Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Er, patriarchy?  No, no, no... quick, where are my pills...?  :-))))))))))

Well, to begin with, without men, there wouldn't be a human race.  But that's
also true for women as a group.

			Steve

    .. "contribution" .. hummm .. best one I can think of is the NFL!
    
    Bubba

    Remote controls.

    Re .2
    
    Wrong, Steve.  There could actually be a human race without men.  Look
    up the word `parthenogenesis' in your dictionary.  It occurs naturally
    not only among the plants and invertebrates but also among a certain
    highly-evolved species of lizard.  There's sufficient experimental
    evidence that it could be done with humans.
    
    -dick

    
    
    Dick,
    
     But you would need a male scientist to figure it out :-) :-)
    
    
    Incoming,
    David

I think it's pretty safe to say that if men had never existed, there would
be no human race.  I'm aware of parthenogenisis.

			Steve

    but women nowadays can use the sperm banks to get babies, so i dont
    think they need men to exist, one man can produce million and millions
    of sperms, they save in the freezer in the bank, and use it for
    many hundreds of years , so men only are needed at the beginning, then
    the freezer will do the rest.

    
    Um... being positive about the subject:
    
    	It has primarily been men who have led most of our drives to
    explore previously unknown regions. It has primarily been men who have
    charted the planet. Who have criss-crossed the globe in sailing vessels
    and put together a picture of our world. Extending themselves,
    explorers have reached to the moon, the other planets and beyond. It
    has primarily been men who have ventured beyond our stratosphere in
    body, and in charting. Not to say no women have an interest, but the
    majority of interested observers and explorers that we know of are men.
    
    	It has primarily been men who have defined our avenues of
    competition and competitive excellence in both body and mind. In both
    team and individual sports as well as various types of gaming, men have
    developed systematic methods of demonstrating excellence through
    competition. Hence we have the Olympics, World Chess and Bridge 
    Competitions, etc.
    
    

    
    > it was primarily men....charted....explore...sailing
    
    
     It's amazing how far into my psyche the feminist explanation of
    history has sunk in. I could almost hear a woman screaming " Yeah well
    it would have been us too if we were not so oppresed."  Now back to the
    subject.. :-)
    
    David

re .8:

What happens when there's a blackout?

    Probably fire.  The control of fire is what sets man off from the
    rest of the animal kingdom.  Without it we would likely still be
    running around trying to keep from being eaten.

    fred();

    
    
    
      The production of alcohol is not the first sign that man had excess
    and was willing to be creative, but rather, it was the forst sign that
    man wanted an escape from the horror and pain of life....
    
    
    David

    re:.0
    
    The remote control.
    The reclining chair.
    The ice-cold beer.
    The 35" TV screen.

    contributions? those sound like the harvest to me! ;-) 

    Man's contribution to society?
    
    From a recorded historical perspective, I would say men have been the
    primary and majority contributors in the following categories:
    
    Art, literature, philosophy, government, religion, geographic exploration,
    scientific discovery, sculpture, music, empires, architecture, sports,
    economic theory and business development - to name a few of the big
    ones.
                                                                  
    Paul 

.16> From a recorded historical perspective, I would say men have been the
.16> primary and majority contributors in the following categories:
    
    That's true.
    
    But, and here is where I agree with (hold my nose) feminism, history
    was written by men, for men, about men.  And women were mainly restric-
    ted to quiet servitude ("behind every successful man is a woman").
    
    There were, of course, some women who succeeded in spite of that.
    Marie Curie is one who comes immediately to mind.  Brilliant, success-
    ful, and a woman.  There would have been more like her, had the higher
    arts and sciences been available to women as careers.  In that sense,
    human history lost.

    re .19
    
    But, Mike, the question is asking what is, not what might have been.

    I know, but sometimes it's easier to state the obvious, rather than to
    respond to endless questions and assumptions of misogyny and what-not.

    Re .16 et al.
    
    The key word in .16 is "recorded."  From the Curmudgeon's Dictionary:
    
    	history, n.  A detailed record of past events; or, more often, a
    	whitewashing of those same events.
    
    Let us remember that history is written by the winners.  Men have been
    the winners so far; hence, the record is at best suspect and at worst
    criminally distorted.  Maybe this is a men's contribution.
    
    -dick

    re .22
    
    Actually, the word 'recorded' in .16 is redundant.  That period we call
    historical is defined by the invention of writing, that which precedes
    it is prehistory.

    Re .23
    
    At risk of ratholing this topic, David, I will point out that your soi-
    disant penchant for linguistic precision has failed you yet again. 
    History need not be recorded; among acceptable definitions of the word
    is simply "past events."  People, both individually and groups, can
    have an unwritten, and hence unrecorded, history.  Until recently, most
    women's contributions were part of that history.
    
    -dick

    re .24
    
    If you wish to be pedantic, yet again, just once would you do some
    homework first?  The definition of history is that which has occured
    since the invention of writing.  That which occured prior to this is
    prehistoric.  Ask an historian.

    
    
    Binder,
    
    
     > a whitewashing of those same events.
    
    
      Sounds like an unbiased definition to me. I suppose you will not be
    happy until every history book portrays all men as " Bad, oh so Bad."
    
    
    David
    
    
    
    

    Re .25
    
    I reply politely, "stuff it."  I then quote from Webster's Ninth New
    Collegiate Dictionary:
    
    	his�to�ry \'his-t(schwa-)re\ n. pl -ries [L historia, fr. Gk,
    	inquiry ... 4 b : past events (that's all ~ now)
    
    Now it's your turn.  Do your own homework before taking me to task for
    misstatement.  You are not so well educated as you think yourself, and
    I am tired of your know-it-all attitude.
    
    -dick

    re .27
    
    Where should I stuff it, O knowledgeable one?  In your pseudo-English
    dictionary, perhaps?
    
    I am well aware of the general use of the word history.  I am also well
    aware of its specific meaning.  In this particular case the use of
    'recorded' is redundant and I said so.  I shall, also, continue to say
    so where it is pertinent, with or without your consent.

    Re .26
    
    David, read the title of the book from which I quoted.  Of course it's
    a biased definition.  But sometimes bias is not inaccurate.  Witness
    the treatment until *very* recently of Native Americans in history
    books.
    
    -dick

    Re .28
    
    It is just your insistence that "recorded" is redundant in this context
    that shows how you miss the point.  Unless, of course, you believe that
    a contribution to society is not a *real* contribution unless it is
    recorded in a history book.  Are the names of those who built the Great
    Pyramid of Khufu recorded in your book?  No?  Oh, I see, the pyramid is
    thereby declared not a part of history.
    
    Get real, won't you, please?
    
    -dick

    re .30
    
    Both your point and your example are purile.  That it is not necessary
    for the names of the builders of the pyramid in question to be recorded
    for the pyramid itself to be part of history is so glaringly obvious I
    dare say my seven year old son would have spotted that gross error.
    
    In any event it has nothing at all to do with my point, so why did you
    waste everybody's time with it?

    	This is really great.  We now have QUARK::PEDANT_NOTES.
    						John
    

    re:.22
    
    Oh, Dick, if your dictionary still has "history" it's sexist, patriarchal
    propaganda.
    
    The korrect term is "herstory."

    
    
    Dick,
    
    > but sometimes bias is not inaccurate.
    
     And whose to decide?
    
    David

    A male controibution to the society of MENNOTES is interminable semantic
    and philological bickering and backbiting, from which I hereby withdraw
    myself.  Have at it, boys.

	Back to the topic at hand.....



	Why, the Pitts Special airplane.

	A more perfect big-boy toy is unknown to me.

	Steve H

    >A male controibution to the society of MENNOTES is interminable semantic
    >and philological bickering and backbiting
    
    The very essence of noting.
    
    

    WAR    

    To get back to the topic.......
    
    What does it say about man, I wonder, when all the contibutions in here
    (the ones on the topic anyway) talk only about the positive things?
    
    Let's admit that man probably invented gunpowder, guns, cruise
    missiles, atomic weapons, war; he is also capable of rape (altho cannot
    be credited with inventing it, I know).
    
    So - let this subject be balanced by admitting some of the things we
    would be better off without, but which are here, courtesy of man.
    
    
    andy
    
     

    Re .39
    
    Take comfort in the fact that although men are capable of rape, men
    didn't invent it.  Rape occurs in species that have existed since
    before Homo sap. came into existence.
    
    -dick

    re .39

>    So - let this subject be balanced by admitting some of the things we
>    would be better off without, but which are here, courtesy of man.

    Just what we need.  Yet another hate orgy against men.

    fred();

    Re .41
    
    Oh, dear, fred() doesn't want his sunshine and flowers picture of men
    to be tarnished with the oxide of realism.  Too bad...
    
    How about if we open our collective mind to the possibilities of both
    good and bad in men - and women, too, in the parallel topic - so that
    we can see how we got where we are instead of just polishing our rose-
    tinted spectacles, okay?
    
    Here's a good one.
    
    Men - three of them, named Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley - were
    responsible for invention of a practical transistor, without which most
    of Digital's present employees would likely not be working in the
    computer field, which would still be in the age of relays and vacuum
    tubes and patchcords and white coats.
    
    -dick

    
    
    > Oh, dear, fred() doesn't want his sunshine and flowers picture of men
    > to be tarnished with the oxide of realism
    
     Perhaps he wanted a brief respite from the never ending negativity
    we have been spoon fed for so long..
    
    Tried to prolong the positive,
    
     David

You've got to ... ac-cen-tu-ate the positive...

    E-lim-I-nate the negative...

    re .42

    I'm just fed up with the continual hate orgy being conducted against
    men these days.  Seems that some people just can't resist turning
    even a topic that starts out by trying look at some of the positive 
    things along with he companion topic of 861 into (yet another) "let's
    trash men" topic.  If you hate men and being a man so much, I can
    give you the name of a doctor in Trinidad, Co. that can help you
    out.

    fred();

    
    
    > E-Lim-I-nate the negative
    
     Sure.. it does not happen by running people down..
    
    
    David

    Re .46
    
    fred(), I'm not ashamed to be a man.  I'm also not about to play
    ostrich.  As it happens, though, some of the most terribly negative
    contributions of men can be turned for good - for example, the Nazis'
    brutally cruel experiments in hypothermia have proven beneficial to
    medical knowledge.  the means don't justify the end, but I'm quite
    willing to make a silk purse out of a (neuter swine)'s ear if it's at
    all possible.
    
    Re .47
    
    >> E-Lim-I-nate the negative
    
    > Sure.. it does not happen by running people down..
    
    Agreed.  But those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat
    it.  And you can't learn from what you won't see.
    
    -dick

    
    
    Dick,
    
     I see it.. I see it.. I see it........ I also see why it happened.
    Generation after generation of men brought up to believe that they were
    nothing more than cannon fodder..die like a man.. suppress the
    emotions.... logical men act like Spock... And women to some extent
    contributed to this. There is an abundance of people willing to look
    at the king of the hill and Say " This is your problem, look at what
    you did" far to few are offering constructive criticism followed by
    active assistance.. Bitchers are a dime a dozen.....
    
    David    

    re:.46
    
    Might as well let 'em continue, Fred.  If they haven't stopped yet,
    nothing you can say or do is gonna make one bit of difference.

    Boy - are there some raw nerves on show here :-) :-)
    
    Interesting point raised by an earlier note about the inventors of
    things.
    
    I wonder how accurate it is to say that if X had not invented a
    particular thing we would still be "in the dark ages".
    
    As inventions are often made by two or more completely unconnected
    people, at the same time, is it reasonable to argue that if X had not
    invented it, Y would have done so, in due course?
    
    
    andy 
    
    andy

>    I wonder how accurate it is to say that if X had not invented a
>    particular thing we would still be "in the dark ages".

 I guess the relevant notion is that without the particular invention
we'd be significantly less advanced as a species. As far as who in
particular invented it goes, I guess that's less important than the
fact that the invention was made in the first place. Clearly the importance
of, say, penicillin is derived not by its discoveror but by it's
application as a medicine...

	I appreciate the contribution of selflessness that men have made
	to society in playing the role of defender, protector, warrior, 
	etc., irrespective of how frowned upon those stereotypes may be
	these days.  There's a great deal of courage, nobility, and sacrifice
	associated with those roles and there's no denying that they have
	been and continued to be played.


	Diane

    Diane ... may I hug you?
    
    Bubba

    
    You're going to have to get in line Bubba.
    fred();

    
    -1 -2
    
     Beauty before age boyz, step aside....
    
    David

    I think that men:
    
    - possess a beautiful inner strength. 
    
    - Speak their mind directly. (In other words, rather than talking to Y
    about what X did to them, men most often confront X directly.)
    
    - Add emotional stability to an organization or group.
    
    Dan

    I respect the contributions that men have made to rock music over the
    years.   (Not to mention the contributions some of them have made to
    paying for my meals and vacations!)
    
    Lorna
    

Men seem to hold the concept of teamwork

	I may think you're a turkey, but we've got to stick together if
	we want to
		win this game
		deliver this product
		kill this deer
		save this company


There are other forms of cooperation, and I won't try to rank them, but I'm
glad we still have this form when we need it.

In many (most?) cultures, teamwork is primarily the contribution of men, and 
other forms of cooperation are primarily the contribution of women.  I'm not
sure this means anything.  Probably just that teamwork is most needed in 
tasks like hunting and war, where strength and stamina are also needed.

If you like speculative anthropology, you can believe that teamwork was 
invented by men.