Conference quark::mennotes

    
    I believe it's a lot like "bi-partisanship" meaning giving the 
    Democrats everything they ask for ;^}.
    
    fred();

    FRED,
    
    ....SOUND'S NOT BAD.
    I HOP YOU HAVE SOME MORE IDEAS.
    
    AXEL.F
    
    
    

    
    Psst: take off your cap-lock. It's considered shouting in Notes.
    
    Equality?  Well, it's sort of like "selfish" is saying 40% of my
    income going to taxes is enough.  
    
    And a "draconina cut" is increasing the budget by two times instead of
    three times.
    
    fred();

    I took a wonderful valuing diversity course here at Digital a few years
    back.  "Men and Women as collegues"  The course show a progression that
    each of us can choose to be on moving from an arena from one in which
    men were assumed to be  the stronger and women the subordinate toward
    one of true "collegueship".
    
    Stage one is patterns of dominance on the part of men and patterns of
    ineffectual coping with the dominance on the part of women.
    
    Stage two is the realization of how the assumed role stereotypes hurts.
    
    Stage three is anger
    
    Stage four is where women and men begin talking with each other
    regarding the inequality and start understanding and moving towards 
    collegiality.
    
    Stage five is collegiality ( a goal that we can all continue to work
    toward and will never have it all done.)
    
    The stereotype that men belong in the workforce and women belong at
    home nurturing children hurts everyone man and woman.
    
    Men and women can either continue to fight with each other or they can
    join together committed to a world where all men and all women are
    valued for themselves and their unique contributions to their families,
    children, friends, and the world.
    
    Now how do we move from stage three to stage four?
    
                                           Patricia

    
    re -1
    
    > Now how do we move from stage three to stage four?
    
    Are you angry?
    
    John

    
    Then there's "hate speech":  Any negative remark about any person or
    group other than white male, Christian, Republican, or conservative.
    
    fred();

    
    addendum .6

>    Then there's "hate speech":  Any negative remark about any person or
>    group other than white male, Christian, Republican, or conservative.

    or anything spoken by any member or representative of the National
    Rifle Association.

    fred();

    HEY GUY`S!
    
    LET`S TALK ABOUT WOMAN,
    NOT ABOUT "HATE-SPEECH"!!!!!!
    
    
    
    
    OK, LET`S GO.
    
    
    
    
    
    REG.
    
    AXEL.F

  Axel,

    I don't think you're going to get the kind of serious, thoughtful
    dialogue that I believe you're looking for.

    All the respondents seem interested in here is one-upsmanship and
    one-liners.

    Why don't you start?  I'd like to hear your thoughts (you are German,
    yes?) on equality.  Do German men/women consider themselves to be
    equals?

    Regards,
    Sue

    
    re .9
    re .11
    
    >    LET`S TALK ABOUT WOMAN,
    >    NOT ABOUT "HATE-SPEECH"!!!!!!
    
    >I don't think you're going to get the kind of serious, thoughtful
    >dialogue that I believe you're looking for.
    
    
    Like I said.  Anything negative said about woman is going to be "hate
    speech".  So any discussion here, unless absolutely politically
    correct, will rapidly degenerate into name calling and personal
    attacks.  So, as George asked,...why?
    
    fred()

    re .0, I think there are two types:

    1. equality in the sense of everyone getting the same CHANCES regardless 
       of race, sex, partner preferences, individual situation, effort,
       intelligence, and so on, with the individual serving as his/her own
       "change agent."

    2. outcome-based equality, perhaps an oxymoron, suggesting the same
       RESULTS (or condition or end point) are obtained by all regardless of 
       race, sex, partner preferences, individual situation, effort, 
       intelligence, and so on, with some powerful bureaucracy serving as 
       "change agent."

    
    re .11
    
    It's comments like yours that encourage bad dialogue.
    
    re .0
    
    When Ithink of equality for women, I think of my daughter, and what she
    will encounter in her lifetime. Given her abilities and her personality
    she will succeed in whatever she attempts. Just give her equal
    opportunity. She wouldn't take an artificially granted advantage over a
    boy..she wants to make it on her own.
    
    John
    

    re .16
    
    Excuse me, in looking through the previous replies I do see that
    I was a bit harsh.
    
    .0  Original note
    .1, .3, .6, .7, .8, 13, and .14 were the "only" bitter, sarcastic,
    or "un-helpful" replies to Axel's question.
    .4 was a well thought out, reasonable reply
    .5 when you ask if Patricia's angry, I'm not sure if you're truly
       interested in continuing a dialogue or if you're being sarcastic.
    .10 same as above...can't tell "the mood/intent" of the noter 
    .11 me
    .15 a thoughtful reply, as was .4
    .16 after your attack on me, I liked what you had to say about your
        daughter and her abilities
    
    So, I guess out of 16 replies, only getting 7 that don't contribute
    is a pretty good ratio.
    
    Sue
    
    ps "Bad dialogue"?!  I don't think so.  Questioning some of the 
        motiviation in here isn't a bad thing - it hopefully gets (all)
        readers thinking a little more.
    
    pps I can see it now ... someone will say "And who's she to say
        what commments contribute or not to the conversation?!"  Well,
        it stirs folks up doesn't it?  Gets 'em talking?  It got you
        (.16) to express your view.  Thank you :-)
     
                                            

    re .1
    re .3
    re .6
    re .7
    re .8
    re .13
    re .14
    
            This is not the speech of a real MAN!
            Arn't you man enough to talk about weman?
            What's your problem?  (having no sex? getting no love...?)
            
    
    
    Axel.F_not_a_toy-boy                         
    

    re .19
    
    So where's _your_ input?
    
    fred();

Axel,

It looks to me like .0 was not a good way to start a discussion.

And .19 is certainly not a good way to keep it going.

Perhaps you should tell us what you want to discuss and what your thoughts
and/or feelings are.

Wally

    YOU ARE RIGHT, WALLY.
    This was not a good way.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -sorry if there are any mistakes in the following text,
     but my english in not very good.-             
    
    In another topic (I forget the number) a woman was talking about 
    *equality*. She was a little bit angry, because eqaulity for man
    and woman is not all over the world.
    Here in germany are two groups of woman. One group is not intereted in
    themes like 'equality'. They go their way. If they have a boy-friend,
    they see no problems in her privat life. The other group is very
    emanced(I don' know if this is the right word). They look very strong
    on equality. They are a little bit like Alice Schwarzer. If they have 
    a boy-friend, they look in her privat life to all things, the friend
    does.  If they think, that he do not the right, they are very very
    angry, without talking to him. They can be very difficult in
    friendship. 
    But I think, that this problem is bigger in other countries,
    like near-ost, africa or so, where weman have no rights and
    only have to do, what them are told. In those countries they
    are like working-machines or like bearing-machines.
    -Equality far away-.
    How do people think in USA think about it?
    Are there too two groups of weman?
    
     
    Regards
    
    Axel
    
    
    PS.: Nice if you correct my grammar
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    We have about the same thing here.  Only it's more like a sliding
    scale rather than two groups.  Everything from those who will 
    put up with nearly anything including physical abuse to those for
    whom "equality" is 1990's double-speak (to borrow a term from 
    Orwell) for "power".  Which makes dealing with women particularly
    hazardous form men in the U.S.  If you fail to comment one woman
    on her dress, you are "insensitive", but if you comment the next
    woman on her dress you are "harassing".  The sad part is that the
    man's intentions may well be the same in both cases, but it is the
    opinion of the woman in question that determines whether the man
    is a good person or bad person.

    fred();

    I can only speak for myself, but:
    
    To me, equality means: Treat me the way you would want to be treated.
    I'm human first, female second. Just a little compassion, fairness,
    and common sense. Not a difficult concept! People (of both sexes) make
    it too complicated. 
    
    

    P.S. Axel sounds like a real man to me!
    

Fred's comments match most of what I see in America.  There are definitely a
range of opinions, not just two.



.23>    But I think, that this problem is bigger in other countries,
>    like near-ost, africa or so, where weman have no rights and
>    only have to do, what them are told. In those countries they
>    are like working-machines or like bearing-machines.

I try not to waste too much time worrying about what other people are doing,
especially if they are far away and have countries and cultures of their own.
I've never been impressed with the reasoning which dismisses my concern because
the problem is much worse somewhere else.  I would not expect women to be
impressed with it either.

Your comment does raise another interesting question we have discussed
elsewhere: is equality the same as identity?  To put it another way: does a goal
of equality require that we eliminate every legal, social and cultural
distinction between men and women?  

Many women living in the Near East or African cultures you mention are quite
satisfied with their position.  As were many women living in 19th century
America and Europe, when there were many stronger social and legal distinctions.
They feel that their culture and society give them many rewards and advantages
which compensate for the things they are denied.

Many women in America want to eliminate all distinctions.  (I will ignore those
who want to preserve distinctions favorable to women and eliminate those
favorable to men.)  I don't know if such a society is possible, I don't know if
real people could be happy in it, and I don't know if it would be better than
one in which not all distinctions were eliminated.  So I am reluctant to support
that goal.

This leaves me wondering exactly which distinctions should be eliminated and
which should be preserved.

    
    Axel
    
    First of all, in America, we spell it 'woman' for the singular and
    'women' for the plural.
    
    Second, regarding your question whether there are 2 types of women in
    America, the answer is yes and no.
    
    No, because there are as many 'types' of women in America as there are
    women.  Ladies in America can be as beautiful and desirable as any
    other part of the world, or as stupid and self-centered as any other
    part of the world.
    
    Yes, because, in my experience, women in business tend to fall into one
    of two very broad categories:
    
    One, they obtain a college education with the intent of meeting men of
    their own social and educatioanl stature. They gain minimal skills and
    then marry and have children, with the  hope that their lives can be
    fulfilled through their families and work that will be a secondary
    occupation. They tend tohope that the skills they learned through their
    college education will sustain them if their situation in life changes.
    But they tend to depend on the man in their relationship for the main
    sourse of their income, and thus their lifestyle.
    
    Second, there are the proffesional women. They gain considrable skills
    and often can compete with the best individuals for their particular
    job. Their only limitation, in my view, is that women tend to stay with
    the same company and try to climb one corporate ladder. They do not
    tend to skip from one company to another, thus gaining income and
    responsibility, as their male counterparts tend to do. Would they do
    so, they would see much greater advancement.
    
    Women are women, and men are men. Women in America may have been
    'spoiled' by our corporate riches and have by default left it to the
    men to earn them. Too bad; women have much to contribute.
    
    This, of course, is only one American man's view.
    
    John

    
    One thing I want to make clear, and was not clear from my previous
    response:
    
    I believe that a woman that chooses to stay at home and raise the
    children is a very special person. I believe that society as a whole
    can only benefit from having a very strong family structure. A woman
    that cna and will stay at home to raise her children, and be there when
    thay return home from school every day, is a very spcial individual.
    They are rare, and lucky is the man that has such a wife.
    
    Our children need to pass down wholesome family values to their
    children, our grandchildren. Our society moves very fast,
    technologically, and our family values can very easily get lost in the
    chase for the almighty dollar.
    
    If a woman can support the family and the man can stay at home and
    raise the children, that is great!. As long as they work toward a
    common goal that they both agrre on. And if their are children in the
    marriage, then the children are obviously the common goal.
    
    John
    

.26>    P.S. Axel sounds like a real man to me!

Mattson (I can't remember whether you have used a first name),

I have found many of your previous comments (including .25) interesting and
thoughtful, so I thought you might be interested in why I found this comment
offensive.

First, saying that Axel, specifically, is a real man might imply that some
others, perhaps even participants in this conversation, are not real men.

Second, I am not sure that I would accept anybody as an authority on who is a
real man.  I can't imagine anybody who knows enough about manhood and individual
men to make that kind of judgement.  Until I meet such a being, I am not
granting permission to anyone to make that kind of judgement about me.

Third, I am not sure what that makes the other men.  Fake men?  False men? 
Virtual men?  Imaginary men?  Logical men?  Standard men?  Enhanced men?

    I think it's not the greatest problem to be/or not to be 
    a real man. 
    In a friendship, it's more important to  stay together.
    If men and women understand well in this case, then there
    can't be any problems with *equality* in the private life.
    You know what I mean?
    
    How do you think about it?
    
    
    
    Reg.
    
    Axel 

    re .31
    
    Maybe I was being a little flip. Several of the noters in this
    thread were bickering about whether Axel or others were Real Men, and
    it struck me as a little ridiculous, so I figured I'd add my .02 worth.
    I don't even think in terms of "Real Men'--but if I did, it would mean
    a man who is secure enough in himself to not be threatened by women
    being on equal terms. Since Axel was posing his questions in a way that
    sounded to me like he's not particularly threatened by equality, if for
    no other reason than that he's open-minded enough to ask the questions
    he does--he gets my vote for 'Real Man' status, along with a lot of the
    other participants here. Open-mindedness, and willingness to see the
    'other side's' point of view, is a very good sign that someone is
    reasonably secure in themself, that they don't need to control others
    or give them less-than-equal status. This is true of both sexes.
    
    I certainly didn't mean to offend you or anyone else. 
    
    anne

    Yeah, you can get a lot out what people say and how they say it.
    The overall 'tone' can tell you more than what the words say.
    Of course, I could be wrong!

    re. last:
    I think you are right, Anne.  You can get some 
    information about someone, if you see how he write and 
    how one open his mind. 
    
    
    Have a nice day
    
    
    Axel
    

    
    
    
    
    What's about .32 ???
    
    

    re .37
    
    I'm not quite sure what you're saying I guess. I take it to mean, "If
    the people really want to stay together and make it work, they will
    treat each other as equals & with respect." Is that what you meant?
    If so, I agree. I think there's a little bit of a language difference
    happening here. I certainly wouldn't want to be involved in a p!ss!ng
    contest when I'm not even sure what's being said!
    
    Jeez, I got home last night and there, in the mail, is my magazine,
    proclaiming in bold letters, "How To be a REAL MAN!!" Aaaargh!
    (It's a health magazine; note that I, personally, do not order
    magazines instructing ME how to be a Real Man) In case anyone wonders,
    to be a Real Man, according to this, you take lots of vitamins, eat
    veggies, and work out a lot. Come to think of it, maybe I am a real
    man!
     
    
    anne

    RE: .29

    > I believe that a woman that chooses to stay at home and raise the
    > children is a very special person.

    Only if she's married to a husband 'bread-winner'.  Otherwise, such
    a woman in regarded as the 'scum of the earth' in our society.

    > A woman that cna and will stay at home to raise her children, and be 
    > there when thay return home from school every day, is a very spcial 
    > individual.

    If she's not married to a bread-winner, though, this makes her lazy
    and a deadbeat (i.e., the scum of the earth) in our society.

    > They are rare, and lucky is the man that has such a wife.
                                                                 
    They are rare because any woman who chooses this path can become the
    'scum of the earth' (almost instantly) if the marriage happens to end
    or if the parents didn't happen to get married but she wants to stay
    at home to raise the children.

    As wonderful as it is to stay home with children when they are young,
    it's also a bit dangerous in this society (for all involved) unless
    the stay-at-home-spouse is prepared to launch into a 'bread-winning'
    career in case the marriage fails or the other spouse dies.
    
    > Our children need to pass down wholesome family values to their
    > children, our grandchildren. Our society moves very fast,
    > technologically, and our family values can very easily get lost in the
    > chase for the almighty dollar.
    
    If the woman is raising children without a father, her quest for the
    almighty dollar is the MOST IMPORTANT THING SHE CAN DO, as far as
    our society is concerned.  Heaven help her if she doesn't go after
    the almighty dollar the way society believes she should.  She *and*
    her children will be the 'scum of the earth' if she doesn't.

Re: .40

As compared to men, for which they're "scum of the earth" whether they are
married or not, if they choose to raise their children rather than "quest
for the almighty dollar".

				Steve

    RE: .28

    > Second, regarding your question whether there are 2 types of women in
    > America, the answer is yes and no.
    
    > No, because there are as many 'types' of women in America as there are
    > women.  

    This was the best answer.  There are as many 'types' of women in America
    as there are women.  Period.

    > Ladies in America can be as beautiful and desirable as any other part 
    > of the world, or as stupid and self-centered as any other part of the 
    > world.

    This same statement applies to men (only you can substitute the word
    'handsome' for beautiful, if you wish.)  

    American men can be as handsome and desirable as in any other part of the 
    world, or as stupid and self-centered as in any other part of the world.

    Why you singled women out for this statement is inexplicable.

    RE: .41  Steve
    
    >As compared to men, for which they're "scum of the earth" whether they are
    >married or not, if they choose to raise their children rather than "quest
    >for the almighty dollar".
    
    Women who *are* married with young children are often treated as selfish
    and heartless (as in, "You're letting other people raise your children")
    if they DO keep a vibrant career going.
    
    If they get divorced, of course, then they're doing the right thing by
    being on the quest for the almighty dollar.  Ironic, eh?

    At least our society accepts (insists upon) the role of women as
    child-nurturers.  Men trying to do the same are viewed with scorn
    and suspicion.
    
    				Steve

    Our society views women with scorn and suspicion almost no matter
    what women do.

    If women get educated and start a career, but put it on hold to
    raise young children at home, it's a sign to some that the women 
    weren't really committed to their careers (and only wanted to meet 
    men who could support them in the lifestyle they wanted.)  So much
    for being 'special people' that some men are so very lucky to find
    to raise their children at home.

    If the women stay in their careers, then women in general tend
    to stay with the same company (while men don't, supposedly??) which
    makes women's lack of progress to the top their own fault somehow.  
    (I guess all the men I know who have been with Digital for 18-25 years 
    don't count.  How many such men are in this very file, I wonder.)

    If people can find at least TWO WOMEN who have made different choices
    (for career and/or family), then WOMEN IN GENERAL are accused of
    'wanting to have it both ways' (even if the two women don't even
    know each other and only made one specific choice each.)

    It seems that women are supposed to agree on one choice or the other
    (all 130 million female human beings in the United States, and all
    2.5-3 billion female human beings on this planet) in order for women 
    to be regarded as being 'consistent' about their views on women's 
    roles in our species.

    So much for being unique individuals.  Categorizing women into two
    'types' makes as much sense as trying to categorize snowflake designs
    into two types:

    		1.  Snowflakes with intensely intricate unique designs.

    		2.  Snowflakes with slightly less intensely intricate
    		       unique designs.

    'Equality' will be reached when men and women are regarded as being
    in the same species.
    

    re .42 CONLON
    
    >Why you singled out women for this statement is inexplicable.
    
    It's only inexplicable if you don't realize that I was responding to a
    question asking whether there are two types of women in America.
    
    John

    As for selective service, sign up as many young people as you like
    (men and women.)

    When the men *and* women who choose to go into combat are allowed
    to do so, we won't need to 'draft' people for combat anymore.

    Not that we've had a 'draft' at all in the past couple of decades
    anyway, of course...

    Which part of 'sign up as many young people as you like (men and women)' 
    didn't you understand?

    Change the law and make women REGISTER, too.  (These were the
    words of mine you apparently did not understand.)
    
    There is no draft.  If they allow men and women to volunteer for
    combat, they'll never need a draft.
    
    If you're unwilling to see the law changed to include women,
    then don't complain to me about it.
    

    
    Equality will be approached when a man is afforded equal opportunity to
    stay at home and raise the children while the woman is forced to work
    to support them in a divorce.
    
    John

    Men have to face the same 'obstacle' to being supported as full-time
    homemakers that women face already:  finding someone willing to be 
    the bread-winner while you stay at home to raise the children. 

    Women aren't constitutionally guaranteed bread-winner husbands.
    They have to find such individuals to marry.

    As women gain equality, more men will find it possible to find
    and marry women with the desire and the opportunity to be the
    bread-winners for men who wish to stay at home to raise the
    couples' children.

    One such woman exists in this very conference (and I do believe
    she has stated her status as the bread-winner while her partner
    Frank has been staying at home to raise their children for years.)
    
    You can't mandate female bread-winners for men in this country.
    First, you must gain the equality which will afford more women
    the opportunities to *be* bread-winners.  

    It should be mentioned here that if men want true equality in
    the child-rearing arena, then they should expect to be treated
    like the 'scum of the earth' if they try to stay home to raise
    children without a wife/partner present to be the bread-winner.

    This is how women are treated when they try to stay at home
    to raise children without a husband/partner.

    Personally, I would love to live in a world where it could be just
    as common to see men decide to stay home to raise their young
    children as it is to see women do it now.  (At this point, something
    like 40% of the women with young children do stay home to raise them.)

    I think it would be wonderful.  It's very possible that we'll get
    to this point sometime in the future, IMO.

    re .52
    
    Was it men or women that made such a stupid rule?
    
    
                                          Patricia

    
    
    re Conlon:
    
    Suzanne (I hope I spelled your name right?)
    
    Can I ask, where do you get the idea that women that want to/have to
    stay home and raise the children are 'scum of the earth'? Maybe
    somebody in this or another conference made that statement? Please let
    me know where you're coming from...
    
    I stand by my statement that a couple that will agree to that scenario,
    the mother staying home and the father bringing home the bacon, and at
    the same time treating each other as equals (dad cook a couple times a
    week, cleans house Saturdays, gives mom Sunday off, etc., and mom
    agreeing to acknowledging dad's efforts in lot's of ways ) can be a
    great life for both the parents and the kids. The kids benefit mostly;
    they see two parents giving much of themselves, and giving *up* much of
    themselves, for the good of the family. This makes for happy, secure
    children.
    
    So what else do we disagree on?
    
    John
    

        G'day,
    re-.1  Quite so....

    (or vice versa if that's how it works for the folk involved.)

    We have been married allbut 28 years. My wife worked (for money) until
    the kids came along, when we agreed for her to stay home and look after
    them. Along the way, when needs dictated, she has taken the odd job
    (she was a trained nurse) to add that extra $ to the coffers, and other
    times she has done so to give her some additional interest or change of
    scenery. She has never been forced to act one way or another, and least
    of all, we have never considered what other folk think about 'working
    mums'.

    Nowadays, with the kids grown up, she swims, goes to pottery or
    whatever she fancies and enjoys her leisure. And we still share some of
    the chores (and I always cook the Christmas roast! ... and with temps
    up over 100f for the last few Christmas days, that's a real labour of
    love!)

    I believe that a lot of discord stems from not being adult enough to
    determine a working compromise... and I know that is not always easy.
    However, I do think that bringing in what Ms jones or Mr smith thinks
    wastes a lot of energy, and makes it all so much harder.

    Maybe Australia is a lot more advanced and tolerant of what folk do,
    but the only folk who are perhaps frowned upon is the single mum who
    keeps on having more single mum kids..(with no de facto relationship)
    and who lives on welfare. but even these raise little more than an
    eyebrow or two.
    
    Although I have not had a woman boss, I can say that provided she has
    gotten there by merit (= the SAME merit as her male counterpart would)
    then I would have no problem. 
    
    my 2�
    
    derek

    Regarding who said at home parents are "the scum of the earth."  One
    only has to read further in this file on custody/child support issues
    to find out how some men really feel about stay-at-home parents.  As
    Suzanne said, there are families who can manage with only one employed
    parent and those who can't.  Frank and I are one of the lucky ones. 
    Circumstances worked out when IBM downsized so he could stay home and
    nurture our girls until they are in school full-time.  Had he not been
    given a significant severance package that enabled us to get the bills
    down to where one income could support our lifestyle, our kids would
    also be in daycare, and I am not sure Atlehi would have been born.  
    
    
    Being an ERA supporter since the 60's, and also anti conscription,I
    don't support selective service registratidon for anyone.  However if
    we have to continue this silliness, I do believe my daughters should
    sign up as well.  
    
    I think Gloria Steinam summed it up best when she said only when men
    are respected as homemakers and parents as well as women will we
    really have euqlity in this county.
    
    meg

    week, cleans house Saturdays, gives mom Sunday off, etc., and mom
    agreeing to acknowledging dad's efforts in lot's of ways ) can be a
    
    John,

    This above is VERY telling for us women folk!!!  "gives mom Sunday
    off" indeed is still not an equal opportunity life.  I guess one
    just has to be a woman to understand!!!

    justme
    

    RE: .59  John Sobecky

    >>> I believe that a woman that chooses to stay at home and raise the
    >>> children is a very special person.

    >> Only if she's married to a husband 'bread-winner'.  Otherwise, such
    >> a woman in regarded as the 'scum of the earth' in our society.

    > Can I ask, where do you get the idea that women that want to/have to
    > stay home and raise the children are 'scum of the earth'? Maybe
    > somebody in this or another conference made that statement? Please let
    > me know where you're coming from...

    Even in your own note (.59), you describe the ideals of life where
    women WHO HAVE HUSBANDS stay at home to raise their children.

    If these same women did not have husbands, they would be regarded
    by society as being the 'scum of the earth'.

    A man being present is the difference between sainthood and scumhood
    when it comes to women who want to stay home to raise their children
    in this society.
    
    > I stand by my statement that a couple that will agree to that scenario,
    > the mother staying home and the father bringing home the bacon...
    >  can be a great life for both the parents and the kids. 

    See what I mean?

    It's great to acknowledge SOME women for doing this.  In our society,
    the other women who want to do this are regarded as scum (even if
    they're the same women who were acknowledged as being GOOD for doing
    this when they had husbands.)

    That was my point.

    RE: .61  Rauh
    
    > Gee 70% of the populas whom vote are women. Gee... I guess it might be
    > your stupid law. 70% of the voted public of women decided to keep men
    > in Vietnam cause something was said about Nixion and the abortion
    > issue. Guess mens live ment nothing to folks like yourself.
    
    You know absolutely nothing about how our system works, obviously.
    
    Blaming women specifically for keeping men in Vietnam is worth a
    hearty coke-spray on the computer screen.

    .64 et al
    
    You seem to have a particular axe to grind and dont seem to care too
    much for facts in grinding that axe.
    
    As an example, you keep using the term "scum" without any supporting
    information.  Is a woman who stayed home to raise her children while
    her husband worked scum?  Absolutely not and I don't think you would
    find anyone who would argue the point.  As far as the single parent
    goes, that opens up a whole new issue.  I would hold a negative view of
    the single parent that choses to be divorced without any SIGNIFICANT
    reason.  I have heard way too many women use terms like, " It wasn't
    fun any more.", " I didn't think we had anything in common.", " I
    wanted to be my own person.", " He wasn't attentitive enough."  These
    same people then want to stay home and have society support them. 
    That's a problem for me.
    
    No marriage is either all good or all bad.  It tends to spend most of
    its time in the average.
    
    As far as the equality thing goes, I believe someone made the point
    earlier that equality means just that.  No one gets a free ride because
    of their sex or because their sex isn't represented in a particular
    function.  It is based on skills and merit only.  As soon as someone
    wants to claim unfairness because the #s aren't right then the concept
    of equaility goes out the window.
    

    > As an example, you keep using the term "scum" without any supporting
    > information.  Is a woman who stayed home to raise her children while
    > her husband worked scum?  Absolutely not and I don't think you would
    > find anyone who would argue the point.  

    If the same woman no longer HAS a husband, she becomes 'scum' if she
    still wants to stay home to raise her children.  (That's my point.)

    > As far as the single parent goes, that opens up a whole new issue.  
    > I would hold a negative view of the single parent that choses to be 
    > divorced without any SIGNIFICANT reason.  

    I didn't realize that people were required to run their reasons for
    divorce by you for approval.  If so, then you'd better spill the
    beans about every move you've ever made in your private life so
    that I can be sure that I approve of you.

    > I have heard way too many women use terms like, " It wasn't
    > fun any more.", " I didn't think we had anything in common.", " I
    > wanted to be my own person.", " He wasn't attentitive enough."  These
    > same people then want to stay home and have society support them. 
    > That's a problem for me.

    See what I mean?  As soon as the man is gone, women become scum for
    wanting to stay home (and this is true even if the man dumped the
    woman for another woman.)  The 'special person' who was willing to
    stay home to raise the kids is now the scum of the earth if she
    wishes to remain home to continue raising the very same kids.

    > No marriage is either all good or all bad.  It tends to spend most of
    > its time in the average.
    
    No one else can judge whether or not individuals made the right
    decision about leaving a marriage.  We're supposed to have enough
    freedom in this country to be allowed some privacy about personal
    decisions such as marriage and divorce.
    
    > It is based on skills and merit only.  As soon as someone
    > wants to claim unfairness because the #s aren't right then the concept
    > of equaility goes out the window.
               
    So, all the men who want roughly 'equal numbers' for child custody
    are letting the concept of equality go out the window?  That's news
    to me.  Tell them about it and let's see what they say.

Re Suzanne's many:

As far as I can tell, some people think some other people are scum, no matter
what.  Arguing about what some people think of some other people is pointless.

Maybe we can discuss what the majority of people think of some well-defined
group of people.  Polling data would be the best source, but I don't keep any in
my office.  I'll base what follows on my impression from the political debates
about welfare in America.

The majority of Americans do not seem to me to consider every woman who raises
her children without a job or a husband to be scum.  Instead they seem to ask
questions (as .64 did) about how she got that way, is she having more children,
is she using day care if available, is she doing a good job of raising her
children, is she training herself, will she get a job when the children are in
school.  Depending on the answers, the majority seems willing to classify 
mothers without jobs or husbands as "deserving" or "undeserving" poor.  As far
as I can tell, words like scum are used only by Suzanne and a small minority of
those who disagree with her.

    The point is that women who want to stay home to raise their children
    are described as being 'special' and 'wonderful' as long as they have
    husbands.

    When they stop having husbands, the same women are 'lazy', 'selfish',
    and 'horrible' if they want to stay home to raise the very same
    children that the women were 'special' and 'wonderful' to want to
    stay home to raise *when they had husbands*.

    Society doesn't stop to ask 'But are they still good mothers?'
    Full-time homemakers with husbands are *presumed* to be good mothers,
    while the same full-time homemakers are presumed to be bad mothers
    if they try to stay at home when they don't have husbands.

    When the full-time mothers have husbands, they're heroic for choosing
    to be with their children rather than seek the 'almighty dollar'.
    When these women have NO husbands, they're absolutely horrid if they
    DO NOT seek the 'almighty dollar'.

    It's 'better for the children' if the mother stays home if she's
    married, but it's 'better for the children' if they go to daycare
    if she's not married.  Daycare is 'letting other people raise your
    children' if the woman is married, but daycare is 'the best thing 
    for the children' if the woman is NOT married.

    Women are judged differently when they do not have the 'sponsorship'
    of a male (in a species that is dominated by 'guess who'.)

    Women receive tremendously mixed messages in our society because of this.
    My point is that it's something to keep in mind when talking about the
    merits of women staying at home to raise their children.  It can be a
    very dangerous decision if there's any possibility at all that the
    husband could die or get a divorce.

    .68
    
    Well, there you go again.  I did not say anything about a woman who is
    "dumped" by her husband.  The guy is scum in that case, assuming of
    course, that he just up and dumped her for no reason other than a newer
    model.  In that case the woman certainly will need assistance for a
    while until she can ajust to her new situation.  It would be incredibly
    niave to assume that she would be able to maintain the same life style
    she had before.  It would certainly be fitting and proper to expect
    that she takes the necessary steps to provide for herself and her
    family, or do you think that society has an indefinite responsibility
    to support her forever because she married a jerk.
    
    Also, even though it's none of your business, my personal life is
    essentially an open book.  I doubt that anyone would find any iten with
    which they would take issue.  Unfortunately, I'm one of those boring
    guys who essentially stayed out of trouble as a kid and adult, went to
    school ,got a job and worked like hell and sacrificed to raise a
    family.  My major failing is three moving violations in 35 years of
    driving.
    

    .70
    
    You seem to be ignoring the obvious.  When situations change, people
    must change.  As an example, day care is a very poor substitute for a
    full-time parent.  It is, however, better than no parent.  I do not
    favor people dumping their kids in day care and saying everything is
    wonderful.  I do accept the fact that single parents have littl echoice
    in using these services.
    
    Trying to create an argument that states a person should not change
    when faced with new circumstances is absurd.  Many women found
    themselves widows during the Vietnam war and these women needed to get
    a job to supplement the income for the family.  Not one person that I
    know of ever thought poorly of these women for having to do whatever
    was necessary to support their family.  If these women thought that
    they didn't need to get a job because they wanted to stay home and
    raise a family even after the primary wage earner was no longer there,
    that's something completely different.  I believe even you can
    recognize and understand the differnce.
    

    > Many women found themselves widows during the Vietnam war and these 
    > women needed to get a job to supplement the income for the family.  
    > Not one person that I know of ever thought poorly of these women for 
    > having to do whatever was necessary to support their family.  
    
    Of course not.  As I said, these women were now EXPECTED to seek the
    almighty dollar (because they no longer had husbands.)
    
    > If these women thought that they didn't need to get a job because 
    > they wanted to stay home and raise a family even after the primary 
    > wage earner was no longer there, that's something completely different.  
    
    Of course.  As I said, these same women would be 'bad' if they wanted
    to keep staying at home to raise the very same children that they
    were 'special' and 'wonderful' to want to stay home to raise before
    their husbands died.
    
    > I believe even you can recognize and understand the differnce.       
    
    This difference is PRECISELY what I've been describing.  Thanks for
    the help.

    
    OK, Conlon. So I think that women that choose to stay at home and be
    mothers and homekeepers are special. You seem to have an issue with
    that because you apparently look down upon women who make that choice;
    that's your problem.
    
    Maybe I should have worded it that any family who can afford to have
    one of the parents, father or mother, stay at home while the other wins
    the bacon, is lucky and special.
    
    But of course you would have found something wrong with that, too.
    
    A CP can make the choice not to work, and to adapt to whatever level of
    financial comfort is allowed by child support income. An NCP has no
    such choice. Both were responsible for bringing children into the world
    yet only one is burdened with the financial responsibility in the above
    case.
    
    John
    

> OK, Conlon. So I think that women that choose to stay at home and be
> mothers and homekeepers are special. You seem to have an issue with
> that because you apparently look down upon women who make that choice;
> that's your problem.

I don't recall ever seeing Suzanne suggest anything of the kind. Reading 
what you want to read?

In this topic, she's been talking about how women who are thrust in the 
role of single mothers are berated for living off of the labor of 
others, which seems a bit ironic, since the stay-at-home homemaker 
you're lauding (and about whom Suzanne has had nothing negative to say 
that I detected) is doing *exactly* the same thing.

    
    re .75 PAUL BECK
    
    Suzanne is constantly referring to women being 'scum of the earth'.
    This is her definition; she has not been able to provide an instance of
    anyone else referring to women being 'scum of the earth', though she
    has been asked what her point of reference is.
    
    Nobody has addressed women that have been 'thrust into' the situation
    of being single parents, because of course the answers to those
    situations are pretty clear cut. Nobody that I know of respects a man
    that abandons his family.
    
    What is being conveniently disregarded by Suzanne are the cases where
    women take advantage of the men that are obligated to support the
    family.
    
    This is nowhwere near the situation where a two parent family that
    agrees to have one parent raise the children and one parent make the
    money and support the family. And do it willingly, with respect for one
    another. This is my idea of the ideal way to raise kids. I've already
    said that both parents need to share child-raising and household
    responsibilities. But even my comment about giving mom Sunday's off was
    met with opposition; I guess some took it as my the total measure of my
    idea of support for mom's.
    
    Try to keep up with the discussion, ok?
    
    John
    

    Oh, I've kept up. Suzanne's use of the term "scum of the earth" is
    hyperbole (though in this conference hyperbole is about as mild as
    it gets), but she's describing how she perceives the way that
    *others* (unnamed, contributing to the hyperbole) view women, not
    describing her own view of women. I'm not a big fan of hyperbole as
    a style of communication, but I am generally capable of seeing
    around it to the underlying point that's being raised (in this case
    that it's Suzanne's view that single parenting women are derogated
    by society).
    
    If you can identify any reply in which Suzanne has expressed a
    personal disdain for women who act as homemakers in an intact
    nuclear family, I'll admit to not keeping up, because I haven't seen
    her say anything of the sort. Which was my entire point.
    
>    What is being conveniently disregarded by Suzanne are the cases where
>    women take advantage of the men that are obligated to support the
>    family.
    
    So address that issue without inventing opinions that weren't
    expressed. If Suzanne's talking about issues that are orthogonal to
    your issues, try to find some point of intersection.

    
    Well, I certainly cannot address Suzanne's 'perceptions' of the way
    that 'others' view women, especially when she gives no supporting
    instances of where anyone else but herself has called women 'scum of
    the earth'.
    
    And she won't address my issue of women that take advantage of men by
    refusing to share
    financial responsibility of raising children. So, we're at a
    standstill.

    Mr. Sobecky,
    
    As has been pointed out by myself, look in this file and you will find
    plenty of references about people who consider nonworking single
    mothers to be less than contributing members of society.  Look no
    further than speaches, particularly speaches of those who subscribe to
    "family values," and see what they say about women without a man to
    support them and their families.  
    
    I don't have to look further than when Carrie was born and Frank and I
    were both working.  There were people, including one who was a heavy
    contributer to my PA's who didn't believe in "working mothers."  (Every
    parent is a working parent, unless they have no contact with their
    children, JMHO)  Every time I had to leave work to make a Dr.'s visit
    for an ear infection on Carrie was duly logged and there were serious
    attempts to drive me out of my job.  Yet this was a person who would
    have fits about non-employed outside the home mothers in the position I
    was in when Lolita was 5.  I do know Suzanne has been in the same
    position.  We have both had the womb-level attacks, both for working
    outside the home and not being employed  .
    
    

    RE: .74  John Sobecky

    > OK, Conlon. So I think that women that choose to stay at home and be
    > mothers and homekeepers are special. You seem to have an issue with
    > that because you apparently look down upon women who make that choice;
    > that's your problem.

    My point is that you don't ALWAYS think they're so 'special'.  In some
    cases, you're very much against the idea of women choosing to stay
    at home to raise their children.  (This is my point.)
    
    It isn't rocket science.  Try to follow this, one step at a time:

    	Many in our society applaud women who 'stay at home to raise
    	their children' as long as they are married (i.e., supported
    	by bread-winner husbands.)

    	When they are *not* married (or *no longer* married), society
    	treats such women like dirt if they want to 'stay at home to
    	raise their children'.  They are villains for wanting to
    	'stay at home and raise the (same) children' that they were
    	'special' and 'wonderful' to want to stay home to raise before.

    Do you need this explained to you in some other language?  Perhaps
    drawings would help.  Let me know.

    > A CP can make the choice not to work, and to adapt to whatever level of
    > financial comfort is allowed by child support income. An NCP has no
    > such choice. 

    So the woman is now 'BAD' if she does decide to stay at home and
    raise her children (all of a sudden.)  She used to be 'special'
    and 'wonderful', but now you seem to think she's being unfair.
    (This is my point.)

    > Both were responsible for bringing children into the world yet only one 
    > is burdened with the financial responsibility in the above case.

    So the one you regard as 'unburdened' is BAD now, even though this
    same person used to be 'special' and 'wonderful' for wanting to stay
    at home to raise the children.  (This is my point.)

    If you still don't understand what I'm saying, just admit it.

    RE: .79  John Sobecky
    
    > Well, I certainly cannot address Suzanne's 'perceptions' of the way
    > that 'others' view women, especially when she gives no supporting
    > instances of where anyone else but herself has called women 'scum of
    > the earth'.
    
    In you next paragraph, you provide a sample of the negative 'rap'
    about women who want to be full-time homemakers YOURSELF:
    
    > And she won't address my issue of women that take advantage of men by
    > refusing to share financial responsibility of raising children. 
    
    You said it was 'special' and 'wonderful' for women to want to stay
    at home to raise their children.  Here you describe such women as
    'taking advantage of men'.  (So much for your opinion that these
    women are doing something GREAT by trying to stay home to raise 
    their children.)
    
    > So, we're at a standstill.
    
    No, YOU are at a standstill.

    Women who do stay at home full-time to raise their young children
    are taking a huge risk.  The society who 'expects it' and 'applauds'
    the women for staying home with their small children will turn on
    them with a vengeance if they try to continue staying at home
    with these children if their husbands leave them or happen to die.

    As long as she's married and stays home, society says...

    	"What a wonderful thing you are doing.  Your children will
    	be so much better for it.  Daycare ruins children.  Your husband 
    	is lucky he found you."

    If she's no longer married and tries to stay home, society says...

    	"You're being lazy and selfish.  You'll ruin your children unless 
    	you put them in Daycare and get a job.  You're taking advantage of 
    	your poor ex-husband [or the poor taxpayers, etc.]"

    So the children will be ruined if they GO to Daycare, or ruined if
    they DON'T go to Daycare - the truth about the 'dangers' of Daycare
    depends on the situation, apparently.

    And the women are saints (if they stay home with children while they're
    married) or 'scum' (if they stay home with children while they're no
    longer married or never married) - the truth about the 'wonderfulness'
    of staying at home to raise children depends on the situation, too,
    obviously.
    
    [When I say that society treats such women as 'scum', I'm talking
    about statements - like ones we've seen here - where the 'special'
    and 'wonderful' women who want to continue to stay home with their
    children after divorce are described as 'taking ADVANTAGE' of men.]

	re .80 Meg Evans
    
   > As has been pointed out by myself, look in this file and you will find
   > plenty of references about people who consider nonworking single
   > mothers to be less than contributing members of society.  Look no
   > further than speaches, particularly speaches of those who subscribe to
   > "family values," and see what they say about women without a man to
   > support them and their families.  
    
	'Less than contributing members of society' is a far cry from 'scum
	of the earth'.

	And I've looked at the speaches (sp) and...??? what am I supposed
	to see here?

   > I don't have to look further than when Carrie was born and Frank and I
   > were both working.  There were people, including one who was a heavy
   > contributer to my PA's who didn't believe in "working mothers."  (Every
   > parent is a working parent, unless they have no contact with their
   > children, JMHO)  Every time I had to leave work to make a Dr.'s visit
   > for an ear infection on Carrie was duly logged and there were serious
   > attempts to drive me out of my job.  Yet this was a person who would
   > have fits about non-employed outside the home mothers in the position I
   > was in when Lolita was 5.  I do know Suzanne has been in the same
   > position.  We have both had the womb-level attacks, both for working
   > outside the home and not being employed  .
    
	I agree with your statement about every parent being a working
	parent. Staying at home and raising young children is no easy
	task.

	Regarding having the time you took off for your daughter's doctors
	appointments 'duly logged', this is mean and petty. Especially if
	someone is doing it mainly because they disagree with working
	mothers.

	Clinton recently announced a proposal to give parents a certain amount
	of time off work to take care of these day-to-day situations. Some-
	thing like 24 hours per year; I don't remember the details. A step in
	the right direction, in my opinion.    

	John

	re .81 Suzanne Conlon

    
   > My point is that you don't ALWAYS think they're so 'special'.  In some
   > cases, you're very much against the idea of women choosing to stay
   > at home to raise their children.  (This is my point.)
    

	So I'm not always in favor of women choosing to stay at home with
	the kids. Like when the children are teenagers, for example. And
	the mother has excellent employable skills, and could help to
	contribute to the household, but chooses to stay at home.

	So what? So I'm not in favor of women staying home 100% of the time.
	Are you in favor of it, 100% of the time?

    >It isn't rocket science.  Try to follow this, one step at a time:

	No it isn't, but you're making it much more difficult than it has to
	be. Just agree with me and everything will be fine ;)


    	>Many in our society applaud women who 'stay at home to raise
    	>their children' as long as they are married (i.e., supported
    	>by bread-winner husbands.)

    	>When they are *not* married (or *no longer* married), society
    	>treats such women like dirt if they want to 'stay at home to
    	>raise their children'.  They are villains for wanting to
    	>'stay at home and raise the (same) children' that they were
    	>'special' and 'wonderful' to want to stay home to raise before.

	These are your words, once again. Once again, I see nobody but you
	saying this. Do you want it to be true just because you say it is
	so?

 
    >Do you need this explained to you in some other language?  Perhaps
    >drawings would help.  Let me know.

	English would be fine.
	
    > A CP can make the choice not to work, and to adapt to whatever level of
    > financial comfort is allowed by child support income. An NCP has no
    > such choice. 

    >>So the woman is now 'BAD' if she does decide to stay at home and
    >>raise her children (all of a sudden.)  She used to be 'special'
    >>and 'wonderful', but now you seem to think she's being unfair.
    >>(This is my point.)

	You know, Suzanne, I read and re-read that paragraph a hundred times
	and could not find the word 'BAD' in it! Please help me out here. Or
	are we dealing with your own interpretations once again?
	
    > Both were responsible for bringing children into the world yet only one 
    > is burdened with the financial responsibility in the above case.

    >>So the one you regard as 'unburdened' is BAD now, even though this
    >>same person used to be 'special' and 'wonderful' for wanting to stay
    >>at home to raise the children.  (This is my point.)

	See the above. 

    >If you still don't understand what I'm saying, just admit it.


	I think the real question here is, do *you* know what you're saying?

	John

    John Sobecky, listen to what people say about Welfare mothers, in
    particular.  (These are also women who try to stay at home to raise
    their children.  The difference is that they're considered 'bad' for
    trying to do this.)

    Do you still claim that these women are not treated as the 'scum
    of the earth' in our society?

    A woman can land on Welfare because her husband leaves her or happens
    to die.  All of a sudden, the rules change for her and she is expected
    to go against the thing that she was so 'special' and 'wonderful' for
    doing before: staying at home to raise her children.

    All of a sudden, she's expected to chase the almighty dollar.  At one
    point, it was selfish to seek the almighty dollar, but all of a sudden,
    it's selfish to NOT seek the almighty dollar.

The difference is that when she was married, the family could 
AFFORD to have her stay home with the children. For whatever 
reason, she no longer can do that. There are plenty of couples in 
this world that cannot afford to have one of the parents stay 
home with the children even though they may desparately want to.

Do you think they may be just a bit unhappy with the fact that 
while they cannot afford to do that they are in effect paying 
someone else to?

daryll

    
    	The welfare system is much too complex, and the reasons people end
    	up on welfare too many and varied, to be lumped into one category.
    	Abuses of the welfare system are what get many people stirred up,
    	in my opinion.
    
    	Do I think that a woman who is on welfare because her spouse died
    	or abandoned her is 'scum of the earth'? Of course not. Should she
    	continue to have children out of wedlock? Only if she can support
    	them.
    
    	Are they treated like 'scum of the earth'? I can't say; I will
    	admit that some people might think of them that way.
    
    	Of course, the way 'deadbeat dads' are portrayed in the press these
    	days is not very nice. And there are as many stories about why men
    	become deadbeat dads as women becoming welfare moms.
    
    	But you don't see women going to prison over it, do you? "Get tough
    	on Deadbeat Dads!", the press will roar. It's PC as mom and apple
    	pie.
    
    	You don't hear of the employable woman with teenage children that
    	stays at home though, do you. Double standard at work here?
    
    	John
    

    If something that is so incredibly 'wonderful' can become something
    incredibly 'horrible' if a woman's marital situation changes, then
    perhaps more folks ought to realize that women's family choices are 
    not simply matters of 'good vs. bad' (i.e., choosing 'the welfare 
    of ones children' vs. 'the quest for the almighty dollar'.)

    Rather than setting up a table of which choices are good or bad for
    women to take (depending on the situation), perhaps it would be
    better if more people in our society simply understood that women's
    family choices are more complicated than that.

    If 'staying at home to raise children' is only wonderful in certain
    situations, then our society should stop trying to glorify the hell
    out of it (as if it's the best thing in all situations.)  It's not.

    Let's reduce it to one of the choices that is available to some women
    and some families (in some situations.)  

    Let's agree that other [women's family] choices are also good.  It's
    up to the woman and her family to decide what's best for their family.

    
    	As long as we agree that not all family choices made by women are
    	necessarily good choices.
    
    	

    John,
    
    It is not just Suzanne who sees it that way.  
    
    Agreeing with Paul that "Scum of the Earth" is hyperbole and used as 
    hyperbole, I agree with Suzanne's argument.
    
    What I see in this note is a lot of anger directed at all women because
    some women take advantage of archaic laws requiring  some men to pay
    an unreasonable share of child support.
    
    Unfortunately calculating what is reasonable in every case would be
    very subjective and difficult.  Therefore inflexible guidelines are 
    used.
    
    I would be interested in seeing the statistics.  What % of NCP's pay
    reasonable child support, What % pay unreasonable child support, what
    per cent pay none at all?
    
    What percent of NCP's make a reasonable attempt to be part of their 
    children's lifes?
    
    Are there any good statistics around?
    
    
                                    Patricia
    
                             

    > Gee. Lucky them. Many men have no choices. There choice is to work.

    Men can fail to work.  Some men live under bridges and other men
    spend decades in prison, for example.  Other men manage to get
    on Welfare or on Social Security (for being drug addicts, as an 
    example.)

    Men have the choice of marrying a woman who can be a bread-winner
    (if/when the family needs her to be a bread-winner.)

    Men also have the choice of working towards the day when men and
    women have equal opportunities to become bread-winners.

    As long as men (as a group) have more of the money, our courts will
    consider men (as a group) to have more of the responsibility for
    keeping their own families afloat (so that taxpayers don't end up
    picking up the tab for these men's families if they start to sink.)

    When women and men are equal partners in our species (at work and
    at home), then women (as a group) can share the financial burdens
    of family life equally while men share the physical burdens (aside
    from pregnancy and child birth, of course.)

    Individual men and women will still fail (as some men and some women
    do now), but both sexes (as groups) will share the physical and
    financial responsibilities of child rearing and family life when men
    and women become equal partners in the human race.

    
    	Patricia
    
    	There is a lot of anger in here, but it is not directed at all
    	women. There are some very rational viewpoints expressed by women
    	(see note 225.* for example ;)) but also some very irrational
    	viewpoints in this string.
    
    	As for what's reasonable for child support, being part of the
    	children's lives, etc...er, do you really want to open up that
    	can of worms?
    
    	John
    

    .92
    
    You seem to keep missing what most people are saying about this
    situation.  The basic contention is that having a full-time parent at
    home is the best situation for children if the circumstances allow. 
    This means that in a two parent family there are certain sacrifices
    that need to be made to have one of the parents stay at home.  This may
    not be possible in all situations, but is achievable in many families.
    
    If a family can get by with one full-time wage earner and both chose to
    work, then I, personally, am less than supportive of that decision
    because of the unnecessary negative impact that i t has on children. 
    If a situation is such that there is only one parent, then that parent
    needs to do the very best they can to provide for their family.  If
    this means that the single parent needs to take classes to prepare
    their skill level and then gain full-time employment, then that's
    what's necessary.  If someone thinks that they can live off of society,
    they are sadly mistaken and generally create a very untenable life.
    
    You keep making "either/or" type of statments.  The reality is that
    there are bad/good/better/best decisions.  The best decision for a
    single parent may be considered a bad decision for a two parent family. 
    conversely the best decision for a two parent family could be a bad
    decision for a single parent family.  THis of course, is based on your
    view of personal responsibility.  If you believe that people have no
    personal responsibility and everything should come from the productive
    members of society, regardless of a persons choices, then you obviously
    would disagree.
    

    RE: .97  John Sobecky
    
    > There is a lot of anger in here, but it is not directed at all
    > women. There are some very rational viewpoints expressed by women
    > (see note 225.* for example ;)) but also some very irrational
    > viewpoints in this string.
    
    Don't be so hard on yourself.  Some of your notes seem more rational
    today.
    

    > The basic contention is that having a full-time parent at home is the 
    > best situation for children if the circumstances allow. 

    This contention is false, in my opinion.

    The best situation is for children to be secure, even if it means
    that the mother must keep her career current so that she is ready
    to be the sole bread-winner if the father leaves or dies.

    And, as we all know, people of any age can die at any time.

    > This means that in a two parent family there are certain sacrifices
    > that need to be made to have one of the parents stay at home.  This may
    > not be possible in all situations, but is achievable in many families.

    It's a huge risk, though!  If they want to risk the security of their
    children, it's their choice, of course.  But families who choose NOT
    to take this huge risk are doing what they believe is the best possible
    thing for their children.

    > If a family can get by with one full-time wage earner and both chose to
    > work, then I, personally, am less than supportive of that decision
    > because of the unnecessary negative impact that i t has on children. 

    It's probably much safer for the children in the long run, though.

    > If you believe that people have no personal responsibility and 
    > everything should come from the productive members of society, 
    > regardless of a persons choices, then you obviously would disagree.
                       
    Caring for children ***IS*** a responsibility.  If you think that
    stay-at-home mothers do nothing responsible and that the only "REAL"
    responsibility in our society is to earn money, then what is the point
    of having *any* mother stay at home to raise children at all?

    
    	Touche', Suzanne.
    
    	I'm still waiting to hear a rational argument from you, however.
    
    	

    John, you need to adjust your parser.
    
    And you need to refrain from relying on a negative stereotype about
    women when you have no way to counter an argument from some other 
    HUMAN BEING.
    

    As long as men (as a group) make more of the money, the courts will
    expect them to pay for more of the cost of keeping their own families
    afloat (whether they go on to have NEW families or not.)

    It wouldn't be practical to put the financial burden onto the group
    which does not have most of the money (especially if taxpayers will
    be the ones to pick up the tab, one way or another, if the family
    sinks.)

    If men want women to share the financial burdens equally, then they
    have to be willing to become equal partners with women in the human
    race (for the physical and financial burdens of family life.)

    WRONG, Rauh - I said that when WOMEN AND MEN are allowed to volunteer
    for combat, we won't need to draft anyone anymore.  (Not that we've
    drafted anyone in the past couple of decades anyway.)

    Quite a few women want to go into combat.  Women are ALWAYS, ALWAYS,
    ALWAYS caught in the middle of every war that happens on this planet.

    It would be refreshing for women to be armed with assault weapons
    while they're in the middle of a war, for a change.  It would be
    more difficult to rape women who are likely to SHOOT an enemy who
    tries.

    If this country is attacked and our citizens must take to the streets
    with guns to defend it, women should be armed every bit as heavily as
    men.  No question about it.

    Otherwise, American men might as well kill us all before the enemy
    shows up. We'd end up dead one way or the other.

    Change the law so that 18 year old women and men (both) have to sign
    up for the non-existent draft.

    If you refuse to change the law, don't complain to me about it.
    (I'd support such a change.)

    The draft does not exist.  We have not drafted anyone in the past
    two decades or so.
    
    Calling the post office won't change this fact.
    
    Meanwhile, change the law so that women AND men have to sign up for
    the non-existent draft anyway.
    
    If you refuse to change the law, then don't complain to me about it.
    

    My son signed up for the draft when he turned 18.  He filled out
    a form (or possibly a postcard.)  End of story.  I went with him
    and it took 2 minutes.

    I've spent a lot more than 2 minutes of my life at the post office
    (and I've filled out a great many forms and postcards in my life.)

    My son's registration for the draft was no more painful than filling
    out a change of address card.  In no way was it justification for
    women and men NOT being equal partners in the human race.

    If it bothers you, though, change the law to get 18 year old women
    to sign up, too.  They can ALL fill out little forms together for
    the non-existent draft.

    
    I would like women and men to be equal partners in the human race.

    Any other arrangement makes no sense at all for a species on this planet.

    
    The draft does not exist, whether a billion people sign up for it
    or not.  The draft itself has been non-existent for DECADES.

    The 'registration' for the non-existent draft is a simple, simple,
    SIMPLE act of filling out a simple form.

    It requires absolutely ****ZERO**** 'service' to our country to fill
    out the form for a non-existent draft.

    Lest this go around in circles some more ...
    
    The registration is to provide a database to start with should the
    draft be restarted. It is thereby a non-zero 'service', since it
    puts the registrant at risk of being called if the draft is
    restarted.
    
    That's a very small risk, since restarting the draft anytime soon
    seems a very remote possibility. But not a complete null risk. (The
    greater risk is in not registering, since the law requires it.)
    

    
    What happens to an 18 year old man who *DOES* register?
    
    *** ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ***
    
    Zero.
    

    So, let them keep a database of young women AND men who could be
    drafted if the draft ever comes back.

    If women and men were allowed to volunteer for combat, it would be
    even LESS likely that we go back to the draft than it is now (if
    it's possible to have the draft less likely to come back than it 
    is now.)

    
    We went through a war in 1991 and the draft wasn't reinstated.
    

    If you do NOT want to be equal partners with women in the human race,
    the ONE LITTLE FORM (that takes 2 minutes out of the month a man turns
    18 years old) is a very, very, very poor excuse to use.

    RE: .128  Rauh

    > Yep. Remember reading about women on board ships getting pregent, and
    > then going home vs facing the foe as many men had No other choice in.
    > Watched a woman combat doctor deciding not to go, after the American
    > tax payer paid for her education. Gee... doesn't look good does it.

    Only .2% (that's .002 of the total of women who served in the Gulf War)
    got pregnant.  

    Meanwhile, women were not even *ALLOWED* in combat positions if it
    could be helped - and if they DID go into combat, they couldn't get
    COMBAT PAY (since women are not supposed to be allowed into combat.)

    YET, two of the prisoners of war at the end of the war were women
    (even though women can't get PAID to go into combat.)  Iraq only
    captured a handful of American prisoners, and TWO were women.

    Also, American women died in the Scud missile attack that killed the
    most Americans during the war.  Again, these were women who were in
    danger but who could not get COMBAT PAY (because women were not
    supposed to go into combat.)
    
    Women did extremely well in the Gulf War.

George, you seem to enjoy this game of deliberately misstating Suzanne's
position and then attacking her for it.  Please stop.

				Steve

    HEY! What happened to .132?

    Not that I agree with George, mind you. I'm in total agreement with
    everything Suzanne says.

    Thanks!!
    

    What happened is that I was trying to be polite. Volinteering
    politeness. 
    

    If you look at all the other known/studied species of life on our planet, 
    ours (humans) is the ONLY ONE where the two sexes (of the species which 
    have separate sexes at all) are not equal partners in their own species.

    Among lions, for example, it's the females who engage in the very
    athletic and extremely violent hunt (where a team of lions surround
    herds of large, hoofed animals in an attack formation designed to
    split the herds into multiple groups and strays.)

    The males stay in the background in this violent hunt effort because
    their mains make them too easy for prey to spot.  The females sometimes
    break their jaws during the hunt.  If so, one of their sisters in the
    pride adopts the injured female's cubs.  (She dies a short time later.)

    The 'pride' society is females - mothers, daughters, sisters, and
    their cubs.  The male cubs leave at adolescence to find their own
    prides (after being on their own for awhile.)  The females become
    part of the pride.   They grow up to be great mothers and hunters.

    The males' job is to protect their 'turf' from other males (so they
    can pass along their genes to new generations of cubs.)  They pee along
    the perimeter to mark their territory, then fight any challengers.

    The males and females are partners.  Neither one dominates the other,
    even though lion society is really mostly female.

    In every other species you can name, the males and females work together
    to do the business of the species.

    Humans are the only weird ones in this regard.  It's something that
    is badly in need of repair.

    .100
    
    If there is a two-parent family and both parents chose to work then
    they have my utmost distain unless there are significant mitigating
    circumstances.  If they both work because they want the finer things in
    life and their kids just happen to be the unfortunate by-products, then
    same thing.
    
    If, on the other hand, theyy botrh work because they expect the other
    one to run off and dump them, well, you have a very sick view of
    relationships, or the hypothetical couple you reference does.  "Gee,
    let's start a family and share our lives together.  But, don't think of
    quitting your job or being a full-time parent because I just might take
    off on you.  Or, let's not give our kids the best home environment and
    chances for the future because I might take off on you or die."
    
    YOu don't seriously believe that a stay-at-home parent is not the best
    for the children, do you?  You may have, or know of people who have
    had, unsuccessful marriages.  Planning for the failure from the
    beginning is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  There are too many
    solid, successful marriages out there for me to ever believe your
    contention nor accept your proposition.
    
    If you want to run around crying that the sky is falling, feel free,
    but don't be surprised if you don't many takers.
    

    Anyone can die (at any time.)  No matter how upbeat parents view their
    chances of surviving together until their children are grown, either
    parent's life can be dashed in a heartbeat (literally) at any moment.

    So, if you plan your lives around the idea that both parents will
    survive until all the children are grown, it can be a huge risk to
    the children (unless the parents are millionaires with no chance of
    losing their money even if the main bread-winner dies.)

    > If there is a two-parent family and both parents chose to work then
    > they have my utmost distain unless there are significant mitigating
    > circumstances.  If they both work because they want the finer things in
    > life and their kids just happen to be the unfortunate by-products, then
    > same thing.

    The mitigating circumstance is that it's a huge risk to raise children
    with only ONE bread-winner in the family.  It's risky enough to raise
    them with only TWO bread-winners in the family, too, but most people
    try to make provisions for what happens to the children if both parents
    die.

    Not that it's your business anyway.

    > If, on the other hand, theyy botrh work because they expect the other
    > one to run off and dump them, well, you have a very sick view of
    > relationships, or the hypothetical couple you reference does.  "Gee,
    > let's start a family and share our lives together.  But, don't think of
    > quitting your job or being a full-time parent because I just might take
    > off on you.  Or, let's not give our kids the best home environment and
    > chances for the future because I might take off on you or die."

    Instead, the husband PROMISES that he won't die (as if he has control
    over that), right?  Then the kids are in real trouble when a tractor-
    trailer overturns on top of his car on the freeway one day.  Their
    family plans are dashed and society demands that the mother put the
    children into Daycare (or else society will have the 'utmost disdain'
    for her.)

    > YOu don't seriously believe that a stay-at-home parent is not the best
    > for the children, do you? 

    Sometimes, it is.  Not always.  Sometimes the best thing for the
    children is to have two strong bread-winners as parents.

    > If you want to run around crying that the sky is falling, feel free,
    > but don't be surprised if you don't many takers.

    It doesn't take the sky to fall for mortal human beings to die or to
    break up while their children are still young.

    It's a family CHOICE to keep one parent at home (no matter how risky
    it is) or to keep both parents in their careers (even if it means
    that kids start 'school' years earlier than they would have otherwise.)

    No family should be judged by others for this choice (no matter how
    strongly you feel about having some sort of personal investment in 
    THEIR family's choice.)

re: 139

Then I guess I have your utmost disdain.  (And as far as I know,
you don't even know me!)

I and my husband both choose to work and we have an almost
4-year-old daughter that we both love dearly.  I consider myself
a wonderful mother who happens to work outside the home because
my natural gifts steer me more toward software engineering than 
homemaking.  It is my personal belief that parents who are pleased
with their life choices do best by their children.

Please note that I believe each individual family must make the
choice that works best for them.  I don't believe that all mothers
should stay home.  Nor do I believe that all mothers should work outside
the home.  Double ditto for dads.  There is no one ideal solution that
is the best for every family.

Works for me and mine...

- Deb B.

    Thanks, Deb - you brought up *another* very valid reason for both
    parents to work.

    My mother worked when we were kids - and we LIKED it that way because
    she was happier when she worked.  When she was happier, we were happier.

    Both of my grandmothers worked while raising their kids, too.  When my
    mother was very young, her mother was co-owner of a magazine with my
    grandfather.  They both worked all day.  My mother considered herself
    a 'latch-key kid' in the 1920s and 1930s while both her parents worked
    (and she liked it, too.)

    In my mother's childhood, it worked out extremely well that both her
    parents worked because her father died when she was still a child.  
    The family survived because her mother knew how to keep the magazine 
    going after his death (since she was co-owner and partner in the 
    magazine.)  My grandmother kept things going even during the Depression.
    She didn't let the magazine go until the kids were grown and married.

    Then my grandmother went elsewhere to work (to keep herself going until
    retirement.)

    It would have been a disaster if my grandmother hadn't worked.  They
    had no relatives who could have taken care of the family after my
    grandfather's death.  They probably would have gone into orphanages.
    
    My mother always felt happier and safer when she worked (while we
    were growing up.)  We were happy about her choice, too.

    .140
    
    Ever hear of life insurance?  It's part of planning for your family. 
    We decided that it would be prudent to plan for the unexpected and to
    provide a sufficient amount of resources should the unexpected happen. 
    It would provide enough to keep the same standard of living until my
    wife could gain any skill she lost and re-enter the workforce and build
    a career if necessary.  Of course, that takes planning and commitment
    up front.  It didn't anticipate the worst, just make accomodations if
    necessary.

    .141
    
    It is always dangerous to make all-encompassing statements.  That's why
    I try to generally avoid them.  There are always exceptions and it's
    silly to base anything on an exception.  If your child is doing just
    great with a business raising her and establishing the standards for
    behavior and morals and ethics, then my hats off to you.
    
    Most recent studies show that children raised outside of the home have
    numerous socialogical and psycological problems.  Many develop an
    anti-social character and have difficulty in school and have a distain
    for authority.  My personal experience has shown much the same with
    business raised children.
    
    I am glad that your child is doing fine and is happy because your
    mutual careers make for a happy household.  The majority do not seem to
    be so lucky.
    

    Do you really think your wife can reach (in the few years while the
    insurance money lasts) the level of salary that you've spent your whole 
    adult life attaining?

    If it were that easy to leap into the workforce to make the big bucks, 
    people wouldn't be out on the streets hunting for their next jobs after 
    being laid off.

    A career is cultivated over time.  Someone who has been 'out' of it
    for years and years is suddenly competing with people who are younger
    (and willing to work for a lot less) or far more experienced (and
    maybe willing to work for less if the job involves an opportunity 
    for an *experienced* person to get back on the fast track.)

    A time of grief is not the easiest time to make great career strides,
    either.  Unless you have millions of dollars of insurance, your family
    would eventually suffer if they were left without a prominent bread-
    winner.

    And you will never get laid off, never have any of the other millions
    of things happen.  Frank is looking at upgrading his skills to fit the
    changing work force, so we will be able to give ourselves and our kids
    a few things as well as the attention they enjoy so much.  It also
    protects him if something should happen to me.  (Goddess forbid, I
    prefer to be on this planet while the kids grow up) 
    
    I like what I do, and had I not been working when Frank was laid off we
    could well have been in tight straights, even with the transitional
    package he was given.  My mother's job was homemaker and mother.  She
    is the one who counseled all of us kids to make sure we could care for
    ourselves and any kids we had on the way, as life can be quite
    uncertain.  She was the first, and so far, the last woman in our family
    who never held an outside job.  As I said the ONLY thing that allowed
    Frank to stay home with our kids was a settlement that enabled us to
    seriously downshift for a few years.  Times are changing and once
    Atlehi is in school full-time he plans to be generating income again.
    
    There was only about one generation in the US where married women
    weren't expected to generate income, as well as care for the home and
    kids.  The only difference was that income could often be generated
    within the family home and farm.
    
    meg

    RE: .144  Rocush
    
    > If your child is doing just great with a business raising her and 
    > establishing the standards for behavior and morals and ethics, then 
    > my hats off to you.
                                             
    So you aren't raising your own children, Rocush, since you don't
    spend all day every day with them?
    
    None of your standards for behavior or ethics are being passed along
    to your children, right?  You simply do not exist for them, right?
    
    > Most recent studies show that children raised outside of the home have
    > numerous socialogical and psycological problems.                
    
    Your children are being raised without a father (since you're gone
    all day) - do you think they're doing alright?

    Rocush, why did you bother having children if you weren't willing
    to raise them yourself?
    

    Let's hope you wouldn't dare ask for custody of children you didn't
    bother raising (if anything ever happens to your wife or your marriage,)
    Rocush.
    

    .145, 148, .149
    
    Gee, here we go again.  Let's take your first point first.  Insurance
    would allow her to get back, when the children were young and her
    skills were still relatively current, and cover the salary difference
    until they were where they needed to be.  It also would cover her for
    the salary difference while whe was re-establishing herself.  would she
    get to the same point?  I don't know, I think so.  But that is a
    separate question.  But it sure beat having them raised by a business.
    
    Which leads me to your last two replies.  You really are something.  My
    children were raised with OUR values, morals and ethics.  Not some
    disinterested business.  Since I married someone who had very similar
    values to mine, it was pretty easy leaving the children with her and
    then taking an active part when I returned.  Not picking them up from
    the babysitting business.
    
    And to answer your last stupid question, I had children because WE
    agreed that when we had children they would be raised by US.  If that
    was not the case then I would not have had children.
    
    Simply put, I took responsibility for my family before it even started. 
    I expected nothing from anyone else other than my partner.
    

    .150
    
    I was very active with my children in Y programs in the evenings,
    coached baseball and basketball with all of them, taught religious
    education with all of them.  this was to insure that they got my
    attention and not just my wife's.  But certainly not a business's.
    

    Unless Daycare keeps a family's children 24 hours per day, then every
    working mother is AT LEAST as involved in her children's lives as you
    claim to be.
    
    Parenting doesn't only exist between the hours of 9a-5p.  If it did,
    you couldn't call yourself a father at all, could you?
    

    Rocush, do people who send their children to SCHOOL also refrain from
    raising their children?
    
    Schools are businesses.  If your children go to school at all, then
    are their teachers their real parents (or don't you believe in ever
    letting your kids out of the house?)
    

        Yeah, and the rest of us working parents aren't active with our
    children, youth groups, religious activities....

    If one really shops it is possible and probable to find a care provider
    who shares ones values.  Been there, done that, twice.  Neither child
    is sociopathic, nor disturbed, unable to attach, not doing well in
    school.....  I don't believe in paying less attention to who watches
    my kids than I do finding a mechanic for my car.  

    Paying attention to your children is what matters.  If Frank parked our
    kids in front of the TV 8-10 hours a day, it would be far worse than
    having the kids in an attentive day-care environment with activities
    and a variety of potential learning experiences.  

    meg

    Rocush, surely you don't think you should be entitled to custody 
    of your children (if a custody situation ever arises) since YOU
    have not raised your children...
    
    If the 'child raising' hours are between 9a-5p only, then you have
    had nothing to do with raising your children.  Why would you ever
    believe you should get custody?
    

    My son LOVED Daycare.  We called it 'school' and he loved having other
    children to play with (and other adults to read stories or organize
    field trips or projects, in addition to me.)

    When I took him to Daycare, he first tried it out for an hour (they 
    said they'd take him at his young age if he didn't spend the hour in 
    a corner sucking his thumb in distress.)  He loved the other kids, 
    and he cried when the hour was over and it was time to leave.

    We were very, very close (I was still nursing him, in fact) - I kept
    nursing him for another 18 months after he started Daycare.  He just
    liked having his own 'school' to do during the day.  It was different
    for him.  We still had all our fun during the evenings and on the
    weekends.

    I was the one who raised him, even so.  He has my political views 
    (almost to the letter!)  :)

    One of the advantages of Daycare is that it does tend to make children
    more confident (since they spend time every day with other children
    and adults outside their immediate family.)

    They know (very well) the difference between parents and other adults,
    though.

    My son's Daycare was very diligent about calling me with questions
    about Ryan (and with concerns about things he liked or didn't like,
    etc.)  They called me in the evening quite often, at times.

    They called me once to say that he wasn't verbalizing with the adults.
    He would happily romp and play with the other children.  He would
    follow adult instructions cheerfully and carefully.   He participated
    in all activities.  He was very good about eating his lunch (including
    salad and vegetables.)  He just wouldn't verbalize with the adults.

    If they spoke to him, he'd repeat some of their words back to them:

    		"Ryan, would you like more spaghetti?"
    	
    		"More spaghetti."  (He'd nod and hold out his plate.)

    They had a theory that he was saving his conversation for me (because
    I understood him well enough to save him the trouble of making full
    sentences when he spoke to me.)   Although he didn't use babytalk,
    he used a combination of words, gestures and facial expressions when
    he spoke to me (and these were enough for me.)

    I hadn't realized any of this until a few days later when Ryan and
    I were deep in conversation on an elevator.  He was rattling away
    at me and I was responding with things like "Sure, we can do that"
    and "No, let's go shopping this weekend" and "I don't know, I think
    the wheel broke off when we were in the car yesterday."

    A man behind us asked me, "Do you actually understand what he's saying??"
    Of course I did!

    Ryan also understood everyone's concerns about his verbalizations.
    A few days later, a teacher called me and said that he'd stood up
    next to her during story time and repeated every word she'd said
    during the entire story.  She kinda laughed because she said it was
    as if he was trying to 'get the flow' of using full sentences, so
    she let him 'help' her tell the story that day.

    He started using full sentences almost immediately after that.
    The first one I remember was at dinnertime one night when he was
    trying to eat beef stew after an early bath and he seemed concerned
    about it.  He said, "I don't want to make a mess on my jammies."

    It was great that they'd noticed that he wasn't making real sentences
    because he hadn't felt the need to make them with me.  (I certainly
    hadn't realized it.  He was always talking to me about a large 
    variety of subjects, so I mistook his extensive range of topics for
    an ability to make complicated sentences.)

    Daycare was interesting and stimulating for him every day, but
    they didn't "raise him" any more than mothers at home with
    children "raise them" alone (without the fathers "raising them")
    when fathers go to work during the day.

    Parents "raise" their children, even when the children go to school
    during the day.  Daycare is 'SCHOOL', that's all.

    When my son did start to really talk to his Daycare teachers,
    they got the biggest kick out of some of the things he said.
    Again, they'd call me at night to tell me.

    When he was around 2 1/2 years old, I spent weeks explaining
    to him about dreams.  ("You know how you think you're doing
    something, but then you open your eyes and you're lying down
    on your bed?" etc.)

    When he finally understood what I was talking about, I asked
    him to TELL me about his little dreams whenever he could remember
    them.  (Boy, were they cute!)  :)

    One of his teachers called me and said that when he'd wake up from
    his naps at Daycare, he'd run to the teachers to tell them about
    his dreams.  :)  Needless to say, they found this pretty
    remarkable for a two year old.  Not to mention entertaining. :)

    These teachers didn't give my son their values or their philosophies
    - I was the one who did that.  They gave him interesting activities
    and playtime with other small children (to help him use his boundless
    toddler energy in ways that enriched the life we already shared
    together.)  It was definitely the best thing for him at the time.

    Then he started kindergarten (when he was 4 1/2 years old.)  So the
    Daycare was really pre-school for him (and a lot of fun.)

                     <<< Note 226.145 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>

   > Do you really think your wife can reach (in the few years while the
   > insurance money lasts) the level of salary that you've spent your whole 
   > adult life attaining?

    It may be a nit, but if this is the case, they're under-insured.

    daryll

    .158 et al
    
    I would prefer to accept the information I have gathered on day care
    from different sources.  The results, on average, are significantly
    different than the utopia you describe.
    
    My daughter worked at a well-run and respected day care center for two
    years while she was in college.  Some of the children adapted well and
    were well behaved and truly enjoyed the experience.  Most of the
    children demonstrated various behaviors that were not addressable by a
    day care provider.  Also, a few of the parents were very good and were
    very attentive to their children.  My daughter would watch them as they
    picked their kids up.. These few parents asked about their day, what
    they did, what they learned, how things were going.  Occassionally they
    would talk about what they would do that evening, etc.  The
    overwhelming majority of parents demonstrated little if any interest in
    their kids.  They just opened the door of the car and got the kid  in. 
    It looked like it was just a chore to pick them up.  These parents
    never stopped by or asked about how their kid was doing or responded to
    any information the center provided.
    
    I have talked with the owner of a very well-known and respected local
    center and she is strictly business.  She makes sure that all of the
    legal requirements are met, and generally exceeds them, but couldn't
    care less about these kids.  This is a business for her and the kids
    aree the commodity.  Many parents use this service and regard it
    highly, but the reality is that is just a baby sitting service.
    
    Lastly, a mother that I know well thought it would be a good idea to
    have her child attend a day care center before entering school.  She
    felt it would help make the transition and help with learning about
    other adults and socialization.  She looked at several different
    centers and tried to be as selective as possible in finding a good one. 
    What she found was that her child was beginning to use some very
    colorful language, becoming more demanding and certainly more possesive
    and less willing to share.
    
    These are the real life experiences I have with day care, as wsell as
    the studies that basically expand on the negative aspects of absentee
    parents, upon which I base my views.
    
    Your milage may vary, or at least your perception.
    

    If someone insures for 5 times his/her yearly salary (which is
    probably close to the average life insurance for hearty bread-
    winners), it won't maintain the family for long if the remaining
    parent doesn't have a good career.

    Getting a good career going is not some simple thing that can
    be kick-started in a few years.  Even with the education and
    some experience already in place, 'returning workers' are
    competing with people who are younger (with at least as much
    education and experience) or older (with much more experience.) 

    If the 'returning worker' doesn't even have the education yet
    for a good career, it'll take much, much, MUCH longer to get
    things going (and the competition will keep getting younger
    and younger, or more and more experienced.)

    Being laid off (after working continuously for ones entire adult
    life) can be hard enough.  Returning to the workforce after a long
    absence (or when a person hasn't really been there at all) can be
    a very uphill battle.

    If the remaining parent *DOES* have a good career already (while
    children have been in Daycare), it's still difficult for the family
    to lose roughly HALF their income if the father dies.  But the
    insurance (in that situation) can give them time to adjust to living
    on ONE hearty bread-winner income.

Under-insured. Life insurance should cover all debt, as well as 
getting a good start on a college fund for the children. Once 
that long term debt has been eliminated, the level of income 
required to live comfortably is quite a bit lower. It may be off 
topic here, but the number of people in this country who are 
under-insured for no other reason than being uneducated is 
frightening. I could go on and on about whole life vs term, but 
once I get started, look out.

daryll

    RE: .161  Rocush

    > These are the real life experiences I have with day care, as wsell as
    > the studies that basically expand on the negative aspects of absentee
    > parents, upon which I base my views.
    
    You were an absentee parent yourself, of course, so you're really not
    in a position to judge others for not spending all day every day with
    their children.  YOU certainly didn't do it, which means (according
    to you) that you didn't raise your children.  So who are you to judge?

    > Your milage may vary, or at least your perception.

    My first in-laws used to give me a very bad time about being a working
    mother.  My ex mother-in-law had a daughter who was my son's age, and
    my m-i-l was a stay-at-home Mom.  Both kids were 6 years old at the time.

    The ironic thing was that I spent FAR, FAR more time with my son than
    she spent with her daughter (even though I worked.) 

    After school, my ex m-i-l was too busy 'making dinner' to spend time
    with her daughter, so Nicole went out to play.  After dinner, my m-i-l
    was busy with dishes, so the father-in-law put Nicole to bed.

    Saturday was my ex m-i-l's 'cleaning day', so Nicole played outside
    (or at other kids' houses) all day.  Sunday was my ex m-i-l's 
    'nap day' (where she didn't want to be disturbed all day after church.)  
    My ex father-in-law was a golf pro at a country club, so he was gone all
    weekend.  Nicole played with other kids all day Saturday and Sunday,
    and every day after school.  She saw her mother during dinners, mostly,
    and during breakfast.

    I was with my son an hour after school ended, and we spent every late
    afternoon and evening together.  We spent every weekend together (all
    weekend.)  We had much more time with each other.

    Parents' involvement with their kids depends on the PARENTS (not on
    whether or not the kids go to pre-school.)

    .164
    
    
    A couple of things.  first, I am not going to dignify your assertions
    that I did not raise my children.  It is wholely without merit and you
    can continue if you want, but you just prove my point further with each
    silly statement.
    
    Second, there are more than enough examples of parents that don't pick
    their kids up from day care until dinner time and then put them to
    bedshortly thereafter so they can get some time to relax.  there are
    some parents that actually try to make time for their kids, but these
    are few and far between.  I know way too many of them personally to
    ever accept your presentation as being anywhere near the norm or even a
    significant minority.
    
    But please, don't believe me.  read the current studies that have been
    published within the last year that have idenitified the negative
    impact of day care and single parents on children.
    

>    Second, there are more than enough examples of parents that don't pick
>    their kids up from day care until dinner time and then put them to
>    bedshortly thereafter so they can get some time to relax.  there are
>    some parents that actually try to make time for their kids, but these
>    are few and far between. 
    
    Yeah, but does the daycare system cause these parents to behave this
    way? Or would they be just as likely to ignore their children in a
    more traditional setting? Mayhap you're confusing cause and effect.
    

    RE: .165  Rocush
    
    > A couple of things.  first, I am not going to dignify your assertions
    > that I did not raise my children.  It is wholely without merit and you
    > can continue if you want, but you just prove my point further with each
    > silly statement.
    
    By your own definition of what it means to raise kids (i.e., being
    with them all day every day), NO WAY did you raise yours.  You were
    an absentee parent as much as any person you have described as an
    absentee parent.  
    
    > Second, there are more than enough examples of parents that don't pick
    > their kids up from day care until dinner time and then put them to
    > bedshortly thereafter so they can get some time to relax.
    
    If you want to talk stereotypes, there are more than enough examples
    of parents whose kids do NOT go to Daycare who spend their evenings 
    hiding behind newspapers even if the kids happen to be in the room.
    
    As an absentee parent yourself, I still don't think you're in a
    position to judge anyone else.

    If it's 'right' and 'good' for Dads to go to work everyday, then
    it's just as 'right' and 'good' for Moms to go to work everyday.

    If it's being an 'absentee parent' to go to work, then Dads are
    'absentee parents' if they go to work every bit as much as Moms
    can be 'absentee parents' for going to work.

    If going to work means that SOMEONE ELSE IS RAISING YOUR CHILDREN,
    then NONE of the parents who go to work (including Rocush) are raising
    their children.
    

    If we stop judging married women for NOT staying home (or for TRYING
    to stay home when they don't have a bread-winner husband in residence),
    it would open the door to stopping judgments about men if they TRY to 
    stay at home (or WANT to stay at home) to raise their children.

    As a society, we could decide to 'can' archaic and asinine stereotypes 
    about the parenting skills of people who choose to maintain a two-career
    family.

    Dads and Moms (both) have much to gain if these stereotypes were tossed
    in the trash where they belong.  Dads and Moms should be able to make
    their own family choices without being judged by those who have no
    business judging anyone else in the first place.

    .169
    
    Another example of useless drivel to support an agenda that is
    unsupportable.
    
    If you want to justify your working or anyone else's as a means to
    "self-actualization" or any other such nonsense, don't waste your time
    on me.  If working is an absolute neccesity because of death, divorce,
    or other circumstances beyond expectation, that's different.  One does
    what one must, but it doesn't mean that it's best.
    
    Rant and rave all you want, but just compare society and children and
    teen poregnancy, drug use, suicide, etc 50 years ago and today.  Then
    see what changed and see if "latch-key kids" have something to do with
    it.  Of course you can imitate an ostrich, but you can't change
    reality.  You can continue to say that no one ever raises their
    children and they just run amok and if it wasn't for day care life
    would be terrible, unfortunately you would be as wrong as you have
    consistently been in the past.
    
    Good luck.
    

    RE: .170  Rocush

    > If working is an absolute neccesity because of death, divorce,
    > or other circumstances beyond expectation, that's different. 

    So, YOU are working due to death, divorce or another circumstance
    beyond expectation?   Otherwise, you'd be at home all day where
    YOU belong (raising your children, instead of letting someone else
    raise your children) - right?

    You better have a darn good excuse for working, or I may be forced 
    to have the 'utmost disdain' for you.  :<

    > Rant and rave all you want, but just compare society and children and
    > teen poregnancy, drug use, suicide, etc 50 years ago and today.  Then
    > see what changed and see if "latch-key kids" have something to do with
    > it.  

    As an absentee parent yourself (at work during the day - shame on you!),
    you've done nothing to raise today's children [by your own definition
    of what it means to 'raise' children.]  You have no business judging 
    others for being out in the workforce, too.

    > Of course you can imitate an ostrich, but you can't change
    > reality.  You can continue to say that no one ever raises their
    > children and they just run amok and if it wasn't for day care life
    > would be terrible, unfortunately you would be as wrong as you have
    > consistently been in the past.

    Au contraire.  I said that PARENTS raise their children, not schools
    (and I included working parents when I said it.)

    You have stated that parents who work are 'absentee parents' (which
    includes YOU, since you work) and that stay-at-home Moms are not
    productive members of society (which is a huge insult to your wife,
    by the way.)

    I disagree with you on all counts.  As well I should.  :)

    Men and women who want to stay at home are WELCOME to do so, as far 
    as I'm concerned.  Any man or woman who wants to be a full-time 
    homemaker has my blessings.  I think it would be wonderful if more 
    MEN would make this choice, in fact (because society would give women 
    a great deal more ACTUAL RESPECT for the work of full-time homemakers 
    if more men chose to do this, too.)   Although I happen to see it
    as a risk for a family's security, I think it's a valid choice for
    any person (MALE or FEMALE) to make.

    More women will need to have opportunities to be bread-winners in
    order for more men to have the choice to be full-time homemakers, 
    of course.

    Your judgments about the choices other families make are petty and
    pointless, Rocush.  'Studies' aren't meant to be used as weapons for 
    one sanctimonious family member to use against other families.

    Great families can happen in almost ANY situation.  You have no
    business at all judging other families for their private choices.

    Blaming all the ills of the world on some wonderful couple who
    is raising FANTASTIC kid(s) on a two-career income is absolutely
    preposterous!

    I have been read only for this arguement but I have to say something. 
    
    The quality of the upbringing of a child rest on the model the child is
    exposed to. If the stay at home parent is a loser and a non productive
    memeber of society (ie: eats bon bons and watches tv all day) then the
    child will learn that's ok..if the stay at home parent works outside in
    the garden, takes care of the home, sews, cooks or basically makes good
    use of their time and energy while exposing the child to this, the
    child will again, model that and learn they can do different things and
    still succeed and yet be total productive and accomplish tasks. 
    
    If a parent that has become single and is forced to work, the option is
    not there to QUIT your job or to become dependent on society to support
    you. This is where family comes in. If there is no family and the
    income is such that a family of two cannot survive on the salary alone 
    then there are circumstances that one needs to turn to welfare to
    survive until such time that they can survive without the welfare
    check. IF that means going back to school, going to learn a new trade
    and depending on welfare to get you over the hill. I support active
    members of the welfare system that really use the check to feed the
    kids and pay the bills and are attending school and finding a way to
    take care of their child and their responsibilities. This also will
    teach the child a sense of responsibility. That I think is why so many
    kids are going wrong, no one is teaching them responsibility or holding
    them accountable when they knowingly do something wrong. 
    
     

    I've been closely following this string but haven't had a chance to
    reply; I wrote a long reply yesterday, then accidentally blew it away.
    I have to keep it brief. But I just have to say, Rocush, that I find it
    hard to believe that there are actually still people around that think
    like you do. This is scary. Thank god, most men are a little more
    progressive and in tune with the times. 
    
    It's clear that no amount of mere facts can get through to you. If
    someone is determined to keep a closed mind, nothing will open it.
    Nevertheless, I still would like to give you a case in point:
    
    In .170, you mention 'latchkey kids' and how they are to blame for the
    ills of society. Would you call a 21-year old who just graduated Clark
    University with honors and on the Dean's list a menace to society?
    This kid has worked throughout school, volunteered at community
    agencies, and worked harder on her school work than many of the kids
    from 'stable', 2-parent families. She is not attracted to drugs or
    alcohol (not because they are prohibited, but because she was raised to
    use her brain and think for herself, and she can see that these can
    lead to trouble) yet she has an active, happy social life and many
    friends. She is also an accomplished dancer. She is not promiscuous,
    and has been in a stable, mutually supportive relationship for 3 years
    with someone who does not hold her back and is not threatened by her
    strengths. They plan to marry soon. She has a very clearheaded,
    realistic view of life; she certainly hasn't been sheltered. But she 
    actually has the gall to think, that she, a woman, deserves a
    fulfilling, even 'self-actualized' life! And she has the greatest gift
    of all, self confidence and the ability to think for herself.
    
    This girl, my daughter, was a 'latchkey kid'. I certainly did not want 
    to do this to her; I loved her dearly. But I was also not willing to
    stay in an emotionally abusive marriage, or prostitute myself by
    finding a rich guy to marry and give me a free ride. So I worked AND
    went to school. With whatever was left over, I gave my daughter love,
    attention, and honesty. She grew up fast, but I sure wouldn't say she
    turned out to be a problem to society. And, interestingly enough, her
    essay which was part of her college application, on 'The Person I
    Admire the Most' was about me. 
    
    Go figure!
    
    
    
    

    re .172
    I agree with you 100%, you don't party hardy in front of your kids and
    smoke dope and whatever other things that a child should not be exposed
    to.  I've seen this type of behavior in my past and this happend to my
    own son when he was living with his Mom.  This poor kid was getting
    very mixed messages living with his Mom and it ruined his life.  I
    found out that at the age of 9, she was smoking dope in front of my son
    all the time and when she got remarried, they were both doing it in
    front of him.  Guess what his idea of normal living was... Having
    custody is too easy for women to get and alot of them are abusing it.
    When (most women) <--- (sound like Suzzane?) get divorced its not because 
    they got a raw deal during the marrage but because it was time for a 
    change, more freedom to party and play around, nevermind what this does
    to the children...  I think that the women should not be given custody
    by default, they should put both parents through tests to see what kind
    parenting skills they have and also to find out where there heads are
    at to make sure that the children are placed with the best qualified
    and caring parent, if both are losers, then the parents should have to
    clean up their acts before the children are allowed to live with them.
    
    Dom
    

    .173  WRKSYS::MATTSON
    
    I think that you are painting your picture on everybody else because it
    worked for you.  It sounds like you did the right things and instilled
    the right values.  Would you like to make a statement that every mother
    does the same that is in your situation or worse?   It comes down to
    our own values and what kind of circumstances that they project to
    kids.  Glad to hear that your daughter is doing great and has an 
    excellent attitude.  My parents were together for 50 years before my
    father died and they raised 8 kids, my Father worked for money and my
    Mother worked for Love.  My Mom did'nt work for money too much until I
    was in school full time (I am the youngest) and most of the other
    family members were on their own.  She enjoyed being in the work force
    and would still probably be working (for money) today if she could.  
    Values made the difference, all of us are doing pretty good and lead
    happy and fulfilling lives.  Attitude and Values make the difference
    for Men or Women when it comes to raising a family that turns out
    right.
    
    Dom

    RE:  .174

    > When (most women) ...get divorced its not because 
    > they got a raw deal during the marrage but because it was time for a 
    > change, more freedom to party and play around, nevermind what this does
    > to the children... 

    If someone said this was true about 'most men', you'd go berserk.
    
    Prove this, or don't bother making a statement like this again.
    

    Ohhhh... Prove this or don't make a statement like this again...
    Oooohh. 

    Fine, so don't bother proving it.
    
    Any woman who is not 'sponsored' by a man in this society is bound
    to be 'suspect' one way or another anyway, right?
    

    From my observations, many women (not all) leave marriages because they are
    emotionally abused and/or neglected. If the husband has a need to
    control the wife, put her down or demean her, or distance himself
    emotionally, that's emotional abuse in my book. Suppose the wife makes
    it clear that something is not working, for her, and asks the husband
    to get counseling, or at least make an effort to work things out
    together. He refuses, because he thinks everything's hunky-dory. 
    Works for him! Do you actually think the woman should stay?
    She's not leaving to 'have freedom and party'. She just doesn't want a
    miserable, unhappy life. Do you think women should just shut up and put
    up? The days of long-suffering, self-denying, saintly, repressed women
    are long over, and maybe you should wake up to the fact.
    
    I think part of the problem is that society has changed so much in the
    last few generations, some men are experiencing culture shock. Things
    are different now from when they were raised. They still have, at least
    on a subconscious level, some vestiges of the idea that men should be
    the ones in control. At least, it certainly sounds like that to me.
    
    I want to stress that a lot of men are pretty fair-minded and
    try genuinely to make their relationships work. I'm married to one, so
    I know they exist. There are certainly some in this conference too.
    Good thing, or the human race might become extinct.

    Yes.. saints they all are. As 70% of all divorces are int by women. To
    rid themselves of those rasputian, knuckle draggin men. Baaaaad Man! 
    <inserted sounds of rolled newspaper swatting a dogs nose; Swattt!
    Thump!! Swatt!> Baaad man! Baad! :) 
    
    The whole thing reminds me of a Alfred Hitchcock episode. 
    

    .171
    
    You just don't seem to ever be able to tell the truth.  Please identify
    where I ever said that a stay-at-home mom was not a productive member
    of society.  Particularly where I indicated that because my wife stayed
    home she was not a productive person.  The context in which you used
    this is a complete fabrication, but then I expect it from you.
    
    I have never claimed that there are not successful children in various
    environments.  I have contended that there is a better environment, or
    a preferred environment, and personal experience shows which one, on
    average, is better.
    

    .180
    
    I wonder what would happen if "no-fault" divorce was eliminated.  If
    someone actually had to prove that a legal commitment, voluntarily
    entered into, should be voided because someone changed their mind.  I
    wonder if there might be a discussion around fore-thought and commitment
    might be entertained.  I'm sure all those archaic, chauvinistic men are
    at fault and all those put-upon women are innocent.  Men are the source
    of all evil.  Now I get it.
    

    You should re-read what I wrote. I said, Saints, we AIN'T! Not me,
    anyway. I am proud to say I have initiated not one, but two divorces!
    The guys weren't monsters, just selfish, inconsiderate schmucks who
    refused to take any responsibility for themselves. I --and my daughter-
    were getting absolutely nothing out of those relationships. Certainly
    not financial support, let alone, any kind of emotional support or
    companionship. Both situations were negatively affecting my daughter's
    life as well as my own.
    
    Does that count? Or should I have stayed?
                           

    
    
    70% of divorces initiated by women:
    
    You mean like me?  My ex still doesn't understand why I didn't
    put up with his doing the horizontal bop with anything female that came
    his way, including our roomate.  
    
    Like my best friend who found out her now ex had been diddling her
    14-year-old from the time she was 8 and had threatened and clobbered
    the other kids until they didn't tell either?  
    
    You mean like my friend's who didn't get out in time, and in whose
    memory I send checks to the local domestic violence prevention
    association?  
    
    Like my friend who was reduced to believing she was scum, and unable to
    function because of the emotional abuse her husband was putting on her?
    
    Like another friend whose husband worked 12 hour days and went out
    three nights a week with the boys while she was raising 4 kids?  He
    couldn't understand why she wasn't happy with the material things and
    sex every other morning.  
    
    Like my sister who has permanent damage in one arm and is still
    recovering from brain injuries inflicted on her by her "breadwinner?" 
    At least the siezures have finally stopped.  
    
    I have known one or two women who were "finding" themselves who
    divorced, but the majority were getting little to no emotional or
    physical support from their spouses.  Couple-dom is a two way street. 
    if you aren't taking a day out of your busy week to give your partner a
    break, you are setting yourself up for disaster.  If you are working
    those long hours and aren't emotionally available, you are also sitting
    on a ticking bomb.  One friend looked at me and asked if I wasn't
    "spoiling" Frank, because when I get home, he gets an hour to himself
    and Saturdays are my day to take the kids and give him a breather.  It
    confused me, as my father did the same thing for mom when he wasn't on
    the road.  He also made us all breakfast, since mom wasn't a "morning
    person."  I think it might have been one of the secrets of their 50
    years of marriage.  Raising kids and caring for the house is a job that
    has few financial rewards and it is up to the spouse who is supporting
    this undertaking monetarily to also take some of the load.  Our
    companies give us vacation time, but a full-time parent doesn't have
    that built in as a bennie, unless we make it a point to do this.  
    
    meg

    Meg, Yha mean that there are no women/wymen doing such prefound evil
    things? Ask Pam Smart about having sex with a minor. And there are no
    women cheating on their hubbies cause they are never home, out working
    to keep the home fires burning.. Perhaps, like in several cases that I
    have come to meet, some of our Gulf war men go off to defend our
    beloved world, keeping the evils at bay. The wife dumps him! He comes
    home to a sheriff and a divorce. There were a number of divorces of
    such manner for Vietnam too. You mean all us men are baaad? Roll up the
    news paper! I hear a swatting to happen!~:_)
    
    

    RE: .181  Rocush
    
    > I have never claimed that there are not successful children in various
    > environments.  I have contended that there is a better environment, or
    > a preferred environment, and personal experience shows which one, on
    > average, is better.
    
    You use unfair stereotypes about people who go against what YOU Happen
    to think is the better family choice, though (as if it's any of your
    business in the first place.)
    
    These studies were not created for use as weapons by one family member
    to use against other families.  You don't have the answers for people
    you don't know (who are doing fine without you.)

    RE: .181  Rocush
    
    > You just don't seem to ever be able to tell the truth.  Please identify
    > where I ever said that a stay-at-home mom was not a productive member
    > of society. 
    
    GOTCHA!  :)  In .98, you wrote this about stay-at-home single Moms:
        
    	"The best decision for a single parent may be considered a bad 
    	decision for a two parent family. conversely the best decision 
    	for a two parent family could be a bad decision for a single parent 
    	family.  THis of course, is based on your view of personal 
    	responsibility.  
    
    	"If you believe that people have no personal responsibility and
    	 -------------------------------------------------------------- 
    	everything should come from the productive members of society, 
        --------------------------------*****************************
    	regardless of a persons choices, then you obviously would disagree."
                 
    
    If a person must be in the workforce to be a 'productive member of
    society' [by your definition], then your wife did not qualify as
    a 'productive member of society' when she stayed at home with the
    kids.
    
    You can't have it both ways - you can't define single stay-at-home
    Moms as non-productive members of society because they don't work
    outside the home while ALSO regarding married stay-at-home Moms as 
    PRODUCTIVE members of society because you WANT to call them
    'PRODUCTIVE' even though they do not work outside the home EITHER!
    
    If 'working outside the home' is your definition of being a productive
    member of society, then you've insulted your own wife (because your
    definition can be applied to ANYONE who refrains from working outside
    the home.)

    .187
    
    Ha!  You got what little Jack shot at the wall.  Once again your
    inability to ever read in context is clearly apparent.  Re-read what I
    wrote and the context of the entire statement - not just the one line
    you want to take out of the rest of the statement.
    
    If you arer so thoroughly unable to support your position then stop. 
    Distorting a clear statement with a clear intent is demeaning to you,
    but then you are aware of exactly what you do when you do it.  These
    are not mistakes but blatant attempts to fortify contentless statements
    by accusing someone of something they never said, not intended.
     

    Some husbands are absolutely wonderful.  My current husband is great!!
    We're there for each other 100% (first and foremost!)  He's the best!!

    As for divorce, I initiated one.  I won't mention the worst things
    my EX did in our marriage, but I will say that he (and his friends)
    seemed to have the idea that a married guy who didn't have ALL the
    freedom of a single guy was 'whipped'.   And they believed that
    no one should have to "WORK" at having a good marriage (unless they
    were 'whipped'.)

    My ex and his married friends bent over backwards to prove they
    weren't 'whipped'.  They made plans with their wives (initiated
    by the husbands), then didn't show up at home until after midnight
    because some guy in the parking lot at work (at the end of the day)
    had said 'Hey, I'm going to buy a six-pack - want to help me drink it?'

    These guys did this over and over and over and over and over.  There
    was no way to stop it.  Plans for dinner (or whatever) always took
    a back seat to the magic 'share a six-pack with me' request.

    They allowed single friends to come over on Sundays (UNINVITED)
    to hang out for 12-14 hours (which made it impossible for the family
    to do anything else that day but entertain some guy who had no place 
    else to go.)  Sunday after Sunday after Sunday.  Family life was
    all but impossible.

    When single friends showed up (UNINVITED) at a married couple's house
    on Saturday night, they'd say "GOOD!  You aren't doing anything!
    Let's go out!" (as if a husband being with his wife was considered
    'not doing anything'.)  It didn't matter if the couple had planned
    a quiet evening at home cuddled up together.  If the husband didn't
    go out at the request of the single friend, he was 'whipped'.

    Also, if the husband refused to go out, then the single friend would
    hang around the couple's house with them on Saturday night anyway
    (until 2 or 3 am) so the evening plans were ruined anyway.  The married
    guys couldn't say, "Hey, I'll see you later" (to get the guy to leave.)
    Single friends were allowed to stay as long as they wanted, no matter
    what was going on (and no matter what plans had been made.)

    ONE TIME, I convinced my ex to tell his friends that we were taking
    the weekend off (and would NOT be answering the door that weekend) so
    that we could spend some time together.  Even so, one guy (who KNEW
    about it) knocked on our door and left a pile of notes on our doorstep
    all weekend long, anyway.  We finally answered and he said he just
    wasn't sure that we meant that HE couldn't come over to hang out, either.

    When I initiated the divorce, one such friend came over to help my ex
    pack, and he said to him, "Now, we can PARTY HEARTY!!!" (as if I'd
    been standing in the way of their REALLY best times.)

    Well, this one friend ended up (thanks to my ex-husband) in alcohol
    rehab several times.  His family spent a fortune trying to get him
    sober, but every time he'd come home, my ex would get hold of him
    and 'party hearty' (to put this guy back into the toilet.)

    I think the guy died, finally.  I had been holding them back from 
    my ex being the one to help this guy kill himself with booze, apparently.
    
    ALL the other couples we knew also got divorced.  Every single one.

    From my observations, many men (not all) leave marriages because they
    are emotionally abused and/or neglected.  If the Wife has a need to
    control the husband, put him down or demean him, or distance herself
    emotionally, that's emotional abuse in my book.  Suppose the husband
    makes it clear that something is not working, for him, and asks the 
    Wife to get counseling, or at least make an effort to work things out 
    together.  She refuses, because she thinks everything's hunky-dory.
    Works for her! do you actually think the man should stay?  He's not
    leaving to 'have freedom and party'.  He just doesn't want a miserable,
    unhappy life.  Do you think men should just shut up and put up?  The
    days of long-suffering, self-denying, saintly repressed men are long
    over, and maybe you should wake up to the fact.
    
    
    Now from my own words...  I've seen many a man being emotionally and
    physically abused by women so your cut don't make it with me.  I've
    seen people abuse each other men and women period, now that sounds more
    like from my observations.  I've seen women cheat on thier husbands, 
    with the woman never being around to cook, clean raise the kids (the man 
    did both besides bring home a paycheck) and she did'nt even work to bring 
    home some money to help pay for things.  Yea there are some real scum
    both men and women but I also saw alot more respect for women in the
    past from both men and children than I do today.  So maybe you should
    wake up to the fact that society is all screwed up and does'nt know
    which way is up period.  I guess you and Suzzanne can blame that on men to.
    Oh and by the way, most women I meet/see out are divorced or separated,
    have kids and party all night long, usually on the child support or
    welfare checks or what ever they get for free (men buying them drinks
    ect.)  How many men do you see out at these places spending welfare
    checks or money that was given to them for supporting the kids...
    And please notice, I did not say all women;)

    .184
    
    Two points.  the first being that if you can identify 1  or 2 women who
    divorced for no apparent reason, I would imagine that this would be
    true for most people.  This would seem to indicate that perhaps 10% -
    20% of the havoc that is caused is for no good reason.
    
    Second, a marriage is truly a partnership and both parties need to
    recognize and respect their obligations.  this means doing what is
    necessary to help each other with their respective responsibilites.  I
    would imagine that most people look for these traits in the the person
    they are going to marry.  MOst people don't change thoughout their
    entire life to any significant degree.  so if a person is a jerk or
    lacking certain characteristics before marraige, it's not likely they
    will change after.  Unfortunately, too many people seem not to look to
    carefully at their prospective mate before the fact and then complain
    afterwards.
    

    re .189  Any person woman or man who plays that what are you ****
    whipped game is already whipped if you ask me.  I've seen alot of
    married men that put time limits when going out and stick to them.
    Maybe he felt more for his friends than he did for you and if thats
    true, its sad.  When someone marries, nobody else should come first,
    not other family members or friends period.

    RE: .188  Rocush
    
    You can't have it both ways.
    
    If you define 'productive members of society' as being those who
    work outside the home, then married stay-at-home Moms simply don't 
    qualify.
    
    If raising children is a 'productive' occupation, then unmarried,
    divorced and widowed women who try to stay at home are ALSO being
    productive in this manner.
    

    RE: .193
    
    As I said, ALL his married friends did the same thing.  They all
    seemed to believe they had something to prove (about not being
    'whipped') to each other and to their single friends.
    
    They ALL ended up divorced.  (Oh, I did forget about one couple
    who might have stayed together - THEY MOVED AWAY to break loose
    from this stupid crowd of male friends.)
    

    .183
    Are you saying both these men did not provide any financial support to
    help pay bills???  Did they just sleep and eat there and nothing
    else??? Did they just come and go as they pleased got what they wanted
    and left???  If so, I hope you do much better the next time!!!  Why did 
    you even marry someone like this???  Did they look like Tom Selec (sp)
    or something???  Did they put on some big act while courting you and
    then just showed their true selves after???  Yes, I would not only
    leave, I would run away as fast as I could...
    
    Dom

    She's married to a wonderful man now.  (So am I.)
    
    They do exist!!!  :)
    

    What is the deal with you guys? As soon as a point gets too logical for
    you, you grab at straws to find something else you can take out of
    context? If you really believe you're right, can't you support your
    argument with some facts, ones that don't reek of patriarchal control 
    tactics? 
    
    Did I ever say that there are no cases where the roles are reversed?
    If there are, does that prove jack sh!t? By all means, abused husbands
    should leave too. I didn't think two wrongs made a right. I thought
    this discussion was about the validity of reasons for leaving a
    marriage. Could we please stick to the point here?  
    
    It sounds to me like most of the women involved in this discussion are
    happily remarried, me included. This would seem to indicate that the
    problem is not ours alone. I would bet that our relationships are based
    on a much more equal partnership. But then, some guys can't
    handle having an equal partner, it's just too threatening.
                                     

    re. 198
    
    Then why don't you put your statements in more of a generic format like
    insted of women or woman, use person or people.  You are the one that
    is putting it all on men in your examples period.  I know it goes both
    ways, why don't you wake up and start talking about the problems in 
    general insted of just trying to focus on men insted of people period.
    Maybe the responses to your statments would improve and maybe you could
    come up with some stats to back up some of you general unprovable
    statements.  
    
    >Did I ever say that there are no cases where the roles are reversed?
    
    Remember, the lack of a statement or information when making such a
    claim can lead one to beleive that you exlude the other from the same
    actions.
    
    Dom

    RE: .199
    
    > Then why don't you put your statements in more of a generic format like
    > insted of women or woman, use person or people.  You are the one that
    > is putting it all on men in your examples period.
    
    Wrong!!
    
    She (and others of us) were responding to the claim that 'MOST WOMEN'
    initiate divorce so that we can 'PARTY' more often.
    
    Some of us were explaining why we got divorced (in response to this
    unfounded accusation about 'most women'.)
    

    Whats with us guyz? Gee. I guess there isn't logic in a broad brushing.
    But, I'll make you a deal. Seems you take a deep intrencing with the
    party line. How about coming with me sometime to meet some of the dads
    who pay support and haven't seen the kids, or are living in tents, or
    perhaps have had their truck set on fire and phones and mail mess with.
    There is a second side to much of this din of delusion that women are
    the martars of marriage. There is a second side that you don't seem to
    make a connection too. 
    
    Re Suzanne. I am sorry you had a bad first marriage. I hope that
    someday, if it happens for me again that I can be as happy as you are
    now with yours. I do believe in marriage, it can be good, its allot of
    work, and its worth it, if you don't die from it in the interm.:)

    .200
    
    Funny, it seems that the party women seem to be the norm with much of
    the discussion at the fathers meetings. Party Harty dude-ets!:)

    re .196                                                        
    
    Husband A was seriously, clinically depressed and refused to get help.
    The early warning signs were there when we were first dating, but
    the depression didn't really get into full swing until we had a
    daughter and he had to face responsibility. He could not hold down a
    job for more than a week or two, even though he had a mechanical
    engineering degree. When I begged him to get help, he got mean and
    insulting. I was 21, with a 2 year old daughter, but it got to be more
    than I could take. He proceeded to skip out of state to get out of child
    support--I guess he wasn't too depressed to do that--and he completely
    threw away his relationship with his daughter. Oh--and early on, when
    he was still visiting her, he tried to get her to take a shower with
    him. He also 'offered' to make her a nifty little black S&M
    outfit--he drew her a nice little picture and all. I found this out
    when she started crying unconsolably after a visit. It was the last
    visit, not that he cared. 
    
    Husband B never let me forget that my daughter was not his daughter.
    (This started after we were together. He was at his best at first.)
    He absolutely insisted that I pay exactly half of all expenses, plus
    all the expenses for my daughter. This was regardless ofthe fact that
    that he had a high-paying programming job and I was going to college
    and cleaning houses for work. He followed me around with a little notebook,
    and every day gave me a report of how much I 'owed' him. He bought a new
    car and drove it. I had to pay half, and drove a shitbox. Also, he
    never felt that marriage should impede his freedom in any way. He came
    home when he darn well got ready, usually around midnight. He was
    always too busy and doing far too important things to be bothered with
    us. He always spoke down to me and treated me like an idiot. I was, for
    staying with him. I stayed a few years. I should have left sooner, but
    it was not a decision I wanted to make casually. I knew things would be
    really hard as a single parent for both my daughter and myself.
      
    Husband C (the present) is a blue-collar worker, going to college
    part-time at age 47. He respects me, listens with an open heart, and
    cares how I feel. He shares the housework and does most of the cooking.
    I pay a little more of the bills, because I earn more. He loves and
    accepts my daughter, even though she was almost out of the house when
    we got together. He has never tried to hold me back, control me, or
    make me feel bad about myself. He puts a lot of energy into our
    relationship, as I do. He's my best friend, both a companion and lover.
    He may not have a high-status job, but he's interesting and intelligent.
    Both of us feel happier about both our own lives and our life together,
    than ever before.
    
    I hope this answers your questions.
    

    re .200  
    
    No Suzzanne you are wrong some subjects are in fact not transferable
    but in most of the responses it was men this and men that and most of 
    the other notes you and most of the other women in this conference
    do all the time.  In most of these cases, its a generic type of thing
    period and it should be stuck with that.  For example: child support,
    abuse both sexual, mental and physical,  abandonment, neglect, morals,
    integrity ect. are all done by people, not just men period.  My X for 
    example did not pay me a dime for over 2 years, do you see her name in
    the paper?  Do you hear about her on TV?  Do you see her in jail? So, 
    we could use the generic word for child support but not the
    consequences of not paying child support period.

    
    Nowhere did women say "Most men neglect their wives" or "Most men
    cheat on their wives".
    
    You said that "most women" get divorced so that they can party.
    If you want to make such preposterous statements, don't complain
    when some people push back at you for this stuff.
    

    re .203
    
    I'm glad that you finally found that right person after two bad tries.
    Depression is a sickness and if the person does not want to help
    themselves, there is nothing you can do but leave.  Money earned should
    not be counted between two people that love each other and are in fact
    a unit.  The bills have to be paid first, future planning should be
    taken care of and the rest should be shared fairly 50/50 if possible.
    Most of the men I know put in 100% into their marriges or
    relationships, I know some that don't and it shows, I can say the same
    about women to.  So again, its people, not just men.   There are alot
    of people both men and women that are selfish and self serving and use
    and abuse the other person to thier own advantage and its not fair for
    the other person (man or woman).  Lets keep these things in mind and we
    can have some intelligent conversations and not banter all over the
    place.
    
    Dom
    
    

    > Finally a Man made your life happy, right?
    
    Finally, she has a very happy life with a man.
    
    (Do you see the difference?)
    

    re .206 "So again, its [sic] people..."
    
    I assume by this, you acknowledge the error of your earlier statement:
    
================================================================================
Note 226.174                          WOMAN                           174 of 207
WMOIS::MELANSON_DOM                                  22 lines   3-JUL-1996 10:25
                   -< Its the environment that counts most >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ...
    When (most women) get divorced its [sic] not because 
    they got a raw deal during the marrage [sic] but because it was time for a 
    change, more freedom to party and play around, nevermind what this does
    to the children...  
    ...

    re .208
    
    You can assume all you want Paul, What I was doing was playing the same
    game as Suzzanne and company period.  If they don't want to get into
    serious discussions without all the bull crap incerted then why should
    anybody else.
    
    You know what they say when you assume don't you;)

    re .206
    
    I just have one little problem, with the title to your response.
    "Finally a Man made your life happy". Wrong. _I_ did the necessary work
    to build a happy life, including a healthy relationship, for myself.
    _I_ put myself through night school and got a computer science degree.
    _I_ walked out of those bad relationships, even though it meant a
    big-time struggle for many years as a single parent. And _I_ did plenty
    of work, along with my husband, to make my present marriage work.
                                                               
    Just wanted to get that straight; there's a big difference.
    

    Dom, show us the statements where any of us said that "MOST MEN"
    leave their marriages to party or that "MOST MEN" cheat on their
    wives, etc.
    
    This was your game, not ours.
    

    226
    
    Hello
    
    Can anyone tell me what equality is ?
    
    Axel.F
    
    If only it was that simple. It's as complex as we are INDIVIDUALS so
    take it from there.
    
    Smile'in Jack
    

    .194
    
    Even though I am sure you able to understand the context in which I
    used the term "productive", since you want to pretend that you don't, I
    will explain it to you.  A married couple is a partnership and as such,
    they share in the responsibilites and benefits of both parties.  A
    parent who stays home to raise the children, take care of the home, etc
    is very productive.  This person, however, pays no taxes on direct
    personal income.  this person does, however, pay taxes through being
    a partner with their spouse. This, therefore, includes them as part of
    the productive members of society as I stated.  Those who chose to use
    the taxes of the productive mebers of society and give nothing back
    either directly or through partnership with their spouse, is
    nom-productive.
    
    The activity is neither good nor bad, but can be considered so based on
    the context in which it is performed.  I can be dedicated to providing
    voluteer services to a hospital, etc.  This would normally be
    considered good.  Now if I quit my job so I can volunteer all of my
    time to this activity, and take welfare assistance and other support
    payments, my activity now becomes significantly less than good.  Even
    though I am doing the same thing, in one instance it is good and in the
    other it is not.
    
    Even you should be able to differentiate between the two.  If not, then
    you simply chose not to.
    

    .203
    
    Although your situations are unfortunate, they do tend to support my
    contention that the majority of people do not change once they are
    married.  Basic traits tend to become more pronounced, but few ever
    come about freshly sprouted.  Also, many people are able to keep a
    particular trait covered-up for a while, they generally are unable to
    do it for any real length of time.Usually a lengthy period of time,
    including the engagement period will bring just about every trait to
    the surface.  If anyone choses to ignore them, or minimize them, who is
    truly at fault.
    
    Also, do not misunderstand me.  A person can do just about anything
    they want to do when they are only affecting themselves.  Once they
    move beyond themselves and bring a baby into the world, thier freedom
    changes.  I encouraged and supported a friend of mine to divorce
    because the marriage was not very good and several different levels. 
    She asked me if I thought having a baby would change her husband's
    behavior since he would now be repsonsible for a family.  I asked her
    to really think about what she was asking.  If she was questioning her
    marriage now, with just two adults involved, what are the risks
    involved in bringing a baby into that relationship.  She decided
    against a family and ended her marriage.
    
    If she had proceeded with her plans for a family, and then left, things
    would be significantly different.
    
    Unfortunately, too many people do too little thinking and then wonder
    why a negative situation arises.  they tend to act as if things are
    being done to them, as opposed to them being an active participant in
    what happens.
    

    RE: .213  Rocush

    > A married couple is a partnership and as such, they share in the 
    > responsibilites and benefits of both parties.  A parent who stays 
    > home to raise the children, take care of the home, etc is very 
    > productive.  This person, however, pays no taxes on direct
    > personal income.  this person does, however, pay taxes through being
                        **************************************************
    > a partner with their spouse. This, therefore, includes them as part of
      ***************************  *****************************************
    > the productive members of society as I stated.  
      *********************************************

    So, 'productive members of society' are people who pay taxes, per
    your argument?  If so, then would you regard all Americans as being
    'less productive' if we all paid less in taxes?  :)

    > Those who chose to use the taxes of the productive mebers of society 
    > and give nothing back either directly or through partnership with their 
    > spouse, is nom-productive. 
             
    So it's all about MONEY (and not about children at all), as far as
    you're concerned.  Even if women devote themselves to their children
    when no husbands are present, it doesn't count.  Only the ALMIGHTY
    DOLLAR counts in this society (and nothing else.)

    Tell us something we *don't* already know.  :/

    > The activity is neither good nor bad, but can be considered so based on
    > the context in which it is performed.  I can be dedicated to providing
    > voluteer services to a hospital, etc.  This would normally be
    > considered good. 

    If it were treated the same as 'child raising', then you'd tell people
    that they weren't doing any volunteer work *AT ALL* unless they did it
    full-time (even if they spent every minute of their spare time after
    work doing this volunteer work.)  If they also worked at a regular
    job, you'd tell them that the volunteer work SIMPLY DIDN'T EXIST.

    You'd say that OTHERS were doing the volunteer work they'd spent dozens
    of hours performing each week, in fact.  ("You're letting other
    people do your volunteer work for you" would be the criticism, just
    as working mothers are told that they aren't raising their own children
    if they ALSO work outside the home.)

    People would have to do NOTHING BUT volunteer work to get any credit
    for it *at all* (in your scheme of things) - and they'd need a good
    excuse for doing anything else (besides volunteer work), or else 
    you'd have the 'utmost disdain' for them.

    > Now if I quit my job so I can volunteer all of my time to this activity, 
    > and take welfare assistance and other support payments, my activity now 
    > becomes significantly less than good.  Even though I am doing the same 
    > thing, in one instance it is good and in the other it is not.

    If it were treated like 'child raising', you'd have the 'utmost
    disdain' for any woman who didn't feel totally obligated to spend
    all her time doing volunteer work as long as she was married
    (while you'd also have the 'utmost disdain' for any woman who still
    wanted to do it full-time even if she had no bread-winner husband.)

    It would make no more sense than your current stance on women and
    child-raising.  You judge women harshly for not living their lives
    PRECISELY according to the rules you have set for women.  (As if you
    had the right to do so, in the first place.)

    Studies nowadays talk about the crucial nature of kids having
    fathers, even though fathers are typically GONE from the children's
    lives from 8am - 5pm.

    If a male parent can be considered crucial in a child's life outside
    the hours of 8am - 5pm, then a female parent can be considered
    crucial in a child's life outside the hours of 8am - 5pm.

    Simple enough, eh?

    .215
    
    Well it is nice to see that you have given up any pretense at rational
    discussion and have begun grasping at strwas to support an
    unsupportable position.  Paying taxes is paying taxes.  I made no
    differentiation about the amount of taxes paid on income.  
    Y differentiation was on those who pay as opposed to those who take. 
    You should be able to understand a simple difference.
    
    Also, as I said, the activity is neither good not bad.  The context in
    which the activity is performed is the deciding factor.  I can give you
    numerous examples of what is generally accepted, even by you, as a good
    activity.  Change the circumstances under which the activity is
    performed and it becomes bad.  Once again, quite straight-forward.
    

    RE: .217  Rocush

    > Well it is nice to see that you have given up any pretense at rational
    > discussion and have begun grasping at strwas to support an
    > unsupportable position. 

    *Your* position is insupportable, Rocush.  You want to make demands
    upon the lives of women 'for the sake of the children', yet the
    bottom line in all this is MONEY, not children.

    > Paying taxes is paying taxes.  I made no differentiation about the 
    > amount of taxes paid on income.  Y differentiation was on those who 
    > pay as opposed to those who take. You should be able to understand 
    > a simple difference.

    You should be able to understand that we ALL 'take' TAX MONEY, one
    way or another (and we ALL 'pay' tax money, one way or another, too.)
    
    In the first year of Ronald Reagan's presidency, it was revealed that
    he had paid NO TAXES AT ALL for the previous year.  He was a millionaire
    who could afford a good accountant.  
    
    The U.S. also pays billions in corporate welfare.

    If 'paying taxes' is a sign of being non-productive, then Reagan was
    non-productive during the years that he paid no taxes.  And much of
    corporate America is 'non-productive' for taking corporate welfare.

    > Also, as I said, the activity is neither good not bad.  The context in
    > which the activity is performed is the deciding factor. 

    If it depends on the 'context in which the activity is performed', then
    you owe it to every working woman in America to give her the benefit
    of the doubt (SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW THE INTIMATE DETAILS OF OTHER
    PEOPLE'S LIVES) that her family choice is the RIGHT ONE FOR HER FAMILY.

    You have absolutely no justification to judge women as a group for
    doing an activity (i.e., working while raising small children) that 
    can only be judged in the 'context' of an individual woman's life.

    > Change the circumstances under which the activity is
    > performed and it becomes bad.  Once again, quite straight-forward. 

    It's not straight-forward for some meddling stranger who knows nothing
    at all about the 'circumstances' of individual women's lives.

    You have no basis for judging women for working while raising small
    children.  You are ignorant of the 'context' or 'circumstances' of
    their lives.

    Let women make family choices without your interference.  You have
    absolutely no business judging anyone.

    If the children are so important to you, Rocush, then it's all the
    more important to give women the benefit of the doubt for their
    family choices (about working.)

    Roughly HALF the children are female.  When you perpetuate unfairness
    to women 'for the sake of the children', you are condemning female
    children to lives of being treated unfairly for the sake of their
    *future* children.

    There isn't a reason in the world why women should not be treated as
    equal partners in the human race.

    .218
    
    Oh, Ok you're right.  Reagan was non-productive also because he paid no
    taxes.  But, BTW, which of the welfare programs did Reagan utilize in
    hte years he paid no taxes?  Since he is as guilty as those I question
    then it seems to provide even more support for my position.  Since
    Reagan paid no taxes, and he was a millionaire, then we MUST get rid of
    these programs that millionaires exploit.  We MUST get rid of AFDC,
    unemployment, WIC, SS, Medicaxxx and the rest of the programs that
    allow capitalist pigs like Reagan indulge while making no contribution.
    
    Thank you for pointing this abuse out to me.  Oh, don't worry if you
    can't identify the programs he abused, I'll take your word for it. 
    He's just as bad as the others, I just neglected to include him.
    
    Oh, BTW, I don't "perpetuate unfairness" to anyone.  I'm not sure I
    ever identified just women in supporting a full-time parent at home
    with the children.  I may have in the context of a particular response,
    but not generally.  You seem to be the one who thinks that only a woman
    can be the stay-at-home parent.  I beleive I have consistently
    identified "a parent" not "a mother".  If I did, then I was in error as
    I believe either parent is equally capable.
    
    If equalitybetween the sexes is your goal, then why is it that the
    mother always is given the benefit of the doubt in assigning custody of
    children in a divorce?  The father is expected to provide financial
    support, and is considered a dead-beat dad if he doesn't, but has no
    rights when a decision is made about whether to abort or not. 
    Apparently you support gender specific differences when it is to your
    benefit, but complain about them when they are not.
    

    Boy, go on vacation a couple of weeks and all heck breaks loose ;^).
    
    re .217
    
>    Also, as I said, the activity is neither good not bad.  The context in
>    which the activity is performed is the deciding factor.  I can give you
>    numerous examples of what is generally accepted, even by you, as a good
>    activity.  Change the circumstances under which the activity is
>    performed and it becomes bad.  Once again, quite straight-forward.
    
    Take note also about how the _rules_ are changed (sometimes after the
    fact) to support/attack a given argument. 
    
    fred();

    RE: .220  Rocush

    Reagan paid no taxes and his income came from tax dollars.  By your
    own definition, this made him 'non-productive'.

    If you say that he was 'working' for the tax money paid to him, then
    I must ask if you believe that raising children is as important as
    'working' outside the home.  If so, then a full-time parent is (indeed)
    performing important 'work' by being at home to raise children.

    Thus, a full-time parent is being 'PRODUCTIVE' (by doing the important
    work of raising children) whether or not the parent happens to pay
    taxes.

    > If equalitybetween the sexes is your goal, then why is it that the
    > mother always is given the benefit of the doubt in assigning custody of
    > children in a divorce?  

    As long as our society considers women's "places" as being with children
    (and judges women harshly for wanting to work when children are small),
    OF COURSE the courts are going to give custody to women more often.
    The unfairness towards women that you want to perpetuate is the major
    reason why women are favored in custody of children in a divorce.

    You won't be able to change custody laws until women are treated as
    equal partners in our species.

    > The father is expected to provide financial support, and is considered 
    > a dead-beat dad if he doesn't, 

    As long as men are given more of the economic opportunities in this
    country, men will be expected to pay more to support their children.
    When women are treated are treated as equal partners in our society,
    men and women will be in a position to share the costs and the physical
    labor (aside from child birth) involved in child-raising on a more
    equal basis.

    > but has no rights when a decision is made about whether to abort or not. 

    When men give women the deciding vote on surgical procedures involving
    men's reproductive organs, then we can talk about men making decisions
    about procedures involving women's reproductive organs.

    > Apparently you support gender specific differences when it is to your
    > benefit, but complain about them when they are not.

    Apparently, you know nothing at all about my position on these matters.

    The so-called 'benefits' for women are driven by the injustices to women
    that are already in place.

    Address the injustices so that men and women can share the 'benefits'
    that you think women are receiving now.

    re working women and small children: I don't think this is the norm
    these days. Perhaps 10-20 years ago, certainly not today.
    
    

    re .222
    
>    You won't be able to change custody laws until women are treated as
>    equal partners in our species.
    
    Actually it is men who must now fight for equality.  Harken back to 
    the first notes of this string about women for whom "euality" is 
    1990's doublespeak for removing all inequality that hurts _them_.
    
    fred();

    Men will never get 'equality' unless they are willing to give up
    the 'benefits' they already have (such as, the dominance that men
    hold over women in almost every area of life in our species.)

    Women have dominance in the 'child-raising' area because men have
    dominance in *everything else*!

    When men are willing to share the rest of life in our species fairly,
    then society will let men and women share 'child-raising' in our
    species on a more equal basis.

    Otherwise, it will never happen.

    .222
    
    Were there any years that Reagan paid taxes?  If so, I rest my case. 
    Also, Reagan's  children were adults and working at the time.  I rest
    my case.
    
    Several errors in the rest of your statements.  First, please identify
    the barriers that presently exist for women to achieve economic
    opportunities?  Not perceived on your part, but actually in place by
    law, etc that limit a woman's eceonomic opportunities.  I am unaware of
    anything that stands in the way of a woman achieving economic success,
    other than unfounded allegations and hysteria.
    
    Second, women do have a significant amount of control over a man's
    reproductive organs.  I know of several men who had a vasectomy and the
    wife was always part of the consultations prior to the surgery.  In a
    particular case, the doctor would not perform the surgery without the
    wife's agreement.  If we want to have a bill mandating that both
    parties to a vasectomy have to agree in advance, then I'm all in favor
    of it.  I believe it is fairly standard practice for a doctor to
    encourage mutual agreement before any surgery is performed.  Is this
    the case when the situation is reversed?
    

    RE: .226  Rocush

    > Were there any years that Reagan paid taxes?  If so, I rest my case. 
    > Also, Reagan's  children were adults and working at the time.  I rest
    > my case.

    Reagan's children weren't adults when he started living off tax dollars
    as a governor, though.  Do you now agree that any years that he was
    living off tax dollars but did not pay taxes himself, he was being
    non-productive?  If so, thank you!  :)

    > I am unaware of anything that stands in the way of a woman achieving 
    > economic success, other than unfounded allegations and hysteria.          

    Your unfounded allegations and hysteria are harmful to women's chances
    in the workplace when they are shared by employers who treat women with
    the 'utmost disdain' as a result of the belief that many women "BELONG"
    at home.

    > If we want to have a bill mandating that both
    > parties to a vasectomy have to agree in advance, then I'm all in favor
    > of it.  I believe it is fairly standard practice for a doctor to
    > encourage mutual agreement before any surgery is performed.  Is this
    > the case when the situation is reversed?

    Yes.  When a woman wants to get a tubal legation, the husband is also
    consulted (unless the woman is close to menopause.) 

    If the woman isn't married at all, some doctors won't DO a tubal
    legation on a woman (because there's no husband to agree to it.)

    re .225
    
>    Women have dominance in the 'child-raising' area because men have
>    dominance in *everything else*!
>
>    When men are willing to share the rest of life in our species fairly,
>    then society will let men and women share 'child-raising' in our
>    species on a more equal basis.
>
>    Otherwise, it will never happen.

    So, unless you get everything you want, then we should forget about
    "equality" ourselves and inequality that benefit women and hurt men?
    
    Once again, Suzanne, you make a much better example than you do an
    argument.
    
    fred();

    .227
    
    First change the tax laws.  Second, he was hired by the electorate to
    perform the job.  How many welfare recipients are hired to receive
    welfare?  If there are any, then we should fire them.
    
    Second, further unfounded statements.  If you think a woman BELONGS in
    the home, that's your choice, not a barrier to eceonomic success. 
    Please identify this barrier in actuality, not your contention.  there
    is absolutely no law preventing a woman from going just as far as she
    wants.  Quite the contrary, there are laws that prevent anyone from
    stopping someone from achieving, unless, of course, you happen to be a
    white male.  Everyone knows they are responsible for anyone's failure,
    the individual has no part in this.
    
    Lastly, thanks for agreeing on the control of reproductive organs. 
    since there is no other surgery that I know of, or situation that would
    allow women control, I guess they have all the control they possibly
    can have.
    

    Our society (not women, but OUR SOCIETY) will never give men an equal
    share in the 'child-raising' area because men's DOMINATION over women
    is based on the idea that women are the ones who are supposed to be
    with the children (while men as a group 'handle' most everything else.)

    If men argue that they are just as capable of caring for children
    as women, then they have NO EXCUSES LEFT for dominating everything
    else in our species.

    If men (as a group) simply want to dominate absolutely everything
    (with no regard for giving up the benefits they have now), they
    will be fought tooth and nail by the men and women who believe that
    men and women should be equal partners in the human race.

    
    re .230
    
>    Our society (not women, but OUR SOCIETY) will never give men an equal
>    share in the 'child-raising' area because men's DOMINATION over women
>    is based on the idea that women are the ones who are supposed to be
>    with the children (while men as a group 'handle' most everything else.)
    
    Well, not too many notes ago you were serving up personal anecdotes
    as _proof_ of mens badness.  Now you want to blame all the bad things
    that happen to men on "our society".  Lets see,  what what that note
    where I spoke of changing rule to fit the argument?
    
    Are you still reading Axel?  Are you starting to get a feel what
    "equality" is in America?  Unfortunately, in some circles, what you 
    see in this note is more the rule than the exception.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .229  Rocush

    > First change the tax laws.  Second, he was hired by the electorate to
    > perform the job.  How many welfare recipients are hired to receive
    > welfare?  If there are any, then we should fire them.

    The electorate agreed to let Reagan be governor after he received the
    votes to do so.  The electorate also agrees to let some stay-at-home
    Moms get benefits from the government for doing so (since they also
    had the votes for their benefits to continue.)

    > If you think a woman BELONGS in the home, that's your choice, not a 
    > barrier to eceonomic success.  

    Every time you promote the idea that a mother with young children
    better have a darn good excuse to be working (or else, you will have
    the 'utmost disdain' for her) - you are harming women in the workplace.

    Any manager who adopts your attitude is in a position to harm any
    employees who happen to be mothers of young children.

    While I agree that it would be illegal to take the 'ROCUSH attitude'
    and put it into practice in the workplace, it's a difficult thing
    to prove.  Why perpetuate it at all?  It's pointless.

    .230
    
    Well,I suppose YELLING your reply is one way of responding, but it
    really doesn't answer the question or support your contention.  You
    keep claiming that men have all this control and domination, but never
    prove it.
    
    It is just as easy to claim that women have total control and
    domination and men have to fight for their equal share of economic
    success.  It would be as inaccurate as your claims unless there is
    demonstrable proof to support the contention.
    
    Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it so.  It may
    convince some lame-brains out there that it must be true because she
    keeps saying it.  It remains just as inaccurate no matter how often it
    is repeated.
    

    .226
    
    You have actual bonified proof that ol Ronald Regan didn't pay tax's.
    As in some mag, or news paper, or such that I can go read up on at my
    local libary?
    
    

    A couple back reguarding domineering.:) I know a guy who had his repros
    cut, and his now ex went out for a good time with the womens night out.
    And low and behold.... thru some strange means, she delivers a child.
    To which HE is responsible for the child support and the alimony, and
    all the other fun things. I don't know about whom has who by the
    what-zees.:)
    
    

    re .206
    
    Yes you are right, I was not doing my word smithing, what I should have
    said that you were able to find a man that you could be happy with...
    
    Such a picky bunch on words, I think I'll start doing the same;)
    
    Dom
    

    re .211
    
    Suzzanne, I can show you a bunch of places where you state or infer
    that most men this and most men that or all men this and all men that on 
    a bunch of different topics.

    RE: .237  Dom
    
    > Suzzanne, I can show you a bunch of places where you state or infer
    > that most men this and most men that or all men this and all men that on 
    > a bunch of different topics.
    
    Go ahead.  Quote me saying something about 'most men' cheating on 
    their wives or whatever.
    

    re .238
    
    Go ahead and show me where I said that you said "something about 'most
    men' cheating on their wives or whatever."  What I said was the you use
    or imply that all the time...
    
    Besides, I don't have all week to look at 100k entries from you;)

    Re: various statements claiming that inequality--as perceived by
    women--is all in our heads (as opposed to perceptions by men of
    inequality, which of course are totally accurate)
    no barriers to equal financial success, equal power, no written proof
    of inequality, bla bla bla...
    
    Are any of you black? I doubt it. I just want to present an analogy:
    (I'm using the example of Afro-Americans, but it could be any minority)
    
    I'll bet the average white person thinks prejudice against blacks no
    longer exists; in fact, I know that a lot of whites think blacks have a
    large advantage over them (whites). But do the blacks see it the same
    way? If you think so, please ask a black or minority friend. 
    There might be a few recent gains for blacks, but many more of
    the long-standing prejudices are still in place, so ingrained in the
    fabric of society that they're not even questioned. They're subtle and
    insidious, but they are very real. I'm white myself, but I've had black
    friends, as well as other minorities, who have confirmed this. I'm sure
    you don't believe it, though. You think the minorities, women, etc. are
    just feeling sorry for ourselves, and we really have it GREAT! Only the
    white males get a bum deal these days, am I right?
    
    

    RE: .239  Dom
    
    > Go ahead and show me where I said that you said "something about 'most
    > men' cheating on their wives or whatever."  What I said was the you use
    > or imply that all the time...
    
    Prove it.
    
    > Besides, I don't have all week to look at 100k entries from you;)

    If I really did this 'all the time', you wouldn't have to look very
    far to find an example.
    
    It's just something you're claiming to excuse your own actions.

    
    I did hear a thing on the radio about an article in "Variety" that
    "sexual harassment" is becoming a big barrier to women's rise up
    the corporate ladder.  Especially in Hollywood.  Men have become so
    afraid of charges of sexual harassment (valid or not) that they have
    become hesitant of working with or even interacting with women, and
    as such have become hesitant to promote or hire women into positions
    where valid or invalid charges "sexual harassment" can damage the 
    men.  Many corporations have issued guidelines that executives should
    _never_ be in alone or in an office with the door closed with an
    a female employee.

    fred();

    Yeah right - as if women were able to make it up the corporate ladder
    BEFORE sexual harassment was discouraged.  :/

    So now they think they have a good excuse for what has been happening
    for thousands of years.
    
    How self-serving can those in power get??

    No Suzzanne, I don't have to prove anything because even if I did, you
    would deny it totally and waste my time...
    
    Dom
    

    Why bother accusing others of something that you actually did, then?
    
    It doesn't excuse you, even if you *could* show that others have also
    done it.
    

    
    re .240
    
>Only the
>    white males get a bum deal these days, am I right?
    
    A little over 130 years ago a man and the children he loved and
    who loved him could be forceably separated and his income could be 
    confiscated to support people with whom he had little knowledge or 
    contact.  It was called slavery, and  America went to war that cost 
    millions of lives.
    
    Today a man and the children he loves and who love him can be
    forceably separated and his income can be confiscated to support
    people with whom he has little knowledge or contact.  It is called
    No-fault Divorce.
    
    fred();

     re .240
    
    So, now weve gone from the subject WOMAN to blacks... It can only
    happen in this conference...  I remember walking into the Westminster
    Digital facility many years ago with a couple of white friends and was told 
    that they were not hiring.  Four black guys walked in at the same time
    and were brought right in for interviews.   This was done without
    regard to me and my friends being there and seeing and hearing what was
    going on.   So maybe there is or has been inequality but reversing it
    is not the answer by any means.  And by the way, some of my best
    friends are black and have been for many years.  We go over to each
    others houses and do things together all the time.  They don't feel
    that a person should get special treatment for thier color or sex and
    they also happen to feel the same way about women or people in general 
    on the welfare system.  They don't think people should get something
    for nothing and that a man should not be made a slave to society for
    child rearing and both parents should contribute equally in the
    finacial responsability.
    
    Dom

    .232
    
    So many of your inaccurate notes to answer.  But, first things first. 
    So, we can fire the people presently on welfare, OK.  Let's do it.
    
    Second, I have referred consistently to parents, not only women in
    terms of staying home ot raise kids.  You keep saying this, I don't. 
    The only time I referred directly to anything about women was when the
    topic specifically referred to women.  Other than that I have always
    referred to parents.  Please stop using terminology that I didn't.  If
    you think women belong at home, then by all means hold that view, don't
    pass it off to me.
    
    Also, once again, your use of the "Rocush attitude" is
    characteristically inaccurate.  You are obviously unable to support
    your position with anything factual so you cling to your bias and
    prejudice for all your worth.
    
    OBTW, your notes about where you condemned all men, most men, etc that
    was raised.  Just look at your dozen replies.  You have included all
    men in your condemnation and our dominant roles, etc.  That's about as
    all-inclusive as it can get.  You're still wrong, but all-inclusive.
    

    .240
    
    Just because you believe something doesn't make it so.  there are a lot
    of people who use the prejudice card and have never encountered any
    bias, but it sounds good.
    
    There are many minorities who feel that the prejudice is certainly on
    the other side at this time.  Many are very well known and speak out
    regularly, however, they are ignored because they don't toe the line. 
    this has come from many in the minority communities and cover race as
    well as sex.  If I'm not mistaken, didn't one of the original learders
    of the feminist movement have very critical assessments of the movement
    at this time?
    
    You can find bias and prejudice wherever you want, it doesn't make it
    consistent nor all-encompassing.  If there is no direct attempt to harm
    someone that can be shown to be a rule as opposed to an exception, then
    all of the carping to the contrary doesn't make it true.
    

    .241
    
    YOur last line was a pip.  Perhaps you should take your own advice. 
    Saying so doesn't make it so.
    

    .243
    
    You can't have it both ways.  You want to be able to holler sexual
    harassment when ever you want and if men get a bit defensive about all
    of the frivolous and expansion in sexual harassment charges, well, then
    they're just trying to justify harassment.
    
    Talk about having it both ways.It's sexual harassment if you do, if you
    don't is dexual descrimination.
    

    RE: .251  Rocush

    > You can't have it both ways.  You want to be able to holler sexual
    > harassment when ever you want and if men get a bit defensive about all
    > of the frivolous and expansion in sexual harassment charges, well, then
    > they're just trying to justify harassment.

    YOU can't have it both ways.  After thousands of years of discriminating
    against women, you can't justify it TODAY by claiming that it's the
    result of recent sexual harassment complaints.

    If men (as a group) can't stop themselves from being sexual towards
    women at work, then get rid of the men who commit the offenses.
    Don't blame it on the women they harass.

    > Talk about having it both ways.It's sexual harassment if you do, if you
    > don't is dexual descrimination.

    It's sexual harassment OR it's sexual discrimination if they do or
    don't do WHAT?

    Show me one case where a woman sued a company because the men did NOT
    sexually harass her.  Male employers DO have the option of hiring women
    *and* refraining from sexually harassing women at the workplace.
    These two actions are not mutually exclusive.

    The answer is simple:  If men and women were equal partners in the
    human race, some men wouldn't go nuts by thinking with their smaller
    heads at the workplace simply because women happen to be there.

    This note is Bizarre!
    
    
    Although there is a potential of some real understanding of communciation
    between women and men in the file.
    
    
    From reading the note I get the impression that the men in this file
    believe.
    
    o.  Women are responsible for most of the divorces.
    o.  Women see divorces because they want to party and have a good time.
    o.  Men are perfectly innocent and do nothing wrong in their marriages.
    o.  Women should get married and stay at home with there children.
    o.  Women, when they divorce should not expect the fathers to provide
        child support.
    o.  Children should be forced to see their fathers, even when they
        don't want to.
    o.  Women face no barriers in the working world based on gender.
    o.  Women should expect more violence from men because men are so
        mistreated when it comes to divorce.
    
    
    
    This is what I as a woman read when I read this string.
    
    
    
    

    .252
    
    You seem to have an icredible need to exaggerate.  Women weren't
    discriminated against for thousands of years in the workplace, since
    women weren't in the workplace for thousands of years. As a matter of
    fact, most men weren't in the "workplace" until well into the
    industrial revolution.  Prior to that most people lived in an
    agricultural setting and every member of the family contributed.  Total
    equality.
    
    Once the "workplace" came into being work was assigned and done based
    on physical ability.  the heavy lifting, chopping, toting, baling, etc
    was done by men because women couldn't.  So your thousands of years is
    actually a couple of decades, and maybe less than that.
    
    Also, there were several women in the Digital office where I worked
    with Chippendales (sp) calendars.  Not one manager or supervisor ever
    told them to remove the calendars.  If a comparable calendar of women
    was put up, there would have been hell to pay.  this is the type of
    double standard that women seem to have no proble accepting.
    

    .253
    
    Gee, I wonder if men might have just a bit of a different take on the
    issues you identified.  I wonder if men just might feel that the issues
    may be accurate, but the gender wrong.
    
    You seem to have brought a particular bias to this string and have no
    problem feeding that bias with selective reading and taking statements
    out of context.
    
    Too bad, you may have had a good contribution waiting there somewhere.
    

    re .254
    
    If you actually believe this version of history, it explains
    mountains about some of the other absurd opinions you have a
    tendency to express. I'd be interested in hearing what planet this
    is supposed to be describing. It's not even remotely similar to this
    one.

    RE: .254  Rocush                                                       

    > You seem to have an icredible need to exaggerate.  Women weren't
    > discriminated against for thousands of years in the workplace, since
    > women weren't in the workplace for thousands of years.

    Men (as a group!) have unfairly dominated women for thousands of years.
    (The workplace is just another example of it.)  

    > Prior to that most people lived in an
    > agricultural setting and every member of the family contributed.  Total
    > equality.               

    ...except for being allowed to vote, own property, run for office or
    receive an education, of course.  Women had to wait until the 
    20th Century for the barest HINT of equal rights (and men as a group 
    still dominate almost everything today.)

    > Once the "workplace" came into being work was assigned and done based
    > on physical ability. 

    Even the smallest and weakest men were given opportunities over women
    who were taller and stronger than these men, though.  And this also 
    occurred when no strength was needed at all.

    > Also, there were several women in the Digital office where I worked
    > with Chippendales (sp) calendars.  Not one manager or supervisor ever
    > told them to remove the calendars.  If a comparable calendar of women
    > was put up, there would have been hell to pay.  this is the type of
    > double standard that women seem to have no proble accepting.

    Did you ever bother to ask 'women' (in general) if they believed that
    women should be allowed to put up the kinds of posters that men can't
    display (or is it more fun to accuse women without even checking)?

    The rules for calendars of semi-naked people should apply equally to
    both sexes, in my opinion.  Such material does not belong in an office.

    re .256
    
    I'm sure it's an amazing coincidence that, whenever someone is on the
    'side' of the women in this string, they're 'biased'. When someone
    takes the side of the men, they're just 'right'.
    
    This conference, in general, amazes me. The attitudes that I see in
    some men here PROVE to me that discrimination against women is alive
    and well.
    
    I mean, if we're the ones doing all the male-bashing, then why is it
    that there are very few notes in the WomanNotes conference that bash
    men, but this conference is _obsessed_ with female-bashing? Get a life!
    

    re .257
    
    It's good to hear from a man whose eyes are open. I admire your courage
    in speaking up. (I assume you're male from your name) Thanks.

    re .259
    
>    I mean, if we're the ones doing all the male-bashing, then why is it
>    that there are very few notes in the WomanNotes conference that bash
>    men, but this conference is _obsessed_ with female-bashing? Get a life!
    
    Yeah, right!  
    
    BTW, Alex, the man-hate you see comming from most of the women (with 
    some notable exceptions) do not represent, in my opinion, the vast
    majority of women in America.  Although this type does get a 
    disproportionate amount of press.
    
    fred();

    re .260
    
    The mistake that people seem to be making is treating this
    conference seriously. I view it as something akin to professional
    wrestling. Lots of costumes, lots of grunting, little relationship
    to any reality that I'm familiar with.

    re .261
    
    At least the last 10 or so strings in this conference (with the
    exception of a nice innocuous one about dance) degenerated into arenas
    for a few pissed-off men to rant and rave about all the bad, awful,
    nasty things that happened to them. It may be true that some bad things
    DID happen, but if you expect us women to listen to your side, you've
    got to listen to ours as well. Your attitude of reverse prejudice will
    not further your cause.
    
    On the other hand, I look in the WomanNotes directory and see a variety
    of topics, related to all aspects of life: science, spirituality,
    politics, family dynamics, etc. etc. etc.
    
    The fact that I am capable of making such an observation does not make
    me a man-hater. And no, maybe you don't hear a large number of women
    speaking up about this--maybe the silent ones are the ones who are
    snagging the huge support checks, or living quite comfortably off the
    husband's income. There are some women who have a vested interest in 
    maintaining the status quo as well.
                                       
     

    .262
    
    Thanks for the clarification.  I was r4eally wondering where you were
    coming from, particularly with your entry .257.  I was wondering if you
    were going to support your statement, but now I realize it was all just
    in fun.
    
    Thanks for the clarification.
    

    I think the two notes are consistent. The description of history I
    was reacting to in my reply .257 could only exist in the world of
    professional wrestling, or one similarly grounded in reality. What's
    perhaps disturbing is the thought that someone might actually
    believe what was written in .254. As posturing, though, it's easily
    understood.
    
    "In fun" doesn't exactly capture the sense of it, though. "In
    abstract disbelief" is closer. If I thought professional wrestling
    was real, I'd have even lower an opinion of humankind than I already
    do (and that would take some doing). Same reaction to .254 and its
    ilk: if I thought you really took that stuff seriously...

    .258
    
    You just can't seem to help yourself.  When in the 20th Century were
    women finally allowed to own property?  I thought that women could own
    property in the 19th century.  When did women get the right to an
    education?  What year was it in the 20th century that they finally got
    into schools?  I seem to remeber women being educated in the 19th
    century.  As a matter of fact, my daughter attended the university that
    established the first sorority.  It was called a Women's Fraternity,
    but was the fore-runner of the Sorority.  This university was
    established in the early 1800s and accepted women shortly after being
    established.
    
    You can present your points without the inaccuracies, but unfortunately
    they lose some of their impact when you have to point to something
    100-150 years ago or more to support your point.
    
    Also my point about the calendar was that not one man would have even
    thought about putting up such a calendar, nor would it have been
    allowed to be up.  Women felt no such problem with it, and their
    managers, women, allowed it.  I mentioned it in passing one day and was
    told, "Oh, they don't mean anything by it, but did you see the guy on
    March."  So before you condemn men for things that happened 100-150
    years ago, clean up your own house.
    

    .265
    
    Oh, you really were serious?  Gee, I would have thought that you could
    have identified the note in the context of the exaggeration in the note
    I was responding to.  I guess that expects too much.
    
    Shoot first without looking.
    

    RE: .266  Rocush

    >>> Prior to that most people lived in an
    >>> agricultural setting and every member of the family contributed.  Total
    >>> equality.               

    >> ...except for being allowed to vote, own property, run for office or
    >> receive an education, of course.  Women had to wait until the 
    >> 20th Century for the barest HINT of equal rights (and men as a group 
    >> still dominate almost everything today.)

    > When in the 20th Century were
    > women finally allowed to own property?  I thought that women could own
    > property in the 19th century.  When did women get the right to an
    > education?  What year was it in the 20th century that they finally got
    > into schools?  I seem to remeber women being educated in the 19th
    > century. 

    Well, at least you've stopped trying to claim that women had "TOTAL
    EQUALITY" before.  (Women still haven't reached this goal.)

    As I said, women did not have the barest HINT of equal rights until 
    the 20th century.  In the 19th Century, some women were educated (and 
    some states changed their property laws to allow women to own property),
    but women were still treated very badly.  It was legal for husbands
    to beat wives (the good ole 'rule of thumb' was the law about how big
    the husband's stick could be if he beat his wife - it could be the
    width of the husband's thumb.)  Women had no real hope for equal rights
    until they won the right to vote.  That was a major milestone in the
    women's rights movement (after 72 years of working towards it.)
    
    > Also my point about the calendar was that not one man would have even
    > thought about putting up such a calendar, nor would it have been
    > allowed to be up. 

    "...not one man would have even thought about" it??  How the heck do
    you know what ALL MEN THINK????

    > Women felt no such problem with it, and their managers, women, allowed 
    > it.

    How the heck do you know what women (in general) feel about it, or what
    these particular women were feeling about it at the time?

    
>        At least the last 10 or so strings in this conference (with the
>    exception of a nice innocuous one about dance) degenerated into arenas
>    for a few pissed-off men to rant and rave about all the bad, awful,
>    nasty things that happened to them. It may be true that some bad things
>    DID happen, but if you expect us women to listen to your side, you've
>    got to listen to ours as well. Your attitude of reverse prejudice will
>    not further your cause.

    I could apply the same judgment to the notes entered by many of the
    women in this conference.  

>    On the other hand, I look in the WomanNotes directory and see a variety
>    of topics, related to all aspects of life: science, spirituality,
>    politics, family dynamics, etc. etc. etc.

    So that's what it's called these days?

>    The fact that I am capable of making such an observation does not make
>    me a man-hater.

    However, the fact that such inequality _is_ rampant in our society
    and you and others demand that every inequality that you suffer 
    must be _first_ be eliminated before you will consider, or even
    acknowledge the existence of, such inequality, does speak volumes
    as to where the real bias and bigotry lay in our society.

   fred();

    .268
    
    
    Well, at least you admit that you were incorrect in your statement. 
    we're making progress.  NOw all you need do is acknowledge that the
    numbers were much more significant than you imply here nad we'll be
    well on our way.
    
    Also, as far the calendar was concerned, I talked with many men in
    various offices and different companies and got a consistent reply. 
    enough for me to make my statement.  the same goes for the women.  My
    discussions lead me to believe that no man in Digital would put up such
    a calendar.  Few women would put up such a calendar either, but their
    point was from a professional standpoint, not that it would represent
    sexual harassment.  Obviously I could not talk to every man and women,
    but enough to support my position.
    
    If you have a different information source, please let me know.
    

    re .270
    
>    Also, as far the calendar was concerned, I talked with many men in
>    various offices and different companies and got a consistent reply. 
    
    Actually there was a woman at my office that actually posed for one
    of those calenders----then screamed bloody murder when a guy brought
    an example of her fine workmanship to the office.....go figure.
    
    fred();

    RE: .270  Rocush

    > Well, at least you admit that you were incorrect in your statement. 

    Rocush, I'm glad you see a huge difference between these two statements:

	"Women had to wait until the 20th Century for the barest HINT of 
    	equal rights (and men as a group still dominate almost everything 
    	today.)"   

    	"As I said, women did not have the barest HINT of equal rights until 
    	the 20th century." 

    It shows that you truly do hallucinate when you read notes.

    > NOw all you need do is acknowledge that the numbers were much more 
    > significant than you imply here nad we'll be well on our way.        

    You started out saying that women once had 'TOTAL EQUALITY'.  I'm glad
    you have totally backed away from this absurd claim, at least.  

    > Also, as far the calendar was concerned, I talked with many men in
    > various offices and different companies and got a consistent reply. 
    > enough for me to make my statement. 

    You said that 'NOT ONE MAN' would even think of posting such a calendar.
    You need to have spoken to a larger portion of the 2.5+ billion men on
    our planet to make such a statement.

    > My discussions lead me to believe that no man in Digital would put up 
    > such a calendar. 

    You said 'not one man' would ever think of it.  I see that you're
    backing away from this position now.

    > Obviously I could not talk to every man and women, but enough to 
    > support my position.
                        
    If you're talking about 1996, then I can see why you believe what
    you're saying.

    If you want to go back 9 years, I can *prove to you* that some men 
    in Digital *DID* put up such calendars in this company.

    > If you have a different information source, please let me know.

    In 1987 (or thereabouts), a huge notes battle took place when one guy
    in particular was arguing that he should be allowed to post his 
    SI Swimsuit calendar at work.

    It'd be interesting to find out if he's changed his mind about this. :)

    Whelp.. they tried to make it an open note, but many of us got our
    noses slapped about with the ol news paper. <Swatt! Thump! Swatt!>
    Baaad man! Baaaad! Shame on you!:)
    
    

    re 226.272
    >    It shows that you truly do hallucinate when you read notes.
    
    To save time and disk space, ditto 225.3.  Note that I entered this
    note several days prior to this discussion.  Thank you again, Suzanne,
    for providing us with such an excellent example.
    
    fred();

    > It shows that you truely do hallucinate when you read notes.
    
    Sounds like a personal attack to me... 

    Also ditto 226.14.
    
    fred();

    Women are kept from opportunities in the workplace by being designated
    as the "Mommies" who are supposed to be more concerned about family
    life than their careers.

    How on Earth do you propose for men to get custody of children when
    society bases workplace discrimination on the notion that women are
    more responsible than men for the day-to-day child raising tasks?

    It seems to me that some men who claim to want "equality" simply want
    domination over women in the ONE AREA where men do not already dominate.

    They want to hold their 'utter disdain' for any woman who would choose
    to maintain a career while raising small children, but they also want
    to take children away from a Mother who *DOES* stay at home to raise
    her children (on the basis that things ought to be 'equal' for men,
    even though men are not pressured to stay home with their children
    AT ALL.)

    Do you have anything new to say, Suzanne, or are you just going to keep
    demagoging?
    fred();

    Fred, you are a flagrant example of the 'some men' I was writing about.

    How appropriate that you should respond to my note.  :/

    .272
    
    Well you've now taken a new approach.  Taking your own notes out of
    context.  Please refer to the two notes you entered.  The first where
    yous aid women were denied an education until the 20th century and then
    the second where you said "some" women were educated in the 19th
    century.  Actually it was before that, but you made the statement. 
    That is where the difference is.
    
    Also, I had this silly thought that we were discussing what was
    happening today, not in times past.  If you want to deal with the
    things that happened in the past and then say, "see, I told you." 
    Well, that opens up a whole new line of logic that I hadn't considered. 
    Using your logic, Romans fed Christians to the lions and women were
    eager participants in the crowds, then it's obvious women want to see
    all Christians killed.  Also if I remember correctly, National
    Geographic presented a program about an aboriginal culture that was
    matriarcal and men were treated like slaves.
    
    This would then mean, using your logic, that since something happened,
    at some time in the past it must still be the case and if you are a
    member of this group you are guilty.
    
    Gee, and all this time I was discussing current things.  Thanks for the
    clarification.  OBTW, back in 1985 a member of our logistics group
    received a calendar from a vendor.  I advised him that it was
    inappropriate and if he wanted to keep it, it would have to be kept
    from sight.  I guess, I've just always been one of those leading edge,
    progressive types.
    

    
    re .279
    Commong from you, Suzanne, I consider that a complement.
    Thanks,
    fred();

    RE: .280  Rocush

    > Please refer to the two notes you entered.  The first where
    > yous aid women were denied an education until the 20th century

    I didn't say women were absolutely denied an education in the
    20th century.

    As I ACTUALLY DID SAY TO YOU, women didn't have the barest hint of
    equality until the 20th century.

    Prior to this century, women were rarely allowed to do anything with
    an education even when they did get one.  Being a 'school marm' was
    about the only career that educated women could have.

    Female doctors were considered PERVERTS (because they were in a
    position to see and touch men's bodies.)

    RE: .281  Fred
    
    > Commong from you, Suzanne, I consider that a complement.
    
    OH, so you want to talk about math now.  :/
    
    Sure!
    

This is getting ridiculous... just lots of name calling and "yes you did..
no I didn't", back and forth.

I'm going to write-lock this note for the remainder of the week - I'll unlock
it next Monday.  Maybe you folks can work this "one-ups[wo]manship" out of
your systems.

					Steve

    In terms of the numerous entries claiming that the lack of equality is
    directly attributable to men and their attitudes and their desire to
    maintain supremacy, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction.  On the
    one hand I hear that there should be no differences and men are the
    ones that come up with the unfair methods of maintaining separation.
    
    What is a puzzle is why does it not strike anyone as odd when women
    claim that certain things are "women's issues".  In a different
    conference it was identified that the majority of women would vote for
    Bill Clinton because he was better at addressing women's issues.  The
    issues identified were; education, health care, Social Security and
    Medicaxx.  I didn't understand then, and don't understand now, why
    these are claimed, by women, as women's issues.  These seem to be
    issues of general interest and yet these are supposedly, by inference,
    not "men's issues".
    
    If these are truly general issues then why would women use them as an
    excuse to support their voting preferences under the guise of "women's
    issues".  It would seem to me that as long as an individual is
    comfortable using such an identifier then there really is not a common
    ground to achieve equality.  those who claim education of SS are
    "women's issues" seem to be creating their own fiction.
     

> The issues identified were; education, health care, Social Security and
> Medicaxx.  I didn't understand then, and don't understand now, why
> these are claimed, by women, as women's issues.

  Perhaps its "by default"? These are a bunch of issues that Republican
  men don't seem to much care for. After all, they've got their kids in
  private or religious schools or tended to by mom. And they've got
  health care and retirement and 401K and stock purchase plans provided
  by their companies.

  Men seem to worry a lot more about the national defense and their
  own right to keep and bear weapons. And institutionally beating down
  anybody that might be able to climb past them in a fair fight, as
  compared to the rigged game that White Males have been playing for
  years. And about kicking people of different sexuality than their
  own (including those with a female sexuality). And if you need
  more details, just go read the Contract On America, born and bred
  by The Angry White Male(TM).
                                     Atlant

    .286
    
    Your filter seems to be working just fine.  Your sorry use of the term
    Contract ON america gives it away.  Please identify where in that
    document they espoused anything that was intended to produce the
    results you articulate.
    
    They talked about less government, term limits, balanced budgets, etc. 
    All of these things are very positive planks.  I do not know of
    anything that was put forward that was negative.  I know many, many of
    the items were distorted and twisted to make them appear negative, but
    none of them were.
    
    However, your willingness to dismiss men as being concerned about these
    issues is pretty much proof that a desire for equiality is a fiction. 
    The fact the intent and desire of the GOP was to give people
    more control over their lives with less government intervention, while
    maintaining appropriate support for those TRULY in need is considered bad
    by you.
    
    I don't know of anyone who is in favor of starving children, killing
    old people, etc.  These are not sex related issues.  However, you seem
    to indicate that men support these actions, or are ambivalent about
    them.  Nothing could be further from the truth, but it does prove the
    point.
    

    
    re .286
    
    Good example of how "Angry White Males" certainly don't have a
    corner on bigotry.
    
    fred();

    
    Women seem to have to come to equate "Abortion Rights" and "Women's
    Rights".  Given that the "right" to abortion on demand is based
    on the Right to Privacy, well, we have recently seen what the Clinton
    administration thinks of the Right to Privacy.

    The thing that I find scariest is not Bill Clinton.  It is the number
    of Americans so entrenched in the welfare state that they are 
    scared to death of not voting for the guy even though they _know_
    what kind of slime this guy and his "smartest woman (lawyer) in America" 
    are.

    Maybe if I start buying gold now I will accumulate enough to survive
    when the Big Crash comes.

    fred();

  Whatever you guys say.

  But that's the way you like it and expect it, isn't it?

                                        Atlant

    .290
    
    What an insightful and informative response.  I certainly am more
    enlightened on the issue now than I was before.
    
    I wonder if some people are uncomfortable when they are confronted with
    their own bias, prejudices and pre-conceived ideas.
    
    It must be difficult to recognize that the pointing finger is directed
    at a mirror.
    

    Men seem more interested in national defence and the right to bear arms
    because its the men who go off to defend the home lands for women and
    children. And when the return, sometimes, there is no women nor
    visatitation of their visatation. When mens minds turn to other things
    it seems like we are now the rasputians who wish to get even with the
    ex vs finding a fair and equal settlement. Or perhaps fair and equal
    anything. Instead there seems to be this demogog in behalf of other
    interest other than how many of us see life from our side of the fence. 
    
    Funny, that men are the ones who do not communicate their feelings, and
    when they try, they are considered whiners, and cry babies.
    
    

    re .291

    Hey, don't you know that only White Males can _possibly_ be biased
    and bigoted?  If you are a Christian White Male, well, you should 
    have been "aborted" before you made it out of the birth canal.

    By the way.  There will no Christmas pageants in Washington, D.C. this
    year.  They are having difficulty locating three wise men and a virgin.

    And yes I _am_ feeling particularly nasty today, thank you.

    fred();

    Another thought on the whole concept of equality.
    
    Why is it OK to use a term like Angry White Male - and that's perfectly
    acceptable.  As a matter of fact, it actually is a preferred
    desrciption of any man who happens to be conservative and is truly
    concerned over the decline of American society.  This term is OK.
    
    Using the term emotional or hysterical female is inappropriate and
    wrong.  Anyone who uses it must be one of those Angry White Males.
    
    I tend to think this is another example of why there is no real desire
    to achieve equality as there are those who would rather name-call than
    actually address the issues.  It's so much easier that way.
    

    Rocush, you're just being emotional and hysterical now.  :)
    
    Take a journey to rational thought before it's too late.  :/
    

    >Take a journey to rational thoughts before it's too late.
    
    Dam.... Where is this road map!:) 

    re .295

    >Take a journey to rational thought before it's too late.  :/

    There's another one that can be taken a number of ways depending
    on your outlook on life.  I agree, but not for the same purpose you
    probably intend.

    fred();

    .295 Gee,... I re-read that Rocush note.. made lots of sence to me.
    What part is missing that you don't understand Conlon? 

    
    >    >Take a journey to rational thoughts before it's too late.
    >    Dam.... Where is this road map!:)



    			<------Clinton
    			       Prosperity---->
    			       Rational Thought\
    					        \
    					         \
    					 	  V
    fred(;^));

    .295
    
    Noticed the smiley face on the first sentence.  Have no clue what you
    meant with the second sentence.
    

    
    re .286 and others
    
    I am a white male. I keep hearing about this 'rigged game' that Angry
    White Males have been playing for years. I keep hearing about how the
    white males have discriminated against practically everyone in society
    for centuries, most currently against women.
    
    This 'discrimination', has it been overt, covert, or both? Are there
    secret meetings, or is there some club you join? Are you automatically
    guaranteed membership if you are white and a male?
    
    Tell me, where do you sign up for this 'game'? I must have been out of
    town that century, because I sure as hell have never received any
    preferential treatment because of my race or gender.
    
    And *if* it is true that white males have systematically discriminated
    against anyone, why do you think that is? Have we been given some
    arbitrary advantage by God or whomever? Or is it part of the natural
    selection process?
    
    Why do you think white males have been more successful?
                          
    John

    
    >    Why do you think white males have been more successful?

    Because we _know_ there will be no "welfare" for _us_.  There
    will be no government program to force anyone to hire us whether
    we are qualified or not, in fact, just the opposite--we have
    to compete against those who do have the government programs and
    backing of free lawyers, and with others just as qualified and
    determined as we are.  So we _know_ we'd d**n well better be
    qualified when hitting the job market. 

    For myself, I guess it depends on whose standard of "success" you use
    whether or not I have "succeeded".  I'm not a V.P. for some mega corp.
    or worth 8 figures, but, from where I started, I don't think I've done
    so bad.  When I went back to college I knew I was going to have to go
    out with a two year degree and compete with four year degrees for 
    jobs.  So I _knew_ a 2.0 gpa just wasn't going to cut it, and there 
    were people whose future depended on me succeeding.  So I did it the 
    old fashioned way--blood, sweat, tears, and a lot of midnight oil.

    fred(Phd. Ardnox University);

    .302
    
    The problem comes from the error of logic being "post hoc ergo propter
    hoc"(sp).  Meaning basically since it is true after the fact, it must
    have been true before the fact. This translates into the "fact" that
    since men are more prominent in various positions then they must have
    achieved this through unfair means.  Unfortunately it ignores reality.
    
    The Industrial Revolution moved people out of agrarian econmies and
    lifestyles and into industrial settings.  Men became the ones who
    worked outside of the home based on the fact that the majority of work
    was physical,dangerous and dirty.  these were environemtns that
    Victorian attitudes felt were inappropariate for women.
    
    As the years rolled on, obviously men were the overwhelming presence in
    the workforce and had incredible experience and were the most logical
    to assume higher levels of responsibilities.
    
    What I object to is that after decades of working within the system,
    men are now castigated and row-beaten because of the system.  women
    have said they make up X% of the workforce and they don't represent X%
    of management, etc.  The fact that they have less experience, less
    education, etc doesn't make a difference.  The fact that they are X% is
    enough to start screaming about unfairnes, etc.
    
    What is interesting, and my facts here are based on a very small
    sample, is that men still make up more than 50% of college classes and
    particularly grad schools.
    

>    The Industrial Revolution moved people out of agrarian econmies and
>    lifestyles and into industrial settings.  Men became the ones who
>    worked outside of the home based on the fact that the majority of work
>    was physical,dangerous and dirty.  these were environemtns that
>    Victorian attitudes felt were inappropariate for women.

  This may be a convenient story, but it's a fantasy, easily disproven
  by looking at either New England textile mills (run by men but pop-
  ulated almost entirely by "Mill Girls") or the "Rosie the Riveter"
  experiences during WW-II. And I'm sure by countless other examples
  in between. Women have come into the workplace time and time again,
  only to be driven out when it suited men's convenience.

  Unless given strong legal incentives, people tend to hire more
  people who are just like them in gender, race, religion, etc.

  And, BTW, nobody's screaming, although the tone of your voice seems
  the more strident.
                                      Atlant

    
    re .305
    
>  This may be a convenient story, but it's a fantasy, easily disproven
>  by looking at either New England textile mills (run by men but pop-
>  ulated almost entirely by "Mill Girls") 
    
>  Unless given strong legal incentives, people tend to hire more
>  people who are just like them in gender, race, religion, etc.

    It still amazes me how some people are able to argue both sides
    of a point in the same breath and still beleive themselves to be
    right. 
    
    fred();

>  This may be a convenient story, but it's a fantasy, easily disproven
>  by looking at either New England textile mills (run by men but pop-
>  ulated almost entirely by "Mill Girls") or the "Rosie the Riveter"
>  experiences during WW-II. And I'm sure by countless other examples
>  in between. Women have come into the workplace time and time again,
>  only to be driven out when it suited men's convenience.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Really? When did this happen? Or is this just your interpretation
	of history? If a mill owner has cheap labor why would he want to
	drive it away? Or perhaps other factors, such as automation, enter
	into play here...factors which you choose to ignore.


>  Unless given strong legal incentives, people tend to hire more
>  people who are just like them in gender, race, religion, etc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	But wait! You just said that women were hired by men!

	You seem to be twisting history to support your own foregone conclu-
	sions.

	Anyway, what has that got to do with us? We weren't around then. 
	Nor had my ancestors arrived in America yet. *I* should have
	to pay for the deeds of some 18th century textile mill owner? C'mon! 

	John

           

    .305 How many years of this sort of women in the mill place did this go
    on for?
    

    Atlant's right - women were in the workforce in huge numbers as
    part of the industrial revolution.

    Children (including very young children) were a huge part of the
    workforce, too, until the onset of Child Labor Laws around the
    beginning of this century.

    *The only generation* where women were seen as people who typically
    'stayed at home to raise children' was the generation of mothers
    who raised children immediately after World War II.  (The 'ideal'
    of the stay-at-home-Mom was created to convince the MILLIONS and
    MILLIONS of women who worked men's jobs during World War II that
    they'd be happier being kicked out of the workforce so that the
    men could take their jobs back after the war.)

    Women and children were exploited in the workplace quite BADLY in
    the generations after the Industrial Revolution.  As Atlant said,
    men ran things and women did much of the work (often for very little 
    pay.)  So did children.

    The men of those times were able to 'run' things (and receive most
    of the money for whatever they did) because they were the ones with
    the right to vote and own property, etc., for many generations.

    As odd as it may sound, when one group can vote and own property
    (while others can't do these things for many generations), the 
    privileged group tends to have a measure of power and advantage
    over the other groups.  Once this power and advantage has been
    established over hundreds of years, it has a momentum of its own
    that is difficult to stop.

        re .309

>    As odd as it may sound, when one group can vote and own property
>    (while others can't do these things for many generations), the 
>    privileged group tends to have a measure of power and advantage
>    over the other groups.  Once this power and advantage has been
>    established over hundreds of years, it has a momentum of its own
>    that is difficult to stop.

    I'd think that if men had all the power you keep saying they do,
    that the custody/support/visitation issue would be quite different
    than it is today.  Methinks you are still being quite selective in
    the facts in order to support your argument.  For instance, the
    women after WWII _did_ (and still do) have the right to vote.  The
    majority of them, at this time, seem bent on using that vote to
    vote for a man who, if he were a Republican, would be tarred,
    feathered, and rode out of town on a rail (would it be "fair" to
    call it the "Angry Bitch Female" vote?).

    fred();

    RE: .303  Fred

    > When I went back to college I knew I was going to have to go
    > out with a two year degree and compete with four year degrees for 
    > jobs.  So I _knew_ a 2.0 gpa just wasn't going to cut it, and there 
    > were people whose future depended on me succeeding.  So I did it the 
    > old fashioned way--blood, sweat, tears, and a lot of midnight oil.
             
    Up until very recently, men with high school diplomas made about as much 
    as women with FOUR-YEAR college degrees.

    Do you think it's fair for a woman to go through FOUR YEARS of blood,
    sweat, tears and a lot of midnight oil to get a four-year degree so
    she can make as much money as a man with a high school diploma *or*
    (as I think it is now) so she can make as much as a man with one or 
    two years of college?

    I have TWO four-year degrees (earned separately!!) and my B.S. in
    Computer Science was earned with a perfect 4.0 GPA.  I won awards
    (specific awards that only went to ONE PERSON who was chosen by the
    faculty) for each of my four-year degrees, too.  I'm now working
    on my Masters degree in Computer Science.

    You're pretty doggone lucky to go as far as you have with only
    a two-year degree.  Most women don't have it that easy.

>    *The only generation* where women were seen as people who typically
>    'stayed at home to raise children' was the generation of mothers
>    who raised children immediately after World War II.  (The 'ideal'
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
>    of the stay-at-home-Mom was created to convince the MILLIONS and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    MILLIONS of women who worked men's jobs during World War II that
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    they'd be happier being kicked out of the workforce so that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 >   men could take their jobs back after the war.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	
	Oh, was there an official Department of Let's Creal Ideals that
	was chartered with this task?

	And MILLIONS and MILLIONS of women were gullible enough to believe
	it?

	Conlon, your imagination really amuses me sometimes. Thanks for the
	chuckle.  

	John

	

    RE: .310  Fred

    > I'd think that if men had all the power you keep saying they do,
    > that the custody/support/visitation issue would be quite different
    > than it is today. 

    Oh, but it was *quite* different prior to the early 20th Century.

    After divorce, men were *always, always* given custody of the children
    until a famous court case where a woman argued that she needed custody
    in order to continue breast-feeding her child.  She was given custody
    (and the courts started turning at that point to give custody to women
    more than men, for the first time.)

    > (would it be "fair" to call it the "Angry Bitch Female" vote?).  

    It's only fair if you agree to call yourself the "ANGRY JERK MALE"
    vote.  :/

    re .293
    
    > If you are a Christian White Male, well, you should  have been
    > "aborted" before you made it out of the birth canal.

    No, that's silly.  You're just labeled an extremist.

    - M

    .305
    
    Thank you for proving my point.  You can always find an exception to
    any issue.  You identified two very specific examples which developed
    under very specific circumstances.  YOu then, of course, wrap up with a
    general statement and indictment which were unsupported.
    
    As far as the New England textile mills were concerned, I think you
    find very specific information about how these mills developed and why
    they utilized primarily young women in their operation.  The New
    England system, primarily in Lowell, was a complete environment that
    was very specific to an industry, location and process.  It was not
    just using women workers.  Rosie the Riveter as another very specific
    example that was brought about because of war.  this would seem to
    throw just about any generalizations out the window.  during times of
    war everyone does what is necessary to succeed.  It is not what the
    norm is designed to support.  It did show that women could perform
    traditional "men's" work, but it was never endorsed as the preferred
    method as dirty, physical, amnual labor was viewed as only fitting for
    men, and preferably immigrant, uneducated men.
    
    But, thank again.
    

        re .311

>    Up until very recently, men with high school diplomas made about as much 
>    as women with FOUR-YEAR college degrees.

    _Up_ _until_ _very_ _recently_.  Which indicates that it is no longer.
    Yet you still use that to justify your intentional and continued 
    justification of the inequities that men face.

>    You're pretty doggone lucky to go as far as you have with only
>    a two-year degree.  Most women don't have it that easy.

    I'd hardly call it lucky--or easy.  At the same time I was fighting
    court battles, filing for bankruptcy, and eating dog food so I could
    pay the "child support", and my rise within Digital has been _in_
    _spite_ _of_ intentional, unabashed, and undeniable opposition from
    two female managers (and partially because of, one female manager).

>    I have TWO four-year degrees (earned separately!!) and my B.S. in
>    Computer Science was earned with a perfect 4.0 GPA.  I won awards
>    (specific awards that only went to ONE PERSON who was chosen by the
>    faculty) for each of my four-year degrees, too.  I'm now working
>    on my Masters degree in Computer Science.

    And, as I've said before, I also know (male) doctors that I wouldn't let
    near me with a tongue depressor even if I was bleeding.

    fred();

    
>    Oh, but it was *quite* different prior to the early 20th Century.

    Which indicate that things _have_ changed.  Yet you keep up your
    mantra on how until things change, then men can just go suck a 
    lemon when asking that inequities that men face be corrected.

>    It's only fair if you agree to call yourself the "ANGRY JERK MALE"
>    vote.  :/

    I think that is pretty much what is implied by "Angry White Male".

    fred();

re ATLANT::SCHMIDT
    
Gee, I wonder who/what was responsible for the civil war in this country and
what was the civil war about...  I also wonder how many men died from
this civil war and what percentage were white males.  Look at a penny
lately, does this give you a clue...  In the past there were problems with
some white males (NOT TOO MANY) openly discriminating against people of 
different color and gender.  Today there probably are still some white males
(NOT TOO MANY) that still do.  However discrimination no matter what color or
gender you are is wrong, period...  The fact that you Atlant make what I would
consider racial statements openly without regards to other people tells me
alot about you.


Dom
  

    Suzzann think about this.
    
    Who made the laws that are here today to protect you and minorities against
    discrimination?
    
    Who made the laws that are here today to protect you and children from
    starving to death if you have no income?
    
    Who made the laws that are here today to protect children?
    
    I guess white men can't be all that bad...
    
    Dom
     

    RE: .312  John Sobecky

    > Oh, was there an official Department of Let's Creal Ideals that
    > was chartered with this task?

    > And MILLIONS and MILLIONS of women were gullible enough to believe
    > it?

    The MILLIONS and MILLIONS of women were thrown out of the workforce
    after WWII whether they liked it or not.

    A lot of women didn't like it at all.  The 'rebirth' of the women's
    movement in the 1960s was born from the discontent that was created
    in the late 1940s, and the entire 1950s.

    RE: .316  Fred
    
    >> Up until very recently, men with high school diplomas made about as much 
    >> as women with FOUR-YEAR college degrees.

    > _Up_ _until_ _very_ _recently_.  Which indicates that it is no longer.
    > Yet you still use that to justify your intentional and continued 
    > justification of the inequities that men face.
    
    As I also mentioned, NOW women with FOUR YEAR degrees tend to make
    as much as men with ONE or TWO years in college.
    
    The situation has improved, but it still isn't fair.
    

    RE: .319  Dom
    
    > Who made the laws that are here today to protect you and minorities 
    > against discrimination?
    
    > Who made the laws that are here today to protect you and children from
    > starving to death if you have no income?
    
    > Who made the laws that are here today to protect children?
    
    > I guess white men can't be all that bad...
    
    So you AGREE that white men hold most of the power in this country.
    Great.
    
    White men like ATLANT pushed for these laws (along with the women
    and minorities who worked with them and voted for them.)
    
    Such men are treated very badly by the 'angry white males', though.
    (Look around you, if you don't believe it.)

    
    re -1
    
    White men like ATLANT made those laws....?
    
    Are you implying that white men like me, or others replying in this
    string had nothing to do with those laws? or that we would be against
    such laws?
    
    What exactly do you mean by such a statement?
    
    Just because we do not agree with everything you say, and just because
    Atlant may agree with everything you say, doesn't make us woman-haters
    nor make him necessarily 'enlightened'.
    
    John
    

    If you listen to news stories at all, Kathie Lee Gifford has been
    taking a lot of heat because it turned out that some clothing
    merchandise with her name on it was being made with CHILD LABOR
    in South America.

    Western countries are the main ones with Child Labor Laws (and
    these laws were non-existent until the 20th Century.)

    Do some of you realize that children around the world (including
    American children) have always WORKED up until some countries
    adopted Child Labor Laws in the 20th century??

    Women didn't 'stay home to raise children' in past centuries because
    the children weren't home!  If the children were too young to work,
    then multi-generational families had other family members take care 
    of them.

    Do some of you realize what 'WORK WEEKS' were like back when most
    women and children were enslaved in sweat shops in industrial areas?
    They worked 6 days per week, 12 hours (or more) per day, for pittance.

    .320 .321
    
    O come on.  the women's movement of the 60s was born out of the same
    environment that was spawned by the anti-war movement.  Look back at
    all of the "movements" that started then.  The women's movement was
    just another one of them.  Trying to claim that all of a sudden in the
    60s women realized how terrible they had it in the 40s and 50s is
    historical revisionism at it's highest.
    
    Also, please identify with any degree of accuracy where a man with one
    or two years of college make the same as a woman with four, all other
    factors being the same.  Don't tell me about the guy with ten years of
    experience with two years of college making more than a woman with no
    experience and four years of college.  Or the guy that's been with the
    company for ten years and has received numerous raises while he got his
    two year degree, and the new college grad shows up on the door step. 
    There better well be a difference in pay.
    

    RE: .323  John Sobecky

    > White men like ATLANT made those laws....?
    
    > Are you implying that white men like me, or others replying in this
    > string had nothing to do with those laws? or that we would be against
    > such laws?

    Some men in here seem to want to CHANGE these laws.

    Do you want to take credit for STARTING these laws at the same time that
    you spend your energy trying to overturn them?  :)

    Atlant gets a great deal more credit for agreeing with these laws
    in the first place *AND* trying to stop some of you guys from 
    overturning them now.

    RE: .325  Rocush

    > O come on.  the women's movement of the 60s was born out of the same
    > environment that was spawned by the anti-war movement.  Look back at
    > all of the "movements" that started then.  The women's movement was
    > just another one of them.  Trying to claim that all of a sudden in the
    > 60s women realized how terrible they had it in the 40s and 50s is
    > historical revisionism at it's highest.

    Rocush, YOU need to study history before you can claim that it's being
    revised.

    The biggest thing to 'spark' the rebirth of the women's movement in
    the 1960s was a book called "The Feminine Mystique" (which was written
    about the 'ideal' which had been sold after WWII, but which made many
    women unhappy in the late 1940s and all during the 1950s.)

    The U.S. women's movement started in 1848 (it started in the late
    1700s in Europe), but it was reborn in the 1960s when "The Feminine
    Mystique" (and other feminist writers) gave a voice to what a great
    many women were thinking in the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s.

    > Also, please identify with any degree of accuracy where a man with one
    > or two years of college make the same as a woman with four, all other
    > factors being the same. 

    The Department of Labor has statistics about this (where men and women
    with the SAME YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND THE SAME EDUCATION are shown to 
    have different salaries, and where women with four year degrees and
    the SAME YEARS OF EXPERIENCE are shown to make the same as men with
    one or two years of college.)

    Speaking of Child Labor Laws earlier, the ironic thing about the
    change in custody decisions (at the turn of the century) is that
    these changes coincided with the Child Labor Laws.

    So, men were always given custody of children (after divorce) at
    a time when children were wage-earners.

    At about the time that women started getting custody, children
    were no longer allowed to earn money full-time.  So, the women
    were given children who were far more dependent on them than
    earlier children had been.

    This sparked laws about men paying child support (since men
    made more money and it took a great deal more money to support
    children who didn't earn their own keep by working full-time
    outside the home.)

    
>    As I also mentioned, NOW women with FOUR YEAR degrees tend to make
>    as much as men with ONE or TWO years in college.

    I'm probably more the exception than the rule.  There are  a lot of
    _men_ with masters degrees that I work with also.  I also know a 
    lot of _men_ with 4 year degrees who have no job.  Once again you keep
    trying to change the rules to fit your argument.
    
>    The situation has improved, but it still isn't fair.

    Fair as defined by whom.  It seems to me that there are a lot of
    people (of all races and genders) out there who have this belief 
    that if they didn't get what _they_ want, then, by God, it must 
    be because someone was conniving against them personally.  To
    continue your policy that _all_ inequities against women must be
    corrected before you'll even admit that there are iniquities that
    males suffer is just plain hypocritical.

    fred();
    

    
    re.328

>    At about the time that women started getting custody, children
>    were no longer allowed to earn money full-time.  So, the women
>    were given children who were far more dependent on them than
>    earlier children had been.

    This "inequity if income" doesn't take into account the transfer
    of  payment through "child support".  Take for instance the 
    state of Mass.  where a man has to fork over 40% of his _before_
    tax income (after paying the tax).  This is the equivalent to 
    the CP mother a $33,000 salary if the guys gross income is $50,000.
    And if the guy doesn't pay, well, he goes to jail for a felony.

    fred();

	re  Conlon:
	
>    Do you want to take credit for STARTING these laws at the same time that
>    you spend your energy trying to overturn them?  :)

	Where have I written that I want to overturn laws that keep children
	from starving to death? Where has ANYBODY written that they want such
	a law?

	And maybe I didn't START a particular law, but you have no knowledge
	whether or not I support any given law.
	
>    Atlant gets a great deal more credit for agreeing with these laws
>    in the first place *AND* trying to stop some of you guys from 
>    overturning them now.

	Atlant gets more credit for his unequivocal support of everything
	you say, Suzanne. That's about all that can be said about that. 

	Nowhere is anybody advocating a return to sweatshop conditions, or
	to a time when certain people could not vote or own property. Yet
	you seem to want to argue that some men are. Why is that Suzanne?
	Have you ever heard the term 'straw man'?

	You avoid answering certain questions because the correct answer
	would not fit your view of life. Then you throw out these bizzare
	cases such as strip searching children, etc., and proceed to fill
	the discussion with them. Is this what two college degrees teach
	you? to dance around the truth if you don't like the answer?

	BTW, I don't even have one college degree...couldn't afford to go.
	There were no entitlement programs for white males, either.

	John

    RE: .329  Fred

    >> As I also mentioned, NOW women with FOUR YEAR degrees tend to make
    >> as much as men with ONE or TWO years in college.

    > I'm probably more the exception than the rule.  There are  a lot of
    > _men_ with masters degrees that I work with also.  I also know a 
    > lot of _men_ with 4 year degrees who have no job.  Once again you keep
    > trying to change the rules to fit your argument.

    I'm talking about information from the Department of Labor (not some
    'rule' I'm creating myself.)

    >> The situation has improved, but it still isn't fair.

    > Fair as defined by whom.  It seems to me that there are a lot of
    > people (of all races and genders) out there who have this belief 
    > that if they didn't get what _they_ want, then, by God, it must 
    > be because someone was conniving against them personally.  

    Again, I'm talking about statistics from the Department of Labor.
    (I have what I want:  a career in software engineering.  I'm not
    sure how my specific salary matches up to anyone else - I'm happy
    with what I'm doing, and that's what counts for me personally.)

    As long as the Department of Labor (and other statistical sources)
    show that women are not being paid as much as men for the same experience 
    and education, then men are going to be stuck with 'the bill' of family
    life whenever possible for the simple reason that they have more of the
    money.
    
    > To continue your policy that _all_ inequities against women must be
    > corrected before you'll even admit that there are iniquities that
    > males suffer is just plain hypocritical.

    It isn't "MY" policy.

    As long as men make more of the money, society is going to go after
    men to pay more for their children.  It would be pointless to do
    otherwise.

    If men want women to share in these expenses equally, it's not going
    to happen until women and men share the money in our society equally.

    If men want to 'stay at home' as full-time parents more often, it's
    not going to happen until women and men share the workplace equally
    (because a lot fewer women can afford to support a full-time homemaker
    and children at home.)

    If men want to be seen as being 'just as nurturing' as women are,
    it's not going to happen until women and men are seen as 'just as
    capable' in the workplace (because women are often EXCLUDED from
    being equal partners in the workplace due to women being regarded
    as the ones who are supposed to be better at 'nurturing'.)

    If men want to get custody of children just as often as women get
    custody, it's not going to happen until men and women share the
    physical labor of family life on a MUCH more equal basis.  Most
    of this work involves caring for children, and the people who DO
    this work (as a group) are going to be the ones who get custody
    of the children.

    These aren't "MY" rules or "MY" policies.  The 'inequities' against
    men are occurring as a DIRECT RESULT of the 'inequities' against women.

    You can't stop one set without stopping the other.  

    Women know DOGGONE WELL that when we achieve equality in the workplace,
    we'll get a lot less slack about things like WANTING to stay at home
    to raise children.  So be it.  Most of us are ready to deal with it.
    (Those who still want to 'stay at home' will have an equal shot with
    the men who want to 'stay at home'.  May the best full-time homemakers
    of each sex get to have their wishes!  The rest of us will carry on.)

    We'll all lose what could be considered the 'upside' of our situations
    when we fight against the 'downside' of these situations.

    RE: .331  John Sobecky

    > BTW, I don't even have one college degree...couldn't afford to go.
    > There were no entitlement programs for white males, either.

    Well, I didn't get any special entitlements when I earned my first
    four-year degree.  I paid 'resident' tuition to a big state university 
    campus (along with 24,000 other students.)

    The tuition for my second four-year (Bachelors) degree was reimbursed
    by Digital.  Have you ever checked into the programs in this company
    for college credits and degree programs?

    
     re 332

>    As long as the Department of Labor (and other statistical sources)
>    show that women are not being paid as much as men for the same experience 
>    and education, then men are going to be stuck with 'the bill' of family
>    life whenever possible for the simple reason that they have more of the
>    money.

    I think your statistics are a bit outdated.  More recent information
    indicates that women of equal education and equal position actually
    now make slightly more than men of the same education and position.
    The throw in the transfer of salaries via "child support", and your
    argument no longer holds water.

>    These aren't "MY" rules or "MY" policies.  The 'inequities' against
>    men are occurring as a DIRECT RESULT of the 'inequities' against women.

    Then why has, as the situation for women has improved and the inequities
    against women been taken away, the situation for men has worsened and
    the inequities against men increased?

    fred();

    RE: .334  Fred

    > I think your statistics are a bit outdated.  More recent information
    > indicates that women of equal education and equal position actually
    > now make slightly more than men of the same education and position.

    Not so.  The only studies which claim that women make slightly more
    than men (with the same education and experience) could only get this
    result by taking a narrow portion of women's and men's careers (at
    'starting salaries', which tend to be very close because they start
    out so low.)

    After this first year of income, the salaries follow the differences
    found in the rest of the population.

    > The throw in the transfer of salaries via "child support", and your
    > argument no longer holds water.

    In one state ALONE, they announced that over 31,000 fathers were behind
    in child support payments (and this doesn't even count those fathers
    who were never asked to pay child support at all.)

    Also, NOT ALL WOMEN have dependent children.  Such women aren't
    remotely in line for any sort of child support at all.

    .331
    
    The only way many white males go to get a college degree these days is
    if the commit a crime, and go to a well funded jail. Like a fed pen.
    
    The next door neighbor, who is white, who is paying his child support,
    and lost his license cannot go to night school, barely has a pot to pee
    in. He probably will go to the local jail for 30-90 days for his
    action. But, I rather doubt they will fund him for college education. 
    
    I like many other, pumped gas, flipped burgers, and was scared of
    becoming Charle cannon fodder. Draft #196, calling that year, 243.
    

        re .335

>    Not so.  The only studies which claim that women make slightly more
>    than men (with the same education and experience) could only get this
>    result by taking a narrow portion of women's and men's careers (at
>    'starting salaries', which tend to be very close because they start
>    out so low.)

    Studies I've seen compare equal position, equal education, and equal
    time on the job.  Women are making as much or more than men.  The
    only way you can get salary inequity is to try to use things like
    "equal worth".  That is, to claim that the secretary's job is equal
    to the boss's job, therefore the secretary should be making as much
    as the boss.

>    Also, NOT ALL WOMEN have dependent children.  Such women aren't
>    remotely in line for any sort of child support at all.

    Well, then, not all women make less than all men.  Once again you
    keep trying to redefine the rules to fit your current argument.

>    In one state ALONE, they announced that over 31,000 fathers were behind
>    in child support payments (and this doesn't even count those fathers
>    who were never asked to pay child support at all.)

    That is just a lame attempt to justify your attitude.  More fathers
    are behind because more mothers get custody, a direct result of the
    inequities you seem to support.  Percentage wise, women are worse about 
    paying child support than men are.

    fred();

    RE: .336  Rauh

    > I like many other, pumped gas, flipped burgers, 

    When I got my first Bachelors degree, I supported a baby (with NO
    child support at all) by working two part-time, minimum wage jobs.

    In addition to this, I nursed my son (while going to daytime college
    classes full-time, and working two part-time jobs) until half-way
    through my Junior year of college.  (He seemed a lot more secure
    about everything else when we kept delaying his being weaned, so
    I decided to keep nursing him until HE made the decision to stop.
    He decided to stop half-way through my Junior year.)

    Nursing can take up to 30% of a person's energy and resources, too,
    so you can imagine how much energy I had to have to keep everything
    going (at school, at work and at home.)

    I made it through four years of college anyway.  I did it for my son.

    RE: .337  Fred

    > Studies I've seen compare equal position, equal education, and equal
    > time on the job.  Women are making as much or more than men. 

    Only for 'starting salaries' (which are in place for roughly one year.)

    After that, men still make more money than women for the SAME JOB,
    SAME EXPERIENCE, and the SAME EDUCATION.

    If stats showed that women were now making more than men for the
    same work, the Republicans would be shouting it from the rooftops.
    It simply isn't true.

    It's something that has been claimed for the past 10 years or so
    in notes, though (which is interesting, in a way.)  People seem
    to spread this faulty information to each other in some notesfiles.

    .335
    
    Gee, let's see.  We've got an opportunist in the White House who goes
    in whichever way the wind blows and you want to claim that the
    Department of Labor has concrete proof of across-the-board sex
    discrimination and nothing is being done.  I thought that this was in
    violation of several different laws.
    
    If such information exists then your boy must be asleep at the switch
    for not vigorously prosecuting these sexist companies.
    
    The only statistics I've heard have been general statements about
    average income of men and women.  I have not seen any difinitive report
    that shows equal experience + equal education + equal senority = lower
    slalary for women and higher salary for men.  Haven't seen it.
    
    I can, however, attest to the fact that right here at mother Digital
    there are pay differences.  I can identify numerous women with less
    experience, education and senority that were making significantly more
    than I am.  I attribute this to different job focus, although same job,
    different managers and other factors.  I never thought about it being
    sexist discrimination.  Maybe I should have, but then I still have to
    pay for the 500+ years of male oppression.  After all, it's just fair.
    

    .338
    
    Oh, here we go again.  Let's make up a fact.  Nursing takes up to 30%
    of woman's energy????!!!!  My wife nursed all of our children and never
    once indicated that she there was a problem with it.  she was very
    involved with the kids and the house.  I would tend to think that she
    was just as active as anyone else.  She always felt that nursing made
    her feel more exhilerated(sp), not more tired.
    
    Please keep to facts not opinion.  And if it was the case for you,
    please state it as such as not everyone has the same opinion.
    
    You still seem to have the opinion that current discrimination against
    someone who never did anything wrong , is OK as long as they happen to
    belong to the wrong group.  If you aren't aware of it that attitude is
    call bias, prejudice and is wrong.  It's the same as saying, gee, your
    mother was a crook so you have to go to jail.
    
    If you want to compalin about unfairness start with what you can
    control and that's support of discrimination just because it attacks
    the group you most despise.
    

    
    re.  .339

>    Only for 'starting salaries' (which are in place for roughly one year.)
>
>    After that, men still make more money than women for the SAME JOB,
>    SAME EXPERIENCE, and the SAME EDUCATION.

    It would be interesting to see more about where these "stats" come
    from.  In particular, whether or not the "study" that gathered them
    is or is not another one of those rigged studies to support a
    pre-determined outcome.


>    If stats showed that women were now making more than men for the
>    same work, the Republicans would be shouting it from the rooftops.
>    It simply isn't true.

    Not necessarily.  Given your reasoning, I'd think we'd here more 
    about how even starting salaries are equivalent.  Not even the
    Republicans are going to take on the women's lobby, given that
    the men's lobby is non-existent.

    fred();

    RE: .340  Rocush

    > ...you want to claim that the
    > Department of Labor has concrete proof of across-the-board sex
    > discrimination and nothing is being done.  I thought that this was in
    > violation of several different laws.

    Do you expect the Department of Labor to shut the whole country down
    while they investigate and/or sue nearly every American business?  
    What would our ~260,000,000 citizens do while the courts spent three 
    to five YEARS of legal wrangling trying to sort out the matters in 
    EACH CASE?  

    It would take GENERATIONS to get through the entire mess, and we'd
    stop having a country in the meantime.

    > If such information exists then your boy must be asleep at the switch
    > for not vigorously prosecuting these sexist companies.

    This problem took THOUSANDS OF YEARS to develop.  No one President
    is going to solve it overnight.

    > Maybe I should have, but then I still have to pay for the 500+ years 
    > of male oppression.  After all, it's just fair.
                             
    It's 'thousands' of years of oppression, and women are still paying
    for it, too.

    RE: .342  Fred
    
    > Not even the Republicans are going to take on the women's lobby, given 
    > that the men's lobby is non-existent.                  
    
    The Republicans are OWNED by the 'angry white male' lobby.
    

    
    >    The Republicans are OWNED by the 'angry white male' lobby.

    Oh, you mean Pat Bucanan is really the Republican nominee for
    President?

    So far Suzanne, it seems that the only way you can maintain this
    debate is to keep changing rules, selecting facts, and making
    outlandish claims to support your argument.

    fred();

    RE: .345  Fred

    >> The Republicans are OWNED by the 'angry white male' lobby.

    > Oh, you mean Pat Bucanan is really the Republican nominee for
    > President?

    The Republicans are (somewhat unhappily) 'stuck' with Bob Dole 
    as a candidate.  Some conservative magazines are suggesting that
    the Republicans dump Dole for a real candidate before it's too
    late.  (They were talking about this on "Crossfire" yesterday.
    A lot of conservatives do not care much for Bob Dole.)

    Even so, the Republicans are owned and operated by the 'angry
    white male' lobby.  They put Dole and Gingrich into power in
    1994, even though they're going through a backlash about it now.

    
    re .346
    
    Once again you have just argued both sides of the debate in the same
    breath.  I'm still amazed how people can do that.
    
    fred();

    
    Fred, you're just extremely confused.  :/
    

        re .348

    No, just getting weary of trying to debate in a situation equivalent
    to playing football in with he Oakland Raiders, where the rules
    apply to me but not to them.

    fred();

    RE: .341  Rocush
    
    > Oh, here we go again.  Let's make up a fact.  Nursing takes up to 30%
    > of woman's energy????!!!! 
    
    This information came out recently - it wasn't a statement of my opinion.
    
    > My wife nursed all of our children and never
    > once indicated that she there was a problem with it.  she was very
    > involved with the kids and the house.  I would tend to think that she
    > was just as active as anyone else. 
    
    She wasn't as active as I was (if she wasn't ALSO working two part-time
    jobs while going to college as a full-time day student for four years.)
    
    > She always felt that nursing made her feel more exhilerated(sp), not 
    > more tired.
    
    It's not a matter of 'feelings', it's a matter of the fact that nursing
    consumes bodily resources.
    
    > You still seem to have the opinion that current discrimination against
    > someone who never did anything wrong , is OK as long as they happen to
    > belong to the wrong group. 
    
    Discrimination against women and minorities still exists because such
    individuals are in the wrong groups.  (We might as well share the
    problems of discrimination until it goes away.  Anything less simply
    wouldn't be fair.)

    
    I would gladly forgo any child support from my ex in exchange for
    custody of my daughter.
    
    I did *all* of the outside work and most of the inside housework when I
    was married...my wife readily admitted that I did a much better job
    than she did.
    
    *I* was the one who was up at 6AM every weekend day to spend the day
    with my kids, take them to soccer, fishing, whtever.
    
    The fact that my daughter can outperform most boys her age (and many
    boys that are older) in areas such as building a deck, tuning her four-
    wheeler, studying skills, cleaning, etc., is a *direct* result of the
    time that I spent with her while she was growing up (plus her own inate
    abilities).
    
    Her mother constantly makes her 'sleep over' so that she can go out
    with her boyfriends.
    
    Her mother receives $300/week in child support, even though I am fully
    responsible for supporting my son, who lives with me. Her mother gets
    to keep all her income, BTW, and doesn't have to account for a penny of
    the child support..didn't have to when she was getting $500/week for my
    daughter either.
    
    Do you think this made any difference to the probate court during my
    custody battle, Conlon? No. I had the bad luck to draw Sheila McGovern,
    who said she was 'proud' of drafting the Mass. legislation that makes a
    parent pay child support till the child is 23 years old. Even though I
    am responsible for paying for my daughter's college education on top of
    carrying insurances, etc.
    
    Fair, Suzanne? Or must I continue to pay for years of 'perceived'
    oppression (i'm still not convinced it was intentional).
    
    John
    

    la Leche league and also from "spiritual Midwifery" nutritional
    requirements for the nursing mother include 500 extra calories/day
    during the first year to support a nursing infant.  given that most
    women normally live on 1600-2000 calories a day when not prgnant or
    nursing..........
    
    

    Sobecky, it sounds like you're in a tough situation.
    
    Is it the law that all child support payments in Massachusetts
    continue until the children are 23 years old?
    
    When did this start?
    

    RE: .351  Sobecky

    > Or must I continue to pay for years of 'perceived'
    > oppression (i'm still not convinced it was intentional).
                   
    Do you think it was an ACCIDENT or an OVERSIGHT that this country
    was founded on the basis of 'all men are created equal', but it
    took women until the 20th Century to win the VOTE??

    	"Oooops!  We knew there was something we forgot."

    Do you think that it's only a PERCEPTION that white males still
    have a disproportionate share of control in this country?  

    Watch CSPAN sometime.

    
    Yawn....
    
    I probably live on 1200-1500 calories/day because of my budget; I have
    to pay outrageous child support.
    
    Women have been nursing since time immemorial..and only recently have
    worried about their own selfish needs. Nothing new here.
    
    You're not doing anything special, or new..you're just complaining
    about it more. 
    
    My mother raised eight children and nursed every one of us. She was
    still a very strong woman, never heard her complain. Nor did we hear my
    dad complain about having to work long hours, or hear us kids complain
    about helping the family out in whatever way we could.
    
    Some of you children have had it too easy, and expect to be given too
    much.

    
    OK, Suzanne, I'll ask you this:
    
    Why is it, do you think, that white males gained the upper hand in
    society? Because they were stronger? Smarter? 
    
    Is this part of the natural selection process? Or did someone,
    somewhere, somehow, give us some advantage? Maybe 'God' did this for us
    white males?
    
    What happened? And, is it nice to fool with Mother Nature?
    

    RE: .355  Sobecky
    
    > I probably live on 1200-1500 calories/day because of my budget; I have
    > to pay outrageous child support.
    
    You're whining, John.
    
    > Nor did we hear my
    > dad complain about having to work long hours...
    
    You DO complain, though.  :)
    
    > Some of you children have had it too easy, and expect to be given too
    > much.
    
    Look who's talking.

    RE: .356  Sobecky

    > Why is it, do you think, that white males gained the upper hand in
    > society? Because they were stronger? Smarter? 

    This society was started (for real) with the same metaphor that 
    NFL football games use today (as described by my own son):

    			Violent land acquisition


    Women were systematically excluded from politics, economics, and
    everything else which offered money or power.

    It's one of the most shameful aspects of our species.

    re .357
    
    >    You're whining, John.
    
    As if you have all that room to talk.  Do you anything to add to
    the discussion other than personal attack?
    
    fred();

    
    reply .358
    
    >  It's one of the most shameful aspects of our species.
    
    Well, when you consider what has happened to America since women
    were given the right to vote....;^).
    
    fred();

  In my reply...

> This may be a convenient story, but it's a fantasy, easily disproven
> by looking at either New England textile mills (run by men but pop-
> ulated almost entirely by "Mill Girls") or the "Rosie the Riveter"
> experiences during WW-II. And I'm sure by countless other examples
> in between. Women have come into the workplace time and time again,
> only to be driven out when it suited men's convenience.
> 
> Unless given strong legal incentives, people tend to hire more
> people who are just like them in gender, race, religion, etc.

  ...I was actually giving you folks credit for being sufficiently
  intelligent to read between the lines of the reply and understand,
  WITHOUT MY EXPLICITLY SAYING IT, that:

    o The owners (white guys) hired the agent (a white guy).
    o The agent (a white guy) hired the architect (a white guy)
    o The architect (a white guy) then built the mill with
        the labor of others (white guys)
    o The agent (a white guy) then hired the overseers (white guys).
    o The overseers (white guys) hired:
        - The millwrights (white guys)
        - The loomfixers (white guys)
        - Other skilled labor from time-to-time as was needed (white guys)

  And yes, now that we've run out of skilled, well-paying positions,
  finally, the overseers (white guys) hired:

        - The millgirls (usually immigrants) and the children
          (bobbin boys, infeeders, etc.)

  Even white guys could recognize the importance of cheap labor.

  And what happened to the mills? Well, when the white guys saw that
  Southern labor was cheaper than New England labor, they all moved
  South. And when they saw that off-shore labor was cheaper than
  domestic labor, many of them moved offshore, although automation
  has also made the cost of labor a lot less significant. An old
  time millgirl ran two looms. A single modern-day woman can now
  run a whole roomfull of looms.

  Meanwhile, Suzanne has already explained to you the details around
  my "Rosie the Riveter" reference. The details, of course, don't fit
  your worldview so you've rejected them.

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  In all honesty, I don't have time for argumentation that requires
  this level of detail *AND THEN* includes the sort of "don't bother
  me with the facts" responses that you guys provide. (The recent
  lactation "debate" is the most prominent example.)

  It's for this very reason that I never noted in MENNOTES before,
  and in all honesty, I'm more than willing to never note here again.

  Just say the word.
                                   Atlant

    re .361
    
>  In all honesty, I don't have time for argumentation that requires
>  this level of detail *AND THEN* includes the sort of "don't bother
>  me with the facts" responses that you guys provide. (The recent
>  lactation "debate" is the most prominent example.)
>
>  It's for this very reason that I never noted in MENNOTES before,
>  and in all honesty, I'm more than willing to never note here again.
    
    Would such blatant personal attack, by a male against a female, be
    tolerated in these other conferences you so highly admire?
    
    fred();

fred();

> Would such blatant personal attack, by a male against a female, be
> tolerated in these other conferences you so highly admire?

  Sure. Happens all the time. Usually (always?) by an AWM.
  Get used to it.
                                   Atlant

    
    re .363
>  Sure. Happens all the time. Usually (always?) by an AWM.
>  Get used to it.
    
    As they tell young lawyers, never ask a question in court that 
    you don't already know the answer to.  Having been in those 
    conferences from time to time, I find your response has a certain 
    lack of credibility.
    
    fred();

    .352
    
    Your reference to a need for additional calories is significantly
    different than the inference that was in the note I responded to.
    
    It is rather obvious that if you are going to be doing more that you
    need more calories and nutrients, that's a far cry from the implication
    in the prior note.  This is the same as saying that an Olympic athlete
    requires more calories and nutrients than an average person.  so what.
    

    .361
    
    Thank you for proving my point.  I am sure that is not what you had in
    mind.
    
    The mill situation is very similar to the examples that were put
    forward before.  the fact that a group of people have a particular
    skill and experience level does not make any one wrong for using those
    skills.  the "mill girls" had a particular skill level in terms of
    operating the looms and machines, they were hired to provide this
    labor.
    
    As mills moved south and then off-shore it had nothing to do with
    discrimination, but simply recognizing the skill sneeded and where you
    can find them to give yo a competitive advantage.
    
    Also, if discrimination is wrong, then it's wrong.  You can't say that
    because this discrimination is something I support, then it's OK.  If
    you want to follow that logic, then you can't complain about
    discrimination that doesn't support your bias.  either we will, as a
    society, state we oppose discrimination or we will accept it as long as
    it agrees with our personal bias.
    
    Right now you have groups, some represented in these notes, that want
    to say you can't discriminate, but we can.  this obviously leads to the
    very issue that some people want to hide and then ignore that it's
    there.
    

    RE: .366  Rocush

    > the fact that a group of people have a particular
    > skill and experience level does not make any one wrong for using those
    > skills.          

    It is wrong to exploit a class of people by making it impossible for
    them to be used as much more than 'cheap labor' in a society.

    > the "mill girls" had a particular skill level in terms of
    > operating the looms and machines, they were hired to provide this
    > labor.   

    They were hired as 'cheap labor' (and they worked for pittance.)

    > As mills moved south and then off-shore it had nothing to do with
    > discrimination, but simply recognizing the skill sneeded and where you
    > can find them to give yo a competitive advantage.

    Companies which go 'offshore' do so because they can find a population
    of people who will be willing to do almost anything for pittance.
    These people are not already 'skilled' in the business which seeks
    to use them as 'cheap labor'.

    Little paper shacks spring up around these 'offshore' facilities so
    that the people working for pittance there can 'live close' to their
    work.  

    The whole point is to find people who will be willing to work for
    next to nothing.  When entire groups of people in this country were
    'HELD DOWN' to this level, the 'cheap labor' existed here.  Now many
    companies go elsewhere to find it (although some 'sweat shops' do
    still exist here illegally.)

    When you find an illegal 'sweat shop' in this country, it's pretty
    much guaranteed that the 'cheap labor' in these sweat shops are WOMEN.

    re .367
    
>    The whole point is to find people who will be willing to work for
>    next to nothing.  When entire groups of people in this country were
>    'HELD DOWN' to this level, the 'cheap labor' existed here.  Now many
>    companies go elsewhere to find it (although some 'sweat shops' do
>    still exist here illegally.)
    
    I have myself found, in my life, that next to nothing beats the 
    heck out of nothing.
    
    fred();

    
    Cheap labor was not an exclusive domain of females in those days.
    Actually a "pittance" was better than what some men faced.  Working
    for companies that required company housing and company stores, the
    men _had_ to give back to the company more than they were paid.
    Tennessee Earnie Fords, "16-tons": "St Peter don't you take me
    'cause I can't go. I owe my sole to the company store" was no joke.
    Those men worked in pseudo slavery to try to support their families.

    So because some man worked 100 years ago for some mine or other
    company that employed these tactics, does that now give me the
    right to "get even".

    fred();

    White males were not systematically held down for generations (AS A CLASS 
    OF PEOPLE) to be cheap labor.

    Women and other minority groups were held down (as a class of people)
    by being systematically *excluded* from opportunities which might have 
    provided them with money and/or power.

    
    By the logic of some here, because of what John Rockefelle(sp) did
    at Ludlow, Co., we now have the right to lynch Digital's management
    ;^).
    
    fred();

    RE: .371  Fred
    
    > By the logic of some here, because of what John Rockefelle(sp) did
    > at Ludlow, Co., we now have the right to lynch Digital's management
    > ;^).
    
    Now you're having delusions of grandeur, Fred.  :/
    

    .367
    
    There is nothing wrong with "cheap labor".  Do you think that any
    company is going to pay any more for a skill than is absolutely
    necessary?  the fact that certain skills get greater compensation does
    not mean that it still isn't "cheap labor".  
    Any organization is going to pay what it needs to get the job done.  In
    most instances what you want to claim is "cheap labor" it is actually
    unskilled or minimally skilled labor.  do you expect a company to pay
    $20, $30, $40 an hour to a general laborer.  I don't think so.  They
    know exactly what they can afford to pay, what the market will bear and
    what they need to grow and expand their business.  Companies went
    off-shore because they needed basically unskilled labor and domestic
    workers were demanding higher wages.  This necessitated the need to
    move off-shore and find lower costs of labor.
    
    I personally believe that the revenue and profit I deliver to this
    company is far, far beyond what my compensation is.  this then means
    that I am "cheap labor" for this company in an absolute sense.
    
    In addition, the countries that you condemn because they provide "cheap
    labor" actually have a higher standard because of the salary they earn. 
    Many of the people, although paid poorly by our standards, are making a
    fou can find this to be true with many Mexicans who come here, work
    like crazy for a few years and can go back home and live very well.
    

    
    
    >White males were not systematically held down for generations (AS A CLASS
    >OF PEOPLE) to be cheap labor.
    
    What history book did you study?
    
    fred();

    
    What planet do you come from, Fred?
    
    

    
    >    Now you're having delusions of grandeur, Fred.  :/
    
    I ask again, do you have anything to add other than personal attack?
    fred();

    
    Fred, do you hold any illusion that your remark which suggested that
    some of us want to 'lynch Digital's management' was anything more
    than a personal attack of your own?
    

oh gee, can we get a raise of hands on that -1 then?

    
    >    What planet do you come from, Fred?
    
    The Third Rock from the Sun ;^).
    
    fred();

    RE: .373  Rocush
    
    > There is nothing wrong with "cheap labor". 
    
    There is something terribly wrong with holding down a class of people
    (based on their race, their sex, etc.) so they can do little more than
    work as 'cheap labor' in a given society for generations.
    

    
    >   Fred, do you hold any illusion that your remark which suggested that
    >    some of us want to 'lynch Digital's management' was anything more
    >    than a personal attack of your own?

    Just illustrating the absurdity of the argument being made by some
    groups.

    fred(); 

    RE: .381  Fred
    
    > Just illustrating the absurdity of the argument being made by some
    > groups.
    
    Then, it was a personal attack on your part.
    
    No one said anything remotely close to what you wrote in your
    accusation.  You made it up as an attack, pure and simple.
    

    .370
    
    Gee, following your logic government employees better look out. 
    Governments for generations have arbitrarily held down an entire class
    of people, drivers.  They have come up with arbitrary rules that limit
    what a person can do with their vehicle and actually fine them and
    arrest them, even take away their driving privleges if they don't fall
    in line.  The fact that there are reasons for this does not make any
    difference.  They did it and they are guilty.  Let's go get 'em.
    
    You conveniently ignore facts in order to support your unsupportable
    position.  You claim that because something was done 100s or 1000s of
    years ago, for what were considered valid reasons at that time, which
    are now viewed differently, then in this enlightened age we can do
    exactly the same thing, just change the group or the issue.
    
    No credibility at all in that position.
    

    
>    No one said anything remotely close to what you wrote in your
>    accusation.  You made it up as an attack, pure and simple.

    Even for a dumb ol' farm boy like me it would take a pretty deliberate
    twisting of logic to come to this conclusion.  If you are the Magnan Cum
    Laud philosophy major you claim to be,  I am sure you can follow the
    comparable logic.  Your reaching pretty far here, Suzanne.  

    fred();

    'Drivers' are not held to a low-income level by traffic laws.
    
    The quality of drivers' lives is not affected for generations by
    having to stop at certain red signs, etc.
    
    Your analogy is inappropriate, Rocush.
    

    Fred, you aren't qualified to judge the logical capabilities of others,
    so don't even try.

    If Axel is still following this note, I wonder just what impression
    of American females he is getting?
    
    fred();

    He probably already knew that we fight back.  We never would have
    won the vote otherwise.  :)
    

    

    >  Fred, you aren't qualified to judge the logical capabilities of others,
    >  so don't even try.

    And you are qualified to judge my qualifications?

    fred();

    
    Fred, I'm far more qualified than you'll ever be when it comes to
    the study of formal logic.

    If you want to employ a convenient stereotype about women to bolster
    your weak position, why don't you accuse me of crying at you or
    something.  :)

    
    ...or we could simply stop arguing and move back into an ordered 
    discussion of the issues at hand, Fred.
    
    How about it?
    

    
    re .388
    
    >    He probably already knew that we fight back.  We never would have
    >    won the vote otherwise.  :)
    
    Not one woman voted for he 19'th ammendment.
    
    fred();

    
    >   Fred, I'm far more qualified than you'll ever be when it comes to
    >    the study of formal logic.
    
    >If you want to employ a convenient stereotype about women to bolster
    >your weak position, why don't you accuse me of crying at you or
    >something.  :)
    
    Actually, I'm just providing you opportunity to expose what certainly
    appears to be your very bloated eago.
    
    fred(); 

    
    Women fought for the vote for 72 years.  It was an uphill battle
    since none of the women could threaten to refuse to vote for
    any politician who would not support women's suffrage.

    The women won the vote by being persistent enough to get politicians
    to support it, anyway (72 years later!)

    >    ...or we could simply stop arguing and move back into an ordered
    >    discussion of the issues at hand, Fred.
    
    Back? into an ordered discussion?  So far, I'd hardly call what has
    been going on here a discussion.
    
    fred();

    .380
    
    If a person does nothing to change their position for generations just
    whose responsibility is that?  It isn't easy, takes generations and
    maybe never works for everyone, but progress can be achieved by
    those willing to work for it.  It may not happen in your time frame, or
    looking back people may wonder just how that happened, but things
    change and can improve.
    
    A short study of history will show that many groups, including white
    males, were held down and kept in specific jobs for generations.  It
    was recognized and people did what they needed to do to improve the
    situation for succeeding generations.  MY father faced dicrimination
    and was kept in "cheap labor" jobs his entire life.  He worked to make
    the best life he could and try to make sure we did better than he did. 
    I do the same for my family.  He didn't look back and neither do I.  It
    seems like some people can't help but look back and ignore the fact
    that just about everyone was there at one point or another.
    

    
    Well, a woman would certainly have to be egotistical to acknowledge
    having a degree in Philosophy (with a specialty in Symbolic Logic)
    in a society where men are supposed to lord over women in this area.
    
    It's ironic to remember that I specialized in Symbolic Logic in the
    Philosophy Department of my University because I enjoyed it so much.
    (I had no idea that I was getting into an area where women weren't
    supposed to tread.  The top two logicians in the department were
    women, too - how interesting, eh?)
    

    RE: .396  Rocush
    
    > If a person does nothing to change their position for generations just
    > whose responsibility is that? 
    
    How does "A PERSON" move from generation to generation on his/her own?
    (Are you talking about reincarnation here, or what?)  :)
    

    
>    The women won the vote by being persistent enough to get politicians
>    to support it, anyway (72 years later!)
    
    Women won the vote because enough _men_ recognized the unfairness of
    the situation to pass a constitutional ammendment.  Just as slavery
    was aboloshed because enough "white people" were willing to _die_
    (and did) to get rid of it.
    
    Now you _still_ want to base your attacks on what happened prior to
    the 19'th.
    
    fred();

    .385
    
    Are you saying that a long-haul trucker isn't held down economically by
    these laws?  Are yous aying that there aren't generations of families
    that have been truck drivers?
    
    This is just one very direct example, more can be provided.
    
    Tha analogy is just as valid as the attempt you made.  You just don't
    want to accept it because it doesn't fit neatly into the box you
    created.
    

    .401
    
    Even though I give you credit for understanding what I wrote, I will
    provide the information you need.
    
    I start a a kid in a "cheap labor" job, do nothing and then have my
    kids take the same job, and I do nothing nor do they, then their kids
    do the same.  See, generations.  But you already knew what I meant.
    

    
    >    Well, a woman would certainly have to be egotistical to acknowledge
    >    having a degree in Philosophy (with a specialty in Symbolic Logic)
    
    'Nuf s'ed.  Just remember it was _you_ who said it.
    
    fred(Phd., Ardnox U.); 

    RE: .404  Rocush

    > I start a a kid in a "cheap labor" job, do nothing and then have my
    > kids take the same job, and I do nothing nor do they, then their kids
    > do the same.  See, generations.  But you already knew what I meant.

    Women were systematically 'held down' (along with various other
    minorities) because those in power had the ability to exclude them
    from enterprises which would have brought them money and/or power.

    It's not rocket science:  Employers 'bought in' to the idea that 
    African Americans and women were inferior human beings, regardless
    of the intelligence, education and motivation of individual African
    Americans and women.

    If you don't see how such a thing works in our species, then you
    simply haven't been paying attention.

    RE: .405  Fred
    
    >> Well, a woman would certainly have to be egotistical to acknowledge
    >> having a degree in Philosophy (with a specialty in Symbolic Logic)
    
    > 'Nuf s'ed.  Just remember it was _you_ who said it.
    
    It's certainly a huge threat to society if women felt comfortable
    acknowledging the educations we've EARNED.
    
    What would some men do if they could no longer dismiss women with
    a wave of the 'But yer jest womin, so yoo must be illogical' flag.
    

    
    Women won the vote because they spent 72 years convincing the American
    people that it was the right thing to do.
    
    It wasn't a gift.  It was the end result of a battle where generations
    of women died without ever seeing the end of it.
    
    Women protested as part of the public relations campaign.  Some women
    held hunger strikes (and they were subjected to TORTURE by American
    authorities who shoved rubber tubes down their throats.)
    
    Women won this battle.  The men in Congress finally agreed to give
    women what they'd spent generations fighting to win.
    

    
    reply .407

>    It's certainly a huge threat to society if women felt comfortable
>    acknowledging the educations we've EARNED.

    It is if their bloated ego makes them think that some piece of
    paper qualifies them to judge others while putting themselves 
    above judgment.

>    What would some men do if they could no longer dismiss women with
>    a wave of the 'But yer jest womin, so yoo must be illogical' flag.

    It doesn't take much of a degree to know what would happen if a
    man said anything remotely similar about women.  Just as I begin
    to think you couldn't be more transparent in your attitude and 
    agenda, you surprise me.

    fred()

    
    re .408
    
    
    >Women won the vote because they spent 72 years convincing the American
    >people that it was the right thing to do.
    
    Maybe that's how long their husbands had to be cut off from sex to
    get them to go along ;^).
    
    What does this, however, have to do with society _today_.
    
    fred();

    
    Fred, if you'd been through the same education I earned, you'd know
    that I didn't just receive a 'piece of paper' (for either of my
    four-year degrees.)

    If you want to claim that you are in a position to judge my logic
    capabilities even though *I* earned a degree in this particular
    subject and YOU DID NOT, then you'll have to come up with something
    more substantial than your own arrogance to prove it.

    (Front appendages don't count.)

    
    > What does this, however, have to do with society _today_.
    
    It's part of the history of the systematic way that women have been
    excluded from enterprises which would have brought women money and/or
    power in this country.
    
    Things didn't change for women overnight after winning the vote.
    It was another 40+ years before the real issues could be discussed
    openly in this country.
    

    
    re .411

    Thank you, Suzanne, for proving my point.

    >    (Front appendages don't count.)

    What?  Enlarged mammary glands?

    fred();

    
    Your NOSE, Fred.  :)
    
    

    
    Let's just forget it.
    

     reply 412
    
>    It's part of the history of the systematic way that women have been
>    excluded from enterprises which would have brought women money and/or
>    power in this country.
    
    The key word here is _have_.  You still want to use the past to
    justify your bias.
    
    fred();

    >
    >                     <<< Note 226.415 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
    >                            -< This is pointless. >-
    
    Which has been exactdly my point for the last 200 entries.  
    
    fred();

    RE: .416  Fred
    
    >> It's part of the history of the systematic way that women have been
    >> excluded from enterprises which would have brought women money and/or
    >> power in this country.
    
    > The key word here is _have_.  You still want to use the past to
    > justify your bias.
    
    "Have been" is not the 'past tense', Fred.
    

    
    >> It's part of the history of the systematic way that women have been
    >> excluded from enterprises which would have brought women money and/or
    >> power in this country.
    
    I just noticed something else.  I thought _equality_ whas what the
    women's movement was about.  Your Freudian slipped.
    
    fred();

    RE: .419  Fred

    >> It's part of the history of the systematic way that women have been
    >> excluded from enterprises which would have brought women money and/or
    >> power in this country.
    
    > I just noticed something else.  I thought _equality_ whas what the
    > women's movement was about.  Your Freudian slipped.

    No, yours just slipped.

    I've never regarded 'power' as something that is on an ALL OR NOTHING
    BASIS (for either one group to have or another group to have.)

    'Equality' will occur when the 'power' is shared by individuals of
    all the various groups of human beings who inhabit this country.
    
    Apparently, you believe that if men don't hold women down, then men
    will become enslaved by women (as a group).  I once knew a white man
    who felt this way about African Americans - he told me (in the late
    1960s), "Either we stay ON TOP, or they will rise ON TOP OF US."
    
    It's a sad way to look at things, Fred.

    
    Well, this certainly gives us all something to think about, doesn't it.
    

    
    re .420

>    I've never regarded 'power' as something that is on an ALL OR NOTHING
>    BASIS (for either one group to have or another group to have.)

    "Power" itself denotes an imbalance of equality (on the upper side).
    And you conveniently ignored the "money" part.

>    'Equality' will occur when the 'power' is shared by individuals of
>    all the various groups of human beings who inhabit this country.

    Power over whom?

>    
>    Apparently, you believe that if men don't hold women down, then men
>    will become enslaved by women (as a group).  

    No, I believe that _equality_ is not what _today's_ women's movement
    (as generously demonstrated by you) is about.

    >I once knew a white man
>    who felt this way about African Americans - he told me (in the late
>    1960s), "Either we stay ON TOP, or they will rise ON TOP OF US."

    So because you met some guy once that believed something about 
    another group, therefore I must believe the same thing about your
    group.....Is this the "logic" you demonstrated to get your degree?


    >    It's a sad way to look at things, Fred.

    It is sad, but probably not in the way you intend.

    fred();

    fred();

The trading of insults here has gone far enough.  This is not a reasoned
debate.  Further replies are disabled and will stay that way.

				Steve