Conference quark::mennotes

    >today it seems men have become "objects" themselves, seen as "hunks"
    
    	Not me...
    
    >and "good catches". 
    
    	Okay -- this applies...
    
    >Have you felt like a "walking sperm donor" 
    
    	No.
    
    >and "walking wallet"? 
    
    	No.
    
    >Is this attitude retaliatory 
    
    	No.
    
    >or just a continuum of the "objectification of the american
    >male (heterosexually speaking)"! Discuss.        
    
    	I think you're extrapolating your personal experience onto the
    	entire American male sex as a whole.  I think this is an invalid
    	premise.
    					andrew

haven't noticed myself, whether we've come full circle these days (maybe i 
haven't been round long enough), but if the change means a more self-confident 
approach by women towards men, then surely, this is a change for the good.

does this mean we're now treated purely as objects? i doubt that. no sensible
person would treat another person as merely an object. don't you think so too?

and even if there was some truth in us now being treated as objects, you mean 
you object to being "object of desire", a "hunk", a "good catch"? :-) 
wouldn't you rather be flattered being referred to in those terms?


regards,
andreas.

    I've had many relationships over the years and many of them have
    "dissintegrated" for reasons other than my love for my love. I've got
    two kids and I don't want any more and I express this fact right up
    front. It seems some woman just don't want to here this and engage in a
    relationship in the hopes that I'll "change my mind" and when after
    months of being involved the ultimatum is given "no kids or no me!".
    It seems sometimes loving each other takes a back seat to "other
    priorities". Just one example of being valued for something other than
    yourself.
    					Dan

hi dan, i've got two kids too and to avoid the problem of "no kids or no me!"
i narrow my choice of serious relationships to "women with kids". for a young 
woman, who hasn't got children, the fact that you have, can be a real problem. 
in my experience it always is.

.3> Just one example of being valued for something other than yourself.

i'd say the kids are part of you, so she'd either accept the whole package
or none of it! 


andreas.

    I guess I'm trying to share an observation that over the years I've
    seen to be true over and over again. And that is if you've no interset
    in having children or making your first million, and honest about it,
    then most woman will give you and obviously wide berth. Or they'll try
    to get you into a position were an ultimatum will get them what they
    want, irregardless of who you are or how much love you have to offer.
    This happened no less than 3 times in a row over the course of about 2
    years! I'm not very materialistic and try to keep life simple. I like
    money but I'm not into worshiping it! Thus the obvious question. Do you
    find that you are often judged by what you have to offer instead of who
    you are?
    					Dan D

    Re .5: Gee, sounds like you're attracted to your opposites... I know
    for a fact there are women who aren't interested in kids or wealth,
    'cause I'm one of them, but I suspect that if you haven't met such a
    one in three tries over two years, maybe you should try "casting
    against type," as it were, and look for women who aren't the "type"
    (assuming there is one) who normally attract you right away. [One
    possible difficulty: seems to me that people who _aren't_ all that
    interested in getting married and having children (or looking for
    someone to support them in a style to which they would like to become
    accustomed) are quite a bit less likely to be actively searching for
    romantic partners; they may spend a lot of time at home, for example,
    or pursuing their interests on their own. Makes it harder to meet them,
    I expect. From my own experience I know that, outside of work, I seldom
    meet new people at all unless a major appliance breaks down. ;-)]
    
    -b

  .0> Years ago woman were seen as "objects of desire" and today it seems men

      Yeah, NOW is no longer the acronym for "Nubile Order of Wenches"...

  .0> have become "objects" themselves, seen as "hunks" and "good catches".

      What guy wouldn't like to be thought of as a "hunk" or "good catch"?

  .0> Have you felt like a "walking sperm donor" and "walking wallet"?

      Well, a man's primary biological function is to impregnate women
      and the circumstances around how he does this defines whether or not
      he becomes a "walking wallet"...  If money is NOT the primary concern
      between two Lovers, the Man will NEVER be considered a "walking wallet".

  .3> I've got two kids and I don't want any more and I express this fact
      right up front.  It seems some woman just don't want to here this and
      engage in a relationship in the hopes that I'll "change my mind"...

      If YOU haven't taken the necessary steps to insure you CAN'T have any
      more children then you are nothing more than a \nasser in disguise...
      What Woman would want to take a chance on someone who doesn't know
      how to take personal responsibility?

    re: .5 (Dan)
    
    > Do you find that you are often judged by what you have to offer instead
    > of who you are?
    
    It seems to me that to some extent, "what you have to offer" is part of
    "who you are" and vice versa.  If a person is strongly attracted to one
    who is, say, taller than a certain height, is that person attracted to
    the "what" or the "who"?  If you're well-read and enjoy lively
    discussion, is that trait who you are or something you have to offer a
    potential mate?  Might it be both?  A quick glance at most personal ads
    suggests to me that the line is, at best, unclear.
    
    In your situation, Dan, I'd second Beth's suggestions a couple of
    replies back.  It appears that you're somehow winding up in
    relationships with women who aren't happy with your who/what package. 
    Don't forget, the unsatisfactory who/what is a two-way street - those
    women you've broken up with weren't the package you were looking for,
    either.  While it's important to stay true to yourself, some
    modification of your search process may be necessary to ensure you wind
    up with a partner of like priorities.
    
    Btw, to answer your questions about objectification, I've seen nothing
    to convince me that women objectify men more today than they have in
    the past.  It may be that they're a little more vocal about it, but
    from what I can gather, women's priorities in finding a mate have
    changed little over the years.
    
    Steve

    Well, I don't consider myself easily snookered, and I haven't detected
    any retaliatory action on the part of women.  However, isn't it true
    that women long ago were expected to be chosen and that men were
    supposed to choose?  Maybe now we're seeing a welcome leveling of the
    field.  Maybe now it's not men choosing women or women choosing men (in
    the hetero sense only) but rather people choosing people.  

    But sure, I can see how it would appear a little odd to the former
    "chasers" to have to be on the defensive more often.  For me, this is a
    good thing, because when it comes to aggressiveness in mating rituals,
    uh, that ain't me.  So usually the combination of a tall thin build,
    nice clothes, and my usual sunny disposition  :-/  generally gets me
    some minimal level of attention from women. 

    Dan, regarding the label of "sperm donor," I would second .7's view. 
    Get a vasectomy - from personal experience I can tell you it's a piece
    of cake, and you'll feel better for it.  The way they do them today,
    twenty men with pick and shovel couldn't reverse them, so most any
    woman who says she's interested in you, if she's made aware of your
    vasectomy, will disappear quick if all she wants is babies.  As it
    relates to the problem you state in .3, this solution is low-hanging
    fruit.  Go for it! 

    .0> have become "objects" themselves, seen as "hunks" and "good
    catches".
    
          What guy wouldn't like to be thought of as a "hunk" or "good
    catch"?
    
    My point exactly. We as men have been "dragged thru the coals "as of
    late because we enjoy a womans sensual side as well as her "other"
    attributes. But a lot of men are now being subjected to the same 
    mentality as we were told is "demeaning". I guess it's just another
    double-standard some men choose to accept. 
    
    I would personaly like to be valued for my "human attributes" instead of my
    physique (which aint bad by the way) or my financial status (which is
    extremely compromised at the moment, I'm a NCP). But the old sexist
    stereotypes are alive and well in society and I see this as a major
    problem (especially if your a parent). 
    					Dan

re: .11  (Dan D)

>    My point exactly. We as men have been "dragged thru the coals "as of
>    late because we enjoy a womans sensual side as well as her "other"
>    attributes. But a lot of men are now being subjected to the same 
>    mentality as we were told is "demeaning". I guess it's just another
>    double-standard some men choose to accept. 
    
   Is it really a double standard?  I would consider it a double standard
   if both groups had the same circumstances and were treated
   differently, but I'm not convinced that is the case here.  Men have
   been told by women that they (women) consider being treated like an
   object to be demeaning.  From my own limited experience, it would seem
   that this is true for a great many women.  
   
   Ok, but is it true for anywhere near the saem percentage of men?
   Wouldn't it be a double standard only if men also felt it demeaning to
   be treated like an object?  If all/most/many men actually enjoyed
   this, then would it even be a problem?  
   
   In that case, wouldn't it be a double standard (or at least unfair) to
   give both groups exactly the same treatment knowing that they had
   different needs and expectations?  I'm not sure that the
   double-standarded-ness of this has been proven yet...
   
   Just wondering...
   
   - Tom  (who has never had the body or the money or anything else to
           have ever been treated like an object, so I don't know if its
           demeaning or not...)

    Good point Tom. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is the
    perception of a double standard.
    	I don't think anyone can disagree that sexual attraction has a lot
    to do with the initial stages of "getting together" as it were. It's
    the continued imposition of "roles" and presumptions that I see as
    perpetuating the "what can you give me" attitude as opposed to "what
    can we give each other". And I'd have to say, as was mentioned earlier, 
    as woman get older they have a more accepting attitude towards "no
    kids" but the money thing seems to linger, more often than not. 
    	We have traditional roles as providers and are judged by our
    ability to do so. This is de-humanizing IMO. I'd want to be seen as a
    human being first , a man (and all the presumptions of what a man is
    "suppose to be") second. It's just that simple. I'm not saying all
    woman do this because many woman break from their traditional
    teachings, but many still go through their lives on automatic pilot,
    waiting to be "taken" by the "man of their dreams". 
    						Dan 
    	

    Its all a game. And if you dont like the games, take the football and
    go play someplace else. 
    
    If you feel like your a sex object, and you feel uncomfortable, go
    someplace else till you find the right nitch. If you feel like a
    walking wallet, as every man does when he is zinged, then dump em and
    go onto the next. Use the wallet as your wepon, use the bod as the
    wepon too. And play the game as they play it on you. Its just a game,
    and yhe with the most toys in the end wins.
    
    Or, like self, dont have allot toys, just got a few good ones that keep
    me happy when I dont want to play the head games that goes with it all.
    
    

.14, gheez george, sounds like a deadly serious game...


andreas.

    �.14, gheez george, sounds like a deadly serious game...
    
    Yha just try to avoid the pits of life as you do in any game. I got
    cought too in one good one. It was 'we have a kid or she walks'. So we
    have a child, I love very much and have custody of, and she still
    walked..... 
    
    There was the ususal divorce, followed with bankruptcy, followed with
    the usual crappie of the games.... and its just that. Another nasty
    game. Kinda like Nam. Today we waist a bunch of good people to take
    some unknown mole hill. And tomorrow we'll give it back.

    For what it's worth...
    
    As the infamous lyrics of Carly Simon states " IF you're willing to
    play the game, it'll come around again"... and again and again and...
    
    Some people are very lucky, for a multitude of various reasons they
    meet, marry, and have wonderful lives together... but for about half
    of American society it's divorce or "breaking up" that's the
    reality. Sad but true... 
    
    I guess once you've grown as a person to the point where you are able to
    "see" the realities of "romantic love" and attempt to create a place in
    your life for unconditional love and attempt to get there, then you
    find out what's really going on and thru experience I've found very few
    people willing to go down "The Road Less Traveled" or should I say
    "Travailed". A crap shoot for sure!
    					Dan 
    

.17> As the infamous lyrics of Carly Simon states " IF you're willing to
.17> play the game, it'll come around again"... and again and again and...

it sure as hell is difficult breaking with old habits, like not playing 
games. i figure, at the end of the games room there's got to be a door 
which says 'real life starts here'.

now how to get there... 

i mean, it can't just be a game, can't it?

andreas.

    Afer the marriage game. And now back to the dating games. ...... its
    the same games as it was before. The names have changes, the places are
    the same....the game will always be...;)
    
    Peace, Love, and Surandwrap..
    
    

.17> Some people are very lucky, for a multitude of various reasons they
.17> meet, marry, and have wonderful lives together...

.17> A crap shoot for sure!

     With this attitude, you're sure to always come up snake-eyes...

.18> i figure, at the end of the games room there's got to be a door which
.18> says 'real life starts here'.

.18> i mean, it can't just be a game, can't it?

     It's no game...  What it _IS_ though is work!  Anything decent and worth
     having takes rigorous work to achieve and maintain.  If you depend upon
     luck, you'll most likely be unlucky.  

     The good news is that the harder you work at something the easier it
     becomes with growth occurring as well...

     Don

    It was NEVER a game for me... at times difficult, but worth every
    effort and every minute of it.  (going on 32 years, so I have some
    foundation of my words...)
    Ana

.20>  It's no game...  What it _IS_ though is work! 

and work can also be playful and shared fun, to accomodate our innermost needs 
for play, right? 


andreas.

    That's RIGHT!  It's not the destination but the journey...

    Just to exemplify some of the "mentalities" of the modern mating
    game...
    
    25 year old woman marries 80"ish man (who happens to be worth
    $500 million). I'm sure she's looking for a long and happy journey with
    this man...RIGHT!
    
    And interviews on the street about this whole buisness with woman
    had a majority of them wishing they were her! What is one to derive
    from all this.... 
    					Dan

That a lot of people are materialistic?  That's surprising?

    Materialism is one thing. How you go about getting "your material" is
    quite another.  
    
    

    when you marry for money, you usually end up earning it.
    
    just a thought.
    
    Brian

   > when you marry for money, you usually end up earning it.
    
    I wouldn't dare speculate on the implied meaning of this entry...so...
    could you er..um.. elaborate just a little!

.24> Just to exemplify some of the "mentalities" of the modern mating game...

the "mentality" which you exemplify, is one of many, which apply to the mating 
'game' since whenever it began!


andreas.

    Don't get me wrong guys and gals. I "love" woman. There's nothing more
    beautiful to my eyes than a woman who loves me as much as I do her. 
    (well, my kids are in the same ballpark!)
    
    There are many who've never had to deal with "getting dumped" for no
    apparent reason and struggling to figure out "why?". It's not a
    pleasant experience. And I'll be the first to admit to being a "dumper"
    as well. But that was back in my 20's and early 30's. Now I take'em one
    at a time. No more juggling for me! It's too confusing. I'm just too
    much of a human being. I guess that's what happens over time. You grow
    even without a relationship (if you do the work!)
    
    Times have changed. It's easier to hold onto "traditional roles and
    values" than to seperate out what actually has relevance. To evolve you
    must change, and not fear change. And not fear where change will take
    you. Sometimes you grow together...sometimes you grow apart... and
    sometimes you just stagnate and hold onto what you have for fear of
    change because change has an element of risk that some people just
    aren't willing to take... and that's their personal loss (IMHumbleO).
    
    I've played the game like a pro, and once the games end and the work
    begins is where you begin to "see" each other for who you really are,
    and this is the time when relationships are at most risk. I'd rather
    live a life of truth than submit to an existence of "fantasy" and
    denial... and as I've found, this scares the hell outta some people.
    					Dan 

hey dan, this brought something on, let me share this, as another perspective

.24>  25 year old woman marries 80"ish man 

reminds me of this guy i know. he's in his eighties too. started out as an
orphan, worked since he was a kid, did night-school, married, built a company,
had a few kids, adopted a few more, orphans, made millions, his wife died, 
he sold his company and retired.

i met him in my local bar, he's got alot of stories to tell, on life, on folks,
on building an enterprise. he looks twenty years younger than his age. its nice 
talking with him, its not very often you meet old people which really know how 
to lean back to fully enjoy the fruits of their life. 

they say he moves around alot with young women. so he does, might even remarry 
and leave her some of his dough. one things for sure, that guy is pretty smart 
and he sure knows how to judge folks. since i got to know him pretty well, i 
have a hunch, that whichever woman marries him, should he remarry, it won't 
just be for the money. he's got alot more than that to offer.


andreas.

    When did the games begin? Since the beginnings of time. When man paid
    in goats, sheep or what ever for his nookie. Guess it hasnt stopped
    yet. Guess the best way to say it is, 'when the little head gets big,
    the big head gets little.....' :) 

.30> and once the games end and the work begins is where you begin to "see" 
.30> each other for who you really are, and this is the time when relationships 
.30> are at most risk. 

why start with a game? why not be your natural self from the start? 
this might cut out alot of potential (those who look for the "walking wallets")
but leaves all the more chances for the real stuff.

and when you meet the real thing, time's on you side pal, an endless supply
of it! :-)


andreas.

    That's what I meant by "a crap shoot at best". You try not to play
    games but you've got to "dance to a tune" or you're left on the dance
    floor "all by yourself". It's human nature to be cautious and let your
    true self shine thru a little at a time. Try and let it all out at once
    and you may "blind" the person you're attempting to illuminate. It's a
    very difficult balance to achieve. Once the initial "getting to know
    you" is past there's some basis to build on. 
    And bye the way, "what you see is what you get" has always been my
    attitude. I have a hard time "acting". 
    						Dan

    What I see of the dating game fame is that men are not interesed or as
    hot to remarry as the women of an older age. Where the men were
    interested younger in years and the women were.. Not to start a feud
    over it. Just a casual observation. Guess some of the men are paying
    maintence/alimoney and child support. And feel the wrath of 'It can
    happen again.... and I will pay more!'

gee, dan, are you mixing with the wrong crowd? why go to places where you 
have to "dance to the tune" and where you can't "shine"?

how about taking up some social activity which is more like you, which you 
enjoy and where you get something out of it. and should you meet someone this 
way, then it's a bonus and take it from there.

i've seen it work before.

andreas.

ps. re .35, george, bingo! 

    I meant the dance of intimacy, I should have known! Sorry Andreas! I
    didn't mean to imply otherwise. But... your suggestion is from the
    heart (from what I can tell) and is well taken. 
    					Dan

    
    
    > I think your exptrapolating your experience onto the male popultion
    > as a whole
    
      You mean sorta like the feminists have done when they fling their mud
    or paint with a wide brush??
    
    David

    Some do.  Regardless of the source, I dislike it when someone
    acts as if their personal prejudice is some sort of natural law.
    
    This sort of action seems more common in bigots and zealots, who come
    in a variety of sexes, ages, political stripes, and religious bents.

    
    
    > SOME DO
    
     Some do!!!!!! SOME DO!!!! It's their entire ball of wax. Ever watch
    CNN?? Count the number of times in a week they use the word sexist
    or racist? Tossing mud is the only way the liberal ilk survives.
    Sexistphobics, Racistphobics, how long before people wake up to
    the cry babies that are crying wolf?
    
    

    acts as if their personal prejudice is some sort of natural law
    
    ER...UM...would just like to understand more about your implication
    and why you assume an honest opinion equates to a "natural law".

    
.40>  Some do!!!!!! SOME DO!!!! It's their entire ball of wax. 

there are zealots everywhere, ready to abuse the label of their movement, 
whichever it may be. but why should that bother you?


andreas.

    re: .38 & .40 (David)
    
    When you wrote, ". . .like the feminists have done when they fling
    their mud or paint with a wide brush??" you were replying to the idea
    that someone was extrapolating from limited experience to the larger
    population.  What you don't seem to see is that when you assert that
    "the feminists" do such-and-such, you're painting with that same wide
    brush.  Feminists, like conservatives, liberals, and other large groups
    are hardly a monolithic entity of one mind; to ascribe the views of
    some to the entire population is to commit the offense you decry.
    
    Steve

    
    The feminsist movement is not abusing its label, it is living up to it.
 
    > But why should that bother you
     Because the sum total of all the " I'm a victim your a victim wouldnt
    you like to be a victim to " crowd, is making our nation crumble. 
    
    David

    
    132.43
    
      NYET, my opinion is not derived from a single individual encounter,
    not even several encounters. It is reached by observing the methodology
    and policy of the NOW gang and frings victim groups. If you see the
    head of the dragon you may make conclusions about what the tail is
    likely to do....
    
    David

There's no such thing as "the feminist movement".

				Steve

    Steve,
    
    Sure there is ;-) 
    
    It's just that we are such a moving target that no two feminists even
    know what our movement is.
    
    meg

    It's just that we are such a moving target that no two feminists even
        know what our movement is.
    
    Well, why don't you share what you feel the definition is. I for one
    have no problem with the classic definition of feminism, it's the
    militant faction and the unwritten agenda which is got my hair up!
    					Dan
    

    >Tossing mud is the only way the liberal ilk survives.
    >Sexistphobics, Racistphobics, how long before people wake up to
    >the cry babies that are crying wolf?
    
    	Excuse me, you asked me about feminists, not liberals.
    
    	What exactly are sexistphobics and racistphobics?
    
    	As for the tone of your comments: QED
    
    					andrew

    re: .43 (David)
    
    > My opinion. . .is reached by observing the methodology and policy of
    > the NOW gang and frings victim groups. 
    
    You have, of course, every right to your opinion.  My association with
    members of the NOW, including attending some meetings, leaves me with a
    very different opinion.
    
    > Tossing mud is the only way the liberal ilk survives. . .how long
    > before people wake up to the cry babies that are crying wolf?
    
    Once again you commit the offense you condemn.  So far in this string,
    you're the only one I've seen "tossing mud" with name-calling like 
    "cry babies" (pure insult) "that are crying wolf" (an unsupported
    allusion to one who lies).  
    
    If you think that "feminists" are all wide-eyed radicals, fine.  I
    think you're wrong.  Just as a f'rinstance, you might take a look at
    that bastion of feminism, the Womannotes conference.  I suggest you'll
    find a wide range of political attitudes and beliefs; I caution you
    that said conference may not support your ideas about "feminists".
    
    Steve

.44> The feminsist movement is not abusing its label, it is living up to it.

are you condemning all feminists or just SOME (like back in .40) ? common
sense suggests that there are some zealots amongst the feminists, which would
abuse the label of their movement purely as a platform to air their personal
prejudice (see .39).

.44>   > But why should that bother you
.44>  Because the sum total of all the " I'm a victim your a victim wouldnt
.44>  you like to be a victim to " crowd, is making our nation crumble.

you are more than likely, NOT responsible for the victims! from what i have
experienced with dealing with feminists, its about women helping themselves.
and if you are comfortable in your position as male/caucasian/professional or
whatever, you can leave it at that. this doesn't preclude listening to feminist
perspectives. or any other perspective for that matter which differs from
your own. confronting other perspectives is a two way street and usually
beneficial to both sides.


andreas.

    
    
    > What exactly are sexistphobics, racistphobics
    
      New words I think I created:-)
    
    > tone
    
     I'm sure they have tissue somewhere in your bldg.
    
    David

    
    
    Last few,
    
     Again I must point out that my opinion about the Feminsist( to include
    the liberal sub-components) is reached by looking at the head of the
    dragon. I am certain that within the NOW  gang there are persons that
    disagree with the direction, methods, etc etc. Last night I met someone
    from a different notes conference, for a drink. She was a feminist with
    some ideas I could agree with, ideas that seemed to be at odds with
    what I perceived to be the doctrine of the feminist movement.
    
    David

    David:
This is your statement:
    
    "...my opinion about the Feminsist( to include the liberal
    sub-components) is reached by looking at the head of the dragon."
    
Is this an equally valid statement?
    
    "...my opinion about the [Christian] (to include the [conservative]
    sub-components) is reached by looking at the head of the dragon.
    
Should all groups be judged by their most radical elements?  

    
    
    By there leadership, yes! If you would like to announce a splinter
    group of feminists which sail under a different flag then I would
    judge them by there leaders statements etc etc.
    
    
    David

    �There's no such thing as "the feminist movement".
    
    Right! And there is a easter bunny too.

it sure would be interesting to hear some of the statements straight from
the "dragon's head". i switched to CNN yesterday night (re .40), but all 
i saw was a disappointed clinton over the lost crime bill and a happy woman 
from the NRA. ... and then there was some some stuff on design and construction
of high-rise buildings in hong-kong and how the needs of the dragon from the 
mountain and those of other spirits are accomodated in the process... 
nothing on the "dragon" which i switched to CNN in the first place though.


andreas.

    
    
    Andreas,
    
     Patience.
    
    > lost crime bill
    
      Good, 9 billion is pork, midnight basketball, geesh, " here kids
    please don't mug us, well pay for you to play basketball at midnight".
    
    David  

    �There's no such thing as "the feminist movement".
    
Ah...which planet are you from?


The movement is live and well and still as disjointed, confused and a buch of 
radicals (oh oh....here comes the bullets!).

I have a problem with percentage of feminists who seem to feel the real goal 
is to dominate men in this world and use a man's wallet as an extension of 
their own. 

Some how a percentage of feminists lost touch with reality that the real goal 
was EQUALITY amoung the sexes. To be treated no differently than a man, have 
the same opportunities as a MAN, to share traditional 'woman's work' so to 
speak with the man and as far as I am concern they should equally share the 
'man's work' so to speak.


John

    
    -1
    
     Yep, shave those heads just like the men, enjoy the equality and stop
    asking for special treatment or whining about the rules.
    
    
    David

Re: .59

I'm from Earth - what about you?

>I have a problem with percentage of feminists who seem to feel the real goal 
>is to dominate men in this world and use a man's wallet as an extension of 
>their own. 

That percentage is quite small.  In fact, I've never run across a feminist
with that viewpoint.  (Most who DO hold that view would be the first to
tell you that they don't consider themselves feminists.)

>Some how a percentage of feminists lost touch with reality that the real goal 
>was EQUALITY amoung the sexes. To be treated no differently than a man, have 
>the same opportunities as a MAN, to share traditional 'woman's work' so to 
>speak with the man and as far as I am concern they should equally share the 
>'man's work' so to speak.

I imagine there are a few here and there, but it's not a significant
"percentage".  Of course, zero is also a "percentage".  All of the feminists
I know (and I'm one of them) believe in equal rights and opportunity for
men and women.  As for sharing work, a lot of men could do well to share
"woman's work", so to speak.

					Steve

    �I'm from Earth - what about you?
    
    Voltar is looking for you Steve. Wants you to wash the space ship
    windows from the outside. He said to leave your life support system
    inside.:)
    
    

re: recent few

Of course, we can all look at the world and decide for ourselves.

Feminists I know fit the descriptions of Steve and Andreas.  They don't fit the 
descriptions of George, John and David.

    Gee....How come?:) Tell us all.

.63> Feminists I know fit the descriptions of Steve and Andreas.  

gee thanks, so you mean steve and i are feminists! :-) :-)

just kidding. 

of course there can be male feminists too... in my experience never 
self-appointed though. its sort of like a compliment when a woman feminist 
calls a man a feminist.


andreas. 

    re .59
    
    You mean Phyllis shlaeffly and Tammy Faye Bakker are feminists?  By
    your definition and their own autobiographies they meet your criteria.
    
    I think they would be shocked

Re: .65

Of course a male can be a feminist!   I prefer the term "humanist", myself,
but it doesn't seem to be popular.  I'm also a member of NOW.

					Steve

    � I'm also a member of NOW.
    Dont worry Steve, we wont hold it against you.:) I prefer the term 
    'humanist'. But, humorist is a better term.:)

George,

Looks like we are just two peas in a pod ;-)


John

    Johnny-be-good,
    
    Yep. No doubt about it! We are just a couple of old marked cards. (puns
    intended)
    
    

.68>  But, humorist is a better term.:)

      Just loved the way you "feigned intelligence" over in Womannotes, 
      yesterday...  :-)

    �Just loved the way you "feigned intelligence" over in Womannotes,
    
    Shhhhh! Dont want them to know that I DON'T have a brain in my head.:)
    
    

    re: .28  sorry, haven't been in here for awhile.
    
    What I meant by earning the money you marry is that it isn't
    necessarily a free ride.  You may have to put up with some
    unpleasantness of one sort or another along the way.  Maybe more than
    was bargained for.  In essence, you have to work at getting/keeping the
    money that was married.  
    
    Brian

    	My wife's sister was acknowleged to be one of the most brilliant in
    her year and have a bright future ahead of her, and at the age of 18
    she married a man who drove an ice-cream van, and settled down to
    become a housewife.
    
    	When her elder daughter was 18 she decided it was a good time to go
    to university. She got a first class honours degree in mathematics, a
    research and teaching post at the university, attends conferences world
    wide in her subject (mathematical modelling of disk head design - it seems
    existing models break down when there are less than 100 molecules of
    air between disk heads and the surface).
    
    	Her husband is currently selling sweets rather than ice-cream, and
    they expect to celebrate 25 years of happy marriage next year.
    
    	You could hardly say she married for money. In fact one of the main
    reasons they are comfortably off is that her mathematical aptitude has
    ensured that they have paid almost no taxes in the last 25 years.
    
    	I do have a couple of friends who are divorced, but they both say
    the financial settlement was fair - they agreed it before any
    lawyer was involved. In fact the lawyer (they both used the same one)
    was only involved for the formalities of the divorce.

Hey Brian,

.74>  My wife's sister was acknowleged to be one of the most brilliant in
.74>  her year and have a bright future ahead of her, and at the age of 18
.74>  she married a man who drove an ice-cream van, and settled down to
.74>  become a housewife.
    
.74>  Her husband is currently selling sweets rather than ice-cream, and
.74>  they expect to celebrate 25 years of happy marriage next year.
    
All this implies is that your Sister-in-law uses a literal definition of
the term "Sugar-daddy"... 

Sorry, couldn't resist  :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 

        My congratulations to those who have made it work.  However, 
    again, individual cases may not prove a lot.  Yes, you may see it 
    happening a bit more today, but still, as a general rule, you
    don't see too many girls from "her society" marrying the boy from 
    "down in the boondocks", and when they do, the marriage tends not
    to last.  Money problems are the number one cause of divorce.  Still,
    50% of marriages _do_ work.

    fred();

.76> Money problems are the number one cause of divorce.  

personally, i don't know of a single case where money was the cause of divorce.
i know of a few cases where money became a big issue _with_ divorce, though
i also know of many cases, where the divorce was based on a fair agreement 
(involving minimal cost and legal counselling).

most causes for divorce around here, according to official figures, is that 
the partners have lived themselves apart and have little reason left to stay
together.


andreas.

    re: .76 (Fred)
    
    You keep reminding us, Fred that "individual cases may not prove a
    lot".  I agree.  But if that's so, where is your non-anecdotal evidence
    (i.e. beyond your own personal observations) that ". . .as a general
    rule, you don't see too many girls from 'her society' marrying the boy
    from 'down in the boondocks'"?
    
    And while I've seen surveys that purport that money is the number one
    cause of divorce, I think there's ample room for skepticism.  While
    "money" may well be *given* as the cause of a divorce, a couple of
    things come to mind.  First, it doesn't tell us what kind of money
    problems caused the divorce.  Within the context of this note, was it
    that he didn't make enough?  Or was it something else, like he didn't
    want her to have access to the checkbook?  Or was (s)he too busy
    chasing the dollar (career) to spend time with the spouse?.  Simply
    saying "money" caused a divorce tells us little.
    
    Secondly, while money is no doubt a frequent cause of conflict, it's no
    big psychological secret that couples often argue about one thing while
    the true cause of the conflict is something else.  My parents used to
    argue a lot about it, but it was definitely *not* the cause of their
    conflicts; for a long time, it was just easier arguing about money than
    it was talking honestly about deeply held feelings.  While I readily
    acknowledge that it has no more scientific validity than yours,
    virtually all the marital problems/breakups I've seen (including my
    own) have little to do with money.
    
    Steve
    
    Btw, it seems to me that there's another less nefarious reason why one
    may not see a lot of "high society/boondocks" marriages.  While there
    is some truth to the adage that opposites attract, it appears more
    likely that people of similar backgrounds and interests are attracted
    to one another.

    
    re .78

>    You keep reminding us, Fred that "individual cases may not prove a
>    lot".  I agree.  But if that's so, where is your non-anecdotal evidence
>    (i.e. beyond your own personal observations) that ". . .as a general
>    rule, you don't see too many girls from 'her society' marrying the boy
>    from 'down in the boondocks'"?

    All you have to do is take a look around you.  Other than the personal
    examples you gave, how often do you see it happen.  It happens all
    the time with men marrying women of "lesser financial standing" 
    (for lack of a better discription) or at least fairly equal.  O.J. 
    Simpson's recently departed ex-wife for instance was a waitress when 
    they met.  Some of the Royal Family marriages also are good examples.  
    The only thing I an think of that even comes close is Liz Taylor's 
    recent marriage to some truck driver (actually I think he owned the 
    trucking company).

    Even Gloria "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"
    Steinem(sp) ran and married the biggest sweetest sugar-dady she
    could find when things got rough.  Then gave him the heave-ho
    when things picked up.  

    fred();

    
    I suppose one could argue that Glor needed the money rather than
    the man.
    
    Anyway she's a saint now.

    And when the Womans Bank of Boston, totally run by women, loaning money
    to only women. Got in financial troubles......they hired some men....

    re: .81
    	I thought sexual discrimination in employment was illegal in the
    U.S.?  Maybe it was started by a group of women, but if they were
    openly advertising jobs then I would have thought they would have had
    to give a fair opportunity to men.
    
    	I could name 3 families where the woman runs all of the family
    finances, and another 3 where the woman couldn't be trusted with a
    cheque book.
    
    	All of the above shows no more than there are financially competent
    men and women, and maybe the "Womans Bank of Boston" is obeying U.S.
    laws?

    re .82
    
    Another one of those double standards.  Sexual/racial discrimination
    in U.S.A. is ok so log as it is against white males.  Over age 40 then
    age discrimination kicks in.   The Supreme Court ruled it's ok.
    
    fred();

.83> Sexual/racial discrimination in U.S.A. is ok so log as it is against 
.83> white males.  

wouldn't that fit under a term like "positive discrimination"? the logic 
behind it being as long as women (or named minorities) are not represented 
proportionally to their share in the population, this type of discrimination
is considered fair.


andreas.

Re: .84

I don't know about "fair", but the US government seems to consider it
acceptable.  I sympathize with the motives, but the means I can't agree with.
Unfortunately, this is an issue which doesn't seem to lend itself to "fair"
solutions - at least none that the government is willing to live with.
In essence, we've got a "quota system" though nobody from the government is
willing to use that term.

					Steve

re .85

was the "womans bank of boston" a private initiative or sponsored by government?

one problem with a government imposed quota system, as i see it, is primarily 
that it hits against the popular "too much government" sentiment (the opposition
then builds on this sentiment rather than on the issue at hand).

what i like about self-help efforts as private enterprises (presuming the 
womans bank falls into this category) is that this has nothing to do with 
government. its a direct effort by those concerned, and in such circumstances, 
i can see the sense in positive discrimination laws (in support of such 
self-help efforts).


andreas.

Re: .86

I don't know the particulars, but the bank is presumably private.  The issue
is that the US government regulates employment practices and enforces
"equal opportunity" rules on all employers.  These rules tend to have various
exceptions which allow for outright biases against "non-protected" groups.

Sometimes these rules backfire - I've read reports of a small manufacturer
in Illinois who was forced to lay off a significant portion of his
minority workforce because the EEOC ruled that he didn't have the right MIX
of minorities.

					Steve

    
    Re: men being walking wallets
    
    ...just as if there aren't any men who live off a woman's income.
    
    But I really like the idea of argument-by-popular-music, and in that
    vein I offer "Money, Honey" (various artists) and "First I Look At The
    Purse" (J. Geils Band).
    
    JP

    There is an exclusive road race that happens on Columbis day, every 
    year in Boston. The Bonnie(y) Bell (sp) road race. No men are to
    register to run. Kinda reminds me of the days that the Boston Marathon
    was an exclusive mens race. But in the 70's we brougt down these walls
    of exclusion.......And in the 80's the wymen put them up.;)
    
    The bank was a write up sometime in the mid 80's in the wallstreet
    journal. If I can remember, it was set up by the feds, to help other
    women owned business to get a shot at private business. Besides the
    yarn shops, and the cozy cute shops. Real business, that they normally 
    could not get a loan for.
    And during this time, the wymin, were whomping anyone any where who did
    not meet their needs or adjenda of what is the new order of the 80's.
    
    To me, I can only quote bill murry, from meat balls, "It just doesnt
    matter'. Reason? Cause, the walls the wymin set up, will be coming down
    at the hands of their own fate. And not necessarly ours. 
    
    There are other men, I have heard from, in the grape vines, who are
    joining pro-life groups cause, if they dont have a voice or choice,
    neither should the wymin....remember I am just telling you, I have
    no opionions cause I see both sides, and my heart is tied hard to what
    is right...
    
      ufine
    . 
    u

Re: .89

    There are other men, I have heard from, in the grape vines, who are
    joining pro-life groups cause, if they dont have a voice or choice,
    neither should the wymin....

Hmm - If the men can't get pregnant, neither should the women?


			Steve

    >There is an exclusive road race that happens on Columbis day, every 
    >year in Boston. The Bonnie(y) Bell (sp) road race. No men are to
    >register to run. Kinda reminds me of the days that the Boston Marathon
    >was an exclusive mens race. But in the 70's we brougt down these walls
    >of exclusion.......And in the 80's the wymen put them up.;)
    
    The Bonne Belle race is for women.  Women win all the prizes (the
    monetary rewards for this race are relatively high).  Now, if this was
    one of only a few races, then I could see the point of complaining. 
    However, in New England alone, there are about 1,000 road races per
    year, with both men and women running -- EVERY one of them won by a
    man.
    
    EVERY one?  Every one.   Men run faster than women -- if men competed,
    they'd win every time. So, Bonne Belle set up ONE race where a woman
    could be the first one to cross the finish line.  
    
    George, men are excluded from competing in the LPGA.  Is that
    exclusionary?  Is it any more exclusionary than the fact that women are
    excluded from EVERY level of professional team sports, with rare
    exceptions (like ONE woman trying out for the NBA, one for the NHL, 
    NONE in the NFL, etc.)
    
    If it's okay to have men-only baseball, football, hockey, basketball,
    golf, tennis, etc., then why is ONE RACE where a woman can be
    guaranteed a win so horrible?
    					andrew

        RE .91

>    The Bonne Belle race is for women.  Women win all the prizes (the
>    monetary rewards for this race are relatively high).  Now, if this was
>    one of only a few races, then I could see the point of complaining. 
>    However, in New England alone, there are about 1,000 road races per
>    year, with both men and women running -- EVERY one of them won by a
>    man.

    Every other road race has a "mens division" and a "womens division".
    Has to  because you can't exclude women from running.  You can,
    though, apparently, exclude men from running.  Just as you can
    have a women's only health club, but you can't have a men's
    only health club.  

    This is typical of a lot of "equal rights" stuff.  Women want to
    be let in and be "equal", but as soon as they get in they want 
    to be given special treatment.  As in the health clubs.  They
    demand to be let in, then demand a women's only exercise area.
    Sannon Faulkner(sp) wants to be let in to Citadel, but want's
    to be excluded from having her hair cut as every other cadet
    must.  The list goes on and on.

    The only exception I can think of is Shirley "Cha Cha" Muldowney.
    fred();

    re .88
    
    Well stated.  Let me in turn offer Cheap Trick's "He's a Whore" from
    their first album, which takes a very rough and unmerciful look at a
    man who uses women for money.  I think the song is well done because
    the listener is left with two impressions - that the main character is
    proud of who he is, but that the song was written to demonstrate how
    reprehensible he is.  In other words, we get an inside view *and* an
    outside view.  It's a delicate combination, but it works.
    
    Okay, end of Cheap Trick plug.  :-)

    Steve,
    
    And its fine to have this sort of fair play when you find that men must
    have women in its ranks with road races? Thats the Now attitudes vs
    what fair and equitible. "^)  
    
    L)v

    Re: .92
    
    Shannon Faulkner herself didn't care.  She said "It'll grow back."
    The protests were lodged by others.
    
    				Steve

    Steve,
    
    Don't confuse the retoric with the facts.  

.92> Sannon Faulkner(sp) wants to be let in to Citadel, but want's
.92> to be excluded from having her hair cut as every other cadet
.92> must.  

i take it the citadel is a military establishment?

if a woman wants to enter a men-only military establishment, that's one issue.

if she then wanted to retain her long her, i would argue, her claim is as valid
as that of any man who cherished his long hair! :-)

when i was in the military, we had a mutiny which started over hair cutting,
by now, the military over here allows long hair.


andreas.

    The problem is that the college recieves money from state and federal
    goverment. Just like the Bonny Bell road race that runs on state and
    fed supported road ways. And Sannon wants in, hopefully not because she
    has a femi chip on her shoulder. But because she really wants an
    education. But she wants special privilages from the rest of the mass's
    and this is in it self a cause for one of the cadadets to sue the
    school for special privilage granted to one and not to all.
     

    George, what about professional baseball, football, basketball, hockey,
    ALL of which are played in stadiums and arenas paid for in whole or
    part with government money?  
    
    Why is this okay, but the Bonne Belle race NOT okay?

    Pro ball pays tax's. The dont recieved special breaks.

    The winners pay taxes on their winnings -- so what?
    
    What's paying taxes got to do with playing in stadiums that cost
    hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars?  Why is it okay for
    professional male sports to be exclusionary, but not okay for one
    bloody race?  
    					andrew

re .91

andrew, your comments on professional sports such as football, basketball, 
hockey had me thinking. if mixed teams were to be set up in these disciplines, 
is it not likely that women would perform far poorer than their male 
counterparts, and therefore hardly any (if any) women would ever make it to 
the top professional league?

isn't the point of the bonne belle race to give women a chance to win the 
price, precisely because they don't run as fast as men?


andreas.

>isn't the point of the bonne belle race to give women a chance to win the 
>prize, precisely because they don't run as fast as men?
    
    Yes.

.97> if she then wanted to retain her long her ...
					  
this little freudian slip would almost suggest there's a link between long 
hair and femininity! :-) 


andreas.

    for those who missed it.  Shannon Faulkner said she didn't have a
    problem with getting a "burr cut" if that is what it takes to get a
    good military education at the Citadel.  However at this point the
    questin is moot, as an appeal by the Citadel is keeping Shannon from
    doing more than being a day student again.
    
    meg

    Re .103: It's also the point of weight classes in boxing - to give
    lighter-weight guys a chance to win (as in "beat up somebody your own
    size!)... 
    
    I've wondered if it would be possible to set up skill-classes for road
    races instead of dividing them by sex, but since weight (though not the
    sole determinant of boxing skill) is measurable objectively, speed is
    something that the runner can control, so trying to rate runners into
    speed classes might result in some runners deliberately going slower
    during the trials so as to be put into classes they'd have a better
    chance of winning. [Not unlike some boxers trying to lose weight so as
    to be the biggest person in a lighter class, I suppose.]
    
    If an objective measurement of quick-twitch muscle fibers (or some
    other such statistic) could be used to group runners by potential, it'd
    be interesting to see how the demographics of each class looked:
    male/female, age, etc. But for now I figure whoever's posting the prize
    money can decide who they want to include - yep, even unto men-only or
    women-only - and the people who buy the sponsors' products can vote
    with their dollars.
    
    And, of course, folks who just like to run, or play baseball, or
    whatever, can try to form pick-up groups of like-minded individuals and
    participate for the heck of it, without having to worry about
    sponsorship... what an idea, eh? ;-)
    
    -b

        reply 95

>    Shannon Faulkner herself didn't care.  She said "It'll grow back."
>    The protests were lodged by others.

    Faulkner originally raised the stink about being granted special
    considerations and being allowed to keep her hair, then backed
    down and said O.K.  However, she has now been blocked by a judge
    as entering as a full cadet.  I think her actions over the hair
    probably helped convince the judge just how serious she was
    about _equality_.

    Re bonnie bell

    You're still ignoring the fact that _every_ other road race has
    a "women's" division.  Has to.  In those divisions, as in LPGA
    and Women's Tennis, the women _do_ win the prize. In auto racing
    there were a couple women at Indy, and Cha-Cha seems to do 
    quite well for herself when playing among the "big boys".

    fred();

.89> There are other men, I have heard from, in the grape vines, who are
.89> joining pro-life groups cause, if they dont have a voice or choice,
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.89> neither should the wymin....

     But Men DO have a choice (whether or not to impregnate a woman) and this
     choice is paramount because it must be made before the "impregnation act",
     or, the "act of pulling the trigger", and, as we all know, only Men can
     "pull the trigger" in this case.  A Woman may attempt to don a bulletproof
     vest (via Female forms of Birth Control of which Abortion is considered a
     member) but the ultimate responsibility must rest with the party "pulling
     the trigger".  To create life without premeditation is the real crime
     in my opinion, and, tantamount to Abortion or taking a life with
     premeditation (Murder).

     Men are NOT Pro-Life unless they can acknowledge this simple truth...

    
    reply

>     But Men DO have a choice (whether or not to impregnate a woman) and this
>     choice is paramount because it must be made before the "impregnation act",
>     or, the "act of pulling the trigger", and, as we all know, only Men can
>     "pull the trigger" in this case.

    A woman also has the choice of not setting herself up on the target
    range.  You're also ignoring the discussion about the fact that
    a wife can go have an affair or have herself artificially inseminated
    and the husband is _still_ held liable.

    >"act of pulling the trigger", 
    
    You don't necessarily have to "pull the trigger" to empregnate a
    woman. 
    
    fred();

.106> And, of course, folks who just like to run, or play baseball, or
.106> whatever, can try to form pick-up groups of like-minded individuals and
.106> participate for the heck of it, without having to worry about
.106> sponsorship... what an idea, eh? ;-)
    
well i 'spose this applies to the majority of us! eh? :-) 

all the same, 'mixed' events have their merits, its always enlightening 
to measure up to the pros. like next week i am entering in the national 
triathlon championships (olympic distance); there are three categories: 
(1) doitforfun men/women, (2) pros women, (3) pros men.

i'll be glad if i survive with style :-)

andreas. (funrunner)

    >You're still ignoring the fact that _every_ other road race has
    >a "women's" division.  Has to.  In those divisions, as in LPGA
    >and Women's Tennis, the women _do_ win the prize. In auto racing
    >there were a couple women at Indy, and Cha-Cha seems to do 
    >quite well for herself when playing among the "big boys".
    
    	Of course they do.  However, in every one of those mixed sex races,
    	a MAN comes in first.  How is the Bonne Belle race any different
        than the LPGA, women's tennis, etc.? -- the sponsors are trying to
        establish a level playing field for women.  A mixed sex race is not
        a level playing field.  
      
        There was one woman at Indy, and one or two professional drag
        racers.  Simple physical strength and muscle-propelled speed 
        are not the primary criteria for success in these sports.  

    re 111
    
    >	Of course they do.  However, in every one of those mixed sex races,
>    	a MAN comes in first.  How is the Bonne Belle race any different
>        than the LPGA, women's tennis, etc.? -- the sponsors are trying to
>        establish a level playing field for women.  A mixed sex race is not
>        a level playing field.  
    
    Creating a "level playing field" by eleminating the competition
    seems to be a bit of a no-sequitor at best if not out-right
    hypocritical.   
    
    >    There was one woman at Indy, and one or two professional drag
>        racers.  Simple physical strength and muscle-propelled speed 
>        are not the primary criteria for success in these sports.  
    
    Oh yea?  Try turing a 1/4 mile in 5.0- Sconds at 7+ g acceleration
    all the while holding a 300 mph, 2000 hp, nitro-methane bomb on
    wheels in a needle straight line and then come try to tell me that.  
    If Cha-Cha was was a "feminist" she'd be demanding a 3 second head 
    start in every race now.
    
    fred()

    re: .79 (Fred)
    
    >> (from my .78) . . .where is your non-anecdotal evidence (i.e. beyond
    >> your own personal observations) that ". . .as a general rule, you don't
    >> see too many girls [marrying men with less wealth].

    > All you have to do is take a look around you.  Other than the personal
    > examples you gave, how often do you see it happen.  It happens all
    > the time with men marrying women of "lesser financial standing" 
    
    Looking around me, or you, or anyone is still proof of nothing.  It's
    anecdotal and *may* or may not indicate a trend.  I say again, if you
    have any evidence of a more scientific nature, I'd be glad to listen. 
    Beyond that, you seem to have ignored the rest of .78.  Am I to
    understand that you agree?  Disagree?  None of the above?
    
    Steve

    re 113
    
>    Looking around me, or you, or anyone is still proof of nothing.  It's
>    anecdotal and *may* or may not indicate a trend.  
    
    Only to the blind.
    
    >I say again, if you
>    have any evidence of a more scientific nature, I'd be glad to listen. 
>    Beyond that, you seem to have ignored the rest of .78.  Am I to
>    understand that you agree?  Disagree?  None of the above?
    
    And I suppose you _do_ have evidence of a mroe scientific nature
    to prove _your_ point?
    
    fred();

    >Oh yea?  Try turing a 1/4 mile in 5.0- Sconds at 7+ g acceleration
    >all the while holding a 300 mph, 2000 hp, nitro-methane bomb on
    >wheels in a needle straight line and then come try to tell me that.  
    >If Cha-Cha was was a "feminist" she'd be demanding a 3 second head 
    >start in every race now.
        
        Who'd you think would be better, a twenty-something woman
        or a man in his fifties?  Many of the top names in fuel
        dragster competition have been at it for decades, and are 
        in their 40's and 50's -- if strength alone was the top
        criterion, then the field would be ruled by men in their
        20's -- it's not their strength that puts these men at
        the top of their field, it's their intelligence, reflexes, 
        skill, and courage -- I repeat, simple muscular strength 
        isn't the only criterion for winning in drag racing.
        
        					andrew

.109>  A woman also has the choice of not setting herself up on the target
.109>  range.  

       Yeah, but it's a heck of a lot easier to pop the "magazine" from a
       Man then a Woman...

.109>  You're also ignoring the discussion about the fact that a wife can 
.109>  go have an affair or have herself artificially inseminated and the
.109>  husband is _still_ held liable.

       I don't know under what circumstances the husband in this case became
       a cuckold...  The implied assumption seems to be that the children 
       resulting from the married union of a Man and Woman are the 
       responsibility of that couple.  Generally, I see nothing wrong with
       this assumption as it follows the "way things _should_ be".  When
       you get situations that are candidates for "Talk Soup" (this one)
       the question "What about the child?" comes into play.  The cuckold's
       recourse is to sue the other guy for damages...
    
.109>  You don't necessarily have to "pull the trigger" to empregnate a
.109>  woman. 
    
       Some guy, some where, HAD to "pull the trigger" (we talking "hand" gun?)
       else it would be artificial semen insemination...

    >Creating a "level playing field" by eleminating the competition
    >seems to be a bit of a no-sequitor at best if not out-right
    >hypocritical.   
        
        Why?  Men run faster than women.  This is a physiological
        fact, unconnected with equality.  There is no way possible
        for a mixed sex race to be a level playing field.  

    re .116
    
>      it's not their strength that puts these men at
>        the top of their field, it's their intelligence, reflexes, 
>        skill, and courage -- I repeat, simple muscular strength 
>        isn't the only criterion for winning in drag racing.
    
    Wnen an Indy car pulls 4 g in the turns and a AA-fule dragster
    pulls 7+ g acceleration.  It's all this __and__ physical
    strength.
    
    fred();

.113> ... evidence of a more scientific nature ...

how about taking a poll of mennoters for a start?


re. belle-race-argument (and other women-only things)

it seems that what it boils down to, is, that we as men have to find a way to 
deal with the strength of feeling in connection with the exclusionary aspect. 

any takers?


andreas.

    re .118
    
>        Why?  Men run faster than women.  This is a physiological
>        fact, unconnected with equality.  There is no way possible
>        for a mixed sex race to be a level playing field.  
    
    Would I be "world champion" in a race in which Carl Lewis was
    specifically excluded?   I may win the race, but there would
    be some debate as to whether I was World Champ.
    
    Likewise elemating men from the competition still only leaves you
    the women's champ.
    
    fred();

.118> Why?  Men run faster than women.  

only the fastest men run faster than the fastest women! :-)

i expect to get a severe thrashing next week (re .110) by faster women!
and i'm in pretty good shape as it is!


andreas.

    
    re .117

    I still find it amazing how some people can bend a man and a 
    woman having sex into "_he_ got _her_ pregnant".  Then imply
    that _he_ is the one responsible to not have sex if he doesn't
    want to "create a life".

    But we've seen also that _he_ doesn't even have to have sex
    to get screwed.  And you _still_ insist that it is and 
    should be _his_ responsibility.  Incredible!

    fred();

    
    re. 117
    
>       Some guy, some where, HAD to "pull the trigger" (we talking "hand" gun?)
>       else it would be artificial semen insemination...
    
    It is scientifically provent that a man does not have to ejaculate
    to empregnate a woman.  Seman can be found in (and women have
    been empregnated by) pre-ejaculation fluid.  Penetration is not
    even necessary.  Condoms are about the third best thing to nothing
    behind withdrawal and foam.
    
    fred();

    I'm confoosed.  Didn't we just have this conversation somewheres else?
    ;-)
    
    tim
    

what are we talking about? ;-)


andreas.

>>        Why?  Men run faster than women.  This is a physiological
>>        fact, unconnected with equality.  There is no way possible
>>        for a mixed sex race to be a level playing field.  
>    
>    Would I be "world champion" in a race in which Carl Lewis was
>    specifically excluded?   I may win the race, but there would
>    be some debate as to whether I was World Champ.
        
        The winner of the Bonne Belle isn't trying to be the world's champ
        --  she is trying to be the fastest runner in that particular race. 
        If you won a race that Carl Lewis was excluded from, then you'd be
        the champion of that race, nothing more.    
        
        Of course, we both know Carl Lewis doesn't run road races.  
        However, since you mentioned track and field, what's the difference
        between the Bonne Belle race and the men's and women's 100M dash?
        Each of those races is exclusionary, and each crowns its own world
        champ.  How are these reaces different than the Bonne Belle?

maybe the point of the race is not just that a woman can for once get a chance 
to come in first? maybe the doors are being closed because these women see
closed doors elsewhere? maybe if we knew which doors are closed to them we 
might not feel so bad about being shut out of the race?


andreas.

    >How is the Boston Marathon, the New York, and others non exclusionary?
    >Why is this a closed game when there are 1000's that are open? Closing
    >doors? Sexist attitudes must continue on? 
    
    Men and women both run in the various marathons you mention.  This was
    not always true, especially with the Boston Marathon.  Of course, with
    every mixed sex marathon, the first person across the finish line is
    ALWAYS a man.
    
    Why is the Bonne Belle closed?  I proposed some possible reasons.  I
    suggest writing to them and asking them.  Do I find the Bonne Belle 
    sexist?  No more than I find the LPGA, NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB sexist.
    
    					andrew

Consider that women have been prevented from becoming fighter pilots even
though numerous studies show that they are physically more able to withstand
the G-forces and have better concentration then men.  (I would suggest that
this means they'd make better race-car drivers too.)

				Steve

    
    
    Prohibiting male entries simply to allow a woman to cross the finish 
    line first seems rather hollow, petty, and sexist.  The "winner"
    is still the winner of the women's division regardless of the
    fact that there is or isn't a men's division.

    If I held a race and prohibited anyone who could run faster than
    me from entering simply so I could cross the finish line first,
    what have I accomplished?

    fred();

.134> If I held a race and prohibited anyone who could run faster than
.134> me from entering simply so I could cross the finish line first,
.134> what have I accomplished?

great imagery! you'd be seen as the winner, everyone would hail you as the 
champ!


andreas.

    
    re .133

>Consider that women have been prevented from becoming fighter pilots even
>though numerous studies show that they are physically more able to withstand
>the G-forces and have better concentration then men.  (I would suggest that
>this means they'd make better race-car drivers too.)

    Women have been flying fighter aircraft for quite some time.  The
    prohibition is against flying them in combat (but apparently not
    any more).  We still have this aversion to putting women in
    harms way.  An aversion that "feminists" play to the hilt, BTW,
    when it suits their purpose.

    fred();

    >If I held a race and prohibited anyone who could run faster than
    >me from entering simply so I could cross the finish line first,
    >what have I accomplished?
    
    A win, and several thousand dollars.

    >If I held a race and prohibited anyone who could run faster than
    >me from entering simply so I could cross the finish line first,
    >what have I accomplished?

    Well, in 1992, you might have won the Gold medal in the 100 meter
    dash, or in Jackie Joyner-Kersey's case, you might have won another
    gold medal in the Woman's Heptathalon.  Races like these are held all
    the time, and their winners are proclaimed as champions.

Re: stadiums and tax money

ALL?

Fenway and, I think, Foxboro immediately come to mind
as two that have been paid for privately.

daryll

    
    most of the time they are build with bonds, not from general funds.

    re women driving racing cars:
    	When I was racing SCCA amateur, there were many women racing.  Very
    few were as good as the average racing driver.  The exceptions (Janet
    Guthrie) were not as good as the best of the men.  
    						John
    

    re: .115 (Fred)

    > And I suppose you _do_ have evidence of a mroe scientific nature to
    > prove _your_ point?
    
    Yes, but only because it appears to me that you've missed the point I
    was making.  In .76 you said:

    	 "However,  again, individual cases may not prove a lot."

    Your assertion here is that anecdotal evidence isn't proof of a
    pattern, an idea with which I agreed.  However, you immediately turned
    around and said:

    	". . .as a general rule, you don't see too many girls from "her
    	society" marrying the boy from  "down in the boondocks", and when 
    	they do, the marriage tends not to last."

    The problem, and my only point, Fred, is that statements like "as a
    general rule" and "just look around you" fall into that same category
    of anecdotal evidence, unsupported by anything more than a given
    individual's observations.  If another's observations may not prove a
    lot, neither may yours.  Your observations (i.e. your individual case)
    is no more proof than those of others.  
    
    You ask if I have scientific evidence to support my observations, but
    if you read my reply to you (.78) you'd already have your answer.  In
    it I said:
    
       "While I readily acknowledge that it has no more scientific validity 
    	than yours. . ." [my observations follow]
    
    My point is that you've contradicted yourself, suggesting at one moment
    that individual cases aren't proof then, at the next momemnt,
    presenting the individual case of your personal observations as proof.
    
    Incidentally, your suggestion that others who don't share your
    observations are "blind" is a case of ad hominem attack and is
    therefore invalid as a method of reasoned discussion.  Furthermore, it
    appears to me that it's intention is simply to insult and, imo, it
    therefore dishonors you.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S. My questions to you, which you quoted in .115 remain unanswered.

        re .142 Steve

    You started out with anecdotal evidence to "prove" _your_ point, then
    when I respond with anecdotal evidence of my own, you demand that _I_
    document my point with scientific evidence.  I've declined to play
    that game with better men (both male and female) than you, Steve.
    And I decline to play it now.

    fred();

    
    re. Bonnie Bell
    
    It is illegal in the US to sponsor a race for only men.  There is an
    easy solution if someone whats to hold a race for women ony ... also
    sponsor a race for men only ... that would allow women to run against
    only other women while holding to the standard applied to men (you can
    not sponsor only one single sex race).
    
    
    re. NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB
    
    The NBA, NHL, and NFL have no restiction on women trying out for the
    league ... they cannot legally (MLB actually does prohibit women from
    playing).  There have been women's professinal leagues ... it's not the
    NBA's fault if women's professinal basketball has not worked in the US
    (it has in Italyand Japan for example).
    
    

Re: .144

It's illegal to sponsor a men-only race?  You mean the Olympics are illegal?
Seems doubtful.

				Steve

    re: .143
    
    Incorrect, Fred.  This exchange between us started with your statements
    in .76 saying that anecdotal evidence wasn't proof.  In .78 I agreed
    and merely pointed out that you were using anecdote to "prove" your
    position.  My point - repeat, my *only* point - is that such a tactic
    is self-contradictory.  I stated clearly in .78 that I wasn't offering
    scientific evidence and that my thoughts were therefore based solely on
    personal observations.  
    
    If "individual cases may not prove much" for others, the same must
    logically apply to your personal observations.
    
    One other thing, what is it you feel you're gaining by continued ad
    hominem attacks such as "I've declined to play that game with better
    men (both male and female) than you"?  
                                           
    Steve

         re 146

>    If "individual cases may not prove much" for others, the same must
>    logically apply to your personal observations.

    Which then leaves us both at the same place.  Except that you seem to 
    feel that you have some moral high ground that "proves" you are
    correct.  However, as far as I'm concerned it was _you_ who started
    demanding _scientific_ evidence from me after _you_ provided none
    yourself, then come back and attack me for providing only anecdotal
    evidence when you yourself only provide anecdotal evidence.  I just
    figured in the absence of anything else, my anecdotes should be
    just as valid as your anecdotes.  Apparently, though you believe
    that mine should have more backing.

>    One other thing, what is it you feel you're gaining by continued ad
>    hominem attacks such as "I've declined to play that game with better
>    men (both male and female) than you"?  

    That I decline to play "You have to prove your point by my rules to
    my satisfaction or else you loose."  You also have a lot of room to
    talk about making ad-hominum attacks.

    fred();

    
    re .145
    
>It's illegal to sponsor a men-only race?  You mean the Olympics are illegal?
>Seems doubtful.
    
    There aren't women in the olympics?  If they only invited men, then
    you'd have a point, but as in any other event, there are women's
    divisions and men's divions.   It matters little that the divions
    are run separately or at the same time. 
    
    fred();

    	I feel sure there are some events in the Olympics where there is
    not an equivalent womens section. Maybe I missed women's hammer
    throwing last time, but as for illegality, since you are presumably
    talking about U.S. law you would have to wait until the are held in the
    U.S. to test this.

> Maybe I missed women's hammer throwing last time

cast your mind back to the days before the german reunification and think 
back of all those lovely hammer throwing wohmeeen from the GDR... now those 
were real hunks! :-)

andreas.

    re: .147 (Fred)

    > Which then leaves us both at the same place.  

    True, and so stated in .78.

    > Except that you seem to  feel that you have some moral high ground that
    > "proves" you are correct.  

    Not so.  Again, from .78 ". . .I readily acknowledge that [my anecdotal
    evidence] has no more scientific validity than yours"  Where, from
    anything I've said, do you gather that I'm taking some sort of moral
    high ground?

    > However, as far as I'm concerned it was _you_ who started demanding
    > _scientific_ evidence from me after _you_ provided none yourself, 

    Incorrect.  First, I simply asked you what your non-anecdotal eveidence
    was since it was you who'd first stated that "individual cases may not
    prove much."  That was a request for information, not a demand. 
    Second, that request came in the first paragraph of .78, not "after"
    anything.  I did offer some ides in the rest of .78 (including the
    acknowledgement that I was working from personal observation), which
    you've thus far declined to address.

    > then come back and attack me for providing only anecdotal evidence
    > when you yourself only provide anecdotal evidence.  

    Also incorrect.  I have not attacked you.  I've challenged - attacked
    if you prefer - your argument on the grounds of self-contradiction.

    > I just figured in the absence of anything else, my anecdotes should
    > be just as valid as your anecdotes.

    Once more for the record: they are.

    > Apparently, though you believe that mine should have more backing.

    All I believe is that you, who first challenged the validity of
    personal observation in .76, might acknowledge that the basis of your
    challenge is also personal observation.

    Finally, in .146 I asked:
    
    "One other thing, what is it you feel you're gaining by continued ad
     hominem attacks such as 'I've declined to play that game with better
     men (both male and female) than you'?"  
  
    Your reply, "That I decline to play 'You have to prove your point by my
    rules to my satisfaction or else you loose.'" indicates to me that you
    believe you've gained something by resorting to personal insult.  I
    disagree.  To attack a person does nothing to support one's ideas.
    
    > You also have a lot of room to talk about making ad-hominum attacks.

    You imply that I've made a personal attack.  To the best of my
    knowledge, I've done no such thing, but if you think I have, please
    present it. 
    
    Steve

steve, fred(), why don't you guys just agree to disagree?


andreas.

    re: .153 (Fred)
    
    I'm not sure, Fred, but when the divorce is final, please give her my
    phone number.
    
    Steve

    
    Ok, Steve you win.

    So when does Christie Brinkley marry me and take me home to the new
    house she bought me, and the mew car, and the new cloths, and show
    all her friends what a hunk she landed, and give me half of everything
    she owns (or at least half of everything she's earned since we
    married) when I decide I'm tired of this and and want to get a 
    divorce?  Oh yes, and alimony.  Lots and lots of alimony so I can
    continue to live in the fashion I've become accustomed since I gave
    up so much of my life to make her happy?

    fred();

    Fred,
    
    She could go in and kill you and justify it because she was spousally
    abused. And that she would walk, where the guy would fry.
    

    re george
    
    Yea, but it'd sure be fun wile it lasted :).  Or until my wife
    found out ;^). 
    
    fred();
    

    Hehehehehehehehe!:)
    

    
    Heard over the weekend that Christie Brinkly's divorce from her rock-
    star husband is final so there may be hope yet ;^).

    On another note.  Local woman shot her common-law husband stone-dead
    during a "domestic dispute".  Don't look like they are even going to
    press charges. ;^(.

    fred();

    Fred,
    
    What were the circumstances around that one?  I can imagine many cases
    of domestic disputes where lethal force is warranted, both from legal
    and moral standpoints.

    re .159

    Not a whole lot of details.  Radio said it is under investigation, but
    at this point it didn't look like there would be any charges filed.

    fred();

I though this past Sunday's "Outland" comic strip, which was relevant to this
topic, was hilarious.  It has the various male "hunks" of the strip,
Steve Dallas, Bill, Opus, "Milky" posing (supposedly) provocatively and saying
that they're just waiting for rich, beautiful women to marry them.  (Funny,
they say, it works for supermodels...)

				Steve

    
    Heard this morning that Christie Brinkly is engaged to the Teluride, 
    Colorado, millionaire real-estate developer that she survived the 
    helicopter crash with last year.

    fred();

    
    You mean he broke his chopper and she still wants to marry him?
    
    
    Deeks.

    Which begs the question, "Why did the chopper break"? ;^)
    fred();

    >                      -< Mile high in a chopper? >-
    >
    >Which begs the question, "Why did the chopper break"? ;^)
    >fred();
    
    Unlikely, as at least one of her children were present.
    
    					andrew