes
    co-ed for a day, it always seemed as though most of the girls just
    hated having the boys be able to see them in gym class, while it just
    didn't seem to bother most of the boys if the girls saw them.  I think
    this is do to societal influences because girls and women have been
    made to feel how important it is to have men think we look good.
    
    Lorna
    

    re:.17
    
    For many people, it's simply a matter of getting their way, even if
    they don't really want it or don't mind the status quo.
    
    They need to feel like they are in control of others.

.22>Tell me, have you ever heard of women protesting "Sterling Men's Weekends"
.22>or Robert Bly's drumming weekends?  How about gatherings like the second
    
    Give them time, there are only so many hours in a day!
    
    And there are so many OTHER things to protest ... Barbie dolls, for one.

    
    >I think
    >this is do to societal influences because girls and women have been
    >made to feel how important it is to have men think we look good.
    
    you probably don't want to hear this from me, but the fack is that
    wymmin exert pressure on each other in this regard far greater than
    men ever do.

yes, some women have indeed been made instruments of the cultural
repressioin of other women.  Hey, if patriarchy wasn't slick, it
wouldn't have lasted all these thousands of years.

DougO

    
    
    > it would not have lasted all these thousands of years.
    
     Oh well, all good things must come to an end..
    
    > some women  have indeed been made instruments of the cultural
    repression of women
    
     
      And some men have been made instruments of the feminist repression
    of men. Like say, you Dougo.
    
    David
    
    
    

>      And some men have been made instruments of the feminist repression
>    of men. Like say, you Dougo.

help, help, he's being repressed!

Seriously, I don't know what you're talking about.  Feminism is about
the political and cultural fight for equal opportunity, and has nothing
to do with the repression of men.

DougO

>yes, some women have indeed been made instruments of the cultural
>repressioin of other women.

 It's much more basic than that. Women compete among themselves for the
attentions of the most desirable males in precisely the same way that
men copmpete among themselves for the attentions of the most desirable
females. No sinister plots. No clever manipulations. Just innate competition.

 (Not to say that some women aren't "instruments of cultural repression
of other women." No, I'm just saying that the bulk of the effect in
question is unrelated to the same.)

>Feminism is about
>the political and cultural fight for equal opportunity, and has nothing
>to do with the repression of men.

 In theory.

    
    > help,help, he's being repressed!
    
     I knew you would care Dougo :-) Your my hero.
    
    > the political and cultural fight for equal opportunity
    
     Okay. 
    
    David                                 
    
      

Mark, the distinction you draw in .56 is completely meaningless to me.
Let me ask, why is it that this simple competition is upon the basis of
physical appearances?  THAT is a culturally-induced phenom, strongly
reinforced by, oh, billions of dollars of advertising in the women's
cosmetics industry.  In the fasion industry.  In the publishing and
media infotainment industries.  "Simple, innate competition," reinforced 
by billions of dollars worth of cultural influence and pressure.

Think about it.  What attracts you to a woman?  Upon what grounds does
a woman compete for your attention?  Just maybe you value them for more
than looks; I know I do.  Why is there such competition in looks?  Just
maybe those billions have something to do with it.  In light of that,
I can't see how you can possibly say "No clever manipulations."  Its all
very clever, Mark, or they wouldn't spend those billions, and you're smart 
enough to know it.

DougO

> It's much more basic than that. Women compete among themselves for the
> attentions of the most desirable males in precisely the same way that
> men copmpete among themselves for the attentions of the most desirable
> females. No sinister plots. No clever manipulations. Just innate competition.
    
    "Precisely"?  I don't particularly notice other guys' clothes, makeup,
    or hair, unless they're in drag.  When my competitive side comes out
    (see the P.S. below for a possible example), it doesn't seem to center
    around selection of the proper accessories.
    
    And I've seen women pay excruciating (from my point of view) attention
    to looks even in situations where "competition for men" doesn't appear
    to be an issue.
    
    Ray
    
    P.S. - Do we really have to go through the "I'm repressed!" "Just how
    are you repressed?" "That's a repressive question!" thing again? 

>Let me ask, why is it that this simple competition is upon the basis of
>physical appearances?

 Because when you put men and women together in a room, two types of people
end up with hangers on- lookers and those with charisma. If you have
charisma, people are more willing to overlook flaws in countenance. But charisma
is rough to acquire if you aren't born with it. In comparison, it's easier
to lose weight, put on nice clothes, and make yourself presentable.

 This went on long before Madison avenue was even a dirt path. The billions spent
on advertising would be wasted money if physical appearance wasn't a natural
attractor. Woman B sees that woman A looks great in a certain outfit. She
finds something that she looks great in to compete. All the billions spent
on advertising do is channel woman B's natural inclination into lining their
company's pockets as opposed to some other company's pockets. The instinct
to compete is already live and well.

>Why is there such competition in looks?

 I dunno; ask the greeks why Helen was such hot property. By all accounts she
was a babe; apparently worth dying for.

 To me, the key regarding "why looks" is the immediacy involved. It doesn't
take a whole helluva lot of processing to figure out that one particular
woman sends you into orbit. Now obviously people are attracted by more than
physical beauty- but that takes more time and effort.

 It's like anything else; given any two equally functional items, the more
aesthetically pleasing one is going to be viewed by more people as being
more attractive. It doesn't take a Madison Avenue executive to figure that
out.

 The Doctah

>    "Precisely"?  I don't particularly notice other guys' clothes, makeup,
>    or hair, unless they're in drag.

 Thanks for the nitpick, Ray. What I meant was that the behavior had a
direct analog, as if you didn't know.

> I dunno; ask the greeks why Helen was such hot property. By all accounts she
> was a babe; apparently worth dying for.
    
    True, she was "hot property". That is, she was _stolen_ property,
    stolen from a Greek king.  Which is why the Greeks were fighting.
    
    There's little indication that Helen got much out of the deal.
    
    Ray

Doug,
  The advertising business is a factor, but only a small one. Ideas of physical
beauty have been with us throughout the ages. Observe art across the centuries
and tell me howe many models have acne. You don't need billions of ad bucks to
answer that question. I intentionally picked a glaring example, but think if
you will about art which is a physical interpretation of some idea. Said art
from a broad spectrum of artists spanning literally centuries has championed
certain ideals that you need only look at to recognize. If the art did not speak
to us we wouldn't bother to preserve it.

Karl

    But what is considered attractive varies so widely from culture
    to culture that it's hard to pin down anything innate about it.

    A spooky thing about beauty in our culture is that the standard
    has been defined to be unobtainable for most women.  Few women
    are 5'10" tall and weigh 110 pounds, but this has become the
    standard for female beauty.  However, products are sold which
    will 'help' them achieve this goal.  Since the products can't
    change your basic body size, they don't work and leave the
    market open for the next round of products.

    Martin

    Re .65 and "unobtainable standards" - but that's classic
    supply-and-demand, right? Gold wouldn't be as valuable if it were
    common; "beauty" (as defined by those trying to increase its value)
    *must* be rare to be worth anything. (Not that I'm claiming deliberate
    conspiracies to toughen beauty standards; I suspect that natural
    competition would have the same effect, with people constantly upping
    the ante - effort required, money required, certain (rare, of course)
    physical characteristics required - until only a few were left to
    compete at the "top".)
    
    -b

The billions of dollars I mentioned earlier are only this generation's
cross to bear, dig?  To be sure, the culturally-induced pressure over
looks has been present for centuries.  That only feeds the claim that
such pressures are present and damning to the women who aren't accidently
favored with good looks by accident of birth.  Mark, you can see it solely
as competition between companies, but I think the prevalence of attention
to appearances throughout history is evidence of cultural pressure, not a
negation therof.

> But charisma is rough to acquire if you aren't born with it. In 
> comparison, it's easier to lose weight, put on nice clothes, and 
> make yourself presentable.

That's bizarre.  I disagree.  Maybe its just my idiosyncrasies, but
it seems to me that the competition for 'hangers-on' (your term) has
a lot more to do with stimulation of the mind than with eye candy; in
comparison, I find far more attractive those women who can hold up a
conversation than those who can't.  I admit I'm weird, but I like to
think its because I've consciously rejected as much of that madison
avenue programming as I can root out (which, admittedly, is not all).
I hold that the men and women who gravitate to eye candy deserve the
relationships they get...in short, I find it an inadequate strategy
for competition.  Having rejected it precisely because it is that 'clever
manipulation' which you don't want to acknowledge, I'm quite well aware 
of the rationalizing that seeks to deny the influence; I used to do it
myself.  So, been there, done that, won't any more.

> given any two equally functional items, the more aesthetically pleasing 
> one is going to be viewed by more people as being more attractive.

Sure.  But, we weren't talking about 'equal items'; we're talking the
rationalizations for denying that the beauty culture represents cultural
pressure, in your context of people competing for mates.  Individuals are
NOT functionally equivalent, Mark, so ignoring the functionality and
picking the eye candy is a non-productive strategy for success.  Nu?
That being so, the beauty culture is easily understood as a dysfunctional
distortion of the competetion.  And since its targeted at women, men win.
They get their eye candy, and they don't have to waste anywhere near as
much time on appearances as do women.  Patriarchy- slick.  That's where
we started, right?

DougO

    
    Martin, 5'10"?  Where did I put that rack... 8^)

    Ray, Helen was hot property because she liked the Three Stooges -
    this is common knowledge.

    Diane
 

So is someone going to stand up for the rights of male peacocks 
cause they've obviously had advertising and publicity rammed down 
their throats so much they spend lots of time grooming and showing
off those pretty tail feathers to the oppresive peahens!

    Doug,
      Do you believe that there is no instinctual drive in humans as
    regards physical appearance ? There seem to be many instances of
    appearance based mating practices in other species. Does "been there,
    done that" mean that you have evolved beyond any instinctive urges as
    well ? I can think of some quite obvious reasons for certain physical
    characteristics making for more desirable mates. One would be
    musculature, strength, size, etc. Another would be breast size and hip
    size in the female. If indeed these are instinctual drives then they
    might well be carried in our DNA and I can't help but wonder how we
    are supposed to rise above our genetic coding.
    
    Karl

No, Karl, "been there, done that" was not claiming an advanced evolution,
it was disclaiming the rationalizations that are offered to excuse mating
strategies predicated mainly upon appearances.  Along the lines of your
questions, I would posit that evolution equipped us with advanced thinking
capabilities to enable us to overcome obstacles to survival; as I explained
earlier, my line of thought leads me to the conclusion that the beauty culture
is a dysfunctional distortion in the competition for a suitable partner, one
that is imposed upon us by powerful cultural traditions and forces to our
detriment.  We are suceptible to it for some of the reasons you mention;
certainly 'attraction' is evident in nature, and it undoubtedly has a role.
Yet my cogitation leads me to the inescapable conclusion that this role has
been far too strongly emphasized for a supposedly intelligent species. We
aren't supposed to 'rise above our DNA'; I would say that our DNA gave us
the brains to recognize when Madison Avenue has taken the beauty cult too far.

DougO

.55>Seriously, I don't know what you're talking about.  Feminism is about
.55>the political and cultural fight for equal opportunity, and has nothing
.55>to do with the repression of men.

    Douglass, your naivet� is legendary.

.53> yes, some women have indeed been made instruments of the cultural
.53> repressioin of other women.
    
    Indeed.  And some men have been made instruments of the matriarchy's
    cultural repression of men.  Got a mirror?

the matriarchy, Michael?  feeling a bit dominated, hey?  fortunately,
I don't share your perspective.

DougO

.74>  fortunately, I don't share your perspective.
    
    That's because we're on opposite sides of this particular fence.