Conference quark::mennotes

    

    re .0

    Welcome to the land of "equal rights".

    >BUT maybe I should search real hard for a good lawyer to SUE their @#$%^

    If you have the evidence to back up what you've said about them
    taking the money even though the kids were with you I certainly
    would, but the trick is they know it will probably cost you more to 
    take them to court than you'll get from them unless you go as your own 
    attorney.  Next time she files for support when she isn't supposed
    to I'd at least ask that she be ordered to pay your attorney fees.

    Next time get out the video camera (or borrow one) and document the
    date by photographing a daily newspaper then the kids.  And DOCUMENT 
    DOCUMENT DOCUMENT.   Keep any plane tickets or fuel receipts  and any 
    other receipts or _any_ paperwork that would show that the kids were 
    there.  Is there anyone that can tetify that they saw the kids with
    you?  A daily diary/journal is admissible evidence in most states.
    
    fred();

    Your town clerk's office could provide a notorized document on
    this if you take your kids to see how government works.  ;*)

    
    To the basenoter,
    
    When I have my children for the summer My CS is reduced by $40 P/W as
    my former and I agreed.   
    In order to make it work I have to notify the NH div of human services
    WEEKS ahead of time with a formal letter stating exactly the $$$
    and the time the children are with me so they will fix the computors
    to reflect the change in CS for that summer vacation time.
     
    If I don't send the formal letter I will be notified later on 
    that I'm in the arrears and pay up or else!!! 
    I have to do battle with them quite often. The've lost every battle   
    because I keep meticulous records.  As Fred says document, document,
    etc.   I have good cooperation from my ex so it's worked so far. 
    
      Just a suggestion.    Bill

Document Document Document

It has been my experience that no matter how well, how much, how often
I document. It has done me no good... Why..?? Because for every entry
I have for a given day/date, my EX has something that says the exact 
opposite. And the couple of times in court that I presented my documentation,
she produced hers, which contradicted everything I said, and the Judge said 
that he would not listen to either.

My EX is a total liar.. For the past 3 years, when I have my kids on "our"
weekend (never mind they were at my house 95% of the time anyway) I would
always, always bring them home late. Instead of 6pm it was usually 9, 10 or
even later if there was no school.. Now I never did this to piss her off, but
because my kids did not want to go home. Like clock work, "they" would call
their "mom", ask if they could stay later and she ALWAYS said "Yes". BUT in
her diary she would write "Brett did not bring the kids home until X o'clock"
Not that she gave me permission, not that the kids called and asked, not that
the kids did not want to go home at 6pm, but that I did not bring them home on
time. I know this because my oldest has told me numerous times that she has
seen mom do this. The kids know about her diary, they've even told me about some
of the lies they've seen.

My argument is WHY do I have to document when the court/DA/me/EX all have the
same copy of the child custody agreement. My argument is when its been in 
black and white, but I still have to prove myself. Like when I had my kids,
hell, I should not have to prove that I had, but she should have to prove that
I did not. Like the verbage that says "child support cut in half if kids with
the non custodial parent for 2 weeks of any month. 

brett

    

>My argument is WHY do I have to document when the court/DA/me/EX all have the
>same copy of the child custody agreement. My argument is when its been in 
>black and white, but I still have to prove myself. Like when I had my kids,
>hell, I should not have to prove that I had, but she should have to prove that
>I did not. Like the verbage that says "child support cut in half if kids with
>the non custodial parent for 2 weeks of any month. 

    Well, if you have the evidence, then you can file suit against the
    day's office if you can find a lawyer that will take the case (good
    luck) (make sure the press hears about it, elected officials don't
    like this type of publicity).  Or you could give the evidence to
    the day's opponent in the next election to show how the current
    DA is being a bit too over zealous in his application of the child
    support collections.
    
    fred();

    
>I know this because my oldest has told me numerous times that she has
>seen mom do this. The kids know about her diary, they've even told me about some
>of the lies they've seen.
    
    One Consolation is that the kids _know_  and when they get old enough
    to choose which parent they want to live with, this c**p will come
    down on her head big time.
    
    My kids barely talk to their mother any more.  She hasn't hasn't asked
    to see them for abut three years.  The last couple times she has been
    in town _I_ have had to be the one to push them to go visit.  When
    my younger son moved out, he had the opportunity to go live with her.
    He declined.
    
    fred();

    The down side to Fred's supposition, though, is the impact on the kid's
    self-image.  As teenagers, the perception of one or the other parent as
    selfish or disinterested can have a profound effect on the child. 
    Watch out for depression.  Encourage counselling - first for the sake
    of the child's mental health, and secondly as a backup testimonial for
    your competency as a parent.  The support of a few good, objective
    professionals can be invaluable in facing the  legal system.
    
    tim
    

re: .6

Fred, 

I agree with you 100%... I've gotten to the point where it doesn't matter
what the courts say. I know what I'm doing but more importantly no matter
what my EX has said or will say about me, my kids know how I feel, what I
do and that I'll always be there for them. I've even told them if they ever
want me to go back to court for custody to just let me know. My twins say
that when they are 13yrs they want to live with me. (13 because a "shrink"
told them that at that age they can make their own decision) Although I
don't really have to have us all see a "shrink" again ($2000), I'll do it
so that my kids do not have to deal with the emotional stress. (mom yelling
at them, mom telling them that they can't have anything because they chose
to live with dad....etc...

And Fred, my 18yr daughter can not stand, hates being around/with/near/in
the same house as her mother.. But she does it so that as she told a "shrink"
"she can keep an eye on her brother and sister, so they won't have to go thru
what she went thru with their mother." 

brett

ps. thanks, it is people like all of you who help me thru the "rough"
    times. Just knowing there is someone else out there who 1) will
    listen 2) who has or knows someone who has gone thru similiar ordeals
    and more importantly 3) cares..... thanks all

    I just herd that there is legislation pending in the Colorado House
    of Representatives that would force judges to enforce visitation
    rights and hear the case within 30 days of the complaint.  Order
    the visitation enforced or provide other remedies.

    fred();

    Use the school system's "shrink" i.e. guidence counselor or 
    social worker for your documentation.  The kids probably have
    school related problems due to the home situation.  It's there
    and it is already tax-payed.

    

re: .7

Tim

I now do worry about depression in my 2 younger kids because I no longer live
around the corner but 2000 miles away (CA - GA). When I lived around the corner
they were at my house 95% of the time, When we last seen a "shrink"
August 97, he said that both my twins show signs of depression and withdrawal
when with mom or around mom. He also said that around me they seem to be more
upbeat, less fearful of speaking their minds, more relaxed, genuinly (sp) alot
more happy. Yet his recommendation to the court was to let the kids stay with
more..  (had something to do with school, friends and me leaving the state)
They even told him that we, the twins still hugged and kissed me good nite and
we each said "I love you." and that they never have told there mom that they 
love her.

But my Ex taking them to counseling does no good I feel because of her. They are
intimidated by their mom, all three of them.  As I told the "shrink" , I can 
take my kids to see a "shrink" and the report will favor me and she could do the
same and it would favor her. (this because my EX did just that, where she took
the kids to a shrink and she said that the kids are well adjusted, show some
fear towards dad, show anger towards dad) So for the time being I feel that 
counseling is out. My saving grace is that I talk to them often asking them
whats going on (this way I don't seem to be incouraging them to hate/dislike
mom) asking them "who loves ya" (a game we played where I'd ask who love ya
and they would have to answer with mom, dad and all the sisters and brothers
and kiss after each. So that's Whos love ya, they say Dee and we kiss, who else
loves ya, they say Brittnie and we kiss until they have said everyones name.

BA

re: .10

Not always true. I know because my 18yr daughter, when not living with me
got involved in every after school activity she could just so that she would
not have to be home at mom. And if she were not in a school activity and she
came to my house it became understood that mom was not to know she was there.

And now my twins are doing the same things. Now that I am gone they spend more
time at their friends houses than they do at home. If I want to talk to my
son, I call at one of two friends house and the same for my daughter.

School can sometimes be an "outlet" if you know what I mean. Its like a bad
marriage. When the marriage is bad you find yourself enjoying putting in the
extra hours at work for no pay, but when the marriage is good your home after
your 8 hours. (IMO)

My 18yr even stated this to the "shrink", that she got involved in as many 
school things as possible so that she would not have to be at moms. And in
four years of basketball, volleyball, track my EX has never to a game/meet,
more because my daughter never wanted her to go and never asked her to go.
Me, I got asked to go all the time and went to as many as I could.

brett

    Be careful of school counsellors.  Get to know them.  They can be
    allies but they can also be biased and very unprofessional.
    
    I've had several instances of school counsellors assuming that children
    belong with their mother, regardless of whether they actually are, and
    presumptions that custodial fathers are potential abusers - another
    common bias.
    
    Depending on the location, many so-called school counsellors have
    little or no real professional training, and no certification.
    
    It's probably only a coincidence that all of my experiences with such
    prejudicial school counsellors and nurses were women.
    
    tim
    

Tim 

I too have had a "bad' experience. Once during a mediation session, that my
Ex and I had to attend before and during our divorce preceedings, my EX and
I argued over custody. Well during the argument, my EX says that the 6yr old
wants to get up at 5am to walk 1 block to a public bus stop to catch a bus to
school so that she would be at school by 8am. A school that was 1/2 block from
my home. I said that it would be best if the kids stayed with me because, they
were with me the previous year, they attended the school down the street and 
the 6yr old would not have to 1) catch a bus at 5am 2) be able to sleep later,
and 3) walk to school with her friends.

I was told by the female mediator that my 6yr old daughter was mature
enough to make the decision to get up at 5am to catch public transportation so
that she could be at school by 8am. But this same 6yr was not mature enough to
say where she wanted to live.  Needless to say I lost custody..

			EXPERIENCE 2

I also once had a woman in the DAs' office tell me that "I should be a father
who cares about his kids and that I shouldn't mind paying child support. And
that the money ($240/wk) they are taking is so that my Ex can take care of the
kids."I had to tell her "Miss, I have my kids and have had them for the last 2
1/2 years." She then told me to prove it. I told her "I should not have to,
there is a court order which states I have custody (which we both looked at and
read) so if any thing my Ex should have to prove that I do not have custody." 

After 6 weeks of trying to prove, I finally threatened her with a lawsuit.. 
It was resolved that afternoon, got my money back the next week.

(my point in my basenote.)

brett

I don't want to start ragging on the rather strong
tendency for some women and even some men to believe that women
are better parents.  I just want to point out that
the bias exists, and the places where you can find it.

Some of this depends on the geography.  Some states have
no certification for school counsellors, or even for
public counsellors - anyone can claim to be one.  The
less certification of professional accreditation, the more
likely there is to be a bias in this realm, in my
experience.

The two professional, certified, female counsellors that
work with my kids now - a psychologist and a
Guardian Ad Litem - are reasonably unbiased, but it's
an uphill struggle all the way.

The toughest part of a custody struggle is the 
impact on the kids.  Parents fighting, no matter why,
almost always has a detrimental effect on them,
even if they claim to be OK.  They're not.

tim

    The vast majority of the world seems to feel that children are best off
    with the mom, despite that she is a druggest, or a working woman of the
    night etc. All... till you start reading the stats that point out that
    children are in a high crime rate, high teen pregnancy, etc without a
    father about....

    Re. 16
    
    I hardly think that you can attribute these social ills and
    socio-economic problems to single parent families.  Also, if you are
    assuming that families where the father has sole custody are less prone
    to violence, crime etc. then you are way off the mark.  Surely if the
    courts are aware of a mother's drug problems or the fact that she is
    supporting her family by means of prostitution, then social welfare
    will intervene?  Also, if this were the case, would it not be reasonable to
    assume that the father will either be completely absent or a substance 
    abuser himself, and not be waiting patiently in his comfortable
    suburban home.
    
    It is interesting to note that so many of the contributers to this
    conference are divorced.  Perhaps you should consider renaming this
    notesfile to "divorced and bitter ex-husbands" or something.
    
    CHARLOTTE                                                   

    
    re .16

>    I hardly think that you can attribute these social ills and
>    socio-economic problems to single parent families.  Also, if you are
>    assuming that families where the father has sole custody are less prone
>    to violence, crime etc. then you are way off the mark.

    On what do you base these comments?  We have consistently cited studies
    that show otherwise.  

>    Surely if the
>    courts are aware of a mother's drug problems or the fact that she is
>    supporting her family by means of prostitution, then social welfare
>    will intervene?  Also, if this were the case, would it not be reasonable to
>    assume that the father will either be completely absent or a substance 
>    abuser himself, and not be waiting patiently in his comfortable
>    suburban home.

    Not necessarily.  I have seen many cases otherwise.  One man I know
    had to go to court to get his children rather than have them put in
    foster care while mommy went into drug-rehab.  Then as soon as she
    was out the court gave the kids back to her.  With a long night of
    fast talking I probably prevented a "domestic violence resulting
    in death" that night.  

>    It is interesting to note that so many of the contributes to this
>    conference are divorced.  Perhaps you should consider renaming this
>    notesfile to "divorced and bitter ex-husbands" or something.

    This probably says more than you intended about your attitudes, but
    I think "Men Fed Up With Getting Screwed By The System" would probably
    be more descriptive.

    fred();

   Re. 18
    
    >I hardly think that you can attribute these social ills and
        socio-economic problems to single parent families.  Also, if you
        are assuming that families where the father has sole custody are less
        prone to violence, crime etc. then you are way off the mark.<
    
    >>  On what do you base these comments?  We have consistently cited
    studies that show otherwise. <<
    
    
    I beg your pardon, but you have consistently cited absolutely nothing. 
    You refer to studies - what studies are you talking about?  I see no
    reference to any research or statistics that suggest a correlation
    between single *mothers* and drug abuse or teenage pregnancies.  What
    we have here is pure speculation.
           
   >>This probably says more than you intended about your attitudes,
    but...<<
      
    I am certain that you do not have a degree in psychology, so please 
    let's dispense with the psychoanalysis.
    
    >>I think "Men Fed Up With Getting Screwed By The System" would probably
            be more descriptive.<<
    
    Perhaps now you will realise what it's like to be on the receiving-end. 
    Instead of getting angry, why don't you stop for a minute and think
    about those who have been screwed by the system for centuries.
    
    CHARLOTTE 

    I have to jump in here. We were told by our lawyer...."unless you have
    un-refutable proof that she is doing drugs, then we can't use that as a
    reason for the childs safety being in question"...so what is unrefuted
    proof we ask...."we will tell you to take a blood test" oh we say, will
    this be a drug test on the spur of the moment "No, it will have to be
    ok'd by her lawyer then the judge before it can be presented as
    evidence, this could be a 2-3 week wait.." so basically she is being
    warned that she will undergo a drug test, time to clear her system with
    organic chemicals....we've been this route. It may work with a cronic
    substance abusers...a crack addict, then your theory about the other
    parent would be true. However, mostly none of those cases are the ones
    that are sighted in the notes file because, I"m not quite sure a
    crack addict can be stable enough to hold a job, write a note, much
    less have a bank to cash a check..DSS isn't equipped with the personal
    to investigate every charge of prostitution...gee, an "angry ex-husband
    living in his "gorgeouse" suburban home, with his VERY LARGE paycheck"
    is charging is "crazy ex-wife with prostitution", well let me clue you
    in a bit, my husbands ex wife doesn't have to go to prostitution to
    feed any kid, he pays her a good chunk of his salary, and no, we don't
    live high off the hog, never did, the kid comes first. She makes what I
    make take home, so she shouldn't have a problem making ends meet.
    Unless you want to wonder were that extra cash goes, where the child
    support goes and just why she can't handle one persons bill, when the
    child eats what she eats, sleeps in the same dwelling she sleeps, and
    definately isn't  wearing the emperiors(sp) new clothes. She is asked
    to buy new sneakers for him, why would you have to ask. 
    
    I don't blame a lot of men in this notes file for being angry. As a
    matter of fact, I can't believe more aren't angry. I think more women
    should get fired up about the unbalanced scale in the justice system. I
    HAVE been to court. I HAVE sat thru a few cases. I have friends that I 
    am very close with that are experiencing a dirty system right now.  I
    HAVE seen first hand what is done. Just because women didn't get the
    fairness they should have years ago, doesn't mean we invalidate the
    right decisions now. A childs welfare isn't always the first thing
    thought of, it's what is fair to the woman. So sometimes, a woman is
    still given the kid, dispite her "lack of good parenting". 
    
    This is the MENNOTES. If they want to be angry. I don't blame them. I
    actually listen to them, I don't just hear them talking. So there are
    two sides to this off white picket fence. Men that are good, kind an
    basically want to do the fatherly thing and take their responsibility
    seriously, are not given the fair shake, because of the men that are
    bums. But women are given the fair shake dispite the fact that some of
    them are bums. 
    
    unbalanced justice scales. Women are not the BEST nuturers, they are
    just the default. 
    
    
    
    
    

If "those that have been screwed by the system for centuries" are women
then is the answer to have men screwed by the system for the next couple
of centuries?

Perhaps we should collectively work at getting a fair system for all now.

    
    
>    I am certain that you do not have a degree in psychology, so please 
>    let's dispense with the psychoanalysis.
    
    In the same sentence you sling your judgements of me and demand that
    I don't judge you .  However, it doesn't take a degree in nuclear-
    physics to recognize an H-bomb going off :^}.
    
    fred();

    .19
    
    Are you really attempting to say that you are unaware of the
    innumerable studies, reports and papers that have indicated that the
    children of single parent families, particulalry women, are
    significantly at risk for all sorts of social and emotional problems? 
    If so, you must have a very sheltered reading life.
    
    Also, your comment about who has been abused for centuries is very
    interesting.  Are you claiming that because of some issues that are
    very intertwined with many, many issues over centuries, that any
    injustice done to men today is acceptable because of issues faced by
    women?  Unfortunately, I believe you and many other women believe that
    this is OK.  this attitude on your part, if fact, is what has resulted
    in an incredible polarization today.
    

    .18 Studies done and written in peroidicals(sp) other than People
    mag.:) Seen copies on the web, seen it in either Time or Business Week.
    Not sure exactly. But, IF you want I will go search and give you a URL
    or web site on the topic. 
    
    So, then what do you attribute teen pregnacies, drug, crime, and etc to
    single parent families that are minus a father in the house? Why is
    there such and increase? Why is there allot of domestic voilence done
    by the children towards the mother? Or is domestic violence, in your
    view, only done by men aginst women?  

    
    Last week the County Social Services of Pueblo County, Colorado bought
    a bigger building for a place to conduct supervised visits with parents and
    the children Social Services has in "protective custody".  The report
    said that they were conducting visits by over 80 families per week.
    This is in a city of a little over 100K.  

    These are mostly families with mothers in the family.  The children are
    in "protective custody" because they are in danger of harm from neglect
    or violence.  From whom???

    fred();

    > These are mostly families with mothers in the family.  The children are
    > in "protective custody" because they are in danger of harm from neglect
    > or violence.  From whom???
    
    Gosh, talking about families where the father abandoned his 
    responsibilities makes the mothers such an easy target when 
    there are problems, and resisting a cheap shot never occurred
    to you, did it, Fred?
    
    DougO

    
    re .26
    
>    Gosh, talking about families where the father abandoned his 
>    responsibilities makes the mothers such an easy target when 
>    there are problems, and resisting a cheap shot never occurred
>    to you, did it, Fred?
    
    So now it's the man's fault too that some many _mothers_ are found
    neglectful and abusive to their chidren???  Talk about cheap shots!!
    Sheesh!!!
    
    fred();

    Re. 23
    
    <Are you really attempting to say that you are unaware of the
        innumerable studies, reports and papers that have indicated that
        the children of single parent families, particulalry women, are
        significantly at risk for all sorts of social and emotional
    problems?>
    
    Please could you cite your information source that claims that children
    of single women are more at risk of social and emotional problems than
    children who are raised by single men.
     
    <If so, you must have a very sheltered reading life.>
    
    Comments like this are completely unecessary.  If you cannot have a
    discussion without getting abusive then I don't think we should
    continue.
    
    Re. 24
    
    <So, then what do you attribute teen pregnacies, drug, crime, and etc to
        single parent families that are minus a father in the house? Why is
        there such and increase?>
    
    While I agree that the breakdown of the family unit could go a long way
    to having a negative influence on the children, why do you assume that
    it is the fault of the mother that the child is brought up in a single
    parent environment?  Also, what about factors like unemployment, poverty, 
    peer pressure etc.?  Are you going to blame the mother for those things
    too? 
    
    <Why is there allot of domestic voilence done
        by the children towards the mother? Or is domestic violence, in
    your view, only done by men aginst women?>
                                     
    Firstly, I *do* understand the term "domestic", which encompasses
    everybody in the home.  Secondly, what are you talking about here? 
    Domestic violence toward mothers perpetrated by their children?
    
    CHARLOTTE  

    .28
    
    Once again I have to ask if you have not heard nor read any of the
    reports during the past year?  Unfortunately I do not have the specific
    dates, times, issues, etc of the various reports, but there have been
    many references that I have encountered just in passing.  I am sure you
    can find the information quite readily if you are interested.  the most
    recent was about a month ago citing specifically what I mentioned.
    
    Also, if you took my comment as being abusive you are reading something
    into my comment that wasn't there.
    

    .28 And remember that 70% of all divorces are iniciated by women!

    Re. 29
    
    <Once again I have to ask if you have not heard nor read any of the
        reports during the past year?  Unfortunately I do not have the
    specific dates, times, issues, etc of the various reports, but there have
    been many references that I have encountered just in passing.  I am sure
    you can find the information quite readily if you are interested.  the
    most recent was about a month ago citing specifically what I
    mentioned.>
    
    You made some quite outrageous statements and if you wish to support
    your argument why don't you cite references or at least tell us exactly
    where your information came from.   
    
    I have some references that I would like to use to support my argument
    that domestic violence is perpetrated *more* by the male gender group,
    children are directly affected by domestic violence (which is mostly
    caused by men) and that children reared by single women are no more at
    risk of social problems than children reared by single men.
    
    * FBI Crime Report for the year 1995 - domestic violence
    figures show that 26% of female deaths were perpetrated by the male
    intimate while 3% of male deaths were perpetrated by the female
    intimate.  The figures for 1992 were 29% for females and 4% for males.
    
    * According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Report for 1992 - women
    are six times more likely than men to experience violent crime
    committed by an intimate.
    
    * National Coalition Against Domestic Violence - Up to 50% of homeless
    women and children in America are fleeing domestic violence.
    
    * Senator Joseph Biden, US Senate Committee of the Judiciary, "Victims
    of the system", 1991 - 50% of all homeless women and children are on
    the streets because of domestic violence.
    
    * Ronet Bachman Ph.D, US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice
    Statistics, "Violence against women: A National Crime Victimization
    Survey Report", January 1994 - Annually, compared to males, females
    experienced over ten times as many incidents of violence by an
    intimate.
    
    * American Bar Association: Commission on Domestic Violence - most
    victims of violence are women.  Children who witness domestic violence
    are also victims; they suffer from behavioural and cognitive problems. 
    Boys, especially, are more likely to be aggressive and engage in
    criminal behaviour if they grow up in homes where domestic violence
    exists.   
    
    <Also, if you took my comment as being abusive you are reading
    something into my comment that wasn't there.>
    
    Fair enough, but I consider calling somebody "sheltered" an insult. 
    Anyway, no hard feelings.
    
    Re. 30
    
    If indeed 70% of divorces are initiated by women (once again, could I
    please have your source for this statistic) could you perhaps put
    forward any ideas as to the reasons why women are doing this?
    
    CHARLOTTE

    .31
    
    AS I indicated earlier, I do not keep track of the source and details
    of every report that happens to get reported.  I merely make note of
    the facts, which I usually find interesting because they are usually
    empirically evident to even casual observers.  For this reason I never
    bother to remember which group published what, but if it were really
    important the specicifcs could be found.
    
    As far as your information on domestic violence is concerned, once
    again it would be obvious that the reports would reflect you you
    listed.  the missing information is that men are much less likely to
    ever report domestic violence than women.  does that mean that the
    figures would reverse?  I would not expect it to, but the % would be
    higher.
    
    In response to your question about the divorce rates and the fact that
    the majority are initiated by women, I can only address those that I am
    personally familiar with.  I only know of three divorces that I have
    personal information on the details.  In all three instances the action
    was initiated by the woman.  In the first case, the woman, a long time
    family friend, stated she was leaving because the marriage, "just
    wasn't fun any more".  In the second case the wife left because she was
    tired of being married to her husband.  There was no particular reason,
    just that the marriage had gotten routine and she wasn't interested any
    more.  In the last case, when the couple got married they both agreed
    that they wanted to have a family soon and the wife changed her mind. 
    He wanted a family and she decided that she wanted to delay,
    indefinitely, starting a family.Both of these people were no longer
    kids and he wanted to make sure he would be around for his kids as they
    grew.  she didn't want to do so and left.
    
    These are the only ones that I have personal knowledge of, but I always
    found the facts of these specific instances interesting.
    

    Re. 31
    
    I don't think those numbers tell the "whole" truth.

    --- How many men do you think are being abused by their "wives".?

   Probably more than you, I or the world will ever know.

    --- How many men report being abused by their "wifes".

    I'll bet alot less than the numbers suggest. Only because most would 
    think that a man is a "wimp" if 1) he is getting abused by his wife
    and 2) even more so if he is reporting it. So I think most men respond
    by defending themselves. I also think that because the police is called
    it seems to be their policy that the *man* is the problem. 

    Speaking from experience, I once had a disagreement with a woman, she
    got upset and threw a crowbar thru my livingroom window. I called the
    police. The police arrive and she tells them that I had been hitting 
    on her and she told me to stop. When I did not stop she thru the crowbar
    at me to "defend" herself. She also had a friend with her who agreed with
    her. The cop then proceeds to tell me that he was going to have to take
    me down, asked her if she wanted to press charges. Which she did.
 
    Now mind you, I've done nothing, not even beat the crap out of her for
    breaking my bay window. I ask the cop if I too can have her arrested and
    press charges. He ask why. I tell him 1) she broke my window 2) she does
    not live here and has no reason for being here and 3) your assuming that
    I am the cause of the problem.. Needless to say, some neighbors finally
    came over to collaborate my story. But had they not come I would have 
    been arrested for being *male* and nothing else. 

    Had we been 2 females, I think we would have been told to either go our
    own ways or settle our differences some other way. Had we been 2 males
    I think we would have been told to settle our differences some other way,
    settle them like men do (talk it out) and most defiantly(sp) we would have
    been told "because next time one of you is going".  But let it be a male 
    and a female and they would tell the male your under arrest or why
    don't you go for a walk to cool off (hell HE may not have done anything) 

    I think the BURDEN OF PROOF is always on men.... 

ba

    Then, because the children are minors, you do not see the children acting
    aginst the single woman parent in the stats. Unofficial verbal from a
    reliable source WHO works in the field. 

    >>    Gosh, talking about families where the father abandoned his 
    >>    responsibilities makes the mothers such an easy target when 
    >>    there are problems, and resisting a cheap shot never occurred
    >>    to you, did it, Fred?
    >
    > So now it's the man's fault too that some many _mothers_ are found
    > neglectful and abusive to their chidren???  Talk about cheap shots!!
    > Sheesh!!!
    
    In a set of 1) families having problems that you claim are 2) headed 
    by women; I claim it is relevant to ask, where are the men? - before
    assigning all the blame to the women (as you did).
    
    If that looks like a cheap shot, buy a clue.
    
    DougO

    
>    In a set of 1) families having problems that you claim are 2) headed 
>    by women; I claim it is relevant to ask, where are the men? - before
>    assigning all the blame to the women (as you did).
>    
>    If that looks like a cheap shot, buy a clue.

    Actually I have a clue.  And that is what you have thrown up is a
    perfect example of what we've been talking about.  About men getting
    all the blame for every act by male or female.  If there is something
    bad going on then it must somewhere, somehow be the fault of a man.

    The point is that the dirty little secret of "domestic violence"
    is that women who are violent will as often as not take it out on
    the kids.  You just don't see any "advocacy groups" with big agendas
    and a lot of press coverage and Congress-persons dancing at the
    end of their string.  My next door neighbor babysits for two women
    who work for social services.  The information comes from them.
    There are more children in "protective custody" to protect them 
    from their mothers than to protect them from their fathers.

    fred();

    > There are more children in "protective custody" to protect them 
    > from their mothers than to protect them from their fathers.

    More children living in single parent families are in the custody
    of mothers than fathers (by far), so one would expect that problem 
    families would also reflect this ratio difference.

    Did you say that they were protecting children in 80 families in
    a city with a population of over 100,000 in Pueblo?

    Well over 99.9% of the families in Pueblo (the vast, vast majority 
    of which involve children living with their mothers at the very
    least, if not their fathers as well) do not have problems which
    require putting children in protective custody.

    If you look at the particulars about these 80 families, how many
    live in abject poverty?  How many live in high crime areas?
    How many include families which have been subject to domestic
    violence by another family member (other than the mother or the
    children)?

    If you drop a feather on the floor and it snows the next day, you
    can't say that dropping the feather caused the snow storm.  You won't
    prevent snow storms by making sure that feathers never touch the 
    floor again.

    It isn't enough for one thing to precede another to build a good case
    that the first thing caused the second thing.

    .35
    
    Your question makes no sense.  You ask where are the men in single
    parent families.  The definition of a single parent family, headed by a
    female, assumes the male is not present.  It would seem that that is
    self-evident.
    
    You might ask why it is a single-parent situation, but that is not what
    you asked.  Also, from what I have seen, way too many divorces happen
    for very poor reasons.  Also, way too many children are born out of
    wedlock and have no possibility of having a father present.
    
    Instead of indicting man or fathers by innuendo, ask the relevant
    questions about how the situation arises as opposed to asking a biased
    question.
    

    > Instead of indicting man or fathers by innuendo, ask the relevant
    > questions about how the situation arises as opposed to asking a biased
    > question.

    In other words, it would be preferred if he would indict women or mothers,
    asking questions which demonstrate a bias against women.

    .39
    
    If I may be so bold as to speak for Fred, he merely pointed out that
    women are just as capable of being poor parents as men.  It is not
    gender specific as some would like to believe.
    
    If such is not the case, then I for one, would like to see a lot less
    bashing of males when both sexes are just as capable of the same
    behavior.  Unfortunately it is presently politically correct to condemn
    men without paying any attention to what the other sex is doing.
    

    
    Probably the most significant aspect of the conversation, as Al points
    out, is how, as soon as I point out just how many families need to be
    protected from violent _women_, I am immediately attacked as "gender
    biased".  While as long as the conversation is on violent _men_ there
    is no such concern.

    fred();

    
>    If you look at the particulars about these 80 families, how many
>    live in abject poverty?  How many live in high crime areas?
>    How many include families which have been subject to domestic
>    violence by another family member (other than the mother or the
>    children)?
    
    Again if there was any such concern over excusing the behavior or
    men......
    
    fred();

    Would you prefer to bash women as a 'pay back' for what you perceive
    as male-bashing?

    Would this be more politically correct for your tastes?

    Describing women as being the ones who need to have children protected
    from their violence is not a statement about how men *and* women can
    be violent against their children.  It's a statement about women.

    As for whether both sexes are equally capable of violence, the vast
    vast majority of violent crimes are committed by males in our species.
    Not ALL violent crimes, but the lion's share (and then some.)

    Or do you think that people just don't bother to report it when a woman
    robs a bank or assaults and robs people at knifepoint?  Do you think
    that prosecutors simply don't bother to go after women who randomly 
    murder people?

    Violence is a problem with our species in general, but the perpetration
    of violent behavior is not equally distributed between the sexes.

    It simply isn't.  It would be more politically correct for you if we
    could all say that men and women are equally prone to actual instances
    of violence - but it simply isn't true.

    Quite a few people also look at socio-economic issues which can 
    contribute to male violence.

    Actually, it's the whole 'who has kahoonas and who doesn't' (macho)
    mentality of our culture that contributes the MOST to the violent
    behavior of some men in our species, in my opinion.

    Some young men prove themselves with violence because they can risk 
    almost everything (including their lives) if they don't.

    But heaven help anyone who tries to point this out - the 'kahoonas'
    come out in full force to the perceived threat against kahoona-hood 
    (or whatever it is.)

    Am I making excuses for men?  Probably.  But I think the mentality
    is very real (and contributes the most to the problems we face with
    violent behavior in our culture.)

    Machismo is a problem, indeed.  It's not an excuse, nor does it
    necessarily indicate men are intrinsically more violent by nature then
    women.  There is little evidence to support that.  There is, however,
    sociological evidence to support a corelation between cultural
    acceptance of machismo (i.e. 'macho' archetypes) and violence. 
    Hispanic and African-American cultures have a long history of this
    social behavior, and a corespondingly elevated statistic of male
    violence, especially directed at women.  Conversely, in cultural
    settings lacking acceptances of the machismo archetype, violence tends
    to show less gender alignment.
    
    I forget where I ran into this information - it was a couple years ago,
    in a publication (magazine)...
    
    tim
    

    
    re. 44

>    But heaven help anyone who tries to point this out - the 'kahoonas'
>    come out in full force to the perceived threat against kahoona-hood 
>    (or whatever it is.)

    And there's a really BIG attitude among a _lot_ of women ( and men
    for that matter) that it's ok for a woman to be violent towards a
    man, but heaven help the man who even raises a hand to defend himself.
    or (as we have witnessed) anyone who dares even point out the fact
    that women can possibly even be violent at all.

    fred();

    Re. 32 by ACISS1::ROCUSH
    
    <For this reason I never bother to remember which group published
    what...>
    
    If you wish to lend any credibility to your argument it might be a good
    idea to be able to cite your information sources when making completely
    outrageous remarks and quoting unbelievable statistics.
    
    <As far as your information on domestic violence is concerned, once
        again it would be obvious that the reports would reflect you you
        listed.  the missing information is that men are much less likely
        to ever report domestic violence than women.  does that mean that the
        figures would reverse?  I would not expect it to, but the % would
        be higher.>  
    
    Of course the figure for male victims would be higher if more cases
    were reported *and so would the figure for female victims increase if more
    cases were reported.*  However, the fact remains that males are the
    main perpetrators of domestic violence.  
    
    <I only know of three divorces that I have
        personal information on the details.  In all three instances the
    action was initiated by the woman.>
    
    Okay, so how does that constitue 70% of all divorces being initiated by
    women?  Is this another outrageous and unsupported statistic? 
     
    Re. 33  ALFSS1::AVERY_BR
    
    <Re. 31
        
    I don't think those numbers tell the "whole" truth.
     --- How many men do you think are being abused by their "wives".?
    Probably more than you, I or the world will ever know.>
    
    And how many incidences of domestic violence towards women are not
    reported?  I don't think you have an argument here unless you can prove
    that the number of men who don't report these crimes is *substantially 
    higher* than the number of women who fail to report these crimes.
      
    Re. 36 by CSC32::HADDOCK
    
    <The point is that the dirty little secret of "domestic violence"
        is that women who are violent will as often as not take it out on
        the kids.>
                                           
    I don't suppose you can prove or substanitate this "dirty little
    secret?"  
    According to a study carried out by the Family Violence Prevention
    Fund, in a survey of 6,000 American families it was found that 50% of men 
    who beat their wives also assaulted their children.  I suppose you are now
    going to turn around and tell us that the figure for women is higher? 
     
    CHARLOTTE

    And how many incidences of domestic violence towards women are not
    reported?  I don't think you have an argument here unless you can prove
    that the number of men who don't report these crimes is *substantially 
    higher* than the number of women who fail to report these crimes.
      
I have no stats on this, but I do rather suspect that the proportion of men
who do not report such crimes _is_ higher than the proportion of women.

Simple question - given current attitudes, who is more likely to expect to be
ridiculed when making claims of violence perpetrated by a spouse - male or
female?

regards,
//alan

    Re. 48
    
    Alan,
    
    <I have no stats on this, but I do rather suspect that the proportion of
    men who do not report such crimes _is_ higher than the proportion of
    women.>
    
    It's highly probable, but what does that prove?  The fact remains that
    a large percentage of domestic violence against women is not reported. 
    If one had to take into account all the reported and *unreported*
    figures for both gender groups, the figure for female victims would
    still be higher.
    
    <Simple question - given current attitudes, who is more likely to expect
    to be ridiculed when making claims of violence perpetrated by a spouse - 
    male or female?>
    
    Responding directly to your question, I would say that men would
    probably be riduculed more.  However, being beaten by your partner is
    an incredibly humiliating experience, whatever your gender.
    
    CHARLOTTE

    
    
>    It's highly probable, but what does that prove?  The fact remains that
>    a large percentage of domestic violence against women is not reported. 
>    If one had to take into account all the reported and *unreported*
>    figures for both gender groups, the figure for female victims would
>    still be higher.
    
    Don't suppose you'd like to site _your_ sources on that, would you?
    
    fred();

    .47
    
    OK, I guess there have never been any reports or studies that made the
    claim that I stated.  single parent families are just as stable and
    successful as two parent families and the problems associated with them
    are figments of our collective imagination.
    
    Also, the rate for those divorces that I know the details on, the
    divorce was initiated 100% of the time by the woman.  this would seem
    to be greater than 70%.
    

    Re. 50
    
    Seeing as though you insist that the burden of proof is always on
    myself...
    
    According the US Department of Justice (1994), "Annually, compared to
    males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence
    by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced over 572,000
    violent victimizations committed by an intimate, compared to
    approximately 49,000 incidents committed against men."
    
    In 1978, the US state of Minnesota began an inquiry into whether men
    needed the same kinds of shelters and social service programs as
    battered women. Out of 966 reports of domestic violence (mandatory from
    all legal and medical agencies), 95% were husbands bashing wives
    (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1979). In 1981, the Minnesota
    Department of Corrections found that only 4% of 3900 reports were of
    women battering men.
    (Watkins, Carol R. 1982. Victims, Aggressors, and the Family Secret: an
    Exploration into Family Violence. St Paul, Minnesota Department of
    Public Welfare.) 
    
    Using police and court records for one year, Dobash and Dobash (1978)
    found that men and boys were responsible for 97.4% of all violence
    between family members.
    (Dobash, R. Emerson, and Russell P. Dobash. 1978. Wives: the
    'appropriate' victims of marital violence. Victimology 2(3/4): 426-42.)
     
    The Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce (1991) is
    unequivocal. "Studies overseas and in Australia consistently indicate
    that women constitute the large majority of victims in family violence.
    In Australia, all available data on family violence show that men are
    overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence in the home." For example,
    they note the results of phone-ins around Australia: women were 98.3%
    of victims in Queensland, 92.1% of victims in Western Australia, 94.4%
    of victims in Victoria, and 98% of victims in Canberra.
    
    In analysing nine years' worth of US National Crime Survey data, found
    that 67.2% of men and 56.8% of wives called the police after an assault
    by their spouse. 
    (Schwartz, Martin D. 1987. Gender and injury in spousal assault.
    Sociological Focus 20, 61-75)
    
    Rouse et al (1988) also found that men were more likely to call the police,
    (Rouse, Linda P., Richard Breen, and Marilyn Howell. 1988. Abuse in
    intimate relationships. A comparison of married and dating college
    students. Journal of interpersonal violence, 3, pp 414-419.)
    and Kincaid (1982) found that men were more likely to press charges and 
    less likely to drop them.
    (Kincaid, Pat J. 1982. The omitted reality: Husband-wife violence in
    Ontario and policy implications for education. Maple, Ontario,
    Learner's Press.)
    
    Now, CSC32::HADDOCK (and others), I challenge you to refute my
    argument and prove that men (and children) suffer more at the hands of 
    women.  However, I will no longer continue this discussion if all you can 
    offer is unsubstantiated, hysterical, paranoid and sexist speculation.
    We are all entitled to our opinion, but let's get the facts straight.
    
    Regards
    CHARLOTTE 

    > Seeing as though you insist that the burden of proof is always on
   >myself...

    Hey! You're the one that keeps demanding documetnation.  So don't 
    start pulling the victim-hood b.s. on me.

    I would also argue that those studies are flawed in that they only
    took into account _reported_ domestic violence.

    I guess my next comment is SO WHAT.  Domestic violence against men
    _is_ a problem.  Even if is is only, as your reports claims, a 5%
    problem, it is still a problem that needs to be addressed.  As you
    have pointed out, there have been many studies specifically aimed
    at women.  Yet every time we try to even discuss this issue of men, 
    it has to be trashed and ratholed by certain people.  There are many
    other places you can go vent your spleen about how nasty men are.
    As someone else (I believe a female) pointed out, this _is_
    MENNOTES after all.

    fred();

    >> I claim it is relevant to ask, where are the men? - before
    >> assigning all the blame to the women (as you did).
    >
    > About men getting all the blame for every act by male or female.  
    > If there is something bad going on then it must somewhere, somehow 
    > be the fault of a man.
    
    That isn't what I said.  I didn't say it *must* be the fault of the
    man.  I said it is relevant to ask where are the men before blaming
    the women.  If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
    
    DougO

    > Your question makes no sense.  You ask where are the men in single
    > parent families.  The definition of a single parent family, headed by a
    > female, assumes the male is not present.  It would seem that that is
    > self-evident.
    
    Score points for stating the obvious, Rocush, but none for missing the
    implications- ie, that the ABSENSE of the father CONTRIBUTES to the
    factors (stress, lack of money, taking care of job AND kids, etc) that
    may push a woman into violent behavior.  While such behavior isn't at
    all, ever, justifiable, it is reasonable to examine the causes.  Absent
    fathers are part of the problem.  Get it now?
    
    DougO

    > as soon as I point out just how many families need to be protected
    > from violent _women_, I am immediately attacked as "gender biased".
    
    No, I said you took a "cheap shot".  Try to quote accurately.
    
    DougO

    > And there's a really BIG attitude among a _lot_ of women ( and men
    > for that matter) that it's ok for a woman to be violent towards a
    > man, but heaven help the man who even raises a hand to defend himself.
    
    I for one have no problem stating, as I did a few notes back, that such
    violence is never justifiable.  No matter what the gender.
    
    > or (as we have witnessed) anyone who dares even point out the fact
    > that women can possibly even be violent at all.
    
    Here, you slip again.  I pointed out that accusing the women of single
    parent families of being solely responsible for the violence is a cheap
    shot because it doesn't account for the responsibilities ducked by the
    absent father.  That isn't for your observation that women can be violent, 
    it is for your ignoring the context.
    
    DougO

        re .57

>    Here, you slip again.  I pointed out that accusing the women of single
>    parent families of being solely responsible for the violence is a cheap
>    shot because it doesn't account for the responsibilities ducked by the
>    absent father.  That isn't for your observation that women can be violent, 
>    it is for your ignoring the context.

    Again attempting to make the man somehow responsible for the violence
    is not acceptable.  As you said, there is no excuse.  I never said
    that single-parent mothers were the problem.  I was pointing out
    the fact that,  for all the "pour little women" sentiment, there
    are large numbers of children being protected from _women_.

    Go back and re-read .25 and tell me where I said the problem was
    due to single-partent mothers.  Unless you, like so many others,
    take the attitude that the only way the child was taken into custody
    because of the mother could possibly be if there was no big-nasty-man 
    around to lay the blame on.

    fred();

    
    Furthermore, it seems that the there is a high number of cases of 
    children that are taken being taken from single-parent mothers is that
    the first option whenever there are problems in the family is to 
    give daddy the heave-ho, and because the woman couldn't possibly be
    the cause of the problem the children go to mommy.  It is only after
    the man is no longer part of the family to lay the blame on that 
    Social Services will take a serious look at Mommy Dearest.

    fred();

	I read this notes string quite a bit but as I don't like everyone to 
	know my business and I am somewhat embaressed by it (maybe it is a
	'male' thing) I will put my 2-cents worth in.  

	To DougO ... 
		You sound like a great Father (always there, non-absent, etc.)
		Great !  Congradulations.  You are the bigger man for it. Go
		pat yourself on the back - better yet, ask your X to pat you 
		on the back, she should be so lucky.  Hmmmmm, wonder why the
		marriage didn't last.  
		
	To Gin ... 
		Your statistics and facts are outstanding.  You should also 
		be proud and I can feel your power.  Great chest-thumping "I	
		have the facts !!!! They are indesputable !!!  You must
		believe !!!" 

	I beleived in marriage.  I beleived in forever.  I loved. I tried.
	I've lost what I had and I no longer beleive.  I was very depressed
	and very cynical about relationships.  It stems from my divorce 
	(initiated by my wife).  Is that abuse ?  My heart and soul is 
	scarred for life.  Is that abuse ?  How do I report it ?  How do I
	get that on your statistics.  Oh, it's not violent ?  It doesn't
	count.  Ok, how about the fact that she slept with a man (could have
	contracted a deadly disease) and then lied and came back to bed with
	me.  When I found out I threw up for days, lost 15 lbs in two weeks
	and was depressed.  Violent enough ?  How do I report that ?  
	Know what ?  I still went back for more.  In court, she accused me of
	abuse (mental abuse).  She said she was frightened by me.  

	What I see in here from the women who participate (and DougO) is that
	you do not recognize our collective pain and suffering. I still get 
	the feeling that WE (Men) did something wrong or WE (men) deserved 
	our fate .... just like all the men in the statistics.  Children and
	families deserve better.  That is what needs fixing.  That is the
	statistic that is most alarming and harmfull to society.  As for
	you & the other women's railing against the state of single-parent
	households - that they are a problem and that they are not working.
	How about a change.  I propose that we totally flip-flop the stats
	and we put the children in the Father's primary care and the Mom's	
	can be the Non-custodial parent and let's see what happens. Can't
	get any worse than what's happening now can it ?  I'd love for my
	X to come in at 5:00 PM after work, smile ask how things went, offer
	to help with some housework or paint or whatever, then go home to her
	boyfriend.  Basically that's the role she wanted my to play. Oh, but
	there's that little problem with $$$.

	CHaZ

    .60
    
    I don't know what to say. Don't give up on anything. If you have kids,
    they need to see that Daddy can have a good relationship and they can
    learn from you. I know it sounds tough, but I'm glad that my stepson
    sees that daddy has a stable relationship with one person. We may argue
    and we may disagree, but he always sees us hug and kiss and talk things
    out. He is learning from us, that when he gets older, he can have a
    solid stable relationship. Period. We need to help the children into
    the future, because if we don't, we create another generation of angry
    children with no coping skills or relationship skills.
    I feel for you. A friend of ours went through a similar thing..in his
    own home she was no less, with her children outside the door. When
    daddy came home, the guy was in the closet, literilly...this was a lot
    for him to deal with. He had a very difficult time with trust until he
    met his current wife. She changed his life.  Have a little faith, we're
    not all like that...
    
    :*)
      

    
    Chaz, not a put down,  more of a correction about "the women who 
    participate here".  We have seen many excellent and supportive notes
    here from women who have watched men, and secondarily been affected
    themselves, being reamed by the system.  And as I've said before,
    those women are some of our most ardent and credible supporters.
    
    fred();

    I rarely enter a note here. It seems to me that there are some people who 
    use this note to settle some past grievance and can never put their
    divorces behind them.
    
    But I do want to make one comment - during the 2 years of court
    appearances, facing one accusation after another, when I was really
    down the people who were there for me were all women. 
    
    Frankly there were a few time when I felt like I was taking on the world. 
    Trust me, or check if you will, the MA court system has a lot of catching 
    up to do on equality of justice. My ex was given a judicial loaded gun
    and didn't hesitate to use everything at her disposal. 
    
    But it was the women I know who kept me going. I eventually got joint 
    custody, the real type. It was worth it, but I would not recommend it.
    
    Martin
     
    
       
     
    
    

    > Go pat yourself on the back - better yet, ask your X to pat you 
    > on the back, she should be so lucky.  Hmmmmm, wonder why the 
    > marriage didn't last.
    
    ?
    
    I've never been married.  I have no X.  The son I'm raising is my
    girlfriend's son from her previous marriage.  Sorry if I've misled
    anyone.
    
    DougO

    
    Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to
    Violence in 8,145 Families ed. Murray Straus & Richard Gelles.
    Transaction Pub., New Brunswick, NJ, 1990. This study includes the
    following quote: 
    
    
    
    "I have never seen any data which broke down child abuse perpetrators
    by gender which did not show a significantly higher incidence of abuse
    by female caregivers. The only exceptions are when only sexual abuse is
    examined and not physical abuse. I do not believe that this is because
    women are evil or more violent than men. Women still do more than 50%
    of the childcare, which I think has a lot to do with the gender
    disparity. However, people who wish to argue that women are inherently
    non-violent have their work cut out for them..." 
    

    
    
    Husband Battering - By David Gross 
    
    A problem not taken seriously
    
    The first reaction upon hearing about the topic of battered men, for
    many people, is that of incredulity. Battered husbands are a topic for
    jokes (such as the cartoon image of a woman chasing her husband with a
    rolling-pin). One researcher noted that wives were the perpetrators in
    73% of the depictions of domestic violence in newspaper comics (Saenger
    1963). 
    
    Battered husbands have historically been either ignored or subjected to
    ridicule and abuse. In 18th-century France, a battered husband "was
    made to wear an outlandish outfit and ride backwards around the village
    on a donkey" (Steinmetz & Lucca 1988). 
    
    Even those of us who like to consider ourselves liberated and
    open-minded often have a difficult time even imagining that husband
    battering could take place. Although feminism has opened many of our
    eyes about the existance of domestic violence, and newspaper reports
    often include incidents of abuse of wives, the abuse of husbands is a
    rarely discussed phenomenon. 
    
    One reason researchers and others had not chosen to investigate husband
    battering is because it was thought to be a fairly rare occurrence.
    Police reports seemed to bear this out (Steinmetz 1977), with in some
    cases a ratio of 12 to 14.5 female victims to every one male victim. 
    
    But another reason is that because women were seen as weaker and more
    helpless than men due to sex roles, and men on the other hand were seen
    as more sturdy and self-reliant, the study of abused husbands seemed
    relatively unimportant. 
    
    Research begins to show the reality
    
    In 1974, a study was done which compared male and female domestic
    violence. In that study, it was found that 47% of husbands had used
    physical violence on their wives, and 33% of wives had used violence on
    their husbands (Gelles 1974). Half of the respondents in this study
    were selected from either cases of domestic violence reported to the
    police, or those identified by the social service agency. 
    
    Also in 1974, a study was released showing that the number of murders
    of women by men (17.5% of total homicides) was about the same as the
    number of murders of men by women (16.4% of total homicides). This
    study (Curtis 1974), however, showed that men were three times as
    likely to assault women as vice-versa. These statistics came from
    police records. 
    
    [The murder statistic was no big news, by the way. In 1958, an
    investigation of spousal homicide between 1948 and 1952 found that 7.8%
    of murder victims were husbands murdered by wives, and 8% were wives
    murdered by husbands (Wolfgang 1958). More recently, in a study of
    spousal homicide in the period from 1976 to 1985, it was found that
    there was an overall ratio of 1.3:1.0 of murdered wives to murdered
    husbands, and that "Black husbands were at greater risk of spouse
    homicide victimization than Black wives or White spouses of either sex"
    (Mercy & Saltzman 1989)] 
    
    The subject of husband-battering had finally been addressed, but not to
    the great satisfaction of anyone. Although it had finally been shown
    that there was violence being perpetrated both by wives and husbands,
    there was no information about relative frequency or severity, or who
    initiated the abuse and who was acting in self defense. Furthermore,
    some researchers became concerned that the use of police or social
    services references in choosing subjects to study might be biasing the
    results. In short, they recognized that battered husbands might be
    nearly invisible next to their female counterparts. 
    
    In 1976, for instance, in a critique of the Curtis report (which found
    women less likely to assault, but as likely to murder, as men), Wilt &
    Bannon wrote that "nonfatal violence committed by women against men is
    less likely to be reported to the police than is violence by men
    against women; thus, women assaulters who come to the attention of the
    police are likely to be those who have produced a fatal result." 
    
    Steinmetz uncovers some suprises
    
    In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz released results from several studies
    showing that the percentage of wives who have used physical violence is
    higher than the percentage of husbands, and that the wives' average
    violence score tended to be higher, although men were somewhat more
    likely to cause greater injury. She also found that women were as
    likely as men to initiate physical violence, and that they had similar
    motives for their violent acts (Steinmetz 1977-78). 
    
    Steinmetz concluded that "the most unreported crime is not wife beating
    -- it's husband beating" (Langley & Levy 1977). 
    
    In 1979, a telephone survey was conducted in which subjects were asked
    about their experiences of domestic violence (Nisonoff & Bitman 1979).
    15.5% of the men and 11.3% of the women reported having hit their
    spouse; 18.6% of the men and 12.7% of the women reported having been
    hit by their spouse. 
    
    In 1980, a team of researchers, including Steinmetz, attempted to
    address some concerns about the earlier surveys (Straus, Gelles &
    Steinmetz, 1980). They created a nationally representative study of
    family violence and found that the total violence scores seemed to be
    about even between husbands and wives, and that wives tended to be more
    abusive in almost all categories except pushing and shoving. 
    
    Strauss & Gelles did a followup survey in 1985, comparing their data to
    a 1975 survey (Strauss & Gelles 1986). They found that in that decade,
    domestic violence against women dropped from 12.1% of women to 11.3%
    while domestic violence against men rose from 11.6% to 12.1%. The rate
    of severely violent incidents dropped for both groups: From 3.8% to
    3.0% of women victimized and from 4.6% to 4.4% for men. 
    
    In 1986, a report appeared in Social Work, the journal of the National
    Association of Social Workers (Nov./Dec. 1986) on violence in
    adolescent dating relationships, in which it was found that girls were
    violent more frequently than boys. 
    
    Another report on premarital violence (O'Leary, et al) found that 34%
    of the males and 40% of the females reported engaging in some form of
    physical aggression against their mates in a year. 17% of women and 7%
    of men reported engaging in severe physical aggression. 35% of the men
    and 30% of the women reported having been abused. 
    
    Also in 1986, Marriage and Divorce Today, a newsletter for family
    therapy practitioners, reported on a study done by Pillemer and
    Finkelhor of the Family Violence Research Laboratory of the University
    of New Hampshire. The study, based on interviews of over 2000 elderly
    persons in the Boston metropolitan area, found that 3.2% of the elderly
    had been abused. 52% of the abuse victims were men. 
    
    Women's violence is hard to believe
    
    The idea of women being violent is a hard thing for many people to
    believe. It goes against the stereotype of the passive and helpless
    female. This, in spite of the fact that women are known to be more
    likely than men to commit child abuse and child murder (Daly & Wilson
    1988 report 54% of parent-child murders where the child is under 17
    were committed by the mother in Canada between 1974 and 1983, for
    instance. The Statistical Abstract of the United States 1987 reports
    that of reported child maltreatment cases between 1980 and 1984 between
    57.0% and 61.4% of these were perpetrated by the mother. Nagi 1977
    found 53.1% of perpetrators were female, 21% male and 22.6% both. Note
    that because mothers tend to have more access to children than do
    fathers that these results should not be interpreted to mean that were
    things equal, women would still commit more abuse). 
    
    In addition, a study in a doctoral dissertation by psychologist
    Vallerie Coleman of 90 lesbian couples, showed that 46% had experienced
    repeated violent incidents (Garcia, 1991). 
    
    Results like these are greeted with great suspicion by those who see
    domestic violence as a political issue to be exploited rather than a
    social problem to be solved. 
    
    Studies of women who murder
    
    Coramae Mann, a criminologist at Indiana University, studied the case
    records of all murders committed by women between 1979 and 1983 in six
    major U.S. cities. Her findings contradicted commonly-held ideas about
    women who murder, and she was criticized by some people for this. 
    
    "They would raise the question, 'Well you have these poor battered
    women.' I said these weren't poor battered women. Many already had
    violent criminal records. They weren't weak or dependent. They were
    angry." 
    
    Strauss & Gelles commented in their 1986 report that "violence by wives
    has not been an object of public concern... In fact, our 1975 study was
    criticized for presenting statistics on violence by wives." 
    
    Yet domestic violence is an issue framed in the media and in the
    political arena as one of male perpetrators and female victims.
    Violence in gay and lesbian relationships is rarely discussed, and
    violence against men in heterosexual relationships less so. 
    
    Battered men wonder where to turn
    
    When it is addressed, there is a response. When I became the caretaker
    of a memorial fund for a male victim of domestic violence, I
    unexpectedly took on the role of counselor for men calling from all
    over the country to talk to me at length about their or their father's
    victimization. When the subject of battered husbands was raised on
    British television and the London Times did an article on the subject,
    hundreds of calls came in from male victims to a special helpline set
    up by a Women's Aid group (Rooke 1991). 
    
    The terms "wife beating" and "battered women" have become political
    expressions, rather than descriptions of reality. And because the issue
    of domestic violence has been substantially taken out of the arena of
    serious sociological study, and thrust into the political arena, the
    definitions of spousal abuse, and the proposed remedies to spousal
    abuse, will be political ones -- not necessarily ones which reflect the
    reality of the existing problems. 
    
    In a book on domestic violence, Roger Langley and Richard C. Levy
    conclude a chapter on battered husbands by saying, "Husband abuse
    should not be viewed as merely the opposite side of the coin to wife
    abuse. Both are part of the same problem, which should be described as
    one person abusing another person. The problem must be faced and dealt
    with not in terms of sex but in terms of humanity" (Langley & Levy
    1977, p. 208). Ironically the book in which this quote appears is
    entitled "Wife Beating: The Silent Crisis." 
    
    Laws favor female victims
    
    Legislation about domestic violence is always orientated toward the
    female victim. For instance, in 1991, Senator Joseph Biden again
    introduced the "Violence Against Women Act" which at this writing has
    passed the senate Judiciary Committee. It has a section called "Safe
    homes for Women" which specifically allocates funds to "women's"
    shelters (Biden 1991, also see Boxer 1990). 
    
    Also note actions like that of Ohio governor Richard F. Celeste who
    granted clemency to 25 women who were in prison for murdering their
    husbands. The reason he gave for this was the "Battered Woman Syndrome"
    which, obviously, no man can claim as his defense (Wilkerson 1990).
    There is very little concern shown either for the idea of making
    spousal abuse a capital crime with the victim as extra-judicial
    executioner, nor for the idea that perhaps some of the men who murder
    their spouses might be suffering from an analogous "Battered Man
    Syndrome." 
    
    A frightening case from Ohio
    
    There is only one case I am aware of in which a man was able to use a
    similar defense. Warren Farrell writes about it in his book Why Men Are
    the Way They Are (Farrell 1986, p. 231): 
    
    Betty King had beaten, slashed, stabbed, thrown dry acid on, and shot
    her husband. Eddie King had not sought prosecution when she slashed his
    face with a carpet knife, nor when she left him in a parking lot with a
    blade in his back. Neither of these incidents even made the police
    records as statistics. She was only arrested twice -- when she stabbed
    him so severely in the back and so publicly (in a bar) that the
    incidents had to be reported. 
    
    All these stabbings, shootings, and acid-throwings happened during a
    four-year marriage. During a subsequent shouting match on the porch of
    a friend's house, Betty King once again reached into her purse. This
    time Eddie King shot her. When an investigation led to a verdict of
    self-defense, there was an outcry of opposition from feminists and the
    media. 
    
    Farrell compares this case, in which "a two-second delay could have
    meant his death," to that of the celebrated case made into the
    television movie The Burning Bed in which the protagonist murdered her
    husband while he slept. 
    
    A serious problem
    
    In conclusion, I think that the available data show that husband
    battering is a serious problem, comparable to the problem of wife
    battering. Even if the statistics collected in the last several years
    are completely wrong and only one in 14 victims of spousal abuse are
    men, these are men who are hurting and need services that are currently
    not available. 
    
    There is such a strong stigma against being a battered man, carried
    over from mideval times when the battered man was considered the guilty
    party, that special attention should be paid to reaching out to these
    victims. Simply opening up "Women's Shelters" to men is not enough. 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    References
    
    Biden, Joseph "Violence Against Women Act of 1990" (S. 15) 1991. 
    
    Boxer, Barbara "A Bill to combat violence and crimes against women on
    the streets and in homes" (H.R. 5468) 101st Congress, 2nd Session,
    August 3, 1990 
    
    Curtis, L.A. Criminal violence: National patterns and behavior
    Lexington Books, Lexington MA, 1974 
    
    Daly, M. & Wilson, M. "Parent-Offspring Homicides in Canada, 1974-1983"
    Science v. 242, pp. 519-524, 1988 
    
    Farrell, Warren Why Men Are the Way They Are McGraw-Hill, New York,
    1986, p. 231 
    
    Garcia, Jane "The Cost of Escaping Domestic Violence" Los Angeles Times
    May 6, 1991 
    
    Gelles, R.J. The violent home: A study of physical aggression between
    husbands and wives Sage, Beverly Hills CA, 1974 
    
    Langley, Roger & Levy, Richard C. Wife Beating: The Silent Crisis
    Pocket Books, New York 1977 
    
    Marriage and Divorce Today "First Large-Scale Study Reveals Elder Abuse
    is Primarily by Wives Against Husbands" December 15, 1986 
    
    Mercy, J.A. & Saltzman, L.E. "Fatal violence among spouses in the
    United States, 1976-85" American Journal of Public Health 79(5): 595-9
    May 1989 
    
    Nagi, Saad Child Maltreatment in the United States Columbia University
    Press, New York, p. 47, 1977 
    
    Nisonoff, L. & Bitman, I "Spouse Abuse: Incidence and Relationship to
    Selected Demographic Variables" Victimology 4, 1979, pp. 131-140 
    
    O'Leary, K. Daniel; Arias, Ilena; Rosenbaum, Alan & Barling, Julian
    "Premarital Physical Aggression" State University of New York at Stony
    Brook & Syracuse University 
    
    Rooke, Margaret "Violence in the Home" RadioTimes 16-22 March 1991 p.
    8. 
    
    Saenger, G. "Male and female relation in the American comic strips" in
    The funnies: An American idiom M. White & R.H. Abel editors, The Free
    Press, Glencoe IL, 1963, p. 219-223 
    
    Sexuality Today Newsletter "Violence in Adolescent Dating Relationships
    Common, New Survey Reveals" December 22, 1986 (reporting on a report in
    Social Work contact Karen Brockopp) pp 2-3. 
    
    Statistical Abstract of the United States 1987 table 277 
    
    Steinmetz, Suzanne K. The cycle of violence: Assertive, aggressive and
    abusive family interaction Praeger Press, New York, 1977 
    
    Steinmetz, Suzanne K. "The Battered Husband Syndrome" Victimology 2,
    1977-1978, p. 499 Steinmetz, Suzanne K. and Lucca, Joseph S. "Husband
    Battering" in Handbook of Family Violence Van Hasselt, Vincent B. et
    al. editors, Plenum Press, New York 1988, p. 233-246 
    
    Strauss, M.A., Gelles, R.J., and Steinmetz, S.K. Behind closed doors:
    Violence in American families Doubleday, New York, 1980 
    
    Strauss, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. "Societal change and change in family
    violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys" Journal
    of Marriage and the Family 48, po. 465-479, 1986 
    
    Wilkerson, Isabel "Clemency Granted to 25 Women Convicted for Assault
    or Murder" New York Times December 21, 1990 
    
    Wilt, G.M. & Bannon, J.D. Violence and the police: Homicides, assaults
    and disturbances The Police Foundation, Washington DC, 1976 
    
    Wolfgang, M. Patterns in Criminal Homicide Wiley, New York, 1958 
    

    The Washington Times, 
    Jan 31, 1994
    Section A, Joyce Price 
    
    Murray A. Straus, a sociologist and co-director for the Family Research
    Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, blames "women in the
    battered [women's] shelter movement" for denying that women physically
    abuse husbands, ex-husbands and boyfriends, or playing down such abuse. 
    
    "There's this fiction in the shelter movement that in all cases, it's
    him, not her" who's responsible for domestic assaults, Mr. Straus said
    in a recent interview. 
    
    Mr. Straus said at least 30 studies of domestic violence - including
    some he's conducted - have shown both sexes to be equally culpable. But
    he said some of the research, such as a recent Canadian national
    survey, "left out data on women abusing men ... because it's
    politically embarrassing." 
    
    Women and men "are almost identical" in terms of the frequency of
    attacks such as slapping, shoving, and kicking, Mr. Straus said. 
    
    Using information on married couples obtained from 2.994 women in the
    1985 National Family Violence Survey, Mr. Straus said he found a rate
    for assaults by wives of 124 per 1,000 couples, compared with 122 per
    1,000 for assaults by husbands. 
    
    The rate of minor assaults by wives was 78 per 1,000 couples, and the
    rate of minor assaults by husbands was 72 per 1,000, he said. For the
    category of severe assaults, he said, the rate was 46 per 1,000 couples
    for assaults by wives and 50 per 1,000 for assaults by husbands. 
    
    "Neither difference is statistically different," Mr. Straus wrote in
    the journal Issues in Definition and Measurement. "As these rates are
    based exclusively on information provided by women respondents, the
    near equality in assault rates cannot be attributed to a gender bias in
    reporting." 
    

    Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 17:40:12 -0400
    From: Men's Health Network ([email protected])
    Subject: Domestic Violence 
    
    The Men's Health Network on "Domestic Violence Awareness Month"
    
    To: Those concerned about Domestic Violence 
    
    October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month so a discussion about the
    problem would seem to be appropriate. 
    
    We were cosponsors of the American Medical Association - Bureau of
    Justice National Conference on Domestic Violence held in March of this
    year. Our goal was to help those attending understand the dual nature
    of domestic violence. Domestic violence is a confusing and disturbing
    phenomena, perhaps rooted in the frustrations and disappointments of a
    hectic society, but it is not gender specific as some would have us
    believe. In what has been called a "dance of mutual destruction",
    mainstream research indicates that men and women abuse each other with
    almost equal frequency. 
    
    For instance, the statistic that "one woman is battered every 15
    seconds" (1.8 million per year) is based on research which also
    indicated that women abuse men at a rate of 2 million per year - "one
    man battered every 14 seconds." The same study also found that 54% of
    all violence termed "severe" was committed by women, not men. Other
    studies, also in the nonclinical population, reach similar conclusions.
    Of course, those of the clinical population reach somewhat different
    conclusions. 
    
    We cannot hope to solve this cycle of violence until we are prepared to
    admit that women can be as violent as men. Failing to admit the
    violence perpetrated by women prevents us from developing programs to
    treat women's violence. A violent woman is more likely to be an abused
    woman when her partner responds in kind. She is also more likely to
    abuse her children. At that March conference, Surgeon General Elders
    spoke of the battered wife who then batters her children, continuing
    the cycle of violence. 
    
    Since society does not define violence by women as a problem, official
    police data reflects a much more frequent response to abuse by men than
    abuse by women -- 90% +/- of the calls to police departments are made
    by women. Men simply do not call for assistance, they know that their
    pleas will be ignored. 
    
    For an excellent analysis of the research in the nonclinical
    population, including women's violence against other women, we suggest
    you read Spouse abuse A two-way street by Warren Farrell, Ph.D. as
    printed in USA Today on June 29, 1994. 
    
    If you wish our reports on domestic violence, and our short package
    developed for Domestic Violence Awareness Month (October) which
    includes the Farrell piece, please leave us your mailing address -- and
    consider joining with us to end the vicious cycle of domestic violence
    and child abuse. 
    
     
    Men's Health Network
    P. O. Box 770
    Washington, D.C. 20044
    202-543-MHN-1 (6461)
    

    BACKLASH AND THE FACT OF BATTERED HUSBANDS by James
    Sniechowski, Ph.D. and Judith Sherven, Ph.D.
    
    
    
    One way to trivialize and dismiss a point of view is to claim it is
    part of a backlash. That is the contemptuous and derogatory
    characterization often applied when the topic of men's issues arises.
    Domestic violence is a case in point. 
    
    The image of a battered wife is firmly established in the national
    consciousness. In the aftermath of the Nicole Simpson murder (we've
    nearly forgotten about Ron Goldman), the national media almost
    exclusively portrayed the male as the brutal, overpowering,
    must-be-stopped perpetrator of domestic violence and the female as the
    helpless, innocent victim, deserving our collective sympathies. That
    situation may be accurate in some instances and should not be
    tolerated. However, to consider the possibility of a battered husband
    is so far from our national image of men as to be laughable.
    Nevertheless, many studies have been done that demonstrate the reality
    of the husband who has been assaulted and seriously injured by his wife
    or girlfriend. 
    
    In a recent opinion piece, Sara Engram, editorial-page director of the
    Baltimore Evening Sun, took another view. She admitted that "many women
    resort to violence rather than walking away from an argument."
    Nevertheless, she contended, we should focus on the injuries to women,
    inflicted by men, rather than on the women's participation in the
    violence. A reasonable position, at first glance, but one that is
    ultimately myopic. 
    
    According to domestic-violence researcher, Murray Straus, whom Ms.
    Engram quotes, "a man's assault on a woman is far more likely to cause
    serious injury." True. But two points need to be made. "Far more
    likely" is not a measure that discounts the damage a woman can cause
    and cannot be used to deny the effect of women's assaults against men.
    But when reference to battered males is classified as backlash, the
    issue is relegated to the status of an aggravating diversion and the
    real injury done to men becomes irrelevant. 
    
    Like many who ideologically defend a position, Ms. Engram is
    disingenuous. She relies on Murray Straus to support her view, but does
    not report that it was Straus' 1986 study that found that "women are
    about as violent within the family as men." Furthermore, Straus wrote
    that "Violence by wives has not been an object of public concern. It
    has not been defined as a problem." In fact, researchers, Straus
    included, have been criticized and threatened for presenting
    statistical evidence of violence by women against men. "Good public
    policy," writes Ms. Engram, "has to take into account the results of
    violence, not just the fact that it occurs." True again. But what about
    causes? 
    
    It is not uncommon for a woman to enter and re-enter relationships with
    the same kind of man. When things turn sour she wonders "aren't there
    any good men out there?' She naively believes that relationship
    dynamics are a one-way street. They are not. Men and women, consciously
    and unconsciously, design together the relationship arrangements that
    house their lives. In varying degrees over time, both are responsible
    and accountable for what happens. A focus on laws and police policies
    will not change a battered woman's character. If she assumes no
    responsibility for her involvement in the violence, she will remain
    blind to her collusion and the likelihood of her developing a healthy
    relationship is next to naught. The same is true of men. 
    
    Current mythology holds that battered women go in whole and come out in
    pieces. Engram naively imagines that `intimacy transmutes onto
    obsession" and that "reserves of virtues like patience, forbearance and
    forgiveness often run out." In violent relationships intimacy and
    reserves of constructive care are absent from the beginning. Such
    relationships are created by infantile, wishful, desperate women and
    men who have neither experience with nor capacity for real intimacy and
    respect of differences. 
    
    The not-so-innocent/men-as-guilty point of view ironically disempowers
    women keeping them in the very jeopardy they so vehemently decry.
    Furthermore it demonizes men, unconsciously encouraging the very
    behavior it seeks to eliminate. 
    
    As long as "blaming the victim" is deemed to be politically incorrect,
    we, as a culture, can never address, either preventatively or
    correctively, the characterological lack of worth that allows abused
    women and men to be attracted and remain addicted to their violent
    lovers. 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Husband and wife team, Judith Sherven, Ph.D. and James Sniechowski,
    Ph.D., are national spokespersons for genders issues as well as
    corporate consultants on the changing gender culture in the workplace.
    Judith is writing a book on women and victimization while James is
    writing on the metaphysics of the masculine image. Their offices are in
    West Los Angeles. 
    
    From the AFC research library. 
    
    
    Stuart A. Miller - Senior Legislative Analyst
    American Fathers Coalition
    2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Ste. 148
    Washington, D.C.  20006
    

    Finally, there's lots of information to indicate that the majority of
    domestic violence against children is perpetrated by women, primarily
    because women tend to be the prinicipal caregivers, as opposed to being
    intrinsically more or less violent than men.
    
    Seeing this information, now, can we dispense with the notion that men
    are somehow inherently more (or less) violent than women, or must we
    persist in the sexist myth that men are more violent toward women
    than vice versa?
    
    Equal is equal, in every sense.
    
    tim
    

    .70
    
    Very interesting series of entries.  I was somewhat surprised by some
    of the data as i did not expect to see such a near identical statistic. 
    I understood that a lot of the abuse against men was not reported, or
    underreported, but not to such a degree.
    
    As can be seen by some of the entries here, the issue is just dismissed
    and particularly riducled by women.
    
    I would be interested in seeing if there is any relationship between
    the assaults or abuse by men that is a direct result of ignored
    violence by women.
    
    As with so many issues today, unless you are on the politically correct
    side of an issue, you can be ignored with impunity.
    
    Thanks for the information.
    

    RE: .70  Tim Grady

    > Finally, there's lots of information to indicate that the majority of
    > domestic violence against children is perpetrated by women, primarily
    > because women tend to be the prinicipal caregivers, as opposed to
    > being intrinsically more or less violent than men.

    Do you understand what this means?  It means that the higher incidence
    (if true) only points to the significantly higher incidence of women
    than men being principal caregivers.  It doesn't disprove the notion
    that men exhibit more violence on the average per person (by far) than 
    women do.

    > Seeing this information, now, can we dispense with the notion that men
    > are somehow inherently more (or less) violent than women, or must we
    > persist in the sexist myth that men are more violent toward women
    > than vice versa?

    Nothing you've offered proves that women are as violent as men (on
    average per person).

    The vast majority of all violent crimes are committed by males, unless
    you believe the sexist myth that women simply aren't prosecuted for
    crimes like robbery, assault and murder.

    As for the instance of wife and husband battering being essentially
    identical, we talked about this 'finding' right here (in Mennotes)
    around 10 years ago.

    It turned out that they included 'arguing' (saying hurtful things
    and being angry) in 'battering', not just outright hitting and
    injuring someone.

    Sure, simple arguing in marriages does tend to be very shared between
    husbands and wives.

    Tim's own article agrees that women are injured more seriously when
    violence occurs.  It makes it sound like women have glass jaws or
    something, while men are hit as hard but do not break as easily.

    It's bunk.  The so-called 'equal' levels of violence occur in verbal
    exchanges, not physical assaults.  All the statistics about violent
    crimes in general in our society point to the fact that the vast,
    vast majority of violent criminal behavior is exhibited by males.

    Saying that women do an equal amount requires a tremendous leap of
    faith (worse than asking someone to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.)

    By the way, the articles you posted appear to be opinion pieces,
    Tim.

    Charlotte posted statistics which came directly from certifiable
    studies (whose methods have been documented.)

    Taking a small subset of behavior which could be termed as 'violent'
    and stating that women do violent behaviors more than men is somewhat
    disingenuous of the opinion piece writer.

    As mentioned, we debunked all this at least 10 years ago.

    .73
    
    It appears that you have chosen to ignore most of what was sritten in
    the entries identifying violence.  You can choose to ignore the
    information, but that doesn't change it, but does make it typical.
    
    If you want to make the assumption that the referenced reports treated
    arguing the same as physical assualt, feel free to do so.  However, in
    order to be fair, then you should also ignore any "battering" that does
    not lead to injury.  Or do want to include a push or a shove as
    "battering" even though no injury occurred because it supports your
    agenda.
    
    Also, as far as men "abusing" children, does the sentence, "Just wait
    until your father gets home." ring any bells?  Please factor this state
    of affairs into your calculations, or does this again introduce a
    factor you would rather ignore.
    

    .74
    
    You may have attempted to debunk them, doesn't mean they were debunked.
    
    Also, it seems as if a lot of certifiable information was included in
    the information.  You may have missed it or ignored it, but it was
    there.
    

    Rocush, you weren't around when these things were debunked 10 years ago.

    We could go through the same process all over again now, but you guys
    would just claim that you were being assaulted in the process of trying
    to discuss it.

    Just keep in mind that these opinion pieces aren't going to attain
    credibility on a national level in this country because they don't
    hold up to scrutiny at all.

|    Do you understand what this means?  It means that the higher incidence
|    (if true) only points to the significantly higher incidence of women
|    than men being principal caregivers.  It doesn't disprove the notion
|    that men exhibit more violence on the average per person (by far) than 
|    women do.
    
    Interesting.  Notions, like accusations, should be proven by their
    proponents, and need not be disproven per se.  Innocent  until proven
    guilty should be the guidleline, not the other way around.  There's no
    need to disprove an obviously sexist supposition as to gender-based
    tendencies toward violence.  These reports simply provide strong
    evidence to the contrary.
    
    All the articles posted are from less than the past ten years.  All are
    based upon U.S. Government statistics, not just opinions.  Times
    change.  For example, not too long ago cocaine was commonly known to be
    non-addictive.  Men were commonly believed to be inherently more
    violent.  Neither is true.
    
    I'm surprised that you would not support the notion that men and women
    are equals in every sense.  Isn't there a word for that?
    
    I'm not sure if you noticed, but in digging up these recent reports I
    found that although in domestic violence cases, women were more likely
    to report, and more likely to be seriously injured, in reported cases
    of male victims, the women were more likely to kill them.
    
    We can do anything with statistics.  I'm merely suggesting that, as I
    have always proposed, men and women are equal in their potential,
    including their potential for violence.  These reports tend to support
    that.
    
    Finally, another qualified report showed that the further the source of
    a statistical report was removed from idealogical sources, the more
    accurate the statistics tended to be.  Big surprise.
    
    tim
    

    .77
    
    I seem to think that a lot of these pieces were written within the last
    10 years.  so much for debunking them 10 years ago.
    
    Also, please indicate which of the referenced pieces of information
    were "opinion pieces" as opposed to reports and studies.
    
    Your bias is showing quite clearly on this.  Also, the only thing that
    will keep this information from attaining general acceptance is a blind
    adherence to a personal and politiacal agenda that ignores any
    information that raises a question about your position.
    
    How sad. :(
    

    One of the opinion pieces stated, "it was Straus' 1986 study that 
    found that 'women are about as violent within the family as men.'" 

    This is the study which was debunked here 10 years ago.  It was 
    discovered that small subsets of the 'violent behaviors' were
    singled out as having equal numbers of men and women (or MORE
    women than men engaging in such behaviors), which generated the
    faulty conclusion that women are more violent than men in the
    home (and in general.)

    Go to the FBI's home page and see their statistics about violent
    crime (and the content of the prison population of the United States.)

    The vast majority of violent criminal behavior are committed by men.
    It will take more than an opinion piece to change perceptions about
    this.  Far more.

    The opinion pieces you posted do not prove the notion that men and
    women have equal tendencies for violent behavior.  If women were as
    violent as men, 50% of the bank robberies, assaults and random 
    murders would be committed by women.  They aren't.  Nowhere close.

    No one is saying that women are 100% non-violent.  The vast majority
    of violence is (in point of fact) committed by males, however.

    This has not been disproved in any way, shape or form.

    All of the articles Tim posted were opinion pieces.

    They referred to other opinion pieces or contained partial descriptions
    of studies, but none of them contained simple factual (direct) evidence
    about any of their conclusions.

    .81
    
    I would suggest you go back and re-read the information posted.  Most
    of the information referred to studies, not opinions and did give
    specific details.
    
    Also, the subject matter was in terms of domestic abuse, not overall
    criminal behavior.  The issue is that male battering is not completely
    reported or ignored.  It has nothing to do with total criminal
    behavior.
    
    Also, if you want to go down the path about who is and who is not in
    prison you will be opening upa can of racist worms that I don't think
    you really want to do.  Also, I have seen a lot of notes posted aobut
    the causes of crime and they can lead to some rather interesting
    statistics.  As an example, the majority of crimes are drug related and
    the majority of drug users are men.  This woud tend to lead one to
    believe the majority of crimes would be commited by men.
    
    There is a lot of other information that can be provided, but you
    really need an open mind to look at it.  You have not shown that
    willingness so far.
    
    Please feel free to maintain whatever biases and pedjudices you might
    like, just don't expect others to go along with your narrow political
    agenda.
    

    The articles *THEMSELVES* were opinion pieces.  

    They made vague references to a few things outside the articles, but
    they drew unsupported conclusions as their own opinions.

    > As an example, the majority of crimes are drug related and
    > the majority of drug users are men.  This woud tend to lead one to
    > believe the majority of crimes would be commited by men.

    The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men. Do you have
    any data which proves or suggests otherwise (with actual facts, and
    not vague interpretations of studies which have not been included in
    the particular opinion pieces?)

    As for the societal dynamics which influence violent behavior, I agreed
    last week that some aspects of our culture drive young men to violence.

    However, nothing has been provided which proves (in any way, shape or
    form) that women and men have the same tendencies toward violence.

    Opinion pieces are simply not enough.

    .83
    
    You can continue to claim "opinion pieces" all you want, but it doesn't
    make it so.  the articles referenced studies and summarized the
    information in them.  If this makes it an opinion piece, then any
    writing that referes to information not personally obtained by the
    writer is an opinion piece.
    
    I don't think that most rational not logical people will accept this
    definition.
    

    Rocush, the opinion pieces which Tim posted in this topic make very
    vague references to actual studies, while they use 'political language'
    (such as claiming that the opposing OPINION holds that their OPINION
    is 'politically incorrect') to drive their points home.

    It's possible to collect information in an objective article which
    presents both sides fairly, but the articles posted by Tim don't
    do this.

    They are opinion pieces which contain unsupported conclusions in
    biased political terms.

    Anyone can write stuff like this.  It's all well and good to do this,
    but you can't use it as an argument to the 'opposing side' (i.e., those
    who do not happen to share the OPINIONS cited.)

    It may interest you to know that I read op-ed pieces from the opposing
    sides of my viewpoints ALL THE TIME.

    Not a one of them has ever convinced me of their particular spin on
    the truth.

    I read them to see what B.S. they're trying to push these days.  :>
    These op-ed pieces are never convincing to me.

    I'm happy to note that the op-ed pieces which agree with my opinions
    have been far more successful in the past few decades.  :>

    .85 & .86
    
    Wrong again.  They reference studies not opinions about studies.
    
    I also read liberal op-ed pieces, like Molly Ivins, just to see how
    silly she can be.  They do not influence me other than to help me
    understand that I truly am correct in y views.
    

    The articles themselves are OPINION pieces (at least one of which
    references another OPINION piece) with vague references to some
    studies.

    They make unsupported conclusions which are really nothing more
    than their OPINIONS about issues.

    If you look at the loaded political language included in the articles,
    it's very easy to see that they are voicing OPINIONS.

    You can take their OPINIONS on faith if you choose, but please don't
    pass them off as arguments that must be taken at face value.  

    The vague references to the studies do not make these articles STUDIES
    themselves.

    As for other op-ed pieces, you're certainly free to dismiss them
    as handily as I dismiss op-ed pieces like the ones Tim posted here.

    What I find most heartening is that the op-ed pieces which express
    my views have made wonderful in-roads into our society in the past
    few decades.  Obviously, they do make sense to quite a few people.

    I haven't read all the responses to this note yet, just 52 of them. But
    I will agree (concede) to the point that physical violence is more
    often initiated by males. This I say because of statistics I have seen
    and my personal observations.
    
    BUT...there are other forms of violence and abuse aside from physical
    abuse. Such as emotional abuse. And it is my observation, and opinion,
    that women are *much* more likely to perpetrate this type of violence
    than men are.
    
    Women strike out against men with emotional and verbal violence. Men,
    in retaliation, strike out physically.
    
    We have been taught that it is OK to say what you want, but you must
    *never* retaliate physically.
    
    We have *not* been taught that people suffer just as much from verbal
    or emotinonal abuse than they do from physical abuse. This is patently
    untrue; emotional and verbal abuse are the cause of many psychological
    and physical ailments, as well as being the core reason why people turn
    to physical means to express their anger and frustration.
    
    But of course, there is no remedy for this. Only penalties for when a
    man strikes back physically. We are told that we can just 'walk away'
    from emotional and verbal abuse. This is not true, and until women are
    held as accountable for their other types of abuse, the problems will
    never be solved.
    
    All types of abuse are unacceptable, however.
    
    -john
    
    

    RE: .90  

    > Women strike out against men with emotional and verbal violence.
    > Men, in retaliation, strike out physically.

    Do you honestly believe that men don't hit women unless they've been
    'abused' emotionally or verbally?

    The studies on domestic violence do not support this perception at all.

    In most cases, persistent domestic abusers are set off by nothing special
    (or by things that don't constitute abuse, such as in the OJ case where 
    Nicole wrote about OJ beating her because he felt that she didn't pick
    up her dirty clothes well enough.)

    Women who are consistently beaten by their spouses WALK ON EGGS around
    them (it's part of the pattern of abuse.)  After all the experiences of
    being clobbered by their spouses, most targets of domestic violence try
    hard not to bother their abusers (hoping to stay in the part of the
    cycle where the abuser is affectionate and non-violent.)

    > We have *not* been taught that people suffer just as much from verbal
    > or emotional abuse than they do from physical abuse. This is patently
    > untrue; emotional and verbal abuse are the cause of many psychological
    > and physical ailments, as well as being the core reason why people turn
    > to physical means to express their anger and frustration.

    Keep in mind that physical abusers are MOST OFTEN also emotional and
    verbal abusers.

    It's not true that physical abusers do nothing violent until they
    clobber their spouses out of frustration.

    > But of course, there is no remedy for this. Only penalties for when a
    > man strikes back physically. We are told that we can just 'walk away'
    > from emotional and verbal abuse. This is not true, and until women
    > are held as accountable for their other types of abuse, the problems
    > will never be solved.
        
    It's easy to believe that women are to blame for being hit and killed,
    and that it will stop when women stop abusing men.

    This notion has no basis at all in fact, though.

    > All types of abuse are unacceptable, however.

    But you don't blame men for being torqued enough to clobber women, 
    it seems.  You seem to believe that the women abuse first, and 
    bring it on themselves.

    This notion has no basis in fact, either.

    No Susan, I'm not saying that men only strike out physically when they
    have been 'abused' emotionally or verbally.
    
    The single quotes are yours, BTW, which shows me that you do not
    believe that emotional or verbal abuse are valid forms of abuse.
    
    What I said, if you will re-read my note, is that women are more prone
    to attack men emotionally and verbally. And that these forms of abuse
    are no less harmful than physical abuse, which BTW, men are more likely
    to commit FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
    
    Do you disagree that emotional and verbal abuse are as insiduous and
    long lasting in their long-term effect on the individual, as physical
    abuse is?
    
    Once again, I state that *all* types of abuse are unacceptable. I only
    want to make sure that you understand that there are more than one type
    of abuse.
    
    -john

    Also, Susan, you can't believe that I think women are responsible for
    being clobbered by their spouses. 
    
    But you also cannot believe that *all* women are totally innocent in
    every incident of spousal abuse. Sometimes, women *do* throw gasoline
    on the fire.
    
    -john

    RE: .92  

    > No Susan, I'm not saying that men only strike out physically when they
    > have been 'abused' emotionally or verbally.
      
    You made a blanket statement that women abuse emotionally and verbally
    and that men strike back with violence in retaliation.
      
    > The single quotes are yours, BTW, which shows me that you do not
    > believe that emotional or verbal abuse are valid forms of abuse.

    Sure I believe they are forms of abuse - but they aren't illegal.
    Most of domestic violence involves illegal physical assault.

    > What I said, if you will re-read my note, is that women are more
    > prone to attack men emotionally and verbally. 

    You have provided absolutely nothing to prove this.  The studies on
    this issue do not support your personal opinion about it.

    > And that these forms of abuse are no less harmful than physical abuse, 
    > which BTW, men are more likely to commit FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
        
    But women are less likely to commit emotional abuse "FOR A VARIETY OF
    REASONS"??  Where the heck do you get your stats about this?

    You're pulling opinions out of your hat on this.

    > Do you disagree that emotional and verbal abuse are as insiduous
    > and long lasting in their long-term effect on the individual, as
    > physical abuse is?

    Yes, I disagree that being insulted is as long lasting as being killed
    or having your jaw or your legs broken.

    Further, I disagree (most vehemently) that women are the major 
    perpetrators of emotional and verbal abuse while men simply get
    violent when they're angry.

    Physical abusers are NEARLY ALWAYS major, major emotional and verbal
    abusers as well.

    > Once again, I state that *all* types of abuse are unacceptable. I
    > only want to make sure that you understand that there are more than 
    > one type of abuse.

    Who ever said there was only one type of abuse?  No one.

    You seem to be trying to build the case that women deserve to be 
    beaten (because women are the major emotional and verbal abusers,
    while men get violent in retaliation for this prior abuse.)

    You have offered ZERO evidence to support this claim.  It's only
    a personal opinion, which goes against the known data about the
    dynamics of domestic violence.

    RE: .93  John

    > Also, Susan, you can't believe that I think women are responsible
    > for being clobbered by their spouses. 
        
    You said that women abuse emotionally and verbally, and that men
    abuse physically in retaliation for it.

    This sounds very much like you're blaming the women for what happened.

    > But you also cannot believe that *all* women are totally innocent
    > in every incident of spousal abuse. Sometimes, women *do* throw
    > gasoline on the fire.

    So you do think that some women deserve to be beaten, sounds like.

    I'll bet you think that some people on the freeway deserve to be shot
    for cutting off other motorists.

    It takes a lot of self control to keep from hitting or killing people
    when terribly angry.  It's part of what makes us civilized, though.

    Nothing (short of fearing for ones life) is enough to justify domestic
    violence or murder.  I don't care how many insults are tossed or how
    many dirty socks are left on the floor.  Unless a person fears for
    her/his life (which can include situations of long term physical abuse), 
    violence is in the hands of the perpetrator ALONE (with no extenuating 
    circumstances.)
    
    By the way, my name is Suzanne.

    Susan, I expected better from you.
    
    I never said the things you try to attribute to me. You're attempting
    to erect a straw man argument.
     You keep saying that I stated that men only strike out physically when
    they are frustrated.
    
    No Susan, I never said that. Please stop saying it.
    
    But you really amaze me when you try to say that emotional and verbal
    abuse are not as harmful as physical abuse. A broken leg heals in 8
    weeks. How long does it take for a son to heal from the verbal abuse he
    might receive from his mother? Might he not carry his feelings on to
    the relationships he tries to form with females in his life?
    
    No, Susan, for you to agree would mean that you recognize thatt there
    are always two sides to a story. You might have to admit that a woman
    could actually be the perpetrator of violence in a particular
    situation. Or God forbid, that women are not perfect, innocent souls.
    
    You don't have the intellectual integrity to do that. I feel sorry for
    you.
    
    

    And, Suzanne, the fact that certain types of abuse are not illegal does
    not make them right, or acceptable.
    
    Pul-eeze. Try to erect a better argument than that.

    RE: .96  John

    > Suzanne, I expected better from you.
        
    I corrected my name for you.  :>  You've broken the alltime record
    for the number of times someone has misspelled another noter's name
    in a single note.  :>

    > I never said the things you try to attribute to me. You keep saying 
    > that I stated that men only strike out physically when they are 
    > frustrated.

    Nope.  I didn't say this AT ALL.  What I said was that you made a
    blanket statement that women use emotional and verbal abuse while
    men use physical abuse in retaliation for it.  You did write this:

    	    "Women strike out against men with emotional and verbal
    	    violence. Men, in retaliation, strike out physically."

    Those are your words.  It constitutes a blanket statement (which
    I have been describing to you.)

    > But you really amaze me when you try to say that emotional and
    > verbal abuse are not as harmful as physical abuse. A broken leg 
    > heals in 8 weeks. How long does it take for a son to heal from 
    > the verbal abuse he might receive from his mother? 

    ...or the verbal abuse he might receive from his father, you mean?

    People rarely have their legs broken without getting some emotional
    and verbal abuse along with it.  If someone gets the emotional and
    verbal abuse without getting their legs broken, too, then they are
    less harmed than the one in traction in the hospital.

    > No, Suzanne, for you to agree would mean that you recognize that
    > there are always two sides to a story. 

    I've always known that there are two sides to a story.  I simply
    disagree that emotional abuse + physical abuse is as bad as being
    emotionally abused by itself.  They go hand in hand in domestic
    violence.

    > You might have to admit that a woman could actually be the perpetrator 
    > of violence in a particular situation. Or God forbid, that women are 
    > not perfect, innocent souls.

    Stop being such a baby.  No one here (including me) ever said that
    women were perfect or 100% purely innocent.

    Physical abuse is never justified unless a person's life is in danger,
    pure and simple.  You may believe that yelling or leaving dirty socks
    on the floor is enough justification for a man to clobber (or kill)
    his wife, but I don't.

    > You don't have the intellectual integrity to do that. I feel sorry
    > for you.

    The hypocrisy you demonstrate by ending your note with verbal abuse
    is pretty funny, actually.  I feel sorry for you, too, if it helps.

    RE: .97  John

    > And, Suzanne, the fact that certain types of abuse are not illegal
    > does not make them right, or acceptable.
        
    No one said this at all, of course.

    Domestic violence is a term that usually describes the illegal kinds
    of abuse, though.

    While a domestic disturbance can involve a couple yelling at each
    other (and police could be sent to break it up if neighbors or
    children complain), it isn't usually what's being described when
    people talk about domestic violence.

    > Pul-eeze. Try to erect a better argument than that.

    Please cut down on the verbal you-know-what.  (Hey, I thought women
    were supposed to be more likely to do this - what the heck happened?) :>

    I believe you mean 'ascribing' to me, instead of 'describing'. ;>)
    
    Apparently, you've misinterpreted my statements. Let me reiterate:
    
    :Women are more prone to inflict emotional and verbal abuse.
    :Men are more prone to inflict physical abuse.
    
    Neither form is acceptable. Neither form is less harmful. No stats, one
    way or the other.
    
    So, what don't you understand?
    -john

    RE: .100  John

    > I believe you mean 'ascribing' to me, instead of 'describing'. ;>)
      
    I quoted you word for word:

          "Women strike out against men with emotional and verbal violence.
    	   Men, in retaliation, strike out physically."

    You can't run away or try to explain away these words.  They're yours.
              
    > Apparently, you've misinterpreted my statements. Let me reiterate:
        
        :Women are more prone to inflict emotional and verbal abuse.
        :Men are more prone to inflict physical abuse.

    You've done nothing to prove that women are more prone to inflict
    emotional and verbal abuse.

    > Neither form is acceptable. Neither form is less harmful. No stats,
    > one way or the other.
        
    Emotional/verbal abuse go hand in hand with physical abuse.  It is
    less harmful to someone when they have only received the emotional/verbal
    abuse (and not the physical abuse along with it.)

    > So, what don't you understand?

    How can you try to deny your own words?  It's quite puzzling indeed.

    Also, studies of many sociopaths indicate that abuse, in forms other
    than physical, have had a larger impact on a person's psyche.
    
    The result of the abuse manifests itself as physical retaliation, of
    course. But physical abuse is not the root cause of the sociopathy;
    only the result.
    
    Which goes to show that abusers typically abuse in many ways, not just
    one way. Which agrees with one of your statements.
    
    I state again, no form of abuse is acceptable, or less harmful than any 
    ther form of abuse.
    -john

    By the way, how on earth could you imagine that there is NO emotional
    component to having your legs broken by a spouse?

    Do you think the person just breaks your legs nicely and politely?

    	"Excuse me - I don't want to hurt your feelings or say anything
    	bad to you, but I'm going to take this baseball bat to your legs
    	for a moment.  Please don't take it personally.  If needed, I'll
    	go get you some aspirin when I'm done..."

    Having bones broken by your spouse is an extremely emotional experience.
    (Unbelievably emotional, in fact.)

    You have no idea at all what you're talking about...

    Many prisoners are known to have experienced abuse as children
    (and most of it has been physical and/or sexual abuse.)

    It doesn't mean that all physically and sexually abused people
    commit violent behaviors and/or crimes, of course.

    It does mean that it has an impact - and the emotional abuse
    that goes with the physical and sexual abuse is a culprit as
    well.

    Physical and sexual abuse most definitely INCLUDE emotional
    and verbal abuse as components of them, though (make no mistake 
    about it.)

    Women who have been brutally raped or assaulted (by a stranger
    or a husband) live with the emotional aspects of the attacks
    long after their wounds heal.

    I'm completely amazed that you didn't know this, John.

    When rape victims describe their ordeals, did you honestly think
    that they were describing their physical pain alone?  When the
    physical wounds of rape heal, do you honestly believe that the
    trauma is finished?

    Please think about this.

    Re: .96
    
    >    Susan, I expected better from you.
    
    Why?  

    Tim, he didn't mean that literally.  :>
    

    Re. 53 
    
    Fred,
    
    <Yet every time we try to even discuss this issue of men, 
        it has to be trashed and ratholed by certain people.  There are
        many other places you can go vent your spleen about how nasty men are.
        As someone else (I believe a female) pointed out, this _is_
        MENNOTES after all.>
    
    Firstly, I have absolutely no intention of "venting my spleen" (that's
    a new one) and if by any chance I did choose to, you would know about
    it, believe me.  As for MENNOTES, well it's all very sad actually.  One
    would like to believe that issues pertaining to men were the topic for
    discussion but it seems that this conference is simply a vehicle for 
    derogatory and sexist rantings and also a place to discuss how unfairly 
    you were all treated in your divorces.  Before you go ahead and tell me
    that if I don't like it, I should not participate, I would like to remind
    you that this conference is open to all employees of Digital.
    
    Re. 60 
    
    Chaz
    
    I presume you were talking to me although you didn't bother to get
    the name right...
    
    <To Gin ... 
    You should also be proud and I can feel your power.  Great
    chest-thumping "I have the facts !!!! They are indesputable !!!  You must
    have the facts !!!! They are indesputable !!!  You must believe !!!">
    
    You obviously don't have a clue what debate is all about, do you? 
    
    Another completely unsupported and far-fetched comment from you,
    
   <As for you & the other women's railing against the state of
    single-parent households - that they are a problem and that they are not
    working.>
    
    Really?  I am not going to *bother* to ask you to substantiate this.
    
    Re. 65
    
    Tim Grady,
    
    I thank you for the information that you posted.  One tiny criticism
    though (:^)), perhaps you could have condensed it a little and just
    selected the pieces that were relevant to your argument.  Anyhow,
    thanks anyway.  
    
    However, I must question this as being an opinion piece due to
    statements like this, 
     
    <"I have never seen any data which broke down child abuse perpetrators
        by gender which did not show a significantly higher incidence of
    abuse by female caregivers. The only exceptions are when only sexual
    abuse is ...">
    
    This is an opinion and just because the author has never seen any data
    which suggests that child abuse has a gender bias, does not mean that
    there are not other statistics and reports which refute his statement.
    
Re. 67
    
    < Murray A. Straus, a sociologist and co-director for the Family
    Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, blames "women in 
    the battered [women's] shelter movement" for denying that women
    physically abuse husbands, ex-husbands and boyfriends, or playing down such
    abuse.> 
    
    This article does not provide any hard evidence for this assumption.
    
    Re. 68
    
    <October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month so a discussion about the
        problem would seem to be appropriate. 
        
        <"We were cosponsors of the American Medical Association - Bureau of
        Justice National Conference on Domestic Violence held in March of
    this year. Our goal was to help those attending understand the dual
    nature of domestic violence. Domestic violence is a confusing and
    disturbing phenomena, perhaps rooted in the frustrations and 
    disappointments of a hectic society,"> 
    
    As this is a discussion from The Men's Health Network, I must admit
    that I would label it an opinion piece and would say that this entire
    article relies on emotion to convey it's point.
     
    Re. 70
    
    Tim Grady,
    
    <Finally, there's lots of information to indicate that the majority of
    domestic violence against children is perpetrated by women,
    primarily because women tend to be the prinicipal caregivers, as opposed to
    being intrinsically more or less violent than men.>
    
    I am afraid that I disagree, and I have yet to see any hard evidence in
    your postings suggesting this statement to be true.
    
    <Seeing this information, now, can we dispense with the notion that
    men are somehow inherently more (or less) violent than women, or must
    we persist in the sexist myth that men are more violent toward women
    than vice versa?>
    
    I don't think that this is a sexist myth at all.  I don't think rape is
    a sexist myth.
    
    Re. 75 & 76 
    
    It is interesting to note that Rocush is only interested in the
    articles posted that pertain to domestic violence perpetrated against
    men and becomes defensive when anybody challenges the information that
    was posted.  My observation is futher enforced by his note .79, riddled
    with hypocrisy, which I believe is addressed to Suzanne, 
    
    <Your bias is showing quite clearly on this.  Also, the only thing that
        will keep this information from attaining general acceptance is a
    blind adherence to a personal and politiacal agenda that ignores any
        information that raises a question about your position.>
        
    Re. 78
    
    Tim
    
    <I'm surprised that you would not support the notion that men and women
        are equals in every sense.  Isn't there a word for that?>
    
    You are taking things completely out of context.  Of course men and
    women are not equal in every sense, in fact, we are fundamentally
    quite different.  However, this is not to be confused with *equal
    rights* for all people. 
     
    Re. 80
    
    I completely agree with Suzanne that one cannot use a small subset on
    which to ascertain general concensus.  Anyway, I don't expect Rocush to
    understand this as he claims that 70% of all divorces are initiated by
    women and then admits to using a sample set of 3 (which infact draws a
    conclusion of 100%).                                 
    
    Re. 90
    
    NEMAIL::SOBECKY
    
    <Women strike out against men with emotional and verbal violence. Men,
        in retaliation, strike out physically.>
    
    And don't some men also use verbal and emotional abuse?  You are quick
    to point out that women are violent, perhaps we could also atribute
    this to verbal and emotional abuse.
        
   < We have been taught that it is OK to say what you want, but you
    must *never* retaliate physically.>
    
    IMO, it takes a better person to just walk away.    
    
    CHARLOTTE

    The notion that men are intrinsically more violent by nature than
    women is pure sexism.  It is tantamount to espousing the notion that
    women are inferior to men in the workplace by nature, because they can
    get pregnant and leave, for example.  It's hogwash, and I personally,
    along with many of my peers, will never accept either such sexist
    discrimination.
    
    As I mentioned earlier, there is evidence of sociological influences
    such as machismo that can influence men toward agression and violence,
    but that is much, much different than saying all men are by nature
    more violent.
    
    As for this being a place for men to vent their anger over being
    treated poorly in their divorce, for the record that is not the case
    for me at all.  I was treated quite fairly in my divorce, and in the
    two custody battles since then, although it took quite a struggle to
    accomplish that.  Without going over the whole thing again, my issues
    have been with the rampant sexist discrimination that I have endured as
    a single custodial father since then, primarily at the hands of myopic
    women and some men, including this notion that men are intrinsically
    more violent.
    
    My personal experience leads me to empathize with anyone who falls
    victim to sexist discrimination, both men and women.  The notion that
    sexism is by definition the domination of men over women, or that
    sexist discrimination against women is more important or profound, is
    patently unfair, and discriminatory.
    
    It's important to maintain balance, to be fair.  Ascribing negative
    attributes to one gender or the other based solely on their gender is,
    by definition, sexist discrimination.
    
    Men are not intrinsically more violent, nor inherently inferior parents,
    any more than women are naturally less agressive or less capable of
    normal social behavior than men.  If you don't believe that, then your
    perspective is, by definition, sexist.
    

    .108
    
    Since you specifically addressed part of your reply to me, I will
    respond directly to your posting.
    
    I have stated, and will continue to state, that those who do not like
    the fact that someone had the audacity to cite specific studies and
    provide interpretation of those studies and reports, does not make them
    opinions.  As I stated earlier, presenting information that goes
    contrary to someone else's political agenda does not make the
    information wrong, despite all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth
    that has been going on.
    
    Also, your poor attempt at responding to my information regarding
    divorce was rather weak.  You asked the question when someone had
    stated that 70% of divorces are initiated by women.  YOu demanded
    support for that statement.  I provided information from personal
    knowledge, not second hand or hearsay.  I regret that this information
    somehow makes you uncomfortable, but those were the facts.
    
    I could have used other examples where I did not have first hand
    knowledge, but that would have required that I believe one side over
    the other without the benfit of knowing the facts.
    
    

    To Tims note I will concure with allot of what Tim has said. But, in
    many cases, the fact that men are viewed in the manner that they are,
    violent, non care givers, etc. They are short changed when it comes to
    custodial issues. And worse is that they are on the low order of the
    food chain when it comes to just basic visatations. When it has been
    shown in studies that children need fathers as much as their mothers,
    fathers who want to see their children take second fiddle to the
    mothers new beau. Or the new beau sees more of the kids than the bio
    father does.
    
    

  Speaking of physical violence, in my case my wife acted out a scenario
  to try to provoke it.  It didn't work.  I'm sure she was disappointed.

  First, some background:

  When I first filed for divorce, I stayed in the marital bed.  She left
  to sleep on the floor downstairs so she could be the "victim"
  in court.  When she complained in court I traded her the floor for the bed.
  I did not leave the house (did not want to spend for an apartment when none
  was necessary).  The judge did not order me out of the house.  I finally
  left just before the end of the trial (as a gesture of goodwill; Ask me if
  I'd do that again)...

  Anyway, re physical violence, here's what happened:

  I arrived per appointment to pack up my belongings in preparation for
  moving.  I was upstairs in a loft overlooking the living room.  She
  started an argument about something (I don't remember what, it was not
  a usual subject for disagreement).  She marched up the stairs, up to me
  and began screaming at me with her face about 2 inches from my nose.

  Now, women reading this, be honest, how would this make YOU feel.  Can you
  honestly say this is not provocative behavior.  Would you think it
  appropriate to scream at your spouse 2 inches from your spouse's nose?  Do
  you believe my wife was doing this because she was "emotional" and couldn't
  help herself (understand she is in the computer field, majored in business,
  and makes as much as I do)?  No, she was "acting" out her strategy to get
  what she wanted at any cost (to me and our child, that is).

  To continue, I guessed at this point that she was trying to provoke me
  to violence (which I don't engage in) so she could use it for leverage to
  get everything she could possibly want from the court.  Part of me - I must
  admit - was also somewhat amused by this behavior, and part was also
  concerned (at first) that she might not be acting and might think that this
  behavior was acceptable in male/female relationships.  I advised her that I
  was totally under control of my behavior but that for her future safety she
  should know that her provocation would be likely to get her socked by some
  men, and she should be careful with others.  (I now think her behavior was
  totally planned, and I didn't have to be concerned she would do it with
  someone else -- unless she was married to them, that is, and positioning
  for divorce).

  She then accused me to threatening her, and called her female neighbor
  friend to come over.

  Now her female neighbor friend is very level headed, and I think knew what
  was going on.  They had tea in the living room, while I continued packing.
  
  I advised my wife before I left that I would not return until I had lined
  up a witness to protect me from her dishonest behavior.  All subsequent
  times I was at the house to pack and move my stuff I brought a friend (I
  recommend this to everyone because if your spouse does this to you it
  is my belief that it is likely to work with the court; In fact, I think if
  my ex had been single-minded (or crazy) enough to go even further, and
  socked HERSELF, that this probably would have done it).

  The court found in favor of joint custody.

  Lessons: 

	o If you have this kind of spouse, always bring a witness if you
	need to be around her or him.

	o Don't allow yourself to be intentionally provoked.

	o Some women, and some men, are really victims.  Some are victimizers
	acting as victims so they can ride the waves of public stereotype (the
        court may not be able (or want) to tell the difference -- see the
        Journal article on the Amirault case elsewhere in this conference).

    Tim, NO ONE has said that ALL men are more violent than ALL women.

    Obviously, Mr. Rogers is not more violent than female gang members,
    for example.

    The vast majority of men are not as violent as the one female serial 
    killer who was convicted a couple of years ago, either.

    I've never seen anyone suggest that all men (even men in comas) are
    necessarily more violent than the most violent woman on the planet.

    It is true, however, that the vast majority of violent crimes are
    committed by males.  It's also true that most legal violent actions
    are performed by males.

    The vast majority of violent criminals in prisons are males, too
    (and not because the courts simply refuse to prosecute female bank
    robbers, etc.)

    It's simply the truth that the vast majority of the violence which
    occurs in our entire species is performed by males.  This doesn't
    mean that a particular male is violent or that no females can possibly
    be violent.  It just means that when violence occurs, it's usually
    males who are doing it (whether it's legal or illegal.)

    By the way, Tim, I'm curious as to how you can consider it 'sexism'
    to claim that most violence is committed by males, but it's not
    'sexism' for YOU to claim that most child abuse is committed by 
    females.

    It seems as though you have broken your own rule about such things.
    

    Thanks for your comments about all this, Charlotte!!!
    

    I didn't say most violence against children was committed by women.  I
    was paraphrasing a statical study on the subject.
    
    And while we're paraphrasing - although the marjority of those
    imprisoned for violent crimes are men, on average women who are
    convicted of violent crimes are sentenced to a fraction of the time
    that men receive for the same crime.  Women get out sooner.
    
    So, you'd expect more males in prison then females, again due to sexist
    discrimination against men.
    
    ;->
    

    RE: .116  Tim

    > And while we're paraphrasing - although the marjority of those
    > imprisoned for violent crimes are men, on average women who are
    > convicted of violent crimes are sentenced to a fraction of the time
    > that men receive for the same crime.  Women get out sooner.
      
    You wish.  Show me a study (not an opinion piece this time) which
    shows that men and women are given different sentences for the
    SAME crimes (after having the SAME criminal records which could
    have an influence on sentencing.)
      
    Otherwise, it's just something you're saying without any support.

    > So, you'd expect more males in prison then females, again due to
    > sexist discrimination against men.

    Not true.  The vast majority of crimes (especially violent ones)
    are committed by males, thus they get convicted and sentenced
    to prison more often.

|    RE: .116  Tim
|
|    > And while we're paraphrasing - although the marjority of those
|    > imprisoned for violent crimes are men, on average women who are
|    > convicted of violent crimes are sentenced to a fraction of the time
|    > that men receive for the same crime.  Women get out sooner.
|      
|    You wish.  Show me a study (not an opinion piece this time) which
|    shows that men and women are given different sentences for the
|    SAME crimes (after having the SAME criminal records which could
|    have an influence on sentencing.)
    
    Violent Women - From US Dept of Justice 
    
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Office of Justice Programs
    Bureau of Justice Statistics
    
    Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin
    Women in Prison
    NCJ-145321 
    
    
    
    The number of women sentenced for a violent offense rose from 8,045 to
    12,400 during the 5-year period. Murder, the most prevalent violent
    offense among female inmates in 1991, accounted for just over a third
    of the women sentenced for a violent offense. 
    
    Violent female inmates and their victims
    
    In 1991 nearly two-thirds of the women in prison for a violent offense
    had victimized a relative, intimate, or someone else they knew. Women
    serving a sentence for a violent offense were about twice as likely as
    their male counterparts to have committed their offense against someone
    close to them (36% versus 16%). Another third of the women, but more
    than half of the men, had victimized a stranger. 
    
    Women in prison for homicide were almost twice as likely to have killed
    an intimate (husband, exhusband, or boyfriend) as a relative like a
    parent or sibling (32% versus 17%). Female inmates were more likely to
    have killed relatives or intimates (49%) than nonrelatives (30%) or
    strangers (21%). 
    
    Relationship  of      Percent  of  females
    victim   to           serving  a  sentence
    offender              for  homicide* 
    
    Intimate                     31.9%
    Relative                     17.0
    Well-known                   14.3
    Acquaintance                 12.8
    Known by sight only           2.7
    Stranger                     21.3
    
    
    
    
    
    Sentence length
    
    Overall, female prisoners had shorter maximum sentences than men. Half
    of the women had a maximum sentence of 60 months or less, while half of
    the men had a sentence of 120 months or less. Excluding sentences to
    life or death, women in prison had received sentences that, on average,
    were 48 months shorter than those of men (mean sentences of 105 and
    153, respectively). An estimated 7% of the women and 9% of the men
    received sentences to life or death. 
    
    Maximum                  Percent  of  inmates
    sentence  length         Female         Male
                                                 
    Less than 36 months       24.2%         12.4%
    36-59                     18.7          15.0
    60-119                    20.5          22.3
    120-179                   11.9          13.2
    180 or more               17.7          27.9
    Life/death                 7.0           9.2
    
    
    
    
    
    For each category of offense, women received shorter average maximum
    sentences than men. For property offenses, female prisoners had a mean
    sentence 42 months shorter than men; for drug offenses, 18 months
    shorter; and for violent offenses, 39 months shorter. 
    

    Tim, this doesn't support the notion that women with the same criminal
    histories as men were given lighter sentences.

    Surely you wouldn't expect a first time offender to be given the same
    sentence as a career criminal.  The sentence is affected by such things.

    Also, these numbers do not indicate in any way that the male prison
    population is larger than the female prison population because of
    shorter sentences for women.

    More men (by far!!!) are convicted and sent to prison in the first
    place, Tim.  According to the Department of Justice, around 2.5% of
    Americans are jailed or on probation (or parole) in the United States.
    We have over 250 million people in this country.

    When you cite a stat indicating that a little over 12,000 women were
    convicted and sentenced for violent crimes in this country in 1991,
    you must realize that this is an exceptionally tiny portion of the 
    entire prison population.  Women commit too few of the violent crimes
    to be convicted and sentenced for them in numbers comparable to men.

    From the U.S. Department of Justice web pages:
    
    	5.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole
    	   at yearend 1995--nearly 2.8% of all U.S. adult residents.
    
        State and Federal prisons held 1.1 million prisoners at yearend 1995.
    
        Local jails held about 507,044 adults who were awaiting trial or
    	   serving a sentence at mid year 1995.
    
        The 3,304 local jails in 1993 held 2.8 inmates for each jail
    	   employee. In 1990, the year of the last census of
            prisons, there were 2.7 inmates per State prison employee. 
    
    The 12,000 (or so) women who were convicted of violent crimes is a 
    pretty tiny portion of this criminal population, wouldn't you say?

    I paraphrased a report accurately, and upon request I provided that
    report.  What I said was accurate - according to the Department of
    Justice, on average men receive sentences 45% longer (153 months vs.
    105) than women.
    
    That's a pretty big difference.  Hard to ignore.  Well, hard for any
    rational, objective individual to ignore.
    
    Men get longer sentences - much, much longer - measured in YEARS. (3.5
    years, on average).
    

    Something else from the U.S. Department of Justice web pages:

    	Women age 12 + annually sustained 5 million violent victimizations in
    	  1994. Persons whom the victim knew were responsible for the majority
    	  of these victimizations. 

        In 1994, women were about twice as likely as men to experience
    	  violence committed by a relative. 

    RE: .120
|    The 12,000 (or so) women who were convicted of violent crimes is a 
|    pretty tiny portion of this criminal population, wouldn't you say?
    
    These last two lines are only your opinion, not from the report, right? ;-)
    
    Women get out sooner.  Much sooner.  Why?
    
    

    Tim, when *** 5.3 MILLION *** people are either in prison or on 
    probation or parole, yet only 12,400 violent crimes convictions
    and sentences occurred to women in a given year - does that ring 
    any bells for you about why there are more men than women in our
    prisons?

    Think about it.  If a tiny fraction of our country's prisoners
    are women in the first place, obviously there will be more men
    than women in prison at any given time (and it's not due to lesser
    sentences.)

    Also think about how convicted criminals are sentenced when they
    have different criminal histories.

    I've quoted supporting material from the Department of Justice, too.
    (You seem to be ignoring my quotes from their web pages.)

    Suzanne,
    
    Whats the URL on your stats. I don't see any need number dho-dhas like
    the other stats posted. I wanna make sure that your getting your stats
    from a reputable page. 
    

|        In 1994, women were about twice as likely as men to experience
|    	  violence committed by a relative. 
    
    Experience indeed.  Apparently, according to the report that I posted,
    they were often the perpetrator of the violence...
    
    Anyway, you asked for my source, and I gave it to you...even though
    you haven't directly cited anything so far..only paraphrased...like I
    did...
    
    But that's ok.  I'm used to it. ;-)
    

    Tim, my quotes were not paraphrased ***AT ALL***.
    
    I cut and pasted directly from the Department of Justice web pages
    for ALL the material that I indented in the past several notes.
    
    Here's the URLS for these pages, along with the DIRECT QUOTES again:
    
    	http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
    
    		Women age 12 + annually sustained 5 million violent 
    	          victimizations in 1994. Persons whom the victim
         	  knew were responsible for the majority of these 
    	          victimizations. 
    
         	In 1994, women were about twice as likely as men to 
    	          experience violence committed by a relative. 
    
    
    	http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm
    
    		5.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, 
    		  or on parole at yearend 1995--nearly 2.8% of all
         	  U.S. adult residents.
    
         	State and Federal prisons held 1.1 million prisoners at 
    		  yearend 1995.
    
         	Local jails held about 507,044 adults who were awaiting 
    		  trial or serving a sentence at mid year 1995.
    
         	The 3,304 local jails in 1993 held 2.8 inmates for each jail
    		  employee. In 1990, the year of the last census of
         	  prisons, there were 2.7 inmates per State prison employee. 

    RE: .126  Tim Grady

    >> Women age 12 + annually sustained 5 million violent 
    >> victimizations in 1994. Persons whom the victim
    >> knew were responsible for the majority of these 
    >> victimizations. 

    >> In 1994, women were about twice as likely as men to experience
    >> violence committed by a relative. 
        
    > Experience indeed.  Apparently, according to the report that I
    > posted, they were often the perpetrator of the violence...

    Of the 5 million incidents in 1994 (according to the DOJ web page,
    the number is 9.9 million if you include males and females over the
    age of 12 years old), you only know about 12,400 or so that were 
    perpetrated by women.

    What an exceptionally tiny proportion of the total.

    Suzanne, is there a home page vs the exact paging that your looking at.
    I cannot get to the exact from where I am. Would like the main/home
    page please.
    
    Thanks
    

    Your numbers don't make sense, at least in the way you're interpreting
    them.
    
    5.3 million people in prison, probation, parole or jail.  (BTW, the
    same website, if you take the time to dig a little deeper, indicates
    that less than 1 million - 991,600 people are in prison.  3 million are
    on probation).  Assuming, and this is a safe assumption btw, that most
    of those in prison have been there for quite awhile - especially the
    men - and many, many prisoners were not convicted of violent crimes at
    all - remember mandatory minimums for drug offenses, for example - then
    12k violent women 5 years starts to look a bit larger doesn't it.
    
    5 million acts of violence...
    
    Why, then, are so few of them in prison?
    
    Anyway, let's keep on track.  In prison, for violent crimes...and men
    are going to be a much larger percentage because they server 45% longer
    terms....
    
    

    Anyone! Can I get the web site of the department of justice as so I can
    get some of these wonderful stats. 

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
    
    I'm looking at them now.
    
    BTW, in 1994, 13% of prison population was there for violent crimes.
    

    Tim, YOUR numbers don't make sense at all.

    If women were guaranteed on average to serve half the prison sentences
    of men, then they'd have on average HALF the prison population of men's 
    prisons (**IF** they were tried, convicted and sentenced at pretty much
    the same rate.)

    Women are nowhere even remotely NEAR half the prison population of men.

    Your idea that fewer women are in prison because they serve shorter
    sentences than men is totally and completely half-baked.  :>

    Earlier, you asked WHY women might (on average) be given shorter 
    sentences, and the reason is because first offenders are often
    treated with more leniency.  Women have a far, far, far greater
    chance of having no (or fewer) prior convictions than men.

    By the way, according to one press release from the Dept of Justice
    in 1994 [this is a direct quote]:

    	"As of the end of last year there were 55,365 female state and 
    	federal prisoners--5.8 percent of the total inmate population."  


    Now, if women commit crimes and go through trials and convictions
    at the same rate as males, but merely get smaller sentences than
    men - how did they manage to be less than 6% of the total prison
    population?

    Think about the math involved with this, Tim.  Think hard.

|    Now, if women commit crimes and go through trials and convictions
|    at the same rate as males, but merely get smaller sentences than
|    men 
    
    Uh, where does it say that women are convicted at the same rate as men?
    I didn't see that anywhere.
    
    |- how did they manage to be less than 6% of the total prison
|    population?
    
    Actually, the pecentage of women among all of those entering the prison
    system has been rising steadily for the past ten years, according to
    the DOJ statistics.  It's above 10%  So, in a sense, things are getting
    better - more women are being convicted...of course, these percentages
    are not for VIOLENT crimes, but total population.  We don't have
    numbers for the 13% or so of the population that is in for violent
    crimes.
    
    ...and while we're thinking hard, if you look at a ten year period, for
    example, and take the DOJ numbers for average sentence into account,
    after nine years, on average the women who entered into the system
    would be released, while the men who were incarcerated the same
    year would, on average, be there for three more years...and then the
    tenth year, eleventh year, etc. 

    In other words, it's now clear that the reason that more men are in
    prison than women is because more men commit crimes and get convicted
    and sentenced to prison than women.

    Thank you.

    Even if women are all the way up to 10% of the prison population now,
    it's still a very low percentage of the total, of course.

    Men are the ones who commit the vast, vast, VAST majority of violent
    and non-violent crimes in this country (and around the world.)

    You may not like it, but it's quite true.

    Tim, do you honestly believe that ~50% of the crimes in this country
    are committed by women (but that our society has some giant conspiracy
    going which prevents women from being described by witnesses, arrested,
    tried and convicted by the courts?)

    Do you think this conspiracy is enough to make the female prison 
    population 1/10th (or less) the size of the male prison population?

    You have no proof of this at all, I hope you realize (if this is what
    you are suggesting.)

    .137
    
    Do you really think that a woman does not get the benefit of the doubt
    in criminal cases much more so than men????  Please deal with reality.
    
    You try to minimize the fact that women get a break throughout the
    entire process and then point to the figures to support your bias. 
    That's real helpful.
    
    Since you don't know the background of the violent women stated in the
    figures it is dishonest of you to claim they get shorter sentences
    because they are first-time offenders.  some may be as well the men,
    that does not make it clear that the rates, on average, should be less
    for any reason other than that they are women.
    
    With the positions you hold and the excuses you make no wonder a lot
    less progress gets made than otherwise would be the case.
    

    Please deal with the reality that women simply do not commit the
    crimes in numbers remotely CLOSE to men.

    You can invent or imagine some great conspiracy which keeps women
    from paying for crimes to some extensive degree, but it's totally 
    and completely unsupported by facts.

    Women do not commit crimes at anywhere near the rate that men commit
    crimes.  Simple enough.

|    In other words, it's now clear that the reason that more men are in
|    prison than women is because more men commit crimes and get convicted
|    and sentenced to prison than women.
    
    ...and women don't stay as long - making the numbers of men remaining
    in prison even higher than they should be were it not for the sexist
    bias against them...
    
|    Men are the ones who commit the vast, vast, VAST majority of violent
|    and non-violent crimes in this country (and around the world.)
    
    So, what exactly are you saying?  What I'm hearing is that you think
    that the ratio of men to women in prison corelates directly with the
    relative level of violence of these two groups.  Are you saying that
    since there are roughly equal numbers of men and women in the U.S., if
    men and women were equally capable of violence, then there would be
    equal numbers of men and women in the prison population?  Now that's
    pretty thin ice, let me tell you...
    
    And, what of the fact of the vast difference in sentences?  Your
    supposition, which is completely unfounded, that first time offenses
    are more prevalent among women, thus lowering their average sentence,
    smacks of an intrinsic superiority - as if repeat offenses are more
    common among men.  Do you have any citations to back this up?
    
    

    I'm trying to stick to the subject - the one that I objected to in the
    first place, namely the notion that men, by the sheer nature of their
    masculinity alone, are more violent than women.
    
    That has been implied, if not outright claimed, and it is pure sexism. 
    Using prison statistics to support a sexist claim is not a reasonable
    or reliable argument.
    
    

    I'll give you a hint.
    
    Number of adults held in state, Federal or local jails in 1994, by sex and
    race (from the DOJ):
    
    White Men:	674,367
    White Women: 50,724
    Black Men:	683,185
    Black Women: 51,989
    Total:    1,460,265
    
    Now, based on population ratios, wouldn't you expect these numbers to
    look quite different?  Well, at 50/50 male to female, and 90/10 white
    to black, they'd look like this:
    
    White Men: 	617,119
    White Women:617,119
    Black Men:	 73,013
    Black Women: 73,013
    
    PS - it adds up to 1 less - rounding...
    
    Note that blacks, male or female, are consistently imprisoned in
    disproportionate numbers to the general population.
    
    So are men.  Still think prison statistics reflect inherent criminal or
    violent tendencies?
    
    tim

    Re. 110 by ACISS1::ROCUSH
    
    <Also, your poor attempt at responding to my information regarding
        divorce was rather weak.  You asked the question when someone had
        stated that 70% of divorces are initiated by women.  YOu demanded
        support for that statement.  I provided information from personal
        knowledge, not second hand or hearsay.  I regret that this
        information somehow makes you uncomfortable, but those were the
    facts.>
    
    What utter nonsense.  You obviously don't have a clue about debate
    either, do you?  You cannot make the statement that women are
    responsible for initiating 70% divorces based on "personal
    information".  Imagine if academics based their research on "personal
    information"?  Do you think that demographics are based on personal
    opinion?  
    
    Tim Grady,
    
    The *fact* that more men are perpetrators of violent crime than women is
    not a sexist myth.  It is unfortunate that you and many of the noters
    here refuse to believe it.  It is completely unrealistic and paranoid
    to suggest that these statistics were dreamt up by a group of feminists
    who hate men.  In case you haven't noticed, we live in a very violent
    society where death by violence is not uncommon.  Yes, a certain
    percentage of women are responsible for violence, and I recently read a 
    study that suggests that women in today's society are becoming more violent
    and that in twenty years the statistics will start to show a marked
    increase perhaps equalling those of men, but the bottom-line is that more 
    men, women and children are victims of violent acts committed by men (and 
    not women, as suggested by certain people in this notesfile). 
    
    If the truth hurts and by stating the truth you consider me sexist, 
    so be it.
                                         
    CHARLOTTE                                     

|    The *fact* that more men are perpetrators of violent crime than women is
|    not a sexist myth.  
    
    This is not what I said, nor do prison statistics provide proof for
    the alignment of violent tendencies based on gender.
    
    Since you're discussing debating technique, I'll repeat once again what
    I have said several times now, and see if you notice the difference, that
    the notion that men are inherently more violent than women is a sexist
    myth.  Prison statistics to the contrary do nothing to prove otherwise,
    unless you would also maintain that blacks are inherently more violent
    due to their conviction records as well.
    
    If you maintain that men are more violent because they are convicted of
    more violent crimes than women, then you cannot ignore the same
    corelation based on race.
    
    Looking at prison statistics, this position is both sexist and racist.
    
    tim
    

    .143
    
    Apparently you don't have a real firm understanding of academic
    research.  Any researcher will base their findings on PERSONAL,
    observed results.  Very few researchers will base a position on someone
    else's findings.  They may start with those findings, but then proceed
    with their own independent investigations.  You seem to think that this
    is an inappropriate way to base an opinion.
    
    As I said, I could have expanded my numbers to include other divorces
    where I did not have first hand knowledge, but it would only have
    distorted the information as I owuld have had to interpret the
    information or make a decision on who I believed without knowing the
    facts.  I do not believe that that would have been very informative.  I
    chose, instead, to deal with specific instances that I could verify.  I
    regret that you feel that such verifiable information is not valid.
    
    I believe someone said that just because you don't like the information
    doesn't make it invalid.
    

    re: .143
    
    The notion that women are becoming more violent, does, in a
    certain way, make sense.  Women are becoming more powerful,
    more vocal and more visible in society.  While I do not
    have research (ie "hard facts") to back this up, I would
    be willing to speculate that in the last 50 years, women
    arrested with men during the commission of a crime were
    prosecuted much less often, being considered "under duress"
    or "coerced" by their male partners.  In plain talk, we
    weren't considered intelligent enough to run away from a
    bad influence.  
    
    Notions of women being "the weaker sex" still prevail 
    today in the justice system as they do in other aspects
    of society.  Being truely equal means we must fess up
    to the fact that there are angry, violent and criminal
    women just as well as there are angry, violent and
    criminal men.  Casting aside the stereotypes of a 
    genteel, vacant headed, emotionally vapid female incapable
    of making a decision to save her life seems well worth
    it to me.  Being a well-rounded human means the bad
    points as well as the good points are visible.
    
    Do women throw a mean right hook when they are angry?
    I'm sure some do.  I'm also sure many don't because they've
    been conditioned not to.  Do women hit below the belt?
    You betcha.  We can throw words like knives.  It's a skill.
    One we developed because we couldn't throw punches.  We
    own it.  It's our history.  It needs to be acknowledged.
    
    Being truely equal means we throw aside the advantages 
    as well as the disadvantages of being female.  It may
    be distasteful, we may feel we've "earned" those niches
    we guard as a result of years of being second class 
    citizens.  But holding on to them won't get us where
    we need to be.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

	I worked both as a volunteer recreation leader in a mostly black
	inner city school in Syracuse, NY during college, and, after
	graduation, as a psychiatric aide in a psychiatric hospital in
	Jamaica Plain.

	I observed girls on the playground of the inner city school, and
	worked on the men's as well as the women's locked ward at the
	psychiatric hospital.

	What I observed is that, whatever the degree to which girls and
	women are violent, there was a difference in "how" they became
	violent.  The men would give all kinds of signs and escalate
	gradually.  They would threaten, verbally warn, bang tables,
	kick the door, push you, etc.  I secluded many men and women.
	I was never "hurt" by a man (the most that happened was being
	pushed a few times).  This includes dealing with a violent patient
	who was on his high school football teams, another who knew karate,
	another who lost the Golden Gloves finals when he broke his wrist
	(when he was winning), and another who was going to utilize his
	mafia ties to have my legs and arms broken.   I attribute the lack
	of physically damaging violence to "experience" with violence
	as kids that allow men to avoid it by giving signs to each other
	such that the matter at hand can be communicated as "urgent"
	and violence precluded by an earlier solution.

	On the other hand, women in the locked ward could seemingly become
	violent with no warning.  And the violent action was not
	predictable.  As a result, I felt more "at risk" in the women's
	ward.  I once went into seclusion to take the 2 broken
	halves of a glass purfume bottle away from a patient.  I grabbed
	each wrist.  She bit me on the neck.  She was psychotic at the
	time, as when she had come down in 2 or 3 days she apologized,
	and did so every day for the next 2 weeks, even though I said
	it was not a problem.  This woman was a nun who obviously had some
	very aggressive feelings "bottled up" inside.  My conclusion was
	that women don't know how to be violent, so when they are, anything
	can happen (there is no "training" in violence as kids, as there is
	for boys).

	In terms of the school yard, you should see what some young girls do
	to other young girls.

	I do not have an impression that women are any more or less violent
	than men from these experiences, just violent in a different way.

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Thank you Mary-Michael, for a balanced response.
    
    tim
    

    RE: .144  Tim Grady

    You brought out the strawman, I see.  :>  Or is this the strawwoman? 

    > the notion that men are inherently more violent than women is a sexist
    > myth. 

    No one here said that men are 'INHERENTLY' more violent than women,
    actually.  Men do COMMIT (exhibit, perform, perpetrate, etc.) more
    violence than women (as a group.)

    No one here has denied that women do commit SOME of the violence
    - I've told you this myself.  Remember, I said that Mr. Rogers was
    obviously less violent than female gang members and that most men
    are less violent than the ONE solitary female serial killer who
    was convicted several years back.

    It isn't sexist (nor is it a myth) that men commit the vast, vast
    majority of the violence (legal and non-legal) in this country.

    There are reasons for this - not the least of which is that our
    culture worships 'masculinity' and that many young men feel the 
    need to prove theirs (the good ole 'kahoonas') when challenged.

    Poverty and disenfranchisement plays a big role in the violence
    which occurs in minority groups.  No one has denied this.

    If you want to believe that women are as violent as men but women
    simply get away with it, you're fooling yourself.  When a woman
    is found to have committed a horrid crime, the press jumps on it
    like leaches (as an unusual story) - women in this situation have
    nowhere to hide.

    When you bellow and rail that we're saying that men (each individual
    man) is inherently more violent than each individual woman, it's not
    what we're saying (and it's obviously not the case.)

    Men DO commit the vast majority of the violence in our culture, though,
    and you have provided absolutely ZERO evidence to prove or suggest
    otherwise.  

    Your virtually violent language isn't enough to change this, either,
    in case you wondered.

    Re. 144
    
    Tim,
    
    <If you maintain that men are more violent because they are convicted of
        more violent crimes than women, then you cannot ignore the same
        corelation based on race.
        
        Looking at prison statistics, this position is both sexist and
        racist.>
    
    I think I understand where you are coming from, however, I personally
    prefer to remove the rose-tinted liberal glasses and face reality, no
    matter how "politically incorrect" my viewpoint may be.
    
    If the statistics show that more women are physically abused and more men 
    than women are in prison due to violent crime, then I draw my conclusions 
    from that.  I am not pointing any fingers or apportioning any blame,
    just observing a fact.  If there is a correlation between race and violent
    crime, for example, then I do not ignore that fact in order to be 
    politically correct.  If the statistic were reversed, and more women
    than men were perpetrating acts of violence, I would hold the same 
    viewpoint, and state that women were more violent than men.  Simply,
    stating the obvious and "calling a spade a spade."  
    
    While on the subject of female violence, nowhere have I stated that
    females are *not* violent.  Some people just love to put words into
    your mouth.  HUMANS ARE VIOLENT.  I have stated elsewhere in this
    notesfile that I personally find young women more aggressive than their
    male counterparts, however, this does not change the fact that
    statistics suggest that men perpetrate more violence crime.  As women 
    become more liberated this statistic will begin to change, and I will 
    continue to state the obvious about the rape rate and the
    violent crime rate, no matter how politically incorrect it may be.  
                                  
    I will also continue to balk at sexist rubbish and will no longer
    accept that women are to blame for everything that is wrong in society,
    just because a man told me so and refused to listen to my side of the
    story, unless I agreed with his point of view, of course.     
    
    CHARLOTTE                                                           

    
    Excellent note, Charlotte!!
    
    

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Re: .151, 152
    
    So basically you're reverting back to your personal opinions and
    personal interpretations of these facts I've presented, i.e. the
    statistical reports from the DOJ.  You're arbitrarily deciding that men
    tend to be more violent than women based on information that,
    interpretted with this same perspective, would also lead us to conclude
    that blacks are more more violent than whites.  But, in your opinion,
    since you've presented nothing factual to back it up, the statistics
    mean one thing when applied to race, i.e. discrimination, but the
    opposite when applied to gender, i.e. intrinsic differentiation between
    the two groups whose only defining factor is gender.
    
    Interesting.  I don't suppose you have any facts to back this up, do
    you?  Or is this just your personal, albeit blatantly sexist opinion?
    Since you've insisted on my supporting my position with facts, and I
    have, where are yours?
    
    tim
    
    

    Tim, Charlotte and I (combined) have provided more references 
    to studies and statistics than you've provided (or at least as many.)

    You have the personal opinion that women and men are equally violent,
    but none of the stats that we (or you) have presented support your
    opinion about this.  

    You cannot prove this to be true (because it simply isn't true.)

    It is an undeniable fact that men perpetrate (perform, enact, etc.)
    the vast, vast, VAST majority of the violence (legal and non-legal)
    in this country.

    All the paranoid delusions in the world won't change this fact (as
    it stands today.)

    In 50 years, perhaps women will perpetrate (perform, enact, etc.)
    50% of the violence by then.  Who knows.

    Women do not do it now, and nothing you can say to us will change it.

    > intrinsic differentiation between the two groups whose only defining 
    > factor is gender.

    This is where you are screwing yourself up, I suspect.  Just because
    2.8 percent of our population is in prison, on probation or parole,
    it doesn't make every individual American a violent, nasty lawbreaker.
    Nor does it mean that every American is inherently or intrinsically
    violent.

    It does mean that we live in a fairly violent culture, though.  Is it
    as violent as all other parts of the world right now?  Of course not.

    It says nothing about men as a group to admit that they commit the vast
    majority of the violent behaviors in our species.  There are reasons
    for it.  

    For one thing (in case you haven't noticed), violence is GLORIFIED 
    to a very extreme degree in our culture.  Men's self-worth is often
    defined by their abilities to engage in violence.

    Poverty and disenfranchisement (as mentioned before) also play huge
    roles in violent activities among minority men.

    You have the highly sexist opinion that you can demand a belief set
    of women (even if it goes against all the known facts) and that it's
    your role as a man to exhibit hostile and virtually violent behavior
    toward women if they refuse to accept your opinion as the truth.

    You have nothing to support your personal opinion and we aren't forced
    to buy it.  What could be simpler than that?

    It isn't enough for you to 'explain away' why men are arrested, convicted
    and imprisoned for violent crimes at 10 times the rate that women are 
    arrested, convicted and imprisoned for such actions. You have ZERO facts
    to support your explanations.

    If you want something proved, do it yourself.  Prove your own case.
    (HINT:  You can't.)

    I didn't have a case to prove, actually.  Innocent until proven guilty,
    equal until proven otherwise, men and women are equally capable of
    crime and violence, your personal opinion and prejudicial, sexist
    interpretation of the statistics notwithstanding.  I have nothing to
    prove, as I have never asserted that men and women were anything but
    equal, whereas you have.  You present a case that cannot be supported
    by the figures from the DOJ that you yourself provide.  Reasonable
    doubt shows your case is flawed at best.  All I've done is shoot gaping
    holes in your case that cannot be ignored.
    
    If you insist that prison statistics show that men are ten times more
    prone toward criminal and violent activity, then you must also support
    that blacks are ten times more prone toward the same, since the
    statistics are identical in proportion to population ratios.  Your own
    references say this, quite clearly.  The ratios of criminal convictions
    for men vs. women in proportion to the population are identical to
    those of blacks vs. whites, so your own references fail you, not me.
    
    I find your characterization of my language as 'virtually violent'
    almost comical, if not pathetic.  If you're having trouble with the
    vocabulary, I'm afraid I can't help you there...but I'll try to keep
    the reading level under four syllables, if that will help.  I didn't
    mean to intimidate.
    
    I'm quite comfortable that I've presented a coherent reasonable doubt
    for the characterization of men as more violent than women based upon
    prison statistics, and debunked the sexist myth that this somehow
    differentiates behavior by gender.  
    
    tim

    .156
    
    You did an excellent job of not answering the question asked.  Let me
    re-phrase.
    
    Why is there an outcry that we are a racist society and clearly
    discriminate against blacks since they make up X% of society but are
    incarcerated at X+%.  If this is true then why would males who actually
    make up less than 50% of the population, if I remember the last #s
    correctly, be incarcerated at greater than 50%.
    
    If you are saying that there are valid reasons for this then you all
    others need to drop the racist garbage being thrown out about the
    unfair rates of incarceration.
    
    If it's discrimination for one segment of society to be imprisoned at a
    rate higher than their representation then the same attitude should
    carry over into the rest of the group.  that is, unless, there is an
    agenda you wish to support that would make this difficult to accept.
    
    Wait, I already know the answer to that one.
    

    RE: .157  Tim Grady

    > I didn't have a case to prove, actually.  

    Agreed.  Your statements were personal opinions, nothing more.

    > Innocent until proven guilty, equal until proven otherwise, men and 
    > women are equally capable of crime and violence, 

    So women are guilty (until proven innocent) of crime and violence,
    in your mind.  

    It doesn't matter to you that you have no proof at all that women
    commit crimes and violence as much as men - you've decided that
    women are guilty, and so be it.

    > your personal opinion and prejudicial, sexist interpretation of the 
    > statistics notwithstanding.  

    Your sexist interpretation of the stats is that YOU get to decide
    what they mean (even if your statement is blown apart by the numbers
    provided.)

    > I have nothing to prove, as I have never asserted that men and women 
    > were anything but equal, whereas you have.  

    If you want to claim that women commit crimes and violence as much
    as men, you sure as heck need to prove it.  You haven't.  You can't.
    It's just an empty claim of yours (based on a personal opinion
    which cannot be supported by facts in any way.)

    > If you insist that prison statistics show that men are ten times more
    > prone toward criminal and violent activity, 

    My statement said that men commit, get arrested, prosecuted and
    imprisoned for criminal and violent activity ten times as often.

    You brought in the word "PRONE", not me.

    > I'll try to keep the reading level under four syllables, if that will 
    > help.  I didn't mean to intimidate.
    
    Just be intellectually honest.  And accept that some will disagree
    with your personal opinions (as well they should.)

    > I'm quite comfortable that I've presented a coherent reasonable doubt
    > for the characterization of men as more violent than women based upon
    > prison statistics, and debunked the sexist myth that this somehow
    > differentiates behavior by gender.  
    
    You're fooling yourself.  You look at men being in prison at 10 times
    the numbers of women (almost 20 times the numbers of women just a few
    years ago), and you say it's because women don't serve as much time
    as men for the same offenses - and you think you've sewn up your case.
    Well, you haven't.  Not by a long shot.
    
    You're prepared to use as much verbal aggression as required to force 
    it on us anyway, even though it makes no sense at all.

    This is part of the dynamic of violence in our culture.  Might makes
    right.

    Like I said, I'm comfortable that I've presented reasonable doubt for
    your assertion about men.   I made no such assertion myself about one
    gender vs. another.  Your notion that men naturally tend to be more
    violent than women is a sexist myth.  
    
    Simply because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't 
    make sense.
    

    Rocush, we are a racist society (and I hope you do realize this.)
    We don't need prison population ratios to figure this out.

    White men, black men, and all the other men in America do have
    reasons for the violence.  I didn't say they were valid earlier,
    but I did say that we live in a culture which glorifies violence
    to a very extreme degree (and that men's self-worth is often
    defined by their abilities to engage in violent behavior.)

    It doesn't mean that we should let all the prisoners go, nor does
    it mean that they're all excused for what they have done.

    When it comes to minority men, poverty and disenfranchisement play
    huge roles in how violent they are.  Much of the poverty *and* the
    disenfranchisement are products of discrimination.

    It doesn't mean that these men don't commit the violent acts or that
    white men commit most of the acts that are blamed on black men.

    It's a complex dynamic.

    If you want to make up your mind that women commit as much of the
    crimes and the violent behavior as men in our society, you have
    to come up with proof for this.  

    But there is no such proof.  It simply isn't true.

    All the angling in the world isn't going to change this.

    RE: .160  Tim Grady

    > Like I said, I'm comfortable that I've presented reasonable doubt
    > for your assertion about men.   I made no such assertion myself about
    > one gender vs. another.  Your notion that men naturally tend to be more
    > violent than women is a sexist myth.

    It is patently false that I ever made such a statement, though.

    I said that men commit the vast, vast majority of the crimes and the
    violence, which says nothing at all about the inherent natures of 
    individual men versus individual women.
    
    > Simply because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it
    > doesn't make sense.

    You can't understand what people are saying to you AT ALL, so you're
    a poor one to judge.

    Meanwhile, you've provided no evidence at all for your assertion
    that women are as violent as men.
    
    You do need to prove this, if you intend to continue making this
    assertion.
    
    You have not done so.
    

    Your words, from 262.72, implying that men exhibit more violence by far
    than women do:
    
|    Do you understand what this means?  It means that the higher incidence
|    (if true) only points to the significantly higher incidence of women
|    than men being principal caregivers.  It doesn't disprove the notion
|    that men exhibit more violence on the average per person (by far) than 
|    women do.

    

    .163
    
    You keep making the claim that the prison statistics reflect just
    violent crime and not total crime.  I have not seent hat presented at
    all.  It appears that it is total crime.  If 90% of the men are in
    prison for drug possession charges does that make a difference in terms
    of proving violence?
    
    Also, if you think that there isn't a gender bias at work in the
    justice system you are sadly mistaken.  Look at the prostitution stings
    that get set up.  A prostitute gets picked up time and again and
    generally gets a fine and sent on her way.  when these guys get picked
    up they lose their cars, etc and some get senteced to jail.  Is there a
    difference, you bet.
    

    RE: .164  Tim Grady

    > Your words, from 262.72, implying that men exhibit more violence by
    > far than women do

    Tim, the word "EXHIBIT" (as in, 'exhibit a behavior') is not the same 
    thing as to have a tendency or to have an inherent nature toward the
    behavior. 

    It just means that one group performs the behavior more than another
    group, which says nothing at all about the natures of individuals of
    that group.

    As another example, I talked about how the violence in our society
    says nothing at all about the violence of individual Americans.

    Americans perform a great deal of violence in this country and
    elsewhere, but it doesn't make Americans inherently violent as
    individuals. 

    Do you understand the difference?

    If you were to say that the Swiss or the British commit as much 
    violence as Americans, I'd have to disagree.  

    It doesn't mean that NO Swiss or British citizens are ever violent
    in any way, nor does it mean that all Americans are more violent
    than all Swiss or British.

    Do you understand?  Do not continue with your current thread of the
    discussion until this much is settled.

    RE: .165  Rocush
    
    > You keep making the claim that the prison statistics reflect just
    > violent crime and not total crime.  I have not seen that presented
    > at all.  
    
    Rewrite your note.  I made no such claim AT ALL.
    
    

    Ok, then, a simple question for you: Do you think that men  are more,
    less, or equally capable of violence than women?  Prison statistics do
    not prove anything about actual behavioral tendencies - they are
    obviously biased, as the racial trends and male/female sentencing
    ratios clearly point out.
    
    All of your rhetoric implies that you believe that men are naturally
    more violent than women, as if prison statistics prove this myth.  The
    statistics we've discussed so far, however, show that when women are
    convicted of a violent crime, it's more likely to be an intimate or
    family member, and they are more likely to kill.  Also, of the 10% or
    so of the female prison population, the percentage of those convicted
    of violent crimes is the same as that for men...
    
    The statistics simply show that more men go to jail, and for longer
    sentences than women convicted of similar crimes...and nothing about
    one gender 'exhibiting' violent behavior more than the other.  That is
    an invalid extrapolation of the data on the general population who may
    or may not be convicted for their violence.  Apparently, though, you're
    ten times more likely to be convicted if you happen to be a black man,
    and ten times LESS likely to be convicted if you're a white woman...of
    course, that's just another interpretation, and may not stand.
    
    tim
    

    RE: .168  Tim Grady

    > Ok, then, a simple question for you: Do you think that men  are
    > more, less, or equally capable of violence than women?  

    You could have stopped your note right here.  The rest of your
    note tries to answer the question for me, and it's entirely
    incorrect.

    Please keep in mind (as I have stated to you over and over and over)
    that I'm talking about actual violent behavior, not tendencies or the 
    inherent natures of anyone (male or female, black or white.)

    Men commit more violent behavior as a group than women do (which says
    nothing at all about the inherent nature of any individual man or woman.)
    Remember good ole Mr. Rogers?  He's still less violent than female gang
    members, and MOST men are still less violent than the one solitary female
    serial killer who was convicted a few years ago.

    If you add up the violent men and the violent women, though, violent
    men will outnumber the violent women.  As stated, our culture glorifies
    violence (and some men feel compelled to define their self-worth by
    their abilities to exhibit violence) to such a degree that it's hardly
    surprising.

    > Prison statistics do not prove anything about actual behavioral 
    > tendencies - they are obviously biased, as the racial trends and 
    > male/female sentencing ratios clearly point out.

    You can't make the claim that everyone equally commits violence 
    on the basis that the prison population only shows the bias of the
    court system.

    > All of your rhetoric implies that you believe that men are
    > naturally more violent than women, 

    It doesn't seem to matter how many times I EXPLICITLY TELL YOU
    (outright, with nothing implied) that this is not what I'm saying.

    You have nothing unless you can convince me that I'm saying this,
    so you keep trying.
     
    > The statistics we've discussed so far, however, show that when women
    > are convicted of a violent crime, it's more likely to be an intimate 
    > or family member, and they are more likely to kill.  Also, of the 10%
    > or so of the female prison population, the percentage of those
    > convicted of violent crimes is the same as that for men...

    Where is the link (in any of this) to your idea that women commit crime
    and violence as much as men do?  

    There is no such argument provided in the stats - it's completely out
    in left field from every stat provided here.

    > The statistics simply show that more men go to jail, and for longer
    > sentences than women convicted of similar crimes...and nothing
    > about one gender 'exhibiting' violent behavior more than the other.  

    The disparity in the numbers is far, far too great to 'explain away'
    by saying that convicted men get longer sentences.

    Women are not being arrested, charged, tried, convicted OR imprisoned
    at all for such crimes in numbers anywhere close to men.

    And for good reason.  They simply aren't committing the crimes in
    numbers anywhere close to men.

    > That is an invalid extrapolation of the data on the general population 
    > who may or may not be convicted for their violence.  

    You have no way at all to take the data and suggest that it proves that
    women and men are equally violent in their behavior.

|    You have no way at all to take the data and suggest that it proves that
|    women and men are equally violent in their behavior.
    
    And I didn't try to prove that or anything else.  I have merely
    demonstrated that the basis in prison statistics of your assertion that
    men exhibit more violent behavior than women is not valid.
    
    You, not I, used prison data to try to prove that men exhibit more
    violent behavior than women, and failed, unless of course you would
    also try to suggest that blacks exhibit more violent behavior than
    whites.  You cannot prove a corelation between the degree to which men
    exhibit violent behavior and the proportion of men to women in the
    prison population.  It's not a valid measure of violent behavior with
    respect to gender any more than it is to race.  Statistically, the
    proportions are identical, and in neither case is there a corelation
    between the behavior exhibited in the general population, and the rate
    at which either group is incarcerated.  It's an assumption on your
    part, and a sexist one at that, just as it would be racist to use the
    same data to claim that blacks exhibit more violent behavior than
    whites.  It is an invalid statistical corelation.
    
    Get it?
    
    tim
    

    Tim Grady,
    
    Somehow this argument has become completely twisted into one of
    behavioural differences and racism.  Perhaps we should open a new
    topic, "Are men the more violent gender?" and then we can discuss
    *behavioural and social differences and issues.*  
    
    This entire discussion started when RAUH stated that if you look at
    "the statistics", they will point out that children of single mothers
    are more prone to crime and teenage pregnancy.
    
    HADDOCK then insisted that many studies had been cited which proved that
    families in the sole custody of the mother were more prone to violence.
    
    ROCUSH then tried to convince us that innumerable studies, reports and
    papers stated that children of single mothers were more at risk of
    social and emotional problems.
    
    No references were given for any of the above mentioned studies, which
    is a real pity because I would have liked to have read them.
    
    Anyway, my response to this line of argument was that if one was to
    consider the statistics for domestic violence then it would prove that
    it was men and *not women* who were the *main perpetrators* of domestic
    violence (which leads to all types of social ills - this was never
    discussed as the argument did not take this direction).  Somehow, I don't 
    think that we are going to come to a compromise.  You refuse to acknowledge
    that men perpetrate more violent crimes, compared to women (*by incidence*)
    and I refuse to accept that women are more accountable for domestic 
    violence and child abuse.  Perhaps we should agree to disagree and move on.
    
    CHARLOTTE                  

    

    Well, I've stayed out of this for a while.  I have pretty much said
    what I have to say except that someone pointed out several notes
    back that the only way Suzanne and Charolette can maintain their dogma
    is to ignore any evidence that does not support their biases.  I think
    the only value of what has transcribed since then is to _once again_
    demonstrate that statement.

    fred();

    RE: .170  Tim Grady

    >> You have no way at all to take the data and suggest that it proves
    >> that women and men are equally violent in their behavior.
        
    > And I didn't try to prove that or anything else.  

    Well, you have failed to prove anything, quite true (although you did
    seem to try to suggest that you'd proven some odd thing in all this.) :>

    > I have merely demonstrated that the basis in prison statistics of your 
    > assertion that men exhibit more violent behavior than women is not valid.

    Men are imprisoned at 10 times the rate of women, which is pretty hard
    to explain away as 'men get longer prison sentences' or 'our legal system
    simply doesn't want to prosecute women' (which we know is false.)

    The extremely different rates of criminal convictions is only ONE of
    the indicators, by the way (it was the one we happened to be discussing.)

    A great many crimes go unsolved - how many unsolved crimes are described
    as women robbing banks, women assaulting people, women committing rapes 
    and other crimes (where descriptions are given about the perpetrators, 
    but the law never does catch them.)  

    Are the numbers of unarrested female suspects more than 10% of the total?
    Would you bet a week's pay that men and women are 50/50 on this one?

    Do you think there is some great conspiracy among all Americans to 
    refrain from reporting it when their banks are robbed or they are
    held up at gunpoint by women?  This is both paranoid and delusional,
    if so.

    It is sexist for you to presume that you can demand that women accept
    your faulty claims about violence and crimes between men and women
    being even remotely equal.

    Charlotte is right on, though, when she says that it's time to agree
    to disagree.

    .173
    
    Once again you have made the implication that only violent criminals
    are in prison.  Prison polulations make up a lot of crimes only some of
    which are violent.
    
    You would be better off using the % of prison population comprising
    violent crimes as opposed to total population.
    
    As far as your contention that women are not prosecuted at the same
    rates goes, I will give you a simple example of fact.
    
    My brother was a police aofficer and he and his partner were called to
    a domestic disturbance.  they arrived and attempted to arrest the male
    as his wife said he had assualted her.  Argument between the husband
    and wife ensued and my brother and his partner proceeded with the
    arrest.  the male resisted rather forcibly which resulted in a rather
    physical encounter.  While my brother was trying to get his handcuffs
    out his partner wrestled the male to the floor and was trying to
    aggressively restrain him.  the next thing is the wife nails his
    partner in the head with a frying pan as she felt they were being too
    rough with her husband.  My brother arrested both of them.
    
    the husband was charged with resisting arrest and assulault.  Both
    violent crimes.  the wife was charged with assualting a police officer
    and resisting arrest.  The charges against the wife were dropped based
    on the court's acceptance of the defense that she was distraught and
    attempting to protect her husband.
    
    this was one of the funniest stories my brother told, but similar
    situations happened often in domestic situations.  In most cases both
    parties were involved in throwing things, punching, pushing, yelling,
    etc, but the male was the one that generally ended up with the charges
    and jail time.
    
    Simple statistics don't always tell the entire story.
    

    RE: .174  Rocush

    > Once again you have made the implication that only violent
    > criminals are in prison.  

    No, I didn't.  It isn't necessary to mention every single type of
    crime when giving a partial list of criminal activities as examples.

    > Prison polulations make up a lot of crimes only some of
    > which are violent.
      
    Wait until someone explicitly states that only violent crimes result
    in prison sentences before you make this correction.  No one has said
    this.
      
    > You would be better off using the % of prison population comprising
    > violent crimes as opposed to total population.
      
    According to Tim, men are imprisoned for violent crimes at 10 times
    the women's rate, too (so it wouldn't make any real difference.)
      
    > As far as your contention that women are not prosecuted at the same
    > rates goes, I will give you a simple example of fact.

    Your personal anecdote is contradicted by one of my own (about the
    difference in sentencing practices):

    	When I went to the sentencing of a man who confessed to sexually
    	molesting a 6 year old child and a 10 year old child (he had
    	fondled their genitals and made them fondle his), I saw a young
    	woman sentenced by the same judge first.

    	She was 19 or 20 years old, and she received TWO YEARS in the
    	state prison for trying (and not succeeding) to cash a stolen
    	check for $200.

    	He was given 90 days in the county jail for confessing to three
    	counts of sexual molestation.  (There were many more counts, but
    	he plea bargained them down to three.)

    So, a woman TRYING to steal $200 was more ghastly that a man who
    confessed to having fondled the genitals of children (and making
    them fondle his.)

    Suzanne,
    
    Well, since we've effectively shot holes in the prison statistics
    defense of the case for male violence, and all that remains is your
    conjecture and personal opinions on the subject, I suggest that pending
    any real colateral evidence, we can effectively dismiss this sexist
    notion.
    
    Thanks.
    
    tim
    

    Tim, we can dismiss your sexist suggestion that women be presumed
    guilty until proven innocent of committing half the violence in
    this country.

    Everything we know about violence in our society tells us that
    the vast majority of violence (legal and non-legal) is part of
    a dynamic involving one sex more than the other in our species.

    If you choose to ignore it or disbelieve it (as part of some
    desperate need to accuse women of being sexist), it's your choice.

    Let's agree to disagree.

.175

	Wow! That is horrible 2 years for $200 and 90 days for molestation!
	Criminals should get 4 years of the $200 and 40 years for the
	molestation.

	However,  if I may, the point being made by some of the men here is
	that if the situation was revered and the man stole $200 and the
	woman was the molester the sentence for the man would be longer.
	As an example.

		
			Woman criminal stole $200    -->gets 2 years
			Man criminal molests a child -->gets 90 days


			Man criminal stole  $200      -->gets 3 years
			Woman criminal molester child -->gets 40 days

	
	What matters most to me is finding the root cause of these
	social problems and eliminate them.  We can't fix the problem
	by analyzing the  statistics relating only to the symptoms.
	Don't you agree?

	Janet Reno said, something about crime prevention starting at
	the age of 3.  Anyone remember to exact quote?   

	Don't fame me. :-) Thanks.

	AB

    
|     -< Men *have* been proven guilty of committing 10x more than women. >-

    By your logic, then, so have blacks vs. whites.  This proves nothing.
    
|    Tim, we can dismiss your sexist suggestion that women be presumed
|    guilty until proven innocent of committing half the violence in
|    this country.
    
    I made no such suggestion of guilt.  Only you did that, about men.

|    Everything we know about violence in our society tells us that
|    the vast majority of violence (legal and non-legal) is part of
|    a dynamic involving one sex more than the other in our species.
    
    Perhaps everything you think you know about violence, but you've
    completely failed to back it up with facts.

|    If you choose to ignore it or disbelieve it (as part of some
|    desperate need to accuse women of being sexist), it's your choice.
    
    I've heard of sore losers, but this is ridiculous.   I haven't accused
    either gender of anything.  I simply pointed out that you, personally,
    not women as a whole, have espoused unsubstantiated and highly sexist
    opinions degrading men.  It's not the first time.
    
    OK, so we disagree.  That's not the first time either, but it is
    consistent.
    
    tim
    
    

    RE: .179  Tim Grady

    >> Tim, we can dismiss your sexist suggestion that women be presumed
    >> guilty until proven innocent of committing half the violence in
    >> this country.
        
    > I made no such suggestion of guilt.  Only you did that, about men.

    Men have been proven (beyond a reasonable doubt, in courts of law)
    to be guilty of 90% of the violent crimes which have been solved
    in this country.

    It's not a suggestion - it is a fact.

    You have implied repeatedly that women are as violent as men (which
    does presume women to be guilty until proven innocent of this.)

    > I haven't accused either gender of anything.  

    You've accused women of being as violent as men, which simply isn't
    true.

    > I simply pointed out that you, personally, not women as a whole, have 
    > espoused unsubstantiated and highly sexist opinions degrading men.  

    It's neither opinion nor inaccurate to state that men are convicted
    of violent crimes at ten times the rate that women are convicted of
    such crimes.  It is a fact.

    It's politically incorrect from your sexist perspective, that's all.
        
    > OK, so we disagree.

    Fine.  Are we done?

    .180
    
    Your statement that men are convicted at 10X the female rate pretty
    much speaks for itself.  that was the basic point.  It wasn't who is or
    isn't actually doing something, it is who is getting charged and put in
    prison.
    
    As I pointed out, and most police officers will support this, a lot of
    domistic violence involves both men and women being equally violent
    toward each other.  The overwhelming number of cases involve the man
    only, not the woman only.  At best it involves both, but this doesn't
    happen very often.  Unfortunately this is a situation that requires
    proving a negative and it can't be done.  All of your claims to the
    contrary doesn't change a thing.  It does, however, clearly identify
    your refusal to admit that just maybe a lot of feminist verbage and
    male-baiting is incorrect.
    

    RE: .181  Rocush

    > Your statement that men are convicted at 10X the female rate pretty
    > much speaks for itself.  that was the basic point.  It wasn't who
    > is or isn't actually doing something, it is who is getting charged 
    > and put in prison.

    You want facts? It is a fact that men are convicted of violent crimes
    at ten times the rate that women are convicted of such crimes.

    You want innocent until proven guilty? The men in prison were proven
    guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Do you think that equal numbers of women are guilty even though they
    have not been charged, tried, convicted or imprisoned for such crimes?
    That's 'guilty until proven innocent'.

    > As I pointed out, and most police officers will support this, a lot
    > of domistic violence involves both men and women being equally violent
    > toward each other.  

    This is not a fact, nor does it prove that women commit violent crimes
    as often as men.

    > The overwhelming number of cases involve the man only, not the woman 
    > only.  At best it involves both, but this doesn't happen very often.  

    This is not a fact, either, nor does it prove that women commit violent
    crimes as often as men.

    > Unfortunately this is a situation that requires proving a negative 
    > and it can't be done.  

    If you want to prove that women commit violent crimes as often as men,
    you need something to support this contention.

    > All of your claims to the contrary doesn't change a thing.  It does, 
    > however, clearly identify your refusal to admit that just maybe a lot 
    > of feminist verbage and male-baiting is incorrect.

    It is a matter of objective facts to cite the numbers of men
    who are convicted of violent crimes (compared to the very small 
    percentage of women who are convicted of violent crimes.)

    The numbers make no judgment about men (especially individual men,
    who could be significantly less violent than the women imprisoned 
    for violent crimes) - it's just a matter of citing factual information.

    Suzanne,
    
    No matter how many facts we present by way of stats from the US
    Department of Justice, FBI crime stats, statements by US senators and
    even President Bill Clinton, the opposing camp in this debate are going
    to continue to refuse to acknowledge anything that is any way
    considered to be "anti men." 
    
    We can continue until the cows come home, but they have convinced
    themselves that by quoting crime statistics we are in some way
    launching a sexist attack and the entire purpose of our debate is to
    discredit men (whereas we are simply daring to refute their sexist 
    statements regarding women).  We have been accused of manufacturing
    statistics and misinterpreting them to suit our sexist and racist
    agendas.  We have even had some outlandish theories thrown at us, 
    regarding the "padding" of population demographics in order to ascertain 
    percentage of population and race relating to violent crime in an attempt 
    to prove that it is politically correct to state that all gender and race 
    groups perpetrate violent crime on an equal scale.  Also, that "equality"
    means that 50% of women and 50% of men *must* be responsible for violent
    crime and if you don't believe that then you are a sexist racist.
    <supressed laughter>  
    
    It is interesting to note that at no time have we accused men of any 
    social ills, or discredited their parenting skills or even discussed the 
    negative impact of violent crime.  Yet, they are determined that by 
    quoting statistics relating to *incidence* we are saying that men are 
    inherently more violent by nature.  Also, at no time have we said that 
    women are not violent, yet they are determined that this is our line of
    argument.
    
    We cannot have any kind of constructive discussion under these
    circumstances as any logic or evidence we put forward is considered 
    irrelevant.  Do you think perhaps if we were of another gender our 
    opinions would he heard? 
    
    CHARLOTTE
                           

|    You want facts? It is a fact that men are convicted of violent crimes
|    at ten times the rate that women are convicted of such crimes.

    Actually, no.  It is a fact that men are convicted of more crimes than
    women.  Of the women who are convicted, the same percentage of them are
    convicted of violent crimes as that of men, about 13%.
    
    Of those who are convicted of all crimes, men and women are convicted
    of violent crimes at the same rate.  All the numbers show is that men
    are 10x more likely to be convicted and go to jail.
    

|    discredit men (whereas we are simply daring to refute their sexist 
|    statements regarding women). 
    
    I've said nothing sexist about women.  In fact, I've gone out of my way
    on several occasions within this conversation to wholeheartedly endorse
    gender equality, the idiotic misinterpretations of those endorsements
    by some notwithstanding. I see nothing politically correct about
    disputing the gross misinterpretation of statistics for political
    purposes such as this one.  In fact if any aspect of this discussion
    were to be characterized as socially acceptable conjecture, which is
    after all what "politically correct" would indicate, it is the notion
    that men are more violent and the statistics bear that out somehow.
    
    That has been the crux of this discussion, and it has been the sexist
    bias in the interpretation of the statistics alone, and not the numbers
    themselves, that support that position.
    
    The fact that your argument, whether original or simply cut-and-paste
    parrotting of various political movements, has no substance, must be
    difficult to accept, I'm sure.  Of course, if it were an original
    thought, I would have thought you could defend it better than to
    degrade to assinine name-calling and turnabout ploys.  Obviously you
    have nothing more poignant to say.
    
    Is my vocabulary still "virtually violent"? :->
    
    tim
    
    tim
    

    Thanks, Charlotte.  Once again, you're the voice of reason!
    
    Thank you,
    Suzanne

    WOW! Thanks Suzanne! I sprayed my tube with a good yuck on that! :)

    RE: .184  Tim Grady

    >> You want facts? It is a fact that men are convicted of violent
    >> crimes at ten times the rate that women are convicted of such crimes.

    > Actually, no.  

    Actually, YES.  Read on...

    > It is a fact that men are convicted of more crimes than women.  

    Men are convicted of crimes at ten times the rate of women.

    > Of the women who are convicted, the same percentage of them
    > are convicted of violent crimes as that of men, about 13%.
        
    The same percentage of the very, very LOW percentage of women who
    are proven to commit crimes at all, you mean.

    > Of those who are convicted of all crimes, men and women are
    > convicted of violent crimes at the same rate.  

    Think.  Women are convicted of crimes at the rate of 1/10th the number
    of men who are convicted of crimes.

    If the same percentage of the male subset and the female subset of
    criminal convictions is for violent crime, then men are convicted
    of violent crimes TEN TIMES more often than women are convicted of
    violent crimes.

    Do you understand?  We have proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that
    men have committed ten times the number of violent crimes that women
    have committed.

    > All the numbers show is that men are 10x more likely to be convicted 
    > and go to jail.

    Your statements are indicative of your penchant for viewing women as
    guilty until proven innocent of committing half the violent crimes 
    in this country.

    You have no proof at all the women commit half (or anywhere remotely
    close to half) the violent crimes in this country.  You simply demand
    that women accept this as truth, or be subject to your wrath.

Suzanne,

You don't seem to understand statistics very well.

What you're saying, then, is that men commit more
violent crimes, property crimes, drug crimes, ALL
crimes based on the fact that they are convicted 
and incarcerated more often.

You're assuming that the justice system works, when
it comes to men, but at the same time you quote an
terrible example of when it doesn't.  You also imply
through the same logic that blacks commit more crimes
than whites, since the same statistics show the same
trend across racial lines.

The only thing the statists clearly show is that
the justice system doesn't work fairly:  Men get
convicted and go to jail 10x more than women, and
blacks 10x more than whites.  When convicted, men
get 45% longer sentences than women.  Extrapolating
the statistics to try to support a position about
any demographic is simply not valid.

You haven't proven anything, except perhaps your 
obsessive need to get the last word. :->

Go ahead.  Get it over with.

tim

    RE: .189  Tim Grady

    > You don't seem to understand statistics very well.

    It's just that they aren't working out very well for you, Tim.

    > What you're saying, then, is that men commit more violent crimes, 
    > property crimes, drug crimes, ALL crimes based on the fact that 
    > they are convicted and incarcerated more often.

    It's not the only evidence.  It's simply precisely accurate to state
    that men have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed
    ten times the crimes (violent and non-violent) as women.

    If you want to claim that women have committed approximately half these
    crimes, you're judging them as guilty until proven innocent.

    > You're assuming that the justice system works, when it comes to men, 

    As mentioned earlier, I'm considering the unsolved crimes, too.

    If women committed approximately half the crimes, then eyewitness 
    accounts of unsolved crimes would tend to describe the suspects
    as women approximately as often as they describe the suspects as
    men.  They don't.

    You may possibly believe that our entire society is in a conspiracy
    to protect women from prosecution, but I don't buy it.  What evidence
    would you have for such a theory, if it's what you do believe.

    > You also imply through the same logic that blacks commit more crimes
    > than whites, since the same statistics show the same trend across 
    > racial lines.

    As mentioned several times, poverty and disenfranchisement play a
    devastating role in crime.  Citing statistics and the role of poverty
    is not the same thing as saying that one class of people is inherently
    less law-abiding than another.

    > The only thing the statists clearly show is that the justice system 
    > doesn't work fairly:  

    The statistics show no such thing on their own.  You have to make a
    giant leap of faith with the notion that women are committing half
    the crimes first.  ONLY THEN do the statistics tell the fictional
    story you want told.

    > Men get convicted and go to jail 10x more than women, 

    Men are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ten times more often
    than women.  If you want to conclude that women are committing half
    the crimes, you must presume women to be guilty until proven innocent.

    > When convicted, men get 45% longer sentences than women.  

    The male prison population is ten times the size of the women's prison
    population.  A very large proportion of prison inmates are repeat
    offenders.  Men who are convicted of crimes have a far greater chance
    of being repeat offenders or at least having more numerous prior 
    offenses (and being people who will get stiffer sentences.)

    > Extrapolating the statistics to try to support a position about
    > any demographic is simply not valid.

    I'm merely stating the statistics as they stand (with men being the
    convicted perpetrators at ten times the rate of women.)

    You're the one who wants to use the statistics to prove something
    (as quoted above), except that you're trying to prove a notion which
    requires another vigorous (and quite faulty) assumption first.

    > You haven't proven anything, 

    The statistics stand on their own as an objection to the notion
    you have been trying to sell here about women committing half the
    crimes and violence in this country.  It wasn't true in the first
    place, and you have failed to make it true since then.

    .190
    
    Since you believe that statistics tell all there is to know about any
    particular situation, and looking beyond the bare facts is pure
    speculation that can not be supportedbecause the facts don't lie, then
    you really need to look at various statisitcs about who makes up the
    lowere economic levels of our society.
    
    According to the reports I have seen women represent the largest
    percentage of low income people.  Apparently this means that women are
    not very capable or competent.  If they were they would certainly not
    be the majority of low income wage earners.
    
    If you accept this based on the statistics, which don't lie and can't
    have other factors affecting them as do the prison staitistics, well
    ....

    RE: .191  Rocush

    You need to rewrite your note without the false statements.

    > Since you believe that statistics tell all there is to know about
    > any particular situation, 

    This is blatantly false.  Please rewrite.

    > and looking beyond the bare facts is pure speculation that can not 
    > be supported because the facts don't lie,

    This is a false statement of my position as well.  

    When something requires a totally unsupported premise in order to state
    a position which goes beyond the facts,it's wise to realize it.  

    That's all.

    > then you really need to look at various statisitcs about who makes 
    > up the lowere economic levels of our society.

    Be careful here.  When you use statistics to come to OTHER conclusions
    (which go beyond the facts), you must have evidence.

    > According to the reports I have seen women represent the largest
    > percentage of low income people.  Apparently this means that women
    > are not very capable or competent.  

    You've drawn a conclusion here without all the facts.

    All you can safely say from these statistics is that women (as a group)
    earn less money than men.  It's similar to stating that men (as a group)
    commit the vast majority of the violence and the crimes.

    Neither involves an additional conclusion.  When you go on to MAKE 
    a conclusion about what this means about the inherent WORTH or NATURE
    of women or men, you're doing something else.  Don't do it.

    > If they were they would certainly not be the majority of low income 
    > wage earners.
      
    You don't believe this, though, so why propose it.
      
    > If you accept this based on the statistics, which don't lie and
    > can't have other factors affecting them 

    This is another false statement on your part.  All along, I added
    explanations (such as poverty and disenfranchisement) to account
    for some of the statistics.

    > as do the prison staitistics, well....

    So you respond to someone who DID NOT make an additional conclusion
    by making an additional conclusion yourself (after a long list of
    false statements about the person's argument.)

    Rewrite your note, Rocush.  Be honest if you want a real response.

            

    >All you can safely say from these statistics is that women (as a group)
    >earn less money than men.  It's similar to stating that men (as a group)
    >commit the vast majority of the violence and the crimes.

    >Neither involves an additional conclusion.  When you go on to MAKE 
    >a conclusion about what this means about the inherent WORTH or NATURE
    >of women or men, you're doing something else.  Don't do it.


    When you say that men (as a group) commit the vast majority of the
    violence and the crimes then *you* are drawing a conclusion based on
    statistics about prison populations.  It is quite a leap from prison
    stats to  'men (as a group) commit the vast majority of the violence
    and the crimes'.  
    
    Especially 'violence and crimes', these are different things aren't they?
    
    
    Regards,
    
    angela
        
    

    Re. 191
    
    Rocush,
    
    <According to the reports I have seen women represent the largest
        percentage of low income people.  Apparently this means that women
        are not very capable or competent.  If they were they would certainly
        not be the majority of low income wage earners.>
    
    This pathetic statement proves my point exactly.  Yes, women *as a
    group* do earn less than men.  It's a fact - like men *as a group*
    commit more violence.  So, you have taken this fact and made a
    statement that because women earn less that means they are incapable
    and incompetent.  Are you waiting for us to say that because men commit
    violent crime they must be psychotic and derranged?  Is this your
    problem Rocush?  Do you think that by stating a fact we are passing 
    judgement and making anti-men statements?  Why don't you read what we
    have written and try and understand that our argument is simply the use
    of statistics to refute *your* sexist comments about women, and not 
    an exercise in "male bashing."
    
    Re. 193
    
    Angela,
    
    <When you say that men (as a group) commit the vast majority of the
        violence and the crimes then *you* are drawing a conclusion based
        on statistics about prison populations.  It is quite a leap from
    prison stats to  'men (as a group) commit the vast majority of the
    violence and the crimes'.>
    
    Err no, not exactly.  We have cited stats from various sources.  We
    have not simply looked at the prison stats and come to the conclusion
    that men perpetrate more violent crime, based soley on prison stats. 
    Do you know how many women are raped in America every year?  Do you
    know about the American Congress passing legislation on tougher
    measures for violent crime and the additional resources that have been 
    allocated to futher protect the victims (of which the majority just
    happen to be women?)  Do you read the newspapers?  Are you interested 
    in reports on violence by reputable organisations, such as the World Health
    Organisation and the United Nations?  
    
    We have *not* decided in an attempt to discredit men we will make
    outrageous and unsupported statements about men being violent.  We are
    simply stating that from information obtained from many different
    sources, we are refuting the sexist comments about women being the main
    perpertrators of violent crime and being *more* accountable for social 
    problems among children. 
    
    CHARLOTTE

    Re. 185
    
    Tim Grady
    
    <... That has been the crux of this discussion, and it has been the sexist
        bias in the interpretation of the statistics alone, and not the
    numbers themselves, that support that position.>
    
    We are looking at the numbers themselves.  When interpreting statistics
    it is recommended that one actually take the numbers into account in
    order to come to a conclusion whether it is sexist or not to do so.  I
    prefer looking at actuals.  It's more logical.
        
    <The fact that your argument, whether original or simply
    cut-and-paste parrotting of various political movements, has no substance,
    must be difficult to accept, I'm sure.>
    
    No.  What is difficult to accept is the the blatant disrespect for the 
    opinions of others, as displayed in your first sentence above.  I would
    love to tell certain people what I truly think of their argument,
    intelligence and reasonsing, but I can at least muster the manners to
    realise that this too is an opinion and they are just as entitled as I
    am. 
    
    <Of course, if it were an original thought, I would have thought you 
    could defend it better than to degrade to assinine name-calling and 
    turnabout ploys.  Obviously you have nothing more poignant to say.>
    
    May I respectfully suggest that *you* begin to practice what you preach.
            
    CHARLOTTE
            

    
    
    
    |It's a fact - like men *as a group*
    |    commit more violence.  
    
    Nothing has been presented in this discussion to prove this statement,
    save some very biased, sexist  opinions and misinterpretations about
    prison statistics which we have already debunked.
    
    Prove it.
    
    tim
    

    Tim, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that women "as a group"
    commit at least half of the violence in our culture.

    It isn't enough to keep calling women names as a diversion.

    You've made this claim, now you have to support it.  It won't be
    accepted as 'truth' every time you're in the mood to be aggressive 
    about it.

    Tim,
    
    This is becoming incredibly circular.  If you really cannot remember
    where we posted stats, refer to my notes .31 and .52.  You will also
    note that these are legitimate sources and not postings from
    Cosmopolitan Magazine or emotive pieces from the Women's Weekly Discussion
    Group.
    
    However, I think we are going to have a problem in that we read
    statistics completely differently.  I don't care if they show a gender
    bias, I am more concerned with the trends that they reflect.
    
    Seeing as though you do not have the manners to acknowledge anything we
    post, do you really think this discussion is going to go anywhere?
     
    CHARLOTTE

    
    >do you really think this discussion is going to go anywhere?
    
    Just because it isn't going where _you_ want it doesn't necessarily
    mean it's not going anywhere.  However, as I've said befaore, the 
    real value of the discussion is not specifically what is said, but
    the attitudes and agendas being demonstrated.
    
    fred();

    
    Yes, it's very telling about attitudes and agenda when someone keeps
    insisting (without any proof AT ALL) that women commit half the
    violence and the crimes, while screaming 'sexist' at any woman who
    refuses to accept this as 'truth' simply because he demands it.

    Well said, Suzanne.
    
    Fred, I actually agree with you.  Perhaps you should re-read your note
    .36  and explain your motivation.  Also, we are still waiting for your 
    expose on the womens' "dirty little secrets".  C'mon try and convince us 
    that this was not a sexist outburst, on your part.  While on the subject,
    what about the blatant sexism in note .23 and .24?  Should I go on?
    
    CHARLOTTE

    
    reply 201.
    
>C'mon try and convince us 
    
    Exactly my point.  As someone else said, there is no amount of evidence
    or logic to the contrary of your and Suzanne's agaenda that will
    convince you of anything.   I said long ago that I will not play the
    "you must prove your point to my satisfaction or else you lose" game.
    
    fred();

    
    Fred, no amount of logic or evidence to the contrary to YOUR AGENDA
    will convince you (or Tim) of anything.

    Yet women are guilty of whatever the heck you (or Tim) dream up about 
    women until women are proven innocent (which simply isn't possible here.)

    Yes, it's definitely a sign of your attitude and agenda.

    
>    Fred, no amount of logic or evidence to the contrary to YOUR AGENDA
>    will convince you (or Tim) of anything.

    Aw comeon, Suzanne, at least try to come up with something origional
    if you are going to try to trash someone.
    
    fred()

    
    Maybe it's time men _get_ an agenda rather than just sticking there
    collective heads where the sun don't shine.
     
    fred();

    
    >> Fred, no amount of logic or evidence to the contrary to YOUR AGENDA
    >> will convince you (or Tim) of anything.

    > Aw comeon, Suzanne, at least try to come up with something origional
    > if you are going to try to trash someone.


    At least you're willing to admit that you write this stuff to trash
    others. I wouldn't have put it quite so bluntly.

    I'd call this progress on your part.  :>


    The point is that you aren't in a position to accuse others of having 
    agendas or being unwilling to listen to logic.  

    You live in a glass agenda, pal.  Keep those rocks to yourself.

    > Maybe it's time men _get_ an agenda rather than just sticking there
    >    collective heads where the sun don't shine.
    
    Many of us figured out a long time ago that most women's agendas are 
    NOT "us vs them" and so we see no point in such a confrontational
    lose-lose strategy.  Far better to identify problems as JOINT SHARED
    problems in gender relations and work TOGETHER on solution.  But you 
    go your own way if you must.
    
    DougO

    
    Agreed, DougO.
    
    Thanks!
    

    
    reply


>    Many of us figured out a long time ago that most women's agendas are 
>    NOT "us vs them" 

    And some of us have figured out that the "feminist" agenda is not
    _equality_ but, as Suzanne so aptly demonstrates, preference and
    dominance.  To remove any barriers women might have while keeping
    the preferences enjoyed by women.

    
    >and so we see no point in such a confrontational
>    lose-lose strategy.  
    
    And some of us have figured out that we'd better stand up for what
    rights we have left while we still can.  Unfortunately not enough.
    
    >Far better to identify problems as JOINT SHARED

    Now if women like Suzanne could just figure that out too....
    Thank goodness that there _are_ many women who are beginning to figure
    it out.  Even many who have had the courage to stand up and say so
    in this very file.

    fred();

    fred();

Re: .197

|    Tim, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that women "as a group"
|   commit at least half of the violence in our culture.

I disagree.  There is no burden of proof upon me to show that men
and women are equal in any respect whatsoever.  It's the default,
the given assumption, and it's the law.  I've merely debunked a
sexist notion presented by others that presumes men and women 
are NOT equal, as the law says they are, using the same statistics
to demonstrate the biased interpretation used to defend that notion.

|    It isn't enough to keep calling women names as a diversion

I haven't called women any names, so I'll assume you're referring to
someone else.

Re: .198

|I don't care if they show a gender
|    bias

That's my point.  As you freely admit, you don't care if the numbers 
we are both quoting show a gender bias.  You've chosen to use your
personal interpretation of those numbers, knowing they're biased.  Bad
move.

For one thing, even though the gender bias inherent in the statistics 
is reality, it discredits your argument completely.  For another, this
comment clearly shows what I've been saying from the start, namely that
your interpretation of the statistics, without acknowledging the gender
bias that here you clearly admit to ignoring, is sexist.  Finally, I'm
really surprised to see you admit that you don't care about gender
bias.  Gender bias is sexism.  It's your whole argument, which makes no
sense.  Didn't I say that earlier?

Although I appreciate your agreeing with me that the numbers are
biased, if you don't care about sexism, then what is your real agenda
for using numbers that you admit are gender biased, or at best don't
care, to support your opinion?

tim

    Fred, you're just trashing people again with vague insupportable
    accusations.

    The bottom line is that you want women to pay a price for daring
    to disagree with men.  That's hardly 'equality'.


    If women want equality, you demand that we lie by agreeing that women
    commit half the violence and crimes in this country (or else you'll
    accuse women of not really wanting equality at all.)

    It's the same old domination game (except for the new twist of some
    men accusing women of wanting to dominate when women disagree and
    push back.)

|    The bottom line is that you want women to pay a price for daring
|    to disagree with men.

Please quote where Fred says that, or explain how you managed to read
his mind.

|   It's the same old domination game (except for the new twist of some
|   men accusing women of wanting to dominate when women disagree and
|   push back.)

Is that the game where someone always has to get the last word?
How do you distinguish between "domination" and "push back"?  Is it,
like wardrobe?  Leather for one, business suit for the other?

Maybe it's not as black and white as you seem to think.

tim

    tim-
    
    maybe i've been reading too much nonsense on both sides to understand
    any of this at this point, but  your last note inferred to this reader
    that you do not need to prove that men and women are equally violent
    because since you believe in equality and the law says men and women 
    are equal, thus men and women commit the same amount of violence and
    the fact that the stats don't support this indicates extreme sexism
    towards men?
    
    please tell me this is not so.
    
    i'll buy and arguement that says men and women have equal propensity
    towards violence, but that's as far as that goes.  it says nothing 
    towards supporting who actually commits more violence.

    
    
>    Fred, you're just trashing people again with vague insupportable
>    accusations.

    Still not able to come up with anything original?

    fred();

    RE: .210  Tim Grady

    > There is no burden of proof upon me to show that men and women 
    > are equal in any respect whatsoever.  It's the default, the given 
    > assumption, and it's the law.  

    Show us the law which states that women are presumed to be guilty
    of committing half the crimes in this country as a matter of EQUALITY.

    While it's certainly clear that you're determined to harm women by
    using the equal rights movement against women, it simply isn't true
    that women MUST be presumed guilty (by law) without due process.

    > I've merely debunked a sexist notion presented by others that presumes 
    > men and women are NOT equal, as the law says they are, using the same 
    > statistics to demonstrate the biased interpretation used to defend 
    > that notion.

    You haven't debunked ANYTHING.

    You've merely engaged in sexism yourself.

    You believe that you can demand that women submit to appease you, or 
    suffer the consequences of refusing.  That's a very old game, pal.


    Our legal system does not presume that equal numbers of men and women
    are guilty of crimes as a requirement of 'equality'.  This is simply
    your weird idea, which you cannot support in any way.

    Mostly, though, your argument is a chance to accuse women of being
    'sexists' (which you do in almost every single note you write.)  
    
    It's probably the only reason you bother to engage in this conversation 
    at all.

    RE: .214  Fred
    
    >> Fred, you're just trashing people again with vague insupportable
    >> accusations.
    
    > Still not able to come up with anything original?
    
    When you come up with some new tricks, my descriptions of what you're
    doing will change.
    
    The burden is on you...  :>
    

    
    I guess it's time to start emulating your style of argument...
    
    Ho yeh?  The same to you and the horse you rode in on.
    
    
    fred();

    
    Thanks, Christine!!

    It's absolute hogwash for women to be presumed guilty of committing
    an equal number of crimes on the basis of laws about equality.

    It's one of the most ridiculous notions I've ever seen, in fact.

    
    Fred, try again.  What you just wrote is not a new trick.
    
    It's just more of the same old playground politics that you can't
    seem to resist trying...  :>
    

    
>    Fred, try again.  What you just wrote is not a new trick.
>    
>    It's just more of the same old playground politics that you can't
>    seem to resist trying...  :>
    
    Just folloing the rules of the playgroud as established by you,
    Suzanne.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .212  Tim Grady

    > Is that the game where someone always has to get the last word?

    Actually, the real game is to accuse someone of trying to get the
    last word.  Some regard it as the ultimate win in and of itself
    (which is pretty weird.)  :>

    People have been discussing and arguing about things since the dawn
    of the human race. There is no such thing as the final word until
    humans are extinct. Even if one topic or one forum closes, the
    subject of conversation always pops up elsewhere.  Always.

    
    > Just following the rules of the playgroud as established by you...
    
    Luckily, we didn't grow up together, so you learned playground
    politics long before we met.
    
    You just never grew past it, that's all.  :>
    
                       

>    Even if one topic or one forum closes, the
 >   subject of conversation always pops up elsewhere.  Always.
    
    
    Because there is at least one person who will make sure that it does.
    
    fred();

    
    > Because there is at least one person who will make sure that it does.
    
    No.
    
    It's because we are a species moving rapidly toward a world population
    of 6 billion, and we like to keep in touch.  :>
    

    
    >in touch.  :>
    
    In touch?  Does that mean I've just been sexually hareassed?
    
    fred();

It would be racist to infer that blacks are more violent than whites,
just as it is sexist to infer that men are more violent than women. 
There is no need to prove that men and women actually commit violence
at the same rate, only that the statistics that we've been discussing
do not clearly support the sexist proposition that men commit more
violence than women.  The statistics are admittedly gender biased, just
as they are racially biased, and are not valid support for proof of
behavior along gender or racial lines.  We've clearly demonstrated
that.  I'm sorry if you find that so disappointing.

I have not accused women of anything, nor have I called women names.  I
have, however, clearly shown the sexist bias inherent in the positions
taken by a few individuals.  Unfortunately, such positions persist
despite the discreditation of the statistics used to support them, and
thereby leaving such positions debunked.

|  While it's certainly clear that you're determined to harm women

Do you have proof of my intentions to this affect, or is this just
simple slander? 

|You've merely engaged in sexism yourself.

On the contrary, I detest sexism, as I've clearly stated, and I am not
picky about the gender of the perpetrator.  This is a long-standing
position of mine, well known to you.  Both men and women are capable of
sexism, and I abhor it in either manifestation.  I have sought with
some success to discredit what I belive to be a sexist myth, namely
that men are more violent.  My position would be identical if the
gender in question was reversed.

|You believe that you can demand that women submit to appease you

Well, whatever your personal fantasies along these lines may be, you
cannot read my mind.  Since I've said nothing that even remotely
implies the accusation in this tirade, I'll simply dismiss it without
further comment.

Let's try to stick to the subject, and desist in the personal
attribution of malicious intent, shall we?

tim

PS Do you still find my vocabulary "virtually violent"? :->

    
    No, it means that our species tends to keep many of us in communication
    with others in our species.

    Communicating via computers is a process where people use words and
    symbols (rather than a physical presence) to communicate with others.

    The words and symbols are stored as bits (1s and 0s) on computer
    storage media.

    
>    The words and symbols are stored as bits (1s and 0s) on computer
>    storage media.
    
    Well gooooollleeeeeyyy, dats how dats done.
    
    fred();

    RE: .226  Tim Grady

    > It would be racist to infer that blacks are more violent than whites,

    Someone has to MAKE the inference, though.

    You keep accusing people of making such an inference, and it's simply
    not true.  Your accusations are fabricated, pure and simple.

    > I have not accused women of anything, nor have I called women names.  

    You've accused women of committing half the crimes and violence, and
    you've also accused any women who refuse to submit to you on this 
    point as being 'sexist' (which is name-calling.)

    > I have, however, clearly shown the sexist bias inherent in the positions
    > taken by a few individuals.  

    You've shown NOTHING.  You simply DEMAND that women here accept that
    you've done this (which is not the same thing as actually proving
    anything.)

    > Unfortunately, such positions persist despite the discreditation of 
    > the statistics used to support them, and thereby leaving such positions 
    > debunked.

    You've debunked nothing.

    First, you demanded that women accept your notion that women commit
    half the violence and crimes in this country (OR ELSE), and now you
    demand that women accept that you've PROVEN this idiotic notion 
    (OR ELSE.)

    It's the dynamic which got us all here in the first place (after
    thousands of years.)

    > Let's try to stick to the subject, and desist in the personal
    > attribution of malicious intent, shall we?

    If this means you intend to stop accusing women of sexism in almost
    every note you write, go for it.

    
    re .229
    
    Yea, how DARE anyone in this notes file DEMAND that their argument
    be accepted just because they said so.
    
    fred();
    
    
    
    

    
    We could agree to disagree, as has been suggested here by Charlotte,
    me (and sometimes, even you.)
    

|  You've accused women of committing half the crimes and violence, and
|  you've also accused any women who refuse to submit to you on this 
|  point as being 'sexist' (which is name-calling.)

Really?  I don't recall saying anything like that.  Please point to the
quote in which I explicitly accuse women of committing half the crimes
and violence.  I can't find it anywhere.  Also, I can't find anywhere
that I accuse "any women" of anything, whether they be submissive to my
will or dominant for that matter.  Where do you find this?  Simply
because I don't happen to agree with you personally, does not mean that
my comments about your opinions apply to your entire gender.  That's
irrational.  More on that later.

|You simply DEMAND that women here accept that
|    you've done this (which is not the same thing as actually proving
|    anything.)

Likewise, please point out where I use the word demand, or any synonym
thereof.  I can't find it anywhere.

|   If this means you intend to stop accusing women of sexism in almost
|   every note you write, go for it.

I have done no such thing.  I have attributed sexism to the comments of
specific individuals, like you.  I could hardly characterize you as an
individual as being representative of women as a whole, nor can my
comments about specific individuals, in any but the most pathological
sense, be attributed to all women as a gender.  My language in this
respect has been quite clear.  Perhaps you should go back and read it
again.

It seems to me that you take this discussion so personally that you
interpret opinions that disagree with you as an individual as being
directed at your entire gender, and comments about women as a whole as
being in reference to you personally.  Neither is the case.

Proclaiming without valid evidence that men commit more violence than
women infers that men are more violent.  I disagree with the
proclamation and the inference as well.  It's nothing personal.

tim

|We could agree to disagree, as has been suggested here by Charlotte,
|me (and sometimes, even you.)
    
Only if you agree to submit to my will.

:-)

(I'm kidding)....

ok.

    uh, tim, any chance you can address my question?
    
    (btw-i'm outta here shortly, back in the morning)
    
    signed,
    
    not suzanne
    
    :-)

|uh, tim, any chance you can address my question?

Sure.  I agree with you.  I didn't try to prove, nor
even propose who commits how much violence.  I have
no information to support a position on that.  I
simply objected to the use of the statistics to 
support the position that men commit more violence,
since I see no such proof in those numbers.  I also
objected vehemently to the inference that men are
intrinsically more violent.  That's it.

I also acknowledged, very early in this string, that
certain cultural influences toward the 'macho' image
encourage violence among men, which I detest.

tim

    Tim, please answer my comment regarding the fact that someone NEEDS
    to make an inference (if you want to accuse them of being racist or
    sexist for having MADE such an inference.)

    This is a very key point here, and you've missed it repeatedly and
    consistently.

    Hey, if you're not demanding that anyone accept what you're saying,
    I'm glad.  

    You haven't proven anything, and saying (repeatedly) that you've done 
    so is nothing more than smoke.  It's pointless.

    As for your (repeatedly) accusing women of being sexist - do you know
    much about grammar?  "Women" is the plural version of the word "woman".

    You have accused more than one woman here of being sexist in response
    to the refusal to agree with you (when you argue that it is "sexist"
    to say that men commit more of the violence and crimes than women do.)

    > Proclaiming without valid evidence that men commit more violence than
    > women infers that men are more violent.  

    A proclamation cannot 'infer' anything - it can only 'imply' something.

    In this case, YOU made the inference (not others.)  In fact, others
    have corrected you (repeatedly and consistently) about this mistaken
    notion, but you keep making the same accusation anyway.

    > I disagree with the proclamation and the inference as well.  

    The inference is yours.  You are disagreeing with yourself.

    > It's nothing personal.

    Ditto.

    Just stop doing these things, anyway.  :>

    RE: .235  Tim Grady

    > I didn't try to prove, nor even propose who commits how much violence.  

    You denied that men commit more violence than women, which necessarily
    means that women must be presumed to commit as much violence as men
    (which you have no evidence at all to support.)

    > I have no information to support a position on that.  

    Everything we know about our culture and our history tells us that
    men commit more of the violence than women.  No one is saying that
    violence is 100% bad or that men in general are bad for committing
    most of it.  

    No one has made any inference AT ALL about the inherent nature of
    men based on the statistics.  (No one except you, that is.)

    > I simply objected to the use of the statistics to support the position 
    > that men commit more violence, since I see no such proof in those 
    > numbers.  

    These numbers are the only proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that we have
    about violent crime.  Any other presumptions are done so without due
    process (and without the presumption of innocence.)

    > I also objected vehemently to the inference that men are
    > intrinsically more violent.  That's it.

    YOU made this inference, though.  If you object to it, then stop making
    it.  Simple enough.

Hey, I thought we agreed to disagree!

    
    Hey, we did.  (Last week, I think.)  :>

    If you keep making false claims about what others are saying, while
    also claiming that you've succeeded in proving your position somehow
    - it's the antithesis of 'agreeing to disagree'.

    If you want to agree to disagree now, it would be most welcome.

    (We never will agree, I guess you realize by now.)  :>

>    > I didn't try to prove, nor even propose who commits how much violence.  
>
>    You denied that men commit more violence than women, which necessarily
>    means that women must be presumed to commit as much violence as men
>    (which you have no evidence at all to support.)
    
    I think he was trying to deny that the prison statistics prove that
    men commit more violence than women and therefore that proof did
    not exist about who commits more violence one way or the other.
    
    (So, men may or may not commit more violence, but no statistics that
    he's willing to believe exist to provide proof of which way it is.)
    
    I may have misinterpreted.
    
    If I did interpret correctly, though, the burden of proof he's
    trying to require for Reasonable Doubt here is one that would appear
    to make the Simpson Jury seem like the pinnacle of critical
    analysis.

    
    Remember, though, he also stated that the law requires us to consider
    men and women equal in this area (which means, pretty much, that we're
    required by law to presume that men and women commit violence equally.)
    So much for due process and presumption of innocence.

    And, talk about a stretch on the concept of equal rights legislation.. :>

    
    Hey, now there's some "affirmative action" for you:  For every man
    they throw in prison they have to throw one female in prison.  Then
    no one would complain about "double bunking" :^).
    
    fred();

    >> Many of us figured out a long time ago that most women's agendas are 
    >> NOT "us vs them" 
    >
    > And some of us have figured out that the "feminist" agenda is not
    > _equality_ but, as Suzanne so aptly demonstrates, preference and
    > dominance.  To remove any barriers women might have while keeping
    > the preferences enjoyed by women.
    
    I'm a feminist.  That's not my agenda.  I don't think you're
    interpreting Suzanne correctly, but even aside from that, you're
    certainly not interpreting me or any other feminist I know correctly.
    But you go your own way if you must.
    
    DougO

    
    >I'm a feminist.  
    
    I've always heard that a "male femininst" was a guy who'd never been
    drug through divorce court yet. 
    
    And who couldn't get a date otherwise :).
    
    fred();

    Whooo-Haaa! Thats a heart burner Fred!:)

    Never having been married, and intending never to be, my sweetie and 
    I still 'date', in the eighth year of our relationship.  Don't envy
    anyone who's been to divorce court- but I must say, nobody had to tell
    me how never to get there.  I was a feminist long before I met stacey.
    
    DougO

|    Remember, though, he also stated that the law requires us to consider
|    men and women equal in this area (which means, pretty much, that we're
|    required by law to presume that men and women commit violence equally.)
|    So much for due process and presumption of innocence.
    
    That, too, is an interpretation of what I said, and slanted toward your
    particular viewpoint.  I said that men and women are equal under the
    eyes of the law, and hence it goes against that to portray one gender
    as more violent (or more criminal or more negatively in any sense).
    
    As for burden of proof, well, the misinterpretation of statistics in
    the defense of prejudice is hardly a new concept, nor is it new to deny
    the validity of such "proof".  That's all this is about.  No statistical
    evidence whose specific intent was to examine violence along gender
    lines has yet been presented.  Twisting simple demographics does not
    stand even casual scrutiny.
    
    I find the reference to the Simpson trial somewhat ironic, in light of
    the failure on the part of the prosecution being widely held as an
    example of poor evidence, and not restrictions upon the burden of proof
    itself.  In that sense, it's a good point.  The prosecution failed to
    prove it's point by bungling the rules of evidence.  Too bad.
    
    tim
    

    RE: .247  Tim Grady

    > That, too, is an interpretation of what I said, and slanted toward your
    > particular viewpoint.  I said that men and women are equal under the
    > eyes of the law, and hence it goes against that to portray one gender
    > as more violent (or more criminal or more negatively in any sense).
    
    Remember, though - the inferences about men came from you.  If anyone
    went against your interpretation of the law, it was you.

    We were just talking about the FACT that ten times as many men are
    proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of crimes (violent and
    otherwise) than women.  The only way to put women up there with
    this many proven guilty individual men is to presume the women
    are guilty without due process. No way do equal rights laws require
    anyone to do this.

    > As for burden of proof, well, the misinterpretation of statistics in
    > the defense of prejudice is hardly a new concept, nor is it new to deny
    > the validity of such "proof".  

    The statistics came up in the first place after you displayed prejudice
    against women.  As Charlotte has tried to explain to you more than once,
    the statistics were offered to counter an accusation you'd made about
    women.

    The statistics haven't been interpreted at all (except by you.)
    From our perspective, they simply stand on their own.

    > That's all this is about.  

    What a shame.  You've totally missed the boat on it.

    > No statistical evidence whose specific intent was to examine violence 
    > along gender lines has yet been presented.  

    Then you have no basis at all to presume that men and women are equally
    violent.  No law in this country requires anyone to presume women are
    guilty without due process.

    > Twisting simple demographics does not stand even casual scrutiny.
    
    It isn't 'twisting' statistics about crime (and violent crime) to note
    that males are proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) to have committed
    such crimes ten times more often than women.  

    You cannot deny the accuracy of this statement (no matter what opinions
    you may have about the reasons for it.)  It is factually correct that
    our legal system has proof (beyond you know what) of male human beings'
    guilt at ten times the rate of female human beings in this country.

    It's a simple state of fact that requires no interpretation at all.

    It is not "equality" to see men and women as absolutely identical in
    every possible way.  It's "equality" to have equal rights, in spite
    of some differences we happen to have.

    In other words, it's not prejudice to recognize the male-female ratio
    of known violent criminals.  It's not a statement of inference that
    men are bad in general, nor is it a statement of inference that women
    lack the 'kahoonas' to be as bad as men.

    It's just a statement of what we know (beyond a reasonable doubt)
    about who has committed solved crimes.  It's not the end of the world.

    
    DougO, my grandfather on my Mom's side was a feminist.  
    
    He was a very impressive, dynamic, successful guy with a wonderful life.
    My Grandmother, Mom and Aunt were extremely lucky. He was an amazing man.
        

    
    So, Tim - do we agree to disagree?  :>
    

    Re. 209 - Fred Haddock
    
    <And some of us have figured out that the "feminist" agenda is not
        _equality_ >
    
    Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about feminism instead
    of trashing it because you don't understand it?
    
    Re. 243 - DougO
    
    Well said.  Unfortunately Fred doesn't seem to understand feminism (which
    is evident in his reply .244 to your note).  Perhaps he thinks
    feminism is "men vs women", and only men who haven't been dumped by their 
    wives could possibly be against male supremecy?
    
    Re. 226 - Tim Grady,
    
    <On the contrary, I detest sexism, as I've clearly stated, and I am not
    picky about the gender of the perpetrator.  This is a long-standing
    position of mine, well known to you.  Both men and women are capable of
    sexism, and I abhor it in either manifestation.  I have sought with
    some success to discredit what I belive to be a sexist myth, namely
    that men are more violent.  My position would be identical if the
    gender in question was reversed.>
    
    Why don't you then explain your motivation for the note in which you
    said that "if men started thinking with their heads instead of their sex
    organs then women would starve."  I tell you what I detest Tim, it's
    dishonesty and hypocrisy!
    
    You claim that by observing trends from statistics that one is being
    sexist and racist, because it simply doesn't suit *your* agenda.  When
    it comes to anything that might be "construed" as men not being superior
    to women, you simply adopt the "ostrich syndrome".  (PLEASE NOTE,
    before you all start getting your knickers in a knot, at NO TIME have
    we said that because the incidence of male perps is higher this shows
    .X., because we have made absolutely no comment whatsover no matter
    how hard you try to convince yourselves otherwise).  Also, I 
    didn't notice you addressing the statements that women are *more* 
    responsible for violence or refuting the statements that single women are 
    worse parents. 
    
    Tim, why don't you just lay your cards on the table and tell us what
    you really think?  Why don't you admit that you had little or no
    interest in refuting the sexist statements made about women and you
    only started to participate in the discussion when Suzanne and I used 
    statistics to point out that it is in fact men, and not women, who commit 
    the majority of violent crimes.  If you truly believed in equality then
    you would have spoken out against the sexist comments about women which 
    started this whole argument. 
    
    CHARLOTTE                                                              

        re .251

>    <And some of us have figured out that the "feminist" agenda is not
>        _equality_ >
>    
>    Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about feminism instead
>    of trashing it because you don't understand it?

    Problem is, for you, that I and a growing number of people understand
    the "feminist" agenda all too well. 

    re Dougo

    I would be so sure of your position if I were you.  Most states have
    a law that if you "cohabitate" for more than a certain amount of time
    you are considered common-law married.  I had a friend in college that 
    lost a house that he owned _before_ (go figure) the "marriage" that way.

    fred();

    re .246
>    Never having been married, and intending never to be, my sweetie and 
>    I still 'date', in the eighth year of our relationship.  Don't envy
>    anyone who's been to divorce court- but I must say, nobody had to tell
>    me how never to get there.  I was a feminist long before I met stacey.
    
    Actually confirms, more than counters, what I said.  Actually, It also
    confirms that you probably understnd more than you let on or you would
    have married the girl and made an honest woman out of her by now.
    
    fred();

|    Tim, why don't you just lay your cards on the table and tell us what
|    you really think?  Why don't you admit that you had little or no
|    interest in refuting the sexist statements made about women and you
|    only started to participate in the discussion when Suzanne and I used 
|    statistics to point out that it is in fact men, and not women, who commit 
|    the majority of violent crimes.  If you truly believed in equality then
|    you would have spoken out against the sexist comments about women which 
|    started this whole argument. 
    
    I have, in fact, said exactly what I really think.  I think it seems
    like some women revel in the role of victim.   They enjoy it too much
    to let go, or allow anyone to question that they are not always the
    target of oppression.  It's a little pathetic, but not particularly
    rare.
    
    For all the rattle and hum, for example, over the glass ceiling, which
    I readily admit has existed for years, it is rare in my experience to
    find a woman who actually has the ambition and drive to reach that
    barrier, but common to hear many whine about it.  The role of victim
    can be a comfortable one sometimes.  Life is hard.  Get over it.
    
    tim
    
    

    Oh, and by the way, I know plenty of men like that too.  It's not
    gender-specific.
    

    RE: .253  Fred

    > Actually confirms, more than counters, what I said.  

    You said you heard that feminist men don't get 'dates', yet DougO 
    has had a steady 'date' for over 7 years.  

    It's funny how you claim that everything confirms what you said
    even when it's a 180 degree difference.

    > Actually, It also confirms that you probably understnd more than 
    > you let on or you would have married the girl and made an honest 
    > woman out of her by now.
    
    Why do you see her as only a 'girl' (and a dishonest one at that)
    until a man marries her?

    Are men dishonest (if they're involved with someone) until they 
    get married, too?  If not, Tim needs to crown you as the sexism
    champ of this arena.

    By the way, it's PREJUDICE when you decide that people of a certain
    group can be characterized by being members of that group.  So when
    you say 'feminist men' = XXX or YYY, you are prejudging them (i.e.,
    exhibiting prejudice.)

    As Charlotte said so well in her recent note, no one here has made
    such inferences about men based on statistics.  You do it quite
    freely, though, and Tim doesn't seem to bat an eyelash about it.

    It shows where people truly stand on all this.

    I can understand the distinction between inference and implication, and
    will accept that I should have used the latter rather than the former.
    
    The implication, then, throughout this conversation has been that
    prision statistics are evidence that men commit more violence, and that
    therefore men themselves are more violent.  I maintain that the
    evidence is severely flawed by bias, and that the implication itself,
    which is quite clear, is sexist.
    

    RE: .254  Tim Grady

    > I think it seems like some women revel in the role of victim.

    The whole point of your (and SOME others') participation in this 
    conference, though, is to show that MEN are the real victims 
    in our species (by light years.)

    MEN are the victims, and (per your note) most WOMEN would simply
    starve to death if men didn't think with their sexual organs.

    So now we finally get down to what makes you so darn angry
    at women.

    RE: .258  Tim
    
    > I can understand the distinction between inference and implication, and
    > will accept that I should have used the latter rather than the former.
    
    Hell just froze over.  Thank you.
    
    > The implication, then, throughout this conversation has been that
    > prision statistics are evidence that men commit more violence, and that
    > therefore men themselves are more violent.  
    
    The last part has NOT been implied.  In fact, it has been explicitly
    stated (numerous times) that this is NOT being implied.
    
    When someone explicitly states that an implication is not being made,
    you are making deliberately false statements to keep claiming that 
    it is.  The implication (and the inference) is in your own mind and
    words.
    
    > I maintain that the evidence is severely flawed by bias, and that 
    > the implication itself, which is quite clear, is sexist.
    
    It's YOUR implication, though, which makes YOU the you-know-what,
    per your own definition.

    Re: .259
    
    I think men and women can both be victims of sexism, as I've said all
    along.  I see far too many women, however, who cannot concieve of
    anyone but themselves as victims.  I also think that some men and women
    revel in the role of victim, however I have little patience for such
    people.  It's an easy excuse, for which I personally have no need.
    
    

    Re. 252 - Fred
    
    <Problem is, for you, that I and a growing number of people understand
        the "feminist" agenda all too well.>
    
    Why is this a problem for me?  Okay, so you know about the feminist
    agenda?  I don't suppose you would care to let us know what it is would
    you?  No?  I didn't think so.  No point in calling your bluff.
    
    <Actually confirms, more than counters, what I said.  Actually, It also
        confirms that you probably understnd more than you let on or you
        would have married the girl and made an honest woman out of her by
    now.>
    
    Now this is a shining example of a male chauvinist's anger. 
    It obviously hasn't occured to Fred that Doug's partner can actually think
    for herself and would be an equal partner and have her say in a
    marriage, if in fact *she* wished to marry at all.
    
    Tim Grady,
    
    Wow, what an amazing response to my question.  Suddenly you start
    ranting on about women as vicitims and then launch into the concept of
    the glass ceiling.  I asked, as an equalitarian, why you did not respond 
    to the sexist comments directed at women and next thing you are calling
    me a victim and tell me that life is hard!  C'mon - that's not the talk
    of somebody who "loathes sexism" and is fair to all gender and race
    groups, is it?
    
    CHARLOTTE
                 

    
    re .261
    
    Which, once again, only confirms my opinion of the "feminist" agenda.
    
    fred();
    

    
>
>    > Actually confirms, more than counters, what I said.  
>
>    You said you heard that feminist men don't get 'dates', yet DougO 
>    has had a steady 'date' for over 7 years.  
    
    Go read my note again.  Carefully this time.
    
    fred();

    re .255
    
    This conference is a fine example.

    
    Thanks, Paul!
    

    
    Fred:  "You say the sky is green."
    
    Anyone:  "No, I say the sky is blue."
    
    Fred:   "You've just confirmed my statement about you."
    
    
    It's an automatic (100% meaningless) response.
    

    re .266
    
    >    It's an automatic (100% meaningless) response.
    
    Surely just as valueable as :
    
    "feminist":   Feminism rules!
    non-femininist: I disagree:
    feminist: Then you are a *&^%$ male-chauvenist-pig
    
    He who has eyes, let him see.  He who has ears, let him hear.
    --a-quote-from-somebody-that-I-don't-remeber.
    
    fred();

Just want to let you people partaking of this discussion know, that there are
(most likely) many more of us out here who go right up the middle on this. 

Please continue... so we can better define where the extreme edges lie...

-Bob

    Geeze Suzanne! Sounds like the sky is always falling when you
    rebuttle.:)
    

    
    .268
    
<Just want to let you people partaking of this discussion know, that there are
<(most likely) many more of us out here who go right up the middle on this. 
    
    Know what is found in the middle of the road?
    
    
    
    
    Roadkill!!  
    
    
    fred();

    ...roadkill and lawyers.;)
    

    .253> Actually confirms, more than counters, what I said.  Actually, It
    > also confirms that you probably understnd more than you let on or you
    > would have married the girl and made an honest woman out of her by now.
    
    If you want to get into "what I understand" about the institution of
    marriage in our culture we should probably open another note for the
    discussion- because the short version following will undoubtedly be
    misunderstood.  But I'll share my view with you anyway.
    
    I see marriage in our culture as the impossible dream.  I see a culture
    so fragmented and shell-shocked by the changes and challenges of the
    twentieth century that once-appropriate institutions, such as marriage,
    no longer have the basis in shared values that are required to sustain
    them.  The unshared values are many- people have differing ides of
    commitment, differing ideas of appropriate roles for men and women (in
    professional life, in home-building responsibilities, in social life
    outside the home, etc); differing ideas, in short, about what it means
    to get married.  This is self-evident merely by the fact of our violent
    disagreements in here on these topics.  Our culture doesn't have shared
    values about what these things mean anymore.  People who get into a
    marriage without having taken the time to understand each others'
    viewpoints are getting into something that is one thing to one partner
    and something different to the other.  Worse than that- many people
    don't even know they *have* ideas about these topics, they never know
    they ought to bring them up and discuss them, until they're already
    into a committed-for-life partnership and have to start facing directly
    the incompatibilities that their partner has different values.  The
    evidence is all around us.  Our society does not prepare us adequately
    for the real responsibilities of marriage.  Yet it impels us by the
    millions to take the plunge- and by the millions we fail.  Lives are
    ruined and embittered.  What good such an institution?  I cannot in
    good conscience support it- instead I seek to encourage people to
    understand themselves, to understand each other, and to define their
    relationships to suit themselves, not the social engineering of church
    nor state nor the culture which would impel them to such disastrous
    choices.
    
    In my partnership with Stacey, Fred, I *HAVE* made an honest woman of
    her, and an honest man of myself, by exploring our values with deep
    communication, and by making and keeping a long-term monogamous
    commitment to her and to the son by her previous marriage that we are
    raising.  Marrying her, according to my values, would be a repudiation
    of all of my understandings of what is wrong with our society and wrong
    with its insistent promotion of the unsuitable institution of marriage.
    Marriage would be an act of DIShonesty.
    
    Unsuitable institution *for me*.  Nothing pleases me more than when two
    people find a way to reach a life-partnership based on shared values
    and communication under *any* means- and if that means they discover it
    within a marriage, more power to them.  What I cannot stomach about our
    societal approach to marriage is the insistence that it is the only
    possible, acceptable way.  By my life, by my example, I daily disprove
    that insistence.  By the example of all the failed marriages
    surrounding us in this country, many others daily disprove the wisdom
    of that insistence, too.  Yours, Tim's, George's, Suzanne's included,
    Fred.  Very clearly, marriage is far too often entered into in this
    country by people who shouldn't be doing it.  It is a tragedy.  And I
    wouldn't wish it upon anyone who doesn't know what they're doing- as
    happens all too frequently.
    
    DougO

    re .272
    
    So, "Nobody has a right to tell anybody else how to live" only applies
    when it comes to anyone trying to tell _you_ how _you_ should live?
    
    fred();

    
    Thanks for the thoughtful and articulate note, DougO.

    
    Fred, I didn't get anything close to that from what DougO said.
    
    Of course I don't speak for him, but my take on that part of .272 is:
    
    A successful lifetime commitment between two people requires a shared,
    detailed understanding of exactly what that means to each party.
    
    If that understanding does not exist, then a marriage license isn't
    enough to make the commitment succeed.
    
    And if that understanding does exist, then a marriage license isn't
    necessary for the commitment to succeed.
    
    JP
    
    

    > So, "Nobody has a right to tell anybody else how to live" only
    > applies when it comes to anyone trying to tell _you_ how _you_ should
    > live?
    
    You seem to forget, you were the one who invited my views about my
    understanding of marriage by your comments about that understanding
    in .253.  I didn't bring it up.  But anyway...
    
    Attack the messenger instead of facing the message if it makes you 
    feel better, Fred- its ok with me, I know that the societal message
    impelling marriage is a very deep-set conditioning for some people,
    even if they've personally felt the failure.  Tell me, though- did
    you try to get a much better sense of your second wife's values before
    you married her than you did with your first?  On second thought, don't
    tell me- just think about it for yourself.  And go your own way- that's
    all I've ever really thought people should do.
    
    DougO

    DougO,
    
    Interesting viewpoint.  Having been divorced several years ago, my own
    opinion of marriage is a bit ambivalent.  You've provided food for
    thought.  Thanks,
    
    George,
    
    Is there really such a word as 'rebuttle'?  Should I be asking you that
    at all? ;-)
    
    Paul,
    
    I think you're probably right in .264.  I would like to think I'm not
    whining or projecting blame on others for my own misfortunes - I'm not
    typically so inclined, and I've tried to present my opinions with some
    balance, but I do sense there is an awful lot of whining, on both
    sides.  As I said dozens of replies ago, I don't personally feel I have
    anyone else to blame.  In fact, the fundamental theme of my argument is
    balance, although it's been misinterpretted otherwise by a few.
    

    Tim
    
    Who can run this spell check with a pc mapped key board? I am happy as
    pie to be able to still use vms to get into the notes. Ever try using
    the user friendly web to get in here? I cannot wait till the friendly
    part comes to the web access before they kill my vms accounts for
    ever. 8^{
    
    Dougo, it becomes a differnt game, this marriage game, after you take
    them vows. It becomes becomes down right hostil sometimes. 
    
    Everytime I read and think of all the good things I have done for the
    outlaws, formally the inlaws, and all the support and money you give to
    them. And when they turn thier hearts against you, after wards, I am
    often reminded of the song, 'God Bless the Child' done by Bessy Smith,
    then by Blood Sweat and Tears. 
    
    Every time I think of the outlaws, the former friends, and family. The
    system that seems to alienate us.... wondering why only makes you wish
    that it was legal to write motions to shoot the bi*ch was legal.  

    
>    You seem to forget, you were the one who invited my views about my
>    understanding of marriage by your comments about that understanding
>    in .253.  I didn't bring it up.  But anyway...
    
    I would disagree that I "invited" anything.  You do seem rather
    sensitive about my comments, though.  Why is that?  Did I hit
    a nerve?  However, given your views, and experience, with marriage I 
    take your comments with a greatbig dose of FWIW.
    
    Asd as I said before, you'd better check your local state laws, you
    may not be quite as "shacked up" as you think you are.
    
    fred();

    > Dougo, it becomes a differnt game, this marriage game, after you take
    > them vows. It becomes becomes down right hostil sometimes. 
    
    George, yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about in cases where
    people didn't reach an understanding FIRST.  It is a tragedy.
    
    DougO

    
    Actually I thought I had a pretty good "understanding" with my first
    wife....Then she decided to change the rules.
    
    fred();

    Fred, am I 'sensitive' to your comments?  Only to your evident
    misunderstandings and misattributions of these misunderstandings 
    to me.  But no, I'm not telling anyone how to live.  I'm explaining
    what I think of marriage, and why I think pushing people to want to 
    get married without understanding it thoroughly is bad for our society.
    If you want to talk about how getting married without understanding
    what it means is somehow a good thing, feel free.  I'm inviting you.
    
    DougO

    Tim, you like to whine about your notion that men are incredible victims
    because men go to prison at ten times the rate of women (and you seem 
    to believe that we're all obligated to buy into the notion that men and 
    women commit crimes equally, which leads YOU to the conclusion that
    the prison stats prove that men's convictions are discrimination.)

    You whine that we're saying men are inherently violent (and you whine
    that men are being victimized right here by this implication) even 
    though we've explicitly stated to you over and over that we are not 
    saying this.

    You are most definitely blaming people for victimizing men, while
    also judging (some) women harshly with accusations about seeing
    women as victims.  You are one confused dude, pal.

    re .281
    >    Tim, you like to whine about the idea that men are incredible victims

    So now we are back to men who complain about injustice are "whining".
    Try something original, Suzanne.  

    fred();

    
    re. .283
    
    Acutally you forget (conveniently) that many notes back I said that
    women will be in trouble if men ever start thinking with their brains
    instead of their sex organs.
    
    You also ignore (or it blew right by you) that my origional comments
    were about your "male feminism".  It was you who changed the subject
    from there to marriage.
    
    fred();

    RE: .285  Fred
    
    > So now we are back to men who complain about injustice are
    > "whining".
                                          
    Tim used the word "whining" to describe some men's complaints,
    and I notice that you didn't object to his using the word in
    this context.
    
    > Try something original, Suzanne.
    
    Also, I should inform you that every word in your most recent
    note has occurred (at least somewhere) in this notesfile prior
    to your reply.
    
    You just broke your own rule.  :>  For shame.

    
>    Tim used the word "whining" to describe some men's complaints,
>    and I notice that you didn't object to his using the word in
>    this context.
    
    Yeh, but Tim hasn't tried to use that tactic a dozen times before.
    And now that you mention it,  I do object to him using it.
    
    fred();

    RE: .286  Fred

    > Acutally you forget (conveniently) that many notes back I said that
    > women will be in trouble if men ever start thinking with their brains
    > instead of their sex organs.

    Actually, you made this sexist comment in another topic.

    How it relates to anything in your exchange with DougO is a complete
    mystery.

    How it would be 'convenient' for someone to forget that you were 
    willing to admit to holding such a view is downright incomprehensible.

    RE: .288  Fred
    
    >> Tim used the word "whining" to describe some men's complaints,
    >> and I notice that you didn't object to his using the word in
    >> this context.
    
    > Yeh, but Tim hasn't tried to use that tactic a dozen times before.
    
    Do you call it a 'tactic' when someone describes WOMEN as 'whining' 
    when they complain about injustices?
    
    > And now that you mention it,  I do object to him using it.
    
    Tell him.

    
    >    Actually, you made this sexist comment in another topic.
    
    Same file, close enough.  And I'll have to think about it a while
    before I decide if the "sexist" part is a personal attack or a 
    compliment.
    
    fred();

    
    re. 288
    
    >    Tell him.
    
    I think Tim can read, but just in case.
    Bad boy, Tim, bad, bad.
    
    fred();

    
    Be sure to tell Tim that it's bad to say that women are 'whining'
    when women complain about injustices.
    

    
>    Be sure to tell Tim that it's bad to say that women are 'whining'
>    when women complain about injustices.
    
    Now why would I want to put someone down for telling the truth :^)
    
    fred();

    Want some whine with that cheeze!:) Red or white? 8*)
    

    > Acutally you forget (conveniently) that many notes back I said that
    > women will be in trouble if men ever start thinking with their brains
    > instead of their sex organs.
    
    "in trouble"?  You mean, you think that it benefits women that so many
    marriages fail because BOTH partners fail to think about what it means?  
    You think my partner is "in trouble" because I've thought about the 
    roles of our societal view of marriage and rejected it with my head 
    instead of accepting it as the price of satisfying my sex organs?
    
    My partner would disagree with you.  I certainly do.  If you're
    agreeing with my premise that thinking about what marriage should
    mean and discussing it and reaching understanding about it before 
    doing it is good for men, I can't see why you'd think women would
    be "in trouble" thereby.  I think it would be good for everybody.
    This is what *I* was talking about, many notes back, when I said I
    prefer to see such things as JOINT problems in gender relations and
    that BOTH genders will benefit by understanding them better.
    
    DougO

    You know, I had this lengthy note ready to defend my position one more
    time, but frankly I'm tired and I have a lot of real work to do.  The
    idea that there must be something wrong with me to disagree with an
    unfounded corelation between male violence and prison statistics is too
    juvenile to even rebut.  That's schoolyard chatter, and not worth the
    time it would take to transcend the debate back to even a semblance of
    maturity.  
    
    Life is too short to waste time on somebody else's bitterness.
    
    tim
    

    The funny thing, of course, is that no one has made an correlation
    between male violence and prison statistics.

    How pointless for Tim to get his knickers in a twist over something
    we keep trying to tell him that we aren't saying at all.  He's having
    an argument with phantoms in his own mind.

    We've simply cited the prison statistics in response to claims that
    women commit half the crimes and violence (because the men in
    prison have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but the
    women who supposedly commit an equal number of crimes are being
    presumed guilty until proven innocent in such claims.)

    The only thing we know for certain (beyond a reasonable doubt) about
    who has committed crimes comes from the legal system's records about
    convictions and incarcerations.  Everyone else in this entire country
    is presumed innocent.  Everyone.  Every one.

    What could be simpler to understand?  

        re doug0

    If you go back and re-read .244 (carefully this time).  You will find 
    that you have not been rebutting my statement, but confirming it and 
    giving us a prime example.

>    "in trouble"?  You mean, you think that it benefits women that so many
>    marriages fail because BOTH partners fail to think about what it means?  

    It think it is very detrimental to men that so many men _don't_ 
    think about the ramifications of marriage, and having children,
    especially in todays legal system, until it's too late.

    I think it is detrimental to men that so many men will put up with so
    much c**p from women just so they can "get it".

    If ever I am so down, so out, so insecure in my person and so
    emasculated in my manhood that I must claim to be a "male feminist"
    in order to impress some female, PLEASE! somebody! SHOOT ME!
    There are many things worse than being alone, and there are women
    out there that do appreciate what men are, what they do, and what
    they provide.  After all some 50% of marriages do still succeed.

    fred();

    RE: .299  Fred

    > It think it is very detrimental to men that so many men _don't_ 
    > think about the ramifications of marriage, and having children,
    > especially in todays legal system, until it's too late.

    It's detrimental to everyone involved in divorce, including women.
    Everyone (including women) would be a lot better off if this 
    situation could be improved.

    > If ever I am so down, so out, so insecure in my person and so
    > emasculated in my manhood that I must claim to be a "male feminist"
    > in order to impress some female, PLEASE! somebody! SHOOT ME!

    This attitude comes from you (it's the way YOU think), not DougO
    or any feminist man I've ever known.

    The insecurity lies in those who feel the need to put on a macho
    show to prove their manhood (and who challenge other men to do the
    same), as if this machismo is the only way to define masculinity.

    Most men (especially feminist men) know better than this.

    > There are many things worse than being alone, and there are women
    > out there that do appreciate what men are, what they do, and what
    > they provide.  After all some 50% of marriages do still succeed.

    Feminist men are very much appreciated, too.  My Grandfather on my
    Mom's side was a feminist, and he was very, very, VERY much appreciated
    by his wife and two daughters.  His legacy lives on in his four grand-
    daughters and five great-grand-daughters.

    >    This attitude comes from you (it's the way YOU think), not DougO
>    or any feminist man I've ever known.

    Of corse.  Did I claim otherwise?

>    The insecurity lies in those who feel the need to put on a macho
>    show to prove their manhood (and who challenge other men to do the
>    same), as if this machismo is the only way to define masculinity.

    Considering the source, I'm not surprised.  But there are plenty
    of women out there who _do_ understand that neither "feminism"
    or "machismo" is what really defines masculinity.  And there are
    still plenty of men around who understand that too.  And a lot
    of men who have forgotten, too.

    >    Most men (especially feminist men) know better than this.

    And considering who it is who is trying to define "better", again
    I am not surprised.
    
>    Feminist men are very much appreciated, too.  My Grandfather on my
>    Mom's side was a feminist, and he was very, very, VERY much appreciated
>    by his wife and two daughters.  His legacy lives on in his four grand-
>    daughters and five great-grand-daughters.

    And my grandpa was an old f**t and his family loved and appreciated
    him.  So what?  
    
    fred();

    RE: .301  Fred

    >>> If ever I am so down, so out, so insecure in my person and so
    >>> emasculated in my manhood that I must claim to be a "male feminist"
    >>> in order to impress some female, PLEASE! somebody! SHOOT ME!

    >>  This attitude comes from you (it's the way YOU think), not DougO
    >>  or any feminist man I've ever known.

    >    Of corse.  Did I claim otherwise?

    Fine - as long as you acknowledge that the drivel you wrote about
    why some men call themselves 'feminists' is coming from YOUR head
    (and you're not trying to imply that it came from anyone else's),
    good. 

    > But there are plenty of women out there who _do_ understand that 
    > neither "feminism" or "machismo" is what really defines masculinity.  

    No one claimed that 'feminism' defines masculinity, of course.
    Any person (male or female) is perfectly free to use the word
    'feminist' to describe himself/herself, that's all.

    > And there are still plenty of men around who understand that too.  
    > And a lot of men who have forgotten, too.

    This from a guy who expresses doubts about the 'kahoonas' of Mennotes 
    moderators who don't do what he wishes they would do.

    Greeeeat.

    Re. 262 - Fred
    
    <re .261
    Which, once again, only confirms my opinion of the "feminist"
    agenda.>
    
    I suspect you just use the word "feminist" to describe any women who 
    disagrees with you.  Or perhaps feminism, to you, is the embodiment of 
    everything you dislike and mistrust about the female gender group. 
    Either which way, you still do not understand the basic concept on which 
    feminism is based.  I could recommend some reading material - or would you
    prefer to remain blissfully ignorant?
                          
    Re. 277 - Tim Grady,
    
    <I would like to think I'm not whining or projecting blame on
    others...> 
    
    which is contradicted in the same paragraph by,
    
    <In fact, the fundamental theme of my argument is balance, although it's 
    been misinterpretted otherwise by a few.>
    
    Also,
    
    <..and I've tried to present my opinions with some balance.>
    
    Hmmm, so sexist statements about women qualify for a balanced
    discussion?  Also, you refuse to acknowledge "evidence" (and that does
    not mean *only* prison stats - many more sources were used, but
    for some bizare reason you refuse to acknowledge or discuss them and remain
    completely fixated on the prison stats) or opinions posted by others.  
    Balanced? I think not.
    
    Re. 297
    
    Actually Tim, perhaps it's a good idea that you have decided to take
    your ball and go home.  Your self-righteous indignation is becoming
    tiresome.  Believe it or not, I am interested in what you have to say,
    even if I don't agree with you.
    
    Adios, 
    CHARLOTTE
                    

    Since this has degenerated to a discussion of feminism and how it is
    viewed from different sides, I might as well throw my .02 into the
    discussion.
    
    I was raised to believe, and still believe, that women are very special
    and are due respect and consideration.  I believe that men have a
    responsibility to protect women from harm, essentially because men,
    physically, are able to do so.  the same applies to the responsibility
    of any adult, whether male or female, to protect children.
    
    I believe women have the same inate abilities to perform jobs the same
    as anyone else.  That having been said, it does not mean that any
    special accomodations need to be implemented or even considered because
    a particular person wishes to persue a particular occupation.  AS a
    point of reference or clarification, would be the female firefighters
    in California.  they were profiled about a year ago and it was clearly
    evident and admitted that the majority of women on the force could not
    meet the requirements of the job, but special rules were provided to
    make sure x% of women were on the force.  Two interesting responses
    came out of this show.  One was by a well known feminist who claimed
    that new and special equipment needed to be provided to the women so
    they could do the job, even though such equipment doesn't exist.  the
    other was by a female fiefighter who met all of the requirements and
    was proud of her ability to actually do the job who felt these women
    were an embarassment and a detriment to the performance of her
    profession.
    
    If a woman can do the job, then don't have any barriers to her doing
    the job, but if not, don't make excuses and special arrangements.
    

    RE: .304  Rocush

    > I was raised to believe, and still believe, that women are very 
    > special and are due respect and consideration.  

    Human beings are very special in general (ALL ~6 billion of us.)
    We all deserve basic human respect.

    > I believe that men have a responsibility to protect women from harm, 
    > essentially because men, physically, are able to do so.  

    Men (on the average) are unable to protect women from harm, though.
    Most men do not practice the sort of skills that would allow them
    to conquer larger, stronger men or women - and most men do not carry 
    weapons which would out-gun men (or women) who are armed to kill.

    It's a sexist myth that women are like children compared to men,
    and that men have the means to keep women safe.

    The main responsibility of men is to refrain from HARMING others
    (men, women or children.)  

    > the same applies to the responsibility of any adult, whether male 
    > or female, to protect children.
      
    Again, it's not always possible.  When someone walks into a McDonald's
    and starts shooting everyone in the room, most adults are not prepared
    to save lives until the shooting stops and/or the perp is dead.

    The main responsibility of men, women and children is to refrain from
    harming others.
      
    > I believe women have the same inate abilities to perform jobs the
    > same as anyone else.  

    Men and women belong to the same species.  Women are not some 'other'
    who should be mistrusted in traditional male-dominated occupations
    unless they are too spectacular to ignore.

    > That having been said, it does not mean that any special accomodations 
    > need to be implemented or even considered because a particular person 
    > wishes to persue a particular occupation.  

    I know quite a few men in the computer industry who need special chairs
    and ergonomic office arrangements to make them capable of doing their
    jobs.  Do you think these men should not be given special consideration
    simply because they wish to pursue a particular occupation?

    > AS a point of reference or clarification, would be the female
    > firefighters in California.  they were profiled about a year ago 
    > and it was clearly evident and admitted that the majority of women 
    > on the force could not meet the requirements of the job, but special 
    > rules were provided to make sure x% of women were on the force. 

    In Colorado Springs, people in the house across the street from me 
    at the time (some years back) called the fire department.  When they
    came, a tall woman in the house needed to be carried outside, but
    NONE of the firefighters were up to the task.  She was a little over
    6 feet tall and she weighed around 180 (not horribly huge for someone
    that tall.)

    Firefighters and paramedics were on the scene - a man and a woman 
    locked their arms together to create a seat, and they carried the 
    woman out of the house on their arms this way.

    Apparently, NO ONE on the scene was qualified to do their jobs.  Yet,
    they did save the woman's life and get her safely to the hospital in
    an emergency vehicle.

    Amazing that this didn't make the national media with claims that
    men and women in Colorado Springs are unqualified for the profession
    of firefighters and/or paramedics (who work for the Fire Dept.)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some people are so quick to jump on women for what they consider any
    special treatment or consideration, while also stating upfront that
    they believe it's their responsibility to give women special treatment
    and consideration. They don't see women primarily as other human beings.

    Refrain from harming others. See women, men and children as human 
    beings.  These are the responsibilities of human beings.

    If some male firefighters need to work together to carry some 
    individuals out of a building [and let's face it, some male 
    firefighters DIE in fires they are sent to put out - so it's not 
    as if male firefighters are godlike or invincible], then it isn't 
    a big deal if some women have to work together to carry people, too.

    > If a woman can do the job, then don't have any barriers to her
    > doing the job, but if not, don't make excuses and special arrangements.

    Hopefully, you don't need a special chair in your office.  Apparently,
    you'd like to fire any man who does.

    > It think it is very detrimental to men that so many men _don't_ 
    > think about the ramifications of marriage, and having children,
    > especially in todays legal system, until it's too late.
    
    So we agree.  Of course, many women make similar mistakes, and
    similarly suffer; and I think both men and women are PRONE to making
    this mistake because our society pushes marriage so hard without also
    pushing hard to develop mutual understanding.  
    
    For some reason, you will take the above as contradicting your opinion
    rather than reinforcing it, and offer more insults.  This puzzles me.
    
    > I think it is detrimental to men that so many men will put up with 
    > so much c**p from women just so they can "get it".
    
    Of course, it doesn't do much for developing a lifelong partnership
    if men OR women put up with the wrong behaviors for the wrong reasons.
    Neither member of a partnership will get very far unless both sign up
    for the hard work.
    
    For some reason, you will take the above as contradicting your opinion
    rather than reinforcing it, and offer more insults.  This puzzles me.
    
    > If ever I am so down, so out, so insecure in my person and so
    > emasculated in my manhood that I must claim to be a "male feminist"
    > in order to impress some female, PLEASE! somebody! SHOOT ME!
    
    Ah- you misunderstand my motivations.  I don't do it to impress
    some female; I do it because that's the man I want to be.  With that
    as the motivation, it doesn't require insecurity or emasculation- it
    arises from my perceptions of how the world works, what's right and
    what's wrong.  I can tell, you don't understand me; but you should be 
    able to understand that I'm not putting you down.  You go your own way,
    Fred.
    
    > There are many things worse than being alone, and there are women
    > out there that do appreciate what men are, what they do, and what
    > they provide.  After all some 50% of marriages do still succeed.
    
    Certainly there are worse things than being alone.  And I previously
    said, however people reach the understanding required to form a strong
    partnership, within a marriage or without, more power to them.  I
    wonder if you realize that "what men are, what they do, and what they
    provide" covers a wide variety of styles.  The spite you feel towards
    my style is puzzling, Fred, but ultimately unimportant to me- the venom
    you spit out can't hurt my partnership with Stacey, nor my ability to 
    determine for myself what I think about our society's weaknesses, nor
    deter me from discussing it here.  Why you think that my opinions here
    are so dangerous, threatening, or scary that you have to continually
    insult me is, well, puzzling- but you go your own way if you must,
    Fred.
    
    DougO

    .305
    
    I will ignore most of your note as the statements deal with nonsense
    situations that aren't worthy of a response, particularly the the
    comment regarding the need for a wheelchair.  that has nothing to do
    with doing the job, it isa need to get to a desk, etc.  the firefighter
    issue is quite different, but you already knew that.
    
    As far as your scenario in Colorado and the need for two people to
    carry a 180 pound person out of a building is concerned, so what?  I
    didn't state whether or not more than one person would be needed in a
    particuler situation.  My point was that different standards applied to
    the SAME job for different sexes.  That is WRONG and no one should ever
    support such actions. As a case in point, one of the local villages
    requires that a male firefighter perform a 125 lb. benchpress, but a
    woman only needs to perform an 80 lb benchpress.  the reason was that
    they could not find any women who could meet the requirement, even
    though the requirement was based on an average strength level necessary
    to do the job.
    
    Feel free to bring up other extreme examples or non-applicable points,
    but the same basic still applies.  If you can do the job, great, if not
    go find something you are qualified for without different standards
    based on sex.
    

    RE: .307  Rocush

    > I will ignore most of your note as the statements deal with nonsense
    > situations that aren't worthy of a response, particularly the the
    > comment regarding the need for a wheelchair.  

    <Whoooooosh>   My note went right over your head.

    I wasn't talking about a wheelchair.  I was talking about a special
    chair that some individuals (most of whom are male around here) need 
    to make it possible to sit at a computer and type all day. Without 
    this chair, they cannot do the job.

    > Feel free to bring up other extreme examples or non-applicable points,
    > but the same basic still applies.  If you can do the job, great, if not
    > go find something you are qualified for without different standards
    > based on sex.

    Women can withstand higher G-forces than men (something needed to help
    pilots from passing out and dying in certain situations in the air), 
    but the military keeps the standards LOWER due to men (since their 
    different bodies cannot withstand as much but the military most
    definitely wants these jobs to go to mostly men anyway.)

    By the way, if women weren't pushing to become firefighters (where
    they face the same dangers of death that men face), women would be
    trashed for not being willing to put their lives on the line in
    the workplace.  If women weren't pushing to fight in combat, women
    would be trashed for not being willing to die for their countries.

    Women are trashed one way or the other by the sexist forces in
    this country who (otherwise) gush over women as being so doggone
    'special' and needing of protection.  (Ha!)
    
    If the standards are based on average men's strengths (rather than
    the absolute strength needed for the job), then it's discriminating
    to women.  As a compromise, though, it's possible to set the standard
    for women somewhere between average men's strength and average women's
    strength.

    Tell that to the 200+lb person that needs to be rescued down
    a ladder, or "humping" 5 inch line from a truck to a hydrant.
    I have seen with my own eyes women not able to carry out these
    tasks while  fighting a fire . There is a difference in "pushing"
    to become firefighters, and actually doing it.
    
    This is based on personal observations, and 13 years of 
    fighting fires. 

    My own eyes witnessed a 180 person who could not be carried out
    of the house by male firefighters and paramedics.

    The person survived by being carried by a man and a woman (with
    their arms locked together.)

    Everyone has their limit - men, included - as to who they can
    carry.  

    Some male firefighters die in fires, and no one else from the 
    fire department can save them.  When male firefighters die or
    when they fail to save someone's life, do people say that they
    were unqualified?  Do they say that human males should not BE
    firefighters in the first place?

    Don't be so doggone quick to jump on women in general with this
    stuff.

    In the news, searchers have been trying to find a missing A-10
    plane (with very deadly weapons) after the pilot seemed to go
    off-course deliberately.  No one's sure if he committed suicide
    or wrecked the plane on purpose after ejecting - for awhile, some
    were worried that he was planning to attack civilians in some
    American city (like Denver.)

    The military has been saying that nothing whatever in his record
    would have indicated that he was a danger in any way.

    His photo has been on the news - he's a nice white male.

    What would people be saying now if he'd been a female (or black)?
    Who would be saying now that perhaps we should be more careful
    about letting women and minorities into the program (because this
    incident could indicate a possible problem with handling the
    pressure?)

    Do you realize how relieved some women and minorities are at times
    like this (when the nutty or dangerous person turns out to be a
    white male)?  No one is going to say that the military should be
    careful about white males, no matter what individual white males
    ever do.

    re .312
    >His photo has been in the news - he's a nice white male.
    
    Nice white male? Or nice-looking white male? Big diff, you know..

    
    
    re .312
    
    What would people say? I guess we'll never know, will we?
    
    -john

    
    re .312
    
    It was reported that the pilot of the plane was very distraught after
    his mother had changed religions and joined a new church. He had
    visited her shortly before his fateful flight.
    
    Of course, it might have been better had his mother broken his leg so
    that he wouldn't have been able to fly. Because we all know that
    physical abuse is *so* much more painful and long-lasting than any form
    of emotional pain, right Suzanne?
    
    -john

    Well, I do remember when a fighter pilot was killed landing on
    an air craft carrier - she was one of the first women allowed
    to train for this sort of combat position.

    The news reported that she was rated as 'average' for this job,
    and people started jumping up and down about how the standards
    had been lowered for a woman and how it caused her death (and
    the loss of an expensive airplane.)

    Later, this pilot's own mother came forward to explain the term
    'average' (to stop all the nasty reports about her dead daughter.)

    In a group of *FIVE* pilots being trained, this woman scored THIRD
    (which meant that two male pilots scored higher than she did and
    two male pilots scored lower than she did.)  ALL FIVE PILOTS passed 
    the training, including the two men who'd scored below her. They ALL
    became pilots.

    This had been mistakenly translated into the phrase 'she was average' 
    (which made it sound like they picked up somebody off the street and 
    let her train as a combat pilot because she had X-chromosomes, which
    caused a stink at first.)

    When a male pilot dies (and they die all the time), does anyone say,
    "Gee, how high did he graduate in his pilot class?"  Of course not.
    If he'd graduated third in a class of five, would they have called
    him 'average'?  Of course not.  If he'd graduated FIFTH in a class
    of five, would they have called him an idiot?  No way.

    You have no idea in the world what I'm talking about, though, do you.

    RE: .315  John

    > Because we all know that physical abuse is *so* much more painful 
    > and long-lasting than any form of emotional pain, right Suzanne?

    Don't worry - I haven't forgotten that you're the guy who has failed
    to acknowledge that there is ANY emotional component whatsoever when
    a loved one breaks your legs.

    	"Now don't take this personally, sweetheart.  I'd never want
    	to hurt your feelings in a million years.  I'm just going to
    	break your legs with this baseball bat, but I'm going to be
    	as nice as I can be about it.  I wouldn't want to upset you
    	or make you unhappy.  I just want to break your bones, which
    	I know will heal faster than if I got mad at you.  So just
    	sit tight and let me get this over with, then we can have a
    	nice hug and I'll call an ambulance for you."

    Sure - whatever, John.  :/

    .308 & .309
    
    Wow, I never cease to be amzed at the contortions you will go through
    to defend the undefensible.  the use of a special chair has nothing to
    do with the job performance.  If, however, the person did not know
    programming, but wanted to be a programmer, and the company assigned a
    programmer to him to actually do the work, then that would be wrong.
    
    As far as the firefighters go, the standards shoudl never be lowered. 
    As a matter of fact, I believe they should be higher than they are now
    for exactly the reason you pointed out.  I expect that a person filling
    a position can perform the duties associated with it.  If a firefighter
    is expected to take a hose off of a truck, run to a hydrant, hook it
    up, and get it to teh fire, then they had betteer be able to do it.  It
    doesn't matter whether they are a man, woman, dog or loaf od bread.
    
    For you to state that a compromise between averge men's strength and
    average women's strength should be used is utter claptrap.  the
    requirement is probably set too low and possibly if it were set at the
    correect level a lot of men would be off of the force, but so be it.
    
    Also, you story about women sustaining higher Gs then males is
    interesting but irrelevant.  Fighter pilots need to not only handle the
    higher Gs but there is also a very significant strength requirement to
    actually handle to aircraft.  Also, you took an average and not the
    results of those who actually are pilots.  Many of the men must
    demonstrate an ability to handle higher Gs than the average male.  It
    is one of the considerations in selecting pilots.
    
    If you really think it is appropriate to have lower standards and
    competence expectations for women, please feel free to state it.  But
    then don't be surprised when others may question the rationale and
    intelligence of such.
    

    The use of a special chair is an accommodation needed for the job.
    Without it, many of these individuals would not be able to sit
    at a computer for hours at a time (which is a necessary part of
    programming at some point.)

    If you want the standards raised for firefighters, then perhaps
    we should hire chimpanzees to fight fires.  Human males are total
    wimps compared to chimpanzees (and gorillas, for that matter.)

    A gorilla can toss a piece of its own excrement at the speed of
    a fastball with a very, very light flick of the wrist.

    If strength is the defining factor for a job, humans are inadequate
    in general (compared to other species who also happen to be blessed
    with opposable thumbs.)

    .319
    
    It really is unfortunate that you are unable to recognize when you are
    trying to defend an unsupportable position and find it necessary to
    resort silliness.
    
    Since you did not actually respond to the points raised, I accept that
    you agree with them, and that there is a ridiculous PC approach to way
    too many aspects of life today.  Glad to see you finally come around.
    
    OBTW, if gorillas could be trained to be firefighters, i think it would
    be a fantastic approach to  providing fire protection.  Of course, you
    did know that I never said that the only thing to be considered was
    strength, but there is a strength component that should never be
    compromised to accomodate those unable to meet the standard.  Of course
    you knew that.
    

    Rocush, if you're going to assume that all responses are tacit 
    agreements, then you have little reason to argue back at others
    with insulting language.

    While I do agree that people should be qualified for jobs, 
    I question arbitrary tests for specific skills which are not
    part of the job (such as 'benchpressing'.)

    Considering that part of the job of firefighting is being able
    to access damaged parts of buildings in order to save lives,
    it seems as though it would augment the department to include
    some smaller individuals who could access the smaller spaces
    of damaged buildings.  I'm not suggesting we hire children for
    these jobs, but I don't think we should exclude talented and
    dedicated individuals on the basis of a <bleeping> benchpress.

    .321
    
    Apparently you seem to think that a physical fitness test that contains
    a "<bleeping> benchpress" is not sufficient to determine an
    individual's ability to meet the physical requirements of the job.  You
    should be pleased that they didn't have a test that actually required
    the applicants to actually perform the physical requirements of the
    job.  If they did, as was shown in California, the majority of the
    women would not get on the force.  Only by lowing the standards were
    they able to get the required quota of women on the force.
    
    Also, since you seem to think that men are not able to protect women
    and that the only requirement is that people don't harm others, I have
    a question for you.  Do you think it was betterwhen men were raised
    with the silly notion that in an emergency it was women and children
    first and then the weak and helpless.  The last people out were the
    healthy men.  Or do you think it is better that we have a society that
    follows your rules of every man for himself as long as you don't harm
    anyone.
    
    Do you believe it is a better world and society if all everyone cares
    about is making sure they don't harm anyone, although there will always
    be creeps, so you can't eliminate the risk, and let everyone else fend
    for themselves?  According to your standards all that's required on a
    sinking ship is that I get on the lifeboat and the h--- with anyone
    else, just so long as I don't harm anyone.
    
    Unfortuantely we have pretty much achieved your world view and we are
    so much poorer because of it.
    

    RE: .322  Rocush

    > Apparently you seem to think that a physical fitness test that contains
    > a "<bleeping> benchpress" is not sufficient to determine an
    > individual's ability to meet the physical requirements of the job.  

    Firefighters don't benchpress for a living.

    > You should be pleased that they didn't have a test that actually 
    > required the applicants to actually perform the physical requirements 
    > of the job.  If they did, as was shown in California, the majority 
    > of the women would not get on the force.  

    Do you believe that men who die as firefighters were unqualified
    for their jobs?  Perhaps there's more to it than being able
    to benchpress.

    > Only by lowing the standards were they able to get the required 
    > quota of women on the force.
    
    You're talking about one component of the requirements (and not the
    most important one.) If you want mostly men to be on the force, you can
    decide that the most important qualification for the job is something
    men are more likely to have.  It doesn't mean that the women they 
    hired aren't qualified to do the work.

    > Also, since you seem to think that men are not able to protect women
    > and that the only requirement is that people don't harm others, I have
    > a question for you.  Do you think it was betterwhen men were raised
    > with the silly notion that in an emergency it was women and children
    > first and then the weak and helpless.  The last people out were the
    > healthy men.  

    No, I don't think it was better.  During most of that time, women
    couldn't even vote.  While they may have gotten out of fires sooner
    than men, they lived as virtual slaves the rest of the time.

    No thanks.

    > Or do you think it is better that we have a society that follows 
    > your rules of every man for himself as long as you don't harm
    > anyone.
    
    It's not my rule.  

    You said that men have a responsibility to protect women, so I pointed
    out that it's a sexist myth that men have this ability.  Most don't.

    If most people followed the mandate to refrain from harming others,
    few people would need protection in the first place.

    > Do you believe it is a better world and society if all everyone cares
    > about is making sure they don't harm anyone, although there will always
    > be creeps, so you can't eliminate the risk, and let everyone else fend
    > for themselves?  

    It would be a better world and society if people stopped harming each
    other.  

    It is a sexist myth that men are the great protectors of women.
    Men are killed all the time (more often than women, in fact.)

    It would be great if we could all (women and men) look out for each
    other, but most of us would end up like Ronald Goldman if we tried
    to stop a violent, angry person with a knife from killing someone
    else.

    > According to your standards all that's required on a sinking ship 
    > is that I get on the lifeboat and the h--- with anyone else, just 
    > so long as I don't harm anyone.
    
    Your argument here is totally dishonest.  The example here is yours,
    not mine at all.

    > Unfortuantely we have pretty much achieved your world view and we are
    > so much poorer because of it.

    Your statement here is totally dishonest, too.  It is not my world
    view that we have a planet where humans harm each other viciously
    far too often, while half the human race is credited with the sexist
    notion that they are "protecting" the other half.

    In my view, we should ALL (women and men) try to help each other when
    we can.  If we stopped harming each other, we'd need a lot less
    protection from 'creeps', though (because very few humans would be
    creeps.)

    The idea that one sex exists as 'the protector' of the other is
    a pile of crap, though.  We're all humans, and we all (in general)
    have the capability and the responsibility to help each other.

    The notion that one sex exists as virtual children to the other
    is at the very heart of sexism.

    
    re suzanne
    
    You've fineally done it.  You are now so far out in left field with
    "the world according to Suzanne" that it really isn't worth my time
    to even try to respond.
    
    fred();

    .323
    
    You still insist on not answering the question.  the strength test is
    there in order to insure that soeone can actually perform the
    requirements of the job.  Strength is a large part of the job.  Getting
    a hose off of a truck, hooking it up, getting it to where it is
    supposed to be and controling it is essential to doing the job.  Anyone
    who can't doesn't belong in the job, period.  Using a benchpress is
    just one way of determining physical ability, but you knew that.  Your
    response is simply a dodge so as not to answer the question.
    
    Virtual slaves???  Oh come now, you can do better than that.
    
    Also, yo will never eliminate the need for protection nor stop those
    who want to harm others from doing so.  Another nice dodge.  In other
    words, you have no problem with a philosophy that syas that as long as
    I don't harm anyone directly, I have no further responsibility.  I can
    just look the other way when somebody is dragging a kid into a car, or
    is mugging or raping some woman, as long as I am not the one doing the
    harm.
    
    Nice world you want.
    

    Suzanne,
    
    >Firefighters don't benchpress for a living.
    
    Whelp... I have had a few from the Nashua place in my wee little gym to
    keep themselves in shape. Because their lives depend upon it. So what
    else is new.... I have had some cops come by.... SAME THING! Their
    lives depend upon keeping in shape. Benching is just part of the
    workout. There is squats, there is a thingie that is called a workout.
    And these people, Whose lives depend upon it, are DAM serious about
    their workout.... 

    Suzanne... I know a couple of pilots who lift too. That is so, if the
    hydrolics crap out on their aircraft, they can, with brute force, pull
    the joystick back and save the craft, lives, and others in the
    plane.... You would not do a bench press, they do rows, squats, they
    workout......
    

    Hey, come on guys.  You know that all of these physical requirements
    are just a male sexist conspriacy to prevent women from getting ahead.
    
    You know full well that it is not necessary for a woman to actually ba
    able to do the entire job in order to progress in any field.  All that
    is necessary is the desire to occupy a posiiton in a traditional male
    oriented profession.  Any of the requirements that would exclude a
    woman are there just for exclusionary purposes.  It is absurd to assume
    that the ability to lift, carry, move debris, chop through a roof, etc
    have nothing to do with being the Fire Chief.  All of that is just a
    barrier so that women can't be Fire Chiefs.
    
    come on guys, admit it.  These are sexist obstacles.
    

    Yup... sexist knuckle dragging neanderthals...
    
    Oh I'm a neanderthal and I'm O.K.
    sleep all night and work all day
    
    I cut down trees 
    pick wild flowers
    go to the lav-en-tree.
    
    On Wensdays I go shopping
    for butter scons and tea..

    
    re .328
    
    Well, when it happens that some strength-challenged person can't
    lift a 40 foot lader to a window in order to make a rescue of a child,
    I guess they can always sue the ladder for sexism.
    
    fred();

    You folks didn't answer my question.  When male firefighters die
    on the job, does it mean they were unqualified?

    Apparently, being a bunchpressing male isn't enough.

    Do buildings ever get compromised to the point that it takes a 
    relatively strong but small person to get into tight corners 
    to save lives (or do they just walk away in that situation?)

    When male police officers die, were they unqualified?  When male
    pilots die, were they unqualified?

    Children often hide during fires, and they can get into small
    spaces.  If a ladder goes up to the floor but the person can't
    find the child's hiding place, the child will die.

    Sounds like they need to cooperate to put up the ladder, but
    send the most qualified people (big and small) to save the
    child's life.

    .329 & 330
    
    That's better.  Now you guys are getting it.  Just a bit more effort
    and you will be able to view the world just same as others do.
    

    .331
    
    OK, I'll answer.
    
    NO!
    YES!
    Not necessarily
    NO!
    
    The appropriate question that you should ask, is whether or not these
    men met the standards or not.  If they didn't meet the standards and
    died, then they were unqualified.  but you already knew that.
    

    
    Rocush, they view the world the way you do already.
    
    That's the problem.  :>
    

    .332
    
    Intersting, but very silly.  Keep trying.
    

    RE: .334  Rocush

    > The appropriate question that you should ask, is whether or not these
    > men met the standards or not.  

    If they met the standards and died anyway, then perhaps it takes more
    than strength to do this job.

    > If they didn't meet the standards and died, then they were unqualified.
    > but you already knew that.

    So it doesn't matter if people live or die on the job - all that counts
    is an arbitrary test of something which will not be done on the job.  
    This makes the test rather useless.

    RE: .336  Rocush
    
    > Intersting, but very silly.  Keep trying.
    
    Saving children's lives is silly?  From your perspective, perhaps.
    

    
    >    Saving children's lives is silly?  From your perspective, perhaps.
    
    No.  Twisting the argument so badly so it will fit your agenda is
    silly.
    
    fred();

    
    > No.  Twisting the argument so badly so it will fit your agenda is
    > silly.
    
    You guys couldn't make it through the day without doing this, though.
    

    . 337
    
    There are other things reqired besides physical ability, but if someone
    doesn't have the physical ability and dies on the job, then they are
    unqualified.  but you already knew that and are trying to make a point
    that no one has disputed.
    
    The point is that if there is a physical component necessary to the
    performance of the job, and you don't meet it, then you don't get the
    job.  I will concede that there probably is a lot less need for a high
    level of physical ability for a programmer and the exisitence of sucha
    test may be subject to question, but I'd have to know the specifics
    before I could give aspecific answer.
    

    .338
    
    Have you ever considered a profession in the pretzel bending field.  I
    think you have a real skill at twisting and distortion into new and
    unique shapes.
    

    
    re .333

>    That's better.  Now you guys are getting it.  Just a bit more effort
>    and you will be able to view the world just same as others do.

    It's just a matter of getting the priorities in the right order.
    The really really really really important part her is not whether
    or not somebody dies.  It's whether somebodies agenda gets implemented
    or not.  If as a result of the implementation of that agenda somebody
    dies, well, that's just too bad.

    fred();

    RE: .341  Rocush

    > There are other things reqired besides physical ability, but if someone
    > doesn't have the physical ability and dies on the job, then they are
    > unqualified.  but you already knew that and are trying to make a point
    > that no one has disputed.
    
    Bench pressing is not an accurate measure of physical ability unless
    a person is seeking a job as a bench presser.  

    > The point is that if there is a physical component necessary to the
    > performance of the job, and you don't meet it, then you don't get the
    > job.  I will concede that there probably is a lot less need for a high
    > level of physical ability for a programmer and the exisitence of sucha
    > test may be subject to question, but I'd have to know the specifics
    > before I could give aspecific answer.

    What?????????????  

    Are you suggesting that there could be a valid test of physical ability 
    for a programmer?  You'd have to know the specifics about this test?
    Why??

    Ever heard of Stephen Hawking?  He's incapable of doing anything
    physical at all (pretty much), except to smile - what physical
    test would you agree to give Stephen Hawking if he were primarily
    a programmer?

    
    By the way, Rocush, do you consider Stephen Hawking to be a man?
    

    re .345
    
    Go back and read .341 again.  Carefully this time.
    fred();

    
    Please answer the questions.
    
    Do you consider Stephen Hawking to be a man?  Do you consider
    Christopher Reeve to still be a man?
    

    Suzanne,
    
    Not an issue of being a man or not. More an issue of being able to do
    the job or not. You, yourself, profess that men and women are differnt.
    And I don't see much of a discussion reguarding the lifting part. For
    if this is an issue, I have been discriminated against many times
    because I have been called to lift heavy objects that women either
    don't want to do or cannot do. And then I am used for my back than my
    ability to do other job functions that I have a degree to do. 

    ....so does this make women either lazy or inept?

    
    Do you consider Stephen Hawking to be a man?  Do you consider
    Christopher Reeve to still be a man?
    
    Are you willing to answer these questions?  I am.
    
    Absolutely yes on both counts.  Stephen Hawking is a man, and
    Christopher Reeve is still a man.  No question about either.
    
    Can you guys give definitive answers to these questions or not?
    

    another shove down the throat question and answer period Suzanne? Gotta
    answer the question your way or its the highway again.. Dam your such a
    wonderful debater.....

    ...checked my knuckles... they are draggin again...:_)
    

   > Do buildings ever get compromised to the point that it takes a 
   > relatively strong but small person to get into tight corners 
   > to save lives (or do they just walk away in that situation?)

     When a building is "compromised", as you put it, all the 
     firefighters are ordered out. immediately.

     daryll
    

    RE: .351  George Rauh
    
    > another shove down the throat question and answer period Suzanne? 
    > Gotta answer the question your way or its the highway again.. 
    > Dam your such a wonderful debater.....
    
    Answer the question any way you like.
    
    I'd honestly like to know if you guys consider Stephen Hawking
    and Christopher Reeve to be men.  
    
    I know I do (absolutely no question about it.)
    
    I just honestly want to know whether or not you guys do.
    

In Lawrence MA, the male firefighters had to pass a test that 
consisted of being able to carry 220 lbs. The women have to be 
able to carry 180 lbs. If I were ever to become incapacitated in 
a fire in Lawrence, I pray the men show up. I weigh 215 lbs.

    RE: .355  Daryll

    > In Lawrence MA, the male firefighters had to pass a test that
    > consisted of being able to carry 220 lbs. The women have to be
    > able to carry 180 lbs. If I were ever to become incapacitated in
    > a fire in Lawrence, I pray the men show up. I weigh 215 lbs.

    6 more pounds and it will be academic.  :>

    As mentioned earlier, I saw a woman being carried out of a house
    by TWO individuals from the fire dept (a man and a woman) and
    she was over 6 feet tall weighing around 180 lbs.

    Apparently, they have multiple ways of handling such situations.

    With out a doubt I consider these people to be men too. So, whats the
    point? Sides you up to shoving some point down the throats... again.

   > 6 more pounds and it will be academic.  :>

    Being 6'2" it's fine. Heading in the other direction _fortunately_.

   > Apparently, they have multiple ways of handling such situations.

     Yes, two firefighters to do the job of one.

    
    Thanks, George.  
    
    I'm glad you see Stephen Hawking as a man.  And I'm glad you see
    Christopher Reeve as a man.  (I certainly do.)
    
    It doesn't matter that either man has almost zero physical strength,
    either.  Glad to see that you agree.
    

    RE: .358  Darryl

    >> Apparently, they have multiple ways of handling such situations.

    > Yes, two firefighters to do the job of one.

    The male firefighters I saw that night didn't see it that way.
    None of the men tried to carry the woman by himself.  They left
    it to a woman and a man to cooperate to get this accomplished.
    (What a concept.)  :>

    
    re .356
>    As mentioned earlier, I saw a woman being carried out of a house
>    by TWO individuals from the fire dept (a man and a woman) and
>    she was over 6 feet tall weighing around 180 lbs.
>
>    Apparently, they have multiple ways of handling such situations.
    
    You keep ignoring (conveniently) the case where there may be only
    one person to do the job and one way (brute force) to get it done.
    
    BTW.  Just what the heck _does_ Sephen Hawking's manhood have to do
    with this conversation?
    
    fred();
    

      
    Cooperation is required in many, many, many situations, though
    (regardless of the sexes of the firefighters.)

    Many male firefighters die on the job, too (so obviously, some
    situations can't be handled well even if a whole team of fire-
    fighters are working together.)

    Sometimes, entire firefighting teams die together.

    re .362
    
    So what does that prove?
    
    fred();

That she is still quite adept at ignoring the situation you 
presented. A very common situation I might add.

    
    The job of firefighter is not defined by one solitary situation.
    
    Firefighters face may different situations, and many male firefighters
    die as a result.  Sometimes entire teams die.
    
    You can try to ignore this, but it's still a reality.
    

                     <<< Note 262.365 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>

    
   > The job of firefighter is not defined by one solitary situation.
    
     Tell it to the families of the people who will die in burning buildings 
     because the firefighter that came in to rescue them can't carry 
     them out of the building because they were allowed to join the 
     force after passing a less strenuous strength test.

     I'm sure it will be a consolation to them.

    
    People die every day when male firefighters try to rescue them.

    Tell their families that being male should have been enough for
    the firefighters to save them, so you don't know what the heck
    could have gone wrong.

    The burning question:

        Do Stephen Hawking or Christopher Reeves think they'd make good
        firemen?  Does anybody else think they'd make good firemen?

    

The difference which you choose to ignore is that while accidents 
happen and people die in fires, those are unavoidable.

Purposely setting lower limits for physical exams for a occupation where 
physical labor is of vital importance, is a plan designed for disaster.

Does either weigh more than 200lbs? I wonder who they'd want 
coming to rescue them?

    
    Both Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve are married - I'll bet
    they both count on their wives to save them during emergencies,
    including fires.
    

Assuming they can carry them, are home, and aren't incapacitated 
as well.

Good plan.

    RE: .372  Darryl

    > Assuming they can carry them, are home, and aren't incapacitated 
    > as well.

    > Good plan.

    You must assume the same for firefighters, of course.

    No strength test will guarantee that a male firefighter will pass
    all the criteria you just listed.

1. They're wearing breathing equipment. 
2. They're called to the fire.
3. They've passed a realistic physical test proving they can lift 
   the weight.

The key is, you must have all three. Two out of three usually 
won't do. It's the 3rd part that we're concerned about.

    Fires burn out of control within a very few minutes.  Thick black
    smoke turns day into night in the burning building (with almost
    NO visibility right in front of your face.)

    The temperatures higher in the room are drastically more severe 
    (due to the ignited fumes which spread across the ceiling), so
    even if a person could see across the smoky room, it isn't wise
    to stand up and walk around.

    The strength tests don't show what a person can do in this
    situation.  It's just an arbitrary measure.
    

I'll take the person who can carry me out of the building. 

It's not arbitrary to me or anyone else who is heavier than this 
lowered limit that's been passed to meet some silly quota.

The rest of your argument is smoke. Address the weight tests not 
the rest. That is not what we're discussing as much as you'd like 
to twist the argument to Christopher Reeve (unbelievable) or smoke 
filled rooms. All those other criteria are part of the test. The 
test is the same in all other respects except for the weight 
lifting, now why exactly should that be any different. It's a 
minimum, why should it be less for some than others.

    
    Well, I won't be asking about benchpress accomplishments if someone
    ever goes inside a burning building to save my son's, my father's
    or my husband's life.

    I'll care more about the person's ability to save their lives (and
    I don't see benchpressing as the defining aspect of this ability.)
                                                               

Good luck to you. I'd prefer not to take chances with the lives 
of my loved ones.

BTW, I've never ever mentioned "benchpressing" anything since the 
firefighters testing I'm familiar with doesn't involve them. 

    RE: .378  Darryl
    
    >> Well, I won't be asking about benchpress accomplishments if someone
    >> ever goes inside a burning building to save my son's, my father's
    >> or my husband's life.
    
    >> I'll care more about the person's ability to save their lives (and
    >> I don't see benchpressing as the defining aspect of this ability.)
    
    > Good luck to you. I'd prefer not to take chances with the lives
    > of my loved ones.
    
    How is it 'taking chances' if I'm most concerned with the person's
    ability to save their lives (rather than their ability to bench
    press, or whatever the physical test happens to be?)

    
    re .379

>    How is it 'taking chances' if I'm most concerned with the person's
>    ability to save their lives (rather than their ability to bench
>    press, or whatever the physical test happens to be?)

    Because in this case there really _is_ a direct connection in how
    much someone can bench press (upper body strength) and being able
    to lift and carry a person out of a burning building.

    Really, Suzanne,  this is a new low for you.  But then again, from
    looking at what is going on in real-life firehouses, this really
    _is_ part of the "feminist" agenda.  With the attitude that if
    someone dies because of it then 1) there wasn't enough "teamwork"
    by the males on the squad and 2) that's just tough 3) it couldn't
    possibly be because the female just wasn't capable of doing the 
    job.

    fred();

    Suzanne,
    
    I can see either one of these men, Reeves or Hawkins, wheeling up in
    thier chairs now to resque someone from a burning building. Up ten
    stories in their chairs to rescue someone! Perhaps someone weighing in
    more than 400 hundred pounds! Whooo-haa! :)
    

    .375
    
    Although there were numerous replies I could have responded to, I'll
    take this one.  since you see no value in strength tests, particularly
    a benchpress that is a very accurate measure of upper body strength,
    let's use your example.  If in a smoke-filled room one needs to crawl
    across the floor with equiment on.  Crawling is much more physically
    demanding than standing.  Strap an air tank on your back, with other
    equipment and try crawling across a room and then actually rescuing
    someone.  this is a physical requirement that needs to be met, possibly
    several times in the same fire.  If you have a problem with with using
    s standard weight lifting test, then substitute this one.  A lot more
    women than men will fail this real-life situation since you can't
    change the weight of the tank, although I'm sure there are some that
    would like to, even though it would endanger the lives of the
    firefighters.
    
    As far as Christopher Reeve and Stephen Hawkings is concerned.  first I
    don't know who Stephen is so I can't answer.  	 do know
    Christopher Reeve and I have no opinion regarding whether he is a man
    or not.  I do know that I would oppose any effort on his part to be a
    firefighter, policeman, letter carrier and a lot of other professions. 
    If has nothing to do with his manhood or lack thereof.  It has do with
    the ability to meet all requirements, unmodified, of a job.
    
    That being said, I would have no problem whatsoever with Cory Evenson
    being a member of my local fire department.  That assumes, of course,
    that she could meet the rest of the requirements, not just the strength
    part.
    
    BTW, you have reached a new level of silliness in presenting your
    radical agenda.
    

    RE: .381  George

    > I can see either one of these men, Reeves or Hawkins, wheeling up in
    > thier chairs now to resque someone from a burning building. Up ten
    > stories in their chairs to rescue someone! Perhaps someone weighing in
    > more than 400 hundred pounds! Whooo-haa! :)

    Male firefighters aren't qualified to do this either.

    Even if someone can bench press 400 pounds, humans aren't shaped like
    weights (with handy places to grab hold, and with the weight concentrated
    in such a way that the person being carried can have a center of gravity 
    that would easily be placed to aid the one doing the carrying.)

    Further, it's dangerous to stand up in a burning building.  Not only
    does the smoke gather in the upper portion of the room - it's a heck
    of a lot hotter up there (due to the flames reaching out across the
    ceiling.)  Even firefighters tend to crouch down on the floor.

    So we're talking about a situation where rescued people are being
    pulled along the floor (rather than carried) if they're still alive.
    Most of the time, if the people don't get out before the fire dept
    arrives, they're already dead from smoke inhalation by the time
    firefighters arrive anyway.  Fire can engulf a house within minutes.
    Smoke engulfs the house a lot sooner, and most people who die in
    fires are killed by the smoke, not the flames.

    If you look at video from the Oklahoma City bombing, a famous section
    shows a grown man (badly injured and bloody) being moved down the
    ladder by a firefighter.  The ladder is more horizontal than it is
    vertical (in other words, it's not a steep climb down.)

    The video shows the firefighter climbing down backwards (ahead of
    the man, but facing the man) and the man is being encouraged by
    the male firefighter to scoot himself down the ladder.  The male
    firefighter is reaching for him, but the badly injured (bloody)
    man is moving on his own (scooting along on his butt.)

    The photos and video which show firefighters carrying people are
    the ones which show firefighters carrying babies.

    Rocush, I'm not going to answer your name-calling note.  Rewrite
    it if you wish to converse.
    

    .384
    
    I pretty much figured you couldn't deal with facts and really didn't
    expect a reply that addressed the points raised.
    
    OBTW, please identify the name calling and I will pleased to
    correct/eliminate it if you're correct.  Otherwise I will assume that
    the points I raised can not be refuted and you are just looking for a
    way to avoid the points.
    

OK Suzanne let's try a different question.

What would say the test should be if a fire department implemented a skills 
test with no laboratory type tests like the benchpress.  Instead the applicant 
needed to drag a hose 100 feet from a truck to a hydrant, raise a ladder, hack 
through a roof, crawl through a burning building, rescue a manican (sp?)?  Is 
there basic standard  (BTW I can imagine only needing to meet 4 of 5) that all 
applicants need to meet?  Or should it be sex specific?

Personally, I believe the standards should be gender neutral standards.  That 
said I wonder about the fire department standards because the older folks in 
Boston and Brookline (MA) don't seem to have much of a chance of passing the 
test in general.  If those are the standards everyone should have to meet 
them.  Man or women ... young or old ... black or white ... martian or human.

I also can see other situations where different standards for different 
genrders make sence; like entrance to the military academies.  Here the test 
is for physical fitness and not the specific needs of a particular job.  I'm 
guessing but requiring men to run 3 miles in 18 minutes probably requires the 
same level of fitness as requiring women to run 3 miled in maybe 20 minutes. 
Here I thnk the standards shold be equal level of fitness which  will show 
different absolute standards.

Greg

    .386
    
    Any position that requires meeting a standard has no business, other
    than complying with illegal quotas, altering those standards based on
    gender or anything else.  If the requirement to do the job is X then it
    is X for anyone interested in filling the position.  If the standard
    makes no sense and should be changed then it should be changed for
    everyone, not changed on an individual basis in order to meet some PC
    goal.
    
    That's the one that really drives the PC crowd crazy.  They claim the
    standard is inappropriate but when that would mean that more of a group
    othe rthan the PC one might be eligible, then they start screaming
    about under-representation.
    

Face it...the benchpress may used as a quick measure of strength, but that's
where it should end. I don't think it should, in any way, be the absolute
measure of a persons ability to, for example, remove a person from a burning
building. If the benchpress were the only criteria used in determining ones
ability in such circumstances, I'd be very surprised. I would hope that there 
are other "tests" to determine whether an applicant is worthy of becoming a 
firefighter.

I see nothing wrong with testing a persons ability to perform such a task, by
putting them into a similar, albeit controlled, environment, with the
instruction that they have some amount of alloted time to get a "person"
out...whether it be to lift, drag, push, roll...whatever it would take. Let
the applicant utilize ALL of his/her abilities to accomplish the task. I
would think (hope) that trainees undergo such tasks at firefighting academies.

-Bob

    RE: .385  Rocush
    
    Your note was silly with a radical agenda.  
    
    Please rewrite if you wish to converse.
    

    RE: .388  Bob
    
    > Face it...the benchpress may used as a quick measure of strength, but
    > that's where it should end. I don't think it should, in any way, be the
    > absolute measure of a persons ability to, for example, remove a person 
    > from a burning building. 
    
    Thank you, Bob!!
    

    
    re Suzanne
    
    I've re-read the notes in question.  If Al's note is a "silly 
    radical agenda", then so is yours  since the only thing I found
    "name calling" was the "silly" statemnt, which you yourself just
    just used.  I agree with Al.  You are just trying to avoid answering
    the question by degenerationg the conversation into a name-calling
    contest.
    
    fred();

    Thanks, Fred.
    
    You've just explained Al's name-calling behavior to him. If he wants
    to converse, he'll still have to rewrite his note, though.
    

    re Suzanne,
    
    I can't fault Al if you are going to throw rocks from your glass
    house and expect your notes to be overlooked.  Al said he'd re-write
    the note if you pointed out he offensive parts.  Instead, you just
    repeated your tirade using the same words that you consider
    "offensive" by others.
    
    fred();

    All he (Al) needs to do is to remove the parts that you or he would
    find objectionable if they were aimed at him.

    So I aimed them at him, and you found them objectionable.

    So Al's work is simple now.  He needs to rewrite the note without
    the judgmental comments aimed back at him, pure and simple.

    If he wants to have an exchange, he must do this.  Otherwise, it's
    not going to happen.  It's his choice.

    re suzanne,
    
    Again I cannot fault Al if you (in .389) are using the same as you
    are accusing him of using.  At this point, thought, speaking for 
    myself, I could care less if this "conversation" continues or not.
    
    fred();

    Fred, it's just funny that you didn't care when he used the same
    words to me first.  It only bothered you when they were aimed
    back at him.

    If no one cares if Al and I have a conversation about this, then
    it won't be necessary to address his questions.  Your choice.

    re Suzanne,
    
    I try to read all the notes I haven't read before I respond to anything.
    Whether or not his words were offensive became a moot point when you
    did the same.  As I said, I have a hard time faulting him when you do 
    the same thing.
    
    In this case it's your hypocrisy, not your words I find most offending.

    fred();

    RE: .397  Fred

    > It's your hypocrisy, not your words I find most offending.

    Exactly what I was about to say to you.

    You find a way to rationalize why it's ok for Al to say something
    but not ok for someone you consider 'politically incorrect' to say
    the same thing.

    It was easier to let you explain why the words were objectionable
    by writing them myself (and to let you show your double standard 
    when it comes to such things.)

    Now Al knows what to avoid if he wants to have a conversation about
    this topic (which apparently, he doesn't want after all.)

    re wheel chairs and 10 story buildings:
    
    Whelp... what would you expect that is done to keep someone from
    wheeling up to a fire station and saying something about joining the
    team. >Please, to those who are reading and are wheel chair bound, I am
    not making and slight on you!> 
    Anyhow Suzanne... what would you expect as some minimum of standards. 
    Would you wish to hire people to not even show up for a fire? 
    There are people who would not show up to work, never mind put out a fire.
    So long as you pay em.:) Sounds like you have been listening to NPR
    again...:)
    

    re .398
    
    >    Exactly what I was about to say to you.
    
    Which is nothing more than typical Suzanne Conlon "debating" technique.
    
>    You find a way to rationalize why it's ok for Al to say something
>    but not ok for someone you consider 'politically incorrect' to say
>    the same thing.
    
    Again if I were you I'd becareful about about that glass house before 
    accusing anyone else of "rationalizing".
    
    fred();

    RE: .400  Fred
    
    > Again if I were you I'd be careful about about that glass house before 
    > accusing anyone else of "rationalizing".
    
    Your glass house fell down in shards around you years ago, Fred.  :>
    

    RE: .399  George
    
    > re wheel chairs and 10 story buildings:
        
    >  Whelp... what would you expect that is done to keep someone from
    > wheeling up to a fire station and saying something about joining
    > the team. >Please, to those who are reading and are wheel chair 
    > bound, I am not making and slight on you!> 
        
    > Anyhow Suzanne... what would you expect as some minimum of standards.
    
    I would expect men to be above-average physically fit for men, and I'd
    expect women to be above-average physically fit for women. This is fair.
     
    > Would you wish to hire people to not even show up for a fire? 
      
    You fell off the deep end.  I'm not suggesting we hire people who
    don't want the job.
    
    > There are people who would not show up to work, never mind put out
    > a fire. So long as you pay em.:) Sounds like you have been listening 
    > to NPR again...:)
    
    You sound like you've gone to outer space.  We're not talking about
    people who do not want to work as firefighters.

    
    And the same to you, and your dog, and the hores you rode in on.
    
    Lovely "conversation" we are having.  
    
    fred();

    Fred, will you (and some others here) please use spell-checker
    in the future?

    When I try to use it (to catch typos), the thing lights up like
    a Christmas tree from all the stuff quoted from your notes.

    Geeeeesh.

    
    re .402
    
    
>    I would expect men to be above-average physically fit for men, and I'd
>    expect women to be above-average physically fit for women. This is fair.
    
    No, this is sexist.
    
    fred();

    RE: .405  Fred
    
    >> I would expect men to be above-average physically fit for men, and
    >> I'd expect women to be above-average physically fit for women. 
    >> This is fair.
        
    > No, this is sexist.
        
    No, it's fair.
    

I'm still waiting for an answer why there are two measurements 
required? One for men and a lower one for women. If they are 
arbitrary, why two then?

    1996 Satistics from Fed Bureau  of prisons
    : (http://www.bop.gov/facts.html#Gender)
    
                                   
    What we seem to have is an BIG and increasing drug problem. Violent
    offences represented only 2.8% of prison population. 
    
    INMATES BY GENDER 
    Male: 92.7%  
    Female: 7.3%  
    
    INMATES BY RACE 
    White: 58.9%  
    Black: 37.9% 
    Asian: 1.6% 
    American Indian: 1.6%  
    
    TYPE OF OFFENSE (Data refers to sentenced offenders in BOP facilities
    only) 
    Drug Offenses: 60.7%  
    Robbery: 9.7%  
    Firearms, Explosives, Arson: 9.0%  
    Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 6.0%  
    Property Offenses: 5.4%  
    Violent Offenses: 2.8%  
    Immigration: 2.7%  
    Continuing Criminal Enterprise: 0.8%  
    White Collar: 0.8%  
    Courts or Corrections: 0.6%  
    National Security: 0.1%  
    Miscellaneous: 1.5%  
    
    
    
    
    DRUG OFFENDERS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL SENTENCED OFFENDERS, 1971 - 1996  
    
    1971: 17.0% 
    1972: 16.9% 
    1973: 25.6% 
    1974: 28.4% 
    1975: 26.7% 
    1976: 26.6% 
    1977: 26.2% 
    1978: 25.4% 
    1979: 25.3% 
    1980: 24.9% 
    1981: 25.6% 
    1982: 26.3% 
    1983: 27.6% 
    1984: 29.5% 
    1985: 34.3% 
    1986: 38.1% 
    1987: 42.0% 
    1988: 44.8% 
    1989: 49.9% 
    1990: 52.3% 
    1991: 57.0% 
    1992: 59.6% 
    1993: 60.9% 
    1994: 61.4% 
    1995: 60.6% 
    1996: 60.8%  

    Darryl, if you set the standard to be for the above-average physical
    fitness of chimpanzees, few (or no) human beings would qualify.

    So they put the standard to be above-average for human males so that
    they can qualify.  Obviously, chimpanzees are far, far stronger and
    more agile than nearly all human beings.  We choose to have human
    beings fight fires, though.

    So they once set the standard to be above-average human males.

    The standard for women should be above-average human females (rather
    than above-average human males.)

    The arbitrary standard should not cover our entire species.

    .409
    
    I am not going to bother changing the prior note because what you wrote
    was silly.  I am sorry if you are offended by that being pointed out,
    but it is not name calling.
    
    AS I stated earlier, if you really jad a response to the points raised
    you would have jumped on it with both feet.  Since you didn't, it is
    obvious that you are unable to support your posistion, nor refute the
    points I raised.  thus the name calling charge - incorrect I maight
    add.
    
    Even you should understand that members of the animal kingdom are
    unable to perform skilled tasks.  Also, I dindicated several times that
    there are other factors used to determine who makes it on any fire
    department.  The physical aspect is only one, but quite important.
    
    Your subsequent comment about a standard for men and one for women is
    wholey without merit.  The mere fact that you write it here says a
    volume about your point of view.  If a standard is to be used at all,
    it has no business being changed for one gender or another.  The
    standard is ther to reflect the physical needs of the position.  If it
    is inappropriate, and no one will agree with you that the physical
    component of fighting fires should ever be removed, then it should be
    changed for all applicants, not just women.  You know, of course, why
    they don't.  There will be more men that will meet the reduced standard
    and thereby limit even further the number of women on the force.
    
    The only way to justify your position is pure bias, predjudice and
    sexism.  If that is the case, at least have the courage to voice your
    position as opposed to hiding from it.
    

    re .406
    
    I already know what your response to this is, but just for the record--
    If the men and women should be judged on different abilities, then
    should they be paid and promoted on different scales?
    
    fred();

    RE: .410  Rocush

    > AS I stated earlier, if you really jad a response to the points
    > raised you would have jumped on it with both feet. Since you didn't, 
    > it is obvious that you are unable to support your posistion, nor refute
    > the points I raised.  

    If you'd raised valid points, you wouldn't mind rephrasing them without
    the other stuff.  You refuse, which is a good indication that your
    points were never valid in the first place.
        
    > Even you should understand that members of the animal kingdom are
    > unable to perform skilled tasks.  Also, I dindicated several times
    > that there are other factors used to determine who makes it on any 
    > fire department. The physical aspect is only one, but quite important.

    I agree that candidates should be very physically fit.

    > Your subsequent comment about a standard for men and one for women
    > is wholey without merit.  

    It is the only fair way to do it.  Obviously, some women will meet
    the standard set for above-average physical fitness for men.  More
    power to them.  It should not be required, though.

    > If a standard is to be used at all, it has no business being changed 
    > for one gender or another.  The standard is ther to reflect the physical
    > needs of the position.  

    The 'physical needs of the position' is a standard set by humans. It's
    not some standard set for our whole universe or galaxy.

    > If it is inappropriate, and no one will agree with you that the 
    > physical component of fighting fires should ever be removed, then 
    > it should be changed for all applicants, not just women.  

    Nonsense.  It is most fair if the standard is set for above-average
    physical fitness of men as the standard for men, and above-average
    physical fitness of women as the standard for women.

    > The only way to justify your position is pure bias, predjudice and
    > sexism.  If that is the case, at least have the courage to voice
    > your position as opposed to hiding from it.
        
    My position is fair.  If men must meet the standard of above-average
    physical fitness for men, then women should meet the standard of
    above-average physical fitness for women.

    Anything other than this would be prejudice and sexism.  I'm sorry
    that you don't understand why.

    .411
    
    Come on, Fred.  You know full well that the way it works is that women
    can only gain benefits, they can not lose any regardless of the facts.
    
    Remeber the issue is not around equality or fairness, it is only
    whether or not more benefits can be obtained.  If there was any attempt
    to establish a system based on fairness and equality what we presently
    have would be scrapped.
    
    You can see that the basis of fairness is that two separate standards
    need to be maintained.  One for those horrible men, and another, much
    lower, for those poor women.  If you need to compete on a level playing
    field the winners would be those who are more qualified, capable and
    can achieve more.  the losers would be all of the rest.  This is an
    unacceptable situation.
    

    RE: .411  Fred

    > I already know what your response to this is, but just for the record--
    > If the men and women should be judged on different abilities, then
    > should they be paid and promoted on different scales?

    Our society already places a higher dollar value on whatever men do
    (even when traditionally female jobs require more education and higher
    skills.)  Example:  Garbage collectors earn more money than nurses
    with 4-year college (Bachelors) degrees.

    It would be prejudice and sexism to place the highest value on a
    particular portion of a job so that males can receive more money
    in general (which is exactly what has been happening in our society
    for far too many decades.)

    .412
    
    Oh, I understand your position very well.  It is just that is is
    totally without merit.  You have continued to ignore the conceppt of an
    established standard.  if there is a reason for the standard then it
    must be met by anyone filling the position.  If such is not the case,
    then the standard should be modified or eliminated.  This will never
    happen as fighting fires is a very physical job and fires have no
    regard for the gender of those deployed against it.
    
    If you need to carry a 100 lb hose up to the second floor, then that's
    what you need to do.  If you can't you don't belong on the force.  The
    requires that you chop through a door or wall in a fixed amount of
    time.  If you can't, then you don't belong on the force.  If the job
    requires that you carry a spare oxygen tank to a victim or another
    firefighter, then that's what you need to do.  If you can't then you
    don't belong on the force.
    
    All of these are reasonable physical requirements of the job.  Anyone
    who can perform them should be accepted.  Anyone who can't should not. 
    to do anything else is the worst predjudice and sexism concevievable.
    
    I realize this really goes against the agenda of making sure that
    targeted people get into every profession, regardless of ability to do
    the job, but if fairness and equality is really at the heart of the
    issue, then there is no choice.
    

    RE: .413  Rocush

    > If you need to compete on a level playing field the winners would be 
    > those who are more qualified, capable and can achieve more. the losers 
    > would be all of the rest.  This is an unacceptable situation.

    If we competed on a level playing field, our society would pay for
    the level of education and skills of its workers rather than some
    arbitrary thing like brute strength (simply on the basis that males
    are more likely to have it.)

    We would care more about the educations needed for traditionally female
    jobs rather than giving most of the money to anything that has a high
    proportion of males employed in it (even if it requires almost no skills
    at all.)

    In the old Soviet Union, they started giving women most of the medical
    training (to be physicians) - it's funny how the profession of 'doctor'
    became a low-paid job without much respect (when it was perceived as
    being women's work.)  Our species is weird that way.

    RE: .415  Rocush

    > Oh, I understand your position very well.  It is just that is is
    > totally without merit.  

    You don't understand my position at all.

    > You have continued to ignore the conceppt of an established standard.
      
    Humans established this standard.  Such things change all the time.

    > All of these are reasonable physical requirements of the job. 
    > Anyone who can perform them should be accepted.  Anyone who can't 
    > should not.

    So you'd accept a physically fit arsonist on the fire department
    (if they could do these things?)  

    Would you accept a physically fit rapist or axe murderer?  How about
    a physically fit serial killer?
     
    They should be looking for people to meet all the requirements of the
    job (many of which are not physical), and they should hire people who
    are also above-average physically fit for their sex.

    > to do anything else is the worst predjudice and sexism concevievable.

    What you are suggesting is prejudice and sexism.
    
    > I realize this really goes against the agenda of making sure that
    > targeted people get into every profession, regardless of ability to
    > do the job, but if fairness and equality is really at the heart of the
    > issue, then there is no choice.
    
    My position goes against the heart of sexism (which is a practice of
    excluding QUALIFIED PEOPLE from jobs on the basis of their sex, race,
    creed, etc.)

    .414
    
    I notice you didn't answer the question, just provide more smoke.
    
    BTW, if garbage collectors make more than nurses, then why are there
    not more women demanding access to the garbage collection field?  They
    certainly would have equal opportunity.  Or is it possible that nobody
    really wants these jobs in the first place and the only way to get
    anyone to fill them is to offer high salaries.
    

    RE: .418  Rocush

    > I notice you didn't answer the question, just provide more smoke.

    I answered the question.  I just didn't give the answer you wanted.

    > BTW, if garbage collectors make more than nurses, then why are
    > there not more women demanding access to the garbage collection 
    > field? They certainly would have equal opportunity.  

    If true, then why suggest that women would need to DEMAND it?

    By the way, Rocush, if you believe that your biggest responsibility 
    is to PROTECT WOMEN, then why do you FIGHT AGAINST WOMEN who merely 
    try to express their opinions about social issues (when they happen
    to disagree with your opinions)?
    

    By the way, do you think a flat tax is fair?
    
    Or do you think that someone making $100,000 per year should pay
    the same exact amount of money as someone making $75,000 per year?
    
    (I realize that you probably don't think anyone should ever pay
    anything - but assume for a moment that you accept the idea of
    paying any tax at all, such as 1% Federal Income Tax.)
    

    Ok - here's my suggestion about how the hiring for firefighters
    should work.

    The firefighter candidates should fulfill all the intelligence,
    character, initiative, dedication, etc., requirements - and when
    it comes to strength, the successful candidates should be very,
    very, above-average (ok, WELL above-average) physically fit and
    strong.

    Physically fit and strong means just that.  It isn't accurately
    measured by setting up a test designed to favor one group more 
    than another.

    Whether the occupation is mountain climbing, skiing, ski patrolling,
    lifeguarding at a beach, piloting, police work, scuba diving, or
    any other physical job - the main point is to be extremely physically
    fit (which is a tremendous amount of hard work, whether the person
    is a man or a woman.)  If the person has done this work, and the
    person is extremely physically fit and strong - and the person has
    all the other requirements for the job - the person is qualified.

    Simple enough, and fair.

                     <<< Note 262.417 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
     
   > They should be looking for people to meet all the requirements of the
   > job (many of which are not physical), and they should hire people who
   > are also above-average physically fit for their sex.

     Well duh. They did. Guess what? Most women didn't "meet all 
     the requirements". So, they lowered them. They didn't lower 
     them for everyone though, just for the women. 

     How convenient.

     

                     <<< Note 262.412 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>

   > Nonsense.  It is most fair if the standard is set for above-average
   > physical fitness of men as the standard for men, and above-average
   > physical fitness of women as the standard for women.

     This is total NONSENSE. This requirement is not part of the 
     test to set some standard of what is an above avg man or women. 
     The original weight requirement was set because it was determined 
     to be an accurate measurement of whether the candidate could 
     carry someone out of a burning building. It was lowered. it 
     wasn't lowered because it was determined that the original 
     requirement was too high. It wasn't lowered because studies shows that 
     the general population was getting thinner. No, studies 
     show exactly the opposite, the population is getting heavier (on 
     avg).

     The lower requirement has nothing to do with the safety of 
     those trapped in a building building. It has everything to do 
     with meeting some silly quota. If some women can pass the male 
     requirement for this test, put them on the force. If they can't 
     they should be told to look for employment elsewhere.

     You can blather on and on about anything you damn well 
     please. Even your twisted logic can't justify the fact that there 
     are two limits here and it's so because a quota must be met.

    
    re .414

>    It would be prejudice and sexism to place the highest value on a
>    particular portion of a job so that males can receive more money
>    in general (which is exactly what has been happening in our society
>    for far too many decades.)

    So it's sexism to require equal qualifications for a job but sexism to
    not pay all those equally regardless of their ability?   This sounds
    dangerously close to "From each according to his ability, to each
    according to his needs".  But, as I have said before, the main value of
    these "conversations" is to give you a forum to expose the agenda
    of you and your "sisterhood".

    fred();

    
    How do you measure 'physically fit and strong'?

    To qualify for surf lifesaving you must, among other things, 
    complete a 400 metre swim in less than 9 minutes in a swimming pool
    of at least 25 metres or in open water.
    Candidates are required to run 200 metres, then swim 100 metres out 
    through the surf without the use of aids, then swim back 100 metres, 
    all within 8 minutes. 

    Which part of that favours one group more than another?

    Not only does performing a rescue involve knowledge and expertise;
    it also requires endurance and fitness.   Lifesavers place their own
    lives at risk, as well as others, if they go on patrol in an unfit state.

    I don't know what the requirements are for firefighters but I hope
    that they are very tough.

    When I was in my teens I qualified for Red Cross Senior Life Saving.
    My instructor advised me *not* to attempt an unaided rescue of an 
    adult in the water even though I was physically fit, strong and an
    excellent swimmer.  The reason for the advise was that I was under 
    4'10 and weighed less than 90 pounds.  I had little hope of pulling
    someone out of the water if there was any amount of panic on the
    part of the person being rescued.  I was physically fit and very 
    strong *for my size*.

    It isn't a matter of what's fair or how hard someone worked at getting
    fit.  If they can't pass the test they don't need to be doing the job.
    The tests need to be more difficult not less.

    It's a good idea to challenge the status quo, get people to examine
    their belief systems and see if they are still valid.  
    It's not a good idea to deny reality, especially when lives are at
    stake.


    angela
    	

    Angela,
    
    You hit the nail on the head when you said that the test need to be
    tuff, for your not doing either party good when they are set up for a
    failure. Weither its a fat cop who cannot run two city blocks without
    getting out of wind or a person who cannot pull someone out of the surf.
    I think that you can do it, but if you cannot, owe up to it and move
    on to anoher job in life. 
    
    re fat cops: I have seen em like this in some local small towns, and
    its not funny if they need to use their streingth to over come the bad
    guys, or perhaps run into the deep woods to find a car that has gone
    astray off the road, etc.
    

    .420
    
    I do not fight against women who merely express their opinion.  I do,
    however, believe that it is necessary to point out hypocrisy and
    unfairness.
    
    You have stated on numerous occassions that you support equality and
    fairness, but when you are given concrete examples where such is not
    the case, if the examples involve women, you will go to any length to
    excuse the blatant unfairness and try and deflect the issue to other
    matters.
    
    I would also expect that is I was in error that you would be able to
    provide solid evidence of my mistakes and not resort to irrelevant
    attacks and claim that I want to see children die in fires, even though
    you phrase the attack as a question, the purpose is obvious.
    

    .421
    
    Although I do not think that a flat tax is the best system, I much
    favor it over the existing system.  I believe there should be a minimum
    tax as well as a maximum tax.
    
    Penalizing achievers does little to create more achievers, but it does
    encourage those to see to it that they are harmed as little as
    possible.
    
    Also, I do believe that there is a minimum level of government
    involvement that is necessary, but what has happened over the past
    several decades has gone way too far.
    

    Two people are born with the exact same level of potential for
    being athletic and physically fit.  They invest the exact same
    degree of dedication to sports and physical activities as youngsters.

    As teens and young adults, they invest the same exact amount of
    time and energy into working out, getting into shape.  They both
    become extremely physically fit, well above-average.

    They have the same exact intelligence, the same dedication in their
    pursuit of being firefighters.  They are both qualified to become
    firefighters.

    One is a man.  One is a woman.  Do we regard the man's testosterone
    as giving him the birthright to be considered better than she is
    (simply because his actual muscle mass is somewhat more than hers?)

    Is this what it's come down to in our species?

    If you don't agree that men should be given this birthright due to
    their sex, it's an abomination.  It's supposedly sexism against men.

    People die in fires before the fire department arrives (due to smoke
    inhalation, which is the main killer in fires - not the flames.)

    We need firefighters who are extremely physically fit and mentally
    prepared to do the job.  Some men and some women qualify for this
    (whether or not one or two limits are set for bench pressing.)

    .422
    
    Still beating the separate but equal drum even though you can not
    support it in any way.  If the purpose of a test is to determine if
    someone can do the job, lowering the standard to accomplish a political
    agenda is wrong.
    
    Would you accept a lower requirement for men on the other tests
    regarding intelligence, motivation, etc?  If it were found that women
    scored consistently higher on these tests would you agree to have a
    lower score required for men, since they can't do as well on certain
    aspects of the job?
    

    The woman can do like men firefighters who are below par. Cheat, take
    steriods and lift weights. 

   > One is a man.  One is a woman.  Do we regard the man's testosterone
   > as giving him the birthright to be considered better than she is
   > (simply because his actual muscle mass is somewhat more than hers?)

    No. the test determines that. Do try to keep up.

    Free hint: If you can't pass the test, lowering the requirement 
               isn't the answer.

    
    

    .432
    
    You are still wrong.  No matter how hard you try you can not justify
    two standards.  If there is a reason for a standard, and there is
    plenty of evidence to support this need, then having different
    standards is nonsense.
    
    If you felt that a particular strength test is incorrect i.e., a
    benchpress, that's fine.  Feel free to substitute any other physical
    test that more accurately reflects the needs of the job.  Unfortunately
    you will find that if the real needs of the job are used, the
    overwhelming majority of women on the force would be removed.  NOne of
    these tests are unrelated to the job.  They are all based on the every
    day happenings in the course of fighting fires.
    
    I can think of no one who would want to go into a situation knowing
    that the person they need to count on is incapable of doing the job. 
    If you were in need of having an additional hose brought in or a spare
    oxygen tank and the only person available is incapable of doing it, I
    think you would have aproblem.  Your standards will endanger people
    above and beyond that to be expected.  All for the purpose of getting
    particular people into positions that they are unqualified for.
    

    By the way, when was the last time anyone read a newspaper story
    about a large adult person being carried out of a fire in the ARMS 
    of a firefighter?

    I've never read such a story in my entire life.  Never.  My family
    house burned when I was a kid with all three children home without
    my parents (my Dad had left for five minutes to pick my Mom up from
    work.)  We were rescued by filing out of the house in an orderly
    fashion (with the help of a neighbor woman.)  We saved our pet
    bird, too.

    As a young adult, I was sent back east to train in arson investigation
    (for a job prior to Digital.)

    I've seen video of people being saved in fires by ladders and
    helicopters.  Large adults were not carried in anyone's arms,
    though.  If the ladders and helicopters didn't arrive in time,
    their hair started smoking and they often jumped to their deaths
    (from tall buildings in flames.)

    My son knew someone in Denver who offered to catch an infant
    when the mother was screaming in an apartment fire about herself
    and her baby being trapped.  The infant was tossed below, and
    my son's friend caught the baby just fine.  I believe the mother
    also survived by jumping (without anyone trying to catch her.)

    Rocush, men with less intelligence and less education (and less personal
    investment in their qualifications) make more money than women all the 
    time.  

    It's a standard in this country to say that hard work, intelligence and 
    education are valued - but the reality is that too many in our culture
    have a rock hard (no pun intended) belief that men are simply superior
    to women.  Our culture pays accordingly.

    This, friends, is what sexism and discrimination are all about.  It's
    precisely the same as the belief that Caucasians are superior to
    African Americans.

    .438
    
    Another reply that did not answer the question.  You have a particular
    view about unfairness in the system, even though the most recent
    studies refute this easily, but it does not answer my question.
    
    Simply put, would support lowering the mental and psychological tests
    for men if they consistently did not score as well as women in order to
    get men into a job?
    
    BTW, your contention about unequal pay was discussed in another note
    but it showed that individulas with equal qualifications, education and
    experience make almost identical salaries.  I believe the figure was
    $.98 on the dollar.  Now I suppose you could argue about the $.02
    difference, but it is statistically insignificant.  Your contention is
    incorrect, but politically attractive.
    

    
    re .438

>    It's a standard in this country to say that hard work, intelligence and 
>    education are valued - but the reality is that too many in our culture
>    have a rock hard (no pun intended) belief that men are simply superior
>    to women.  Our culture pays accordingly.

    Again you are rather selective in you facts in order to support your
    argument. In cases where physical strength are involved, it is not
    sexism, it is simply a fact of nature, the man _are_ stronger.

    I seriously doubt that Digital is going to pay me the same as many
    others I work with, male or female, even though I may not have the
    same abilities.  Doing so is not sexism,  it's beyond Socialism,
    it's Marxism.

    fred()

    Just so that this isn't viewed as a male-only position regarding
    different standards for men and wome, I will enter a summary of an
    op-ed piece in the Chicago Tribune.  the piece was written by Gretchen
    Rigol, Executive Director, Admissions and Guidance Services, The
    College Board.
    
    She was responding to an article that was written by Leslie Wolfe and
    Phyllis Rosser who claimed the SAT was unfairlybiased against women and
    in favor of men.  they supported this claim by identifying that men did
    better on the SAT than women.  since I did not read the original
    article I am at a bit of a disadvantage in responding directly to their
    contentions.  However, Ms. Rigol identifies their efforts as distortion
    and unsubstantiated claims.
    
    She identified the difference in score results to "gender-related
    differences in course selection and in different approaches to their
    academic studies tend to contribute to women's grades."  I assume that
    this was in response to the original article that tried to indicate
    sexism based on the fact that women got better grades but lower SAT
    scores.  She continues, "To cite a well-known example: Math and
    physical science teachers award fewer A grades than other teachers. 
    this results in higher grades for women who take, on average. fewer
    advanced math and science courses than men."
    
    She concludes, " The SAT palys an important role in the transition to
    college.  Its content reflects the consensus of educators on the
    appropriate academic standards for all students.  I am heartened to
    note that the gender gap in scores has been shrinking as more young
    women try to meet those standards.  If Ms. Wolfe and Ms. Rosser really
    want to increase opportunities for women in higher education, they
    should drop this conspiracy nonsense and encourage more young women to
    broaden their academic skills."
    
    In essense, if you want to compete then get the skills necessary. 
    Don't claim conspiracy when the results aren't what you want. 
    Encourage those who wish to particiapte to meet the standards, don't
    complain about the standards when others can achieve them.
    

    Some years back, I knew a customer in the field who worked for a
    state agency in Colorado.  This guy's agency needed a computer 
    and he wanted a VAX 11/750 (they were considered cool at the time.)

    He had to submit a description of what he wanted so that it could go
    up for a bid among computer companies (including IBM.)

    He described a VAX 11/750 to a tee.  No one else could sell him a
    VAX 11/750 for as low a price as we could, of course, because no one
    else made precisely what he described (except us.)  So we came in
    with the lowest bid and sold him a computer.

    When some aspect of our culture wants men for a particular job (not
    women), the process is much the same.  Take some arbitrary thing that
    will exclude other group(s), and say that this is necessary for the
    job.

    The bottom line is that one group is wanted, and the qualifications
    are skewed to make it happen (just as this state agency guy skewed
    his computer needs so that only a VAX 11/750 would make the cut.)

    .442
    
    Are you really serious with your last reply???!!!
    
    Please identify where anyone has identified an arbitrary test or
    standard.  You are the one that is claiming a simple, objective, JOB
    RELATED TEST, is inappropriate if it excludes those who can't meet the
    standard, if those who can't meet the standard are women.
    
    Several different tests were suggested that could be used that were
    directly related to jobe performance.  You have ignored those and have
    still continued to beat the discrimination drum even though quite the
    opposite is the case.
    
    You have ignored the questions that have been asked, ignored the facts
    that have been presented, ignored alternatives and still have the nerve
    to claim some conspiracy to exclude women.  At the same time, you
    expect standards for women to be lower but that any standard that would
    be lowered to benefit men is wrong.
    
    Any fairminded person has long ago seen that you will say anything,
    factual or not, to advance your agenda.
    
    YOur last entry is totally beneath even you.
    

    
    Should the state agencey have been requried to lower their standars
    so that Apple could have bid when it was at least a VAX that was
    needed?
    
    And Digital has certain standards for what is necessary to do the
    job that they are hiring someone to do.  Should Digital be required
    so hire someone with, say, a high-shcool education, to do that
    job when a college education is what is required?   And pay them
    the same as everyone else anyway?
    
    fred();

                     <<< Note 262.442 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>

   > The bottom line is that one group is wanted, and the qualifications
   > are skewed to make it happen (just as this state agency guy skewed
   > his computer needs so that only a VAX 11/750 would make the cut.)

     You can continue to foist this swill on us for as long as 
     you like. It won't make it true. The test was designed to measure 
     whether the candidate could remove an individual from a burning 
     building. The weight limit was set for that reason and that 
     reason alone. If that limit was too high then it would've 
     been lower for all. 

    RE: .444  Fred

    > Should the state agencey have been requried to lower their standars
    > so that Apple could have bid when it was at least a VAX that was
    > needed?

    IBM was bidding - their computers (mainframes) were bigger and more
    powerful than the VAX 11/750.  

    They offered more power for the money than we did, but they lost because 
    of an arbitrary 'spec' which described the VAX 11/750.  The IBM was too
    powerful (for a bit more money than the VAX 11/750), so they were excluded
    from the competition.
    
    It would be like excluding someone with a PhD in Computer Science from
    a job at a computer company because of some arbitrary thing that a
    person with an Associates (2 year degree) happens to have (and I don't
    mean more talent, knowledge or experience.)

    In case anyone was wondering, when my siblings and I were in a fire,
    my brother was 11 years old and my sister was 10 years old.  They were
    my usual babysitters when my parents were out (I was 5 years old.)

    So it wasn't unusual for us to be on our own for short amounts of
    time.  

    We'd never been in a fire before, so we made mistakes common to
    children in such situations.

    My brother tried to bat at the fire to put it out (even as I watched
    flames crawl across the ceiling above me.)  My sister froze in terror.

    I started moving farther away from the front door so that I could find
    the bird (in his bird cage) to take him outside with us, except that
    none of us were actually trying to go outside.

    The lady next door heard our screams and saw the flames coming from
    our house - she got someone else to make the call for help, while
    she ran into this burning house to find the children inside.

    She got us all to go outside (I carried the bird cage myself.)

    It all happens so fast - we were in deep trouble before the first
    phone call for help was ever made.  This is the reality of fires.

Which has nothing to do with what we're talking about. 

But, do go on.

    
>    IBM was bidding - their computers (mainframes) were bigger and more
>    powerful than the VAX 11/750.  

    And at a _lot_ higher price?
    Which is the exact opposite of the situation you are trying to prove.
    Has _anyone_ here said that a woman who can pass (or do better on) an 
    equal test should be disqualified?

>    It would be like excluding someone with a PhD in Computer Science from
>    a job at a computer company because of some arbitrary thing that a
>    person with an Associates (2 year degree) happens to have (and I don't
>    mean more talent, knowledge or experien

    Happens all the time.  Rec's will be posted for Spec II.  Due to budget
    considerations someone from another department who is a Spec IV or
    Consultant won't even be  considered.  Again it is the opposite
    situation than the one you  are trying to prove.

    Again you display a rather high degree of hypocrisy.  You have
    problems fudging tests to eliminate more qualified people, but
    you seem to have no trouble fudging tests when it suits _your_
    agenda.

    fred();

    RE: .449  Fred

    >> IBM was bidding - their computers (mainframes) were bigger and
    >> more powerful than the VAX 11/750.  
        
    > And at a _lot_ higher price?

    It was a price higher than the VAX 11/750, but it was more power
    for the money than what we were selling.

    > Which is the exact opposite of the situation you are trying to
    > prove.  Has _anyone_ here said that a woman who can pass (or do 
    > better on) an equal test should be disqualified?

    Their 'spec' asked for certain things that the VAX 11/750 was bound
    to meet, even when in competition with other computers that were
    as valuable (or more valuable) for the money.

    The idea was to exclude these other computers by setting specific
    tests that only one computer could meet.

    This is the situation being described.

    >> It would be like excluding someone with a PhD in Computer Science
    >> from a job at a computer company because of some arbitrary thing 
    >> that a person with an Associates (2 year degree) happens to have 
    >> (and I don't mean more talent, knowledge or experien
        
    > Happens all the time.  Rec's will be posted for Spec II.  Someone
    > from another department who is a Spec IV or Consultant won't even be 
    > considered.  

    So much for 'most qualified'.  Sometimes employers are looking for a
    particular trait or aspect of a candidate (such as being in a position
    to 'grow into' the job.)  Thanks for the admission.

    > Again it is the opposite situation than the one you are trying to prove.

    The test was originally set up to exclude a class of people, even those
    who were VERY well qualified to do the work.  The test was an arbitrary
    standard which was set up to exclude qualified people.

Which, once again, has nothing to do with the subject.

You're a master of the strawwoman.

    re re .459
    
>    It was a price higher than the VAX 11/750, but it was more power
>    for the money than what we were selling.
    
    Which proves my point rather than yours.  The test was set up to
    favor the less powerful computer.
    
>    The test was originally set up to exclude a class of people, even those
>    who were VERY well qualified to do the work.  The test was an arbitrary
>    standard which was set up to exclude qualified people.
    
    One more time.  The test was set up to reflect the requirements of
    the job.  What you are acvocating is the very same as your previous
    example--set the standards to allow/favor the less powerful applicant.
    
    fred();

    Darryl. it ***is*** the subject being discussed at the moment.
    
    Try to keep up with current events.
    

    RE: .452  Fred
    
    >> It was a price higher than the VAX 11/750, but it was more power
    >> for the money than what we were selling.
        
    > Which proves my point rather than yours.  The test was set up to
    > favor the less powerful computer.
        
    The test was set up to favor a CERTAIN computer (in the same way
    that tests are set up to favor men.)
    
    Less powerful and more powerful computers were excluded in this test
    (just as less powerful and more powerful - in other ways - women are
    excluded when a test is set up to check for testosterone, rather than
    job skills.)

    
    rep

>    The test was set up to favor a CERTAIN computer (in the same way
>    that tests are set up to favor men.)

    If they had set the test to favor the more expensive/powerful
    computer then you might have a point.  You can't seem to grasp
    the concept.

    What kind of car do you drive?  Why not a BMW or Mercedes, or Rolles?

>    Less powerful and more powerful computers were excluded in this test
>    (just as less powerful and more powerful - in other ways - women are
>    excluded when a test is set up to check for testosterone, rather than
>    job skills.)

    To keep harping on this obviously and repeatedly debunked argument
    is just another exposure of your agenda, Suzanne.  We've already
    answered this claim numerous times.  

    fred();

One wonders why you changed the subject.

    .454
    
    Can you identify just which tests test for testosterone?  I don't seem
    to recognize any tests that do.  there are tests that look for specific
    skills.  If you don't have them you don't get the job.
    
    You have yet to show any proof that any of the tests are unfair.
    
    OBTW, I did note that it was your brother who attempted to put out the
    fire while your sister just stood there.
    
    Also notice you didn't bother to respond to the information about the
    SAT.  I assume you agree that the feminist movement is not interested
    in actually improving the conditions, just change the rules so more
    less qualified people can get the jobs.  Being qualified is such a
    burden for the unqualified. 
    

    They are looking for muscle mass which is brought on by testosterone.
    
    Muscle mass is not a job skill.  Bench pressing is not a job skill.
    

    RE: .457  Rocush
    
    > OBTW, I did note that it was your brother who attempted to put out
    > the fire while your sister just stood there.
    
    My brother attempted to put out a fire which was streaming across
    the ceiling over the heads of his two younger sisters (one of which
    was only 5 years old.)
    
    My sister was simply stunned.  I went looking for the bird cage.
    
    This is how children die in fires, even if the windows of their
    houses don't have bars on them.

    .458
    
    So they are not looking for testosterone as you claimed earlier.  They
    are looking for the physical ability to perform the tasks related to
    the job.  Or are you claiming now that women are unable and incapable
    of developing muscle mass?  If you are, I would suggest you not mention
    that to Cory Evenson
    
    Also, no one ever said muscle mass was a job skill.  the ability to use
    muscle mass in the conduct of the job is a job skill.  If you don't
    have the muscle to do the job, you don't deserve the job.
    
    Also, benchpressing was never presented as a job skill.  You created
    that strawman yourself.  the test was used to make is easier to test
    all of the applicants.  they could have set it up to have the
    applicants carry a fire hose off of a truck to a hydrant, hook it up
    and get it to the fire.  If this was done, you have almost no women on
    any force.  Or do you feel that sucha test would be unfair, even though
    it is clearly a job skill and could result in saving lives and
    property?
    
    Still no response to the SAT issue which is identical to this.  If you
    want a position get the skills and you can do the job, if not you don't
    deserve it.
    
    It really is unfortunate that you are unable to see your own bigotry
    and sexism.  Just about everyone else can.
    

    re .458
    
>    They are looking for muscle mass which is brought on by testosterone.
>   
>    Muscle mass is not a job skill.  Bench pressing is not a job skill.
    
    Again we have responded to this over and over.  Repeating this
    claim over and overe isn't going to make it any more credible.
    
    fred();

    re .459
    
>    This is how children die in fires, even if the windows of their
>    houses don't have bars on them.

    Which is why you want the best _person_ available to do the job.
    Not just someone that was tested by a lowered set of standards in
    order to fill a quota.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .462  Fred
    
    >> This is how children die in fires, even if the windows of their
    >> houses don't have bars on them.
    
    > Which is why you want the best _person_ available to do the job.
    > Not just someone that was tested by a lowered set of standards in
    > order to fill a quota.
    
    In point of fact, the best *person* for this task (on the day in
    question) was the woman next door.
    
    She had no special training, and no special strength or muscle mass.
    
    She was simply willing to risk her life to save three children's
    lives, and she did exactly that.
    
    No one on the planet could have done any better than this.

    
        re. 463

    >    She had no special training, and no special strength or muscle mass.

    I suspect that her success had more to do more with willingness to help
    and being in the right place at the right time than any qualifications
    she might have had as a firefighter.  To equate the neighbor lady
    to a trained firefighter as proof of your position is just plain
    nonsense.  
    
    A few years ago an escapee from juvenile prison kidnaped a 78 year
    old woman in her car.  She pulled a pistol out of the glove compartment
    and shot him.  Does that prove 78 year old ladies would make good
    candidates for the SWAT team?  Hardly.

    The second most sickening part of your argument is you and your
    "sisterhoood's" apparent willingness to place children in danger in 
    order to promote your agenda.  The most sickening part is that this is
    what is accutally happening in firehouses around the nation.
    
    fred();

    .463
    
    Exactly how skilled would your neighbor hqad been if the fire was
    actually engulfing the house and the three of you were in an upstairs
    room hiding behind a locked door?  I would expect that she not only
    would not have rescued  you but died in the effort herself.
    
    A trained firefighter would have been equipped to handle the situation,
    and may have had little time to get everyone out.  That horrible,
    testosterone based muscle mass may have enabled the firefighter to
    carry tow of you out at the same time making it necessary to only
    return once.
    
    Your agenda gets in the way of common sense every time.
    
    OBTW, as far as the success of your neigbor goes, remember that luck
    will beat skill every time.  YOur neighbor and your siblings were
    lucky, not skillful.  there is a difference, but you chose to ignore
    it.

    If we'd still been inside the house by the time the fire department
    arrived, we would have been dead (all three of us kids) from smoke 
    inhalation.

    They would have carried us out dead, as happens too often in house
    fires.

    It's all well and good to describe firefighting as a daily ritual
    of carrying injured people to safety - but the reality is that
    most people die if they don't get out on their own (or with help)
    before the firefighters arrive on the scene.

    The notable exception is when the people are in tall buildings.
    In that case, the fire department often can't reach them anyway.
    Their hair starts to smoke, and they often jump to their deaths
    (especially if it's a fairly tall building.)

    Others in the building die from the colorless odorless gas which
    gets to them (without their ever knowing it's there.)  They die
    without ever realizing that they are in trouble.

                     <<< Note 262.466 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
     >        -< Firefighters are usually too late to save people. >-

     Well there you have it in a nutshell. They're usually too 
     late so why bother making sure that they're capable.

     On to the next problem then.

    
    No, I just happen to disagree with the idea that 'bench pressing'
    limits make people capable or not capable of being a firefighter.
    
    

    But what of the wheel chair issue? Can someone in a wheel chair become
    a firefighter. I mean, I know some guys who can bench who ARE in the
    chair. And they can out bench allot of capable men and women.....
    
    

                     <<< Note 262.468 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
    
>    No, I just happen to disagree with the idea that 'bench pressing'
>    limits make people capable or not capable of being a firefighter.
 
	The idea that there are minimum lifting requirements for 
	firefighters seems quite reasonable. True, they may only
	rarely be required to carry a person during a rescue, but
	be assured that on every fire call they will carry a very
	substantial section of hose.

	The only complaint might be that the weight requirement is
	too stringent (the department developing the test should be 
	required to show the NEED for this level of test), but to 
	argue that the requirement should be different for men than 
	for women is sexist nonsense.
  
Jim 

    The primary test should be for a very high level of physical fitness
    for each candidate (male and female.)
    
    Once this is met, the need for a certain level of strength (muscle
    mass) may well be proven to be lower.
    
    If the need is shown to be lower than the current standard, I agree
    that it should be lowered for everyone (as long as the standard for
    extremely high levels of physical fitness are maintained.)
    
    This way, even if a person who is NOT physically fit can lift a
    certain weight, it won't matter.  It won't be enough to qualify
    as a firefighter unless the person is also extremely physically
    fit (which should be the primary physical requirement.)

    
    The hunt for testosterone in job hiring is the sexist part.  Unless
    testes are required for the job, the qualification process should
    exclude this.

    
    One of our neighbors is a firefighter, by the way.
    
    He's a small man, but very physically fit.
    

    

    I disagree the "hunt for testosterone" is the main purpose of the
    test.  The tests were set to reflect what someone determined to be
    the requirements for the job long before there was any question
    of women being on the force.  The qualifications were not increased
    as soon as women were allowed on the force.  If they had been, then
    you might have a point.  They weren't, they stayed the same.  So you
    don't have a point other than to create some strawman to support your
    "feminist" agenda.  "Feminists" forced quotas on the force, then 
    found that women couldn't qualify on an equal basis, then started 
    demanding special treatment and twisting the argument so that they
    could continue to claim victimhood.  THAT is the sexist part.

    fred();

                     <<< Note 262.471 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
>       -< Make 'physical fitness' the primary requirement for everyone. >-

	But again, this level of physical fitness must be subject
	to objective testing. It's actually easier to make a good
	case for a test "Must be able to deadlift xx pounds" as
	a job requirement, than it is to have a test "Must be able to
	do xx situps, pushups, chinups, run a mile in xx minutes".

	The job requirement for lifting heavy objects (sometimes including
	victims) is pretty apparent for a firefighter. Pushups, situps
	or chinups would be much harder to justify.

>    If the need is shown to be lower than the current standard, I agree
>    that it should be lowered for everyone

	Agreed. And if it is not, then all candidates must mee the current
	standard.

Jim

                     <<< Note 262.472 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>

    
>    The hunt for testosterone in job hiring is the sexist part. 

	As is the hunt for progesterone. Unless ovaries are required
	for the job, the qualification process should exclude this.

Jim

    
    Once they eliminate the hunt for testosterone, then more women
    will be hired.
    

    re Suzanne.
    
    _Nobody_ has presented _anything_ that would suggest that this is
    a "hunt for testosterone" other than you and your strawman.
    
    One more time,  If the standards had been raised once women were
    allowed in in order to keep women out you _might_ have a case.
    If they had been I'm quite sure the ACLU would have let us know
    about it.  
    
    Repeating your ideology over and over won't make it true.  Again,
    at this point you holding to your ideology in the face of all logic
    and evidence only servers as an example more than anything else.
    
    fred();

    The 'Hunt for Testeron'... is that a sequal for 'Hunt for Red
    October'?:)
    
    

I think Suzanne's "Hunt for Testosterone" is her version of your "knuckle
dragging", George.

				Steve

    
    re .480

    I don't think that is an accurate comparison.  George's "knuckle
    dragging" is sort of self-defacing humor--demonstrating absurdity
    by being absurd.  Suzanne's "hunt for testosterone" is more closely
    associated with a racial slur than anything else.

    fred();

Both are phrases the writers pull out when they want to taunt the other side
without actually saying anything meaningful.

				Steve

    I know Fred. I humor her allot. Its sad she has no respect for any of
    us.

    
    Actually, I do respect you all.
    
    I simply disagree.
    

    .484
    
    Actually, you are unable to support your position and you are wrong. 
    Even your ususal supporters won't jump in with you on this one.  Even
    they ca see the blatant sexism of your position this time.
    
    That should tell you something.  I doubt it though.
    

    
    Rocush, you are dead wrong.
    
    By the way, I've received lots of support offline.  
    

    
    re .486
    
    As I've said before, Suzanne, the scariest part is that you seem
    to really do believe what you write.  Even in the face of all 
    logic and evidence otherwise.
    
    Actually it's about the third scariest part.  The second scariest
    part is that there are so many out there who seem to have the
    same mental functions.  The scariest part is that it seems that
    those people are the ones that are running the country right now.
    
    fred();

    
    Yes Fred and all in this notesfile should visit your state legislature 
    and you will see how many Suzannes there are out there.
    What we should aspire to do is to try to prevent Suzanne types from
    harming others with their twisted logic.
    
                             Bill

    By all means, make sure that you dehumanize your opponent (into
    some 'type' rather than an actual person) if all else fails.
    
    Claim that you're just being objective while you do so.  :/  
    

    
    re .489
    
>    By all means, make sure that you dehumanize your opponent (into
>    some 'type' rather than an actual person) if all else fails.
    
    You mean as in "a search for testosterone"?
    Or are you just trying to pull out he "victimhood" cloak---again?

>    Claim that you're just being objective while you do so.  :/  

    Which is nothing to be ashamed of if the claim is valid.
    
    fred();

    
    Then what, pray tell, is a "testosterone"?
    
    fred();

    RE: .492  Fred
    
    > You mean as in "a search for testosterone"?
    
    Nope.  The whole thing went right over your head.  Whooooooooosh.
    The hunt for testosterone is a PROCESS, not a 'type' or a person.

    >> Claim that you're just being objective while you do so.  :/  

    > Which is nothing to be ashamed of if the claim is valid.
    
    Wow.  You have no idea what the word means.  Interesting.
    

    RE: .493  Fred
    
    > Then what, pray tell, is a "testosterone"?
    
    It's not a 'type' or a person.
    
    The HUNT for it is a PROCESS, though.
    

        re Suzanne

    >It's not a 'type' or a person.

    So they are not looking for _persons_ to fill the jobs????  Have the
    aliens landed??  Or maybe they think they can "downsize" and get by
    with the personnel they have if they just slap a few of them 
    testosterone patches on the guys they have?  If so, the women who are 
    already working there had better start leaning to shave.
    
    >The HUNT for it is a PROCESS, though.
    So who said that is wasn't?

    fred();

    
    Fred, you've become hopelessly confused.
    
    Try taking it one thought at a time, and see if it helps.
    

    
    Suzanne,
    
    I apoligize for re: 488.  I didn't mean to make a personal attack on
    you.   Let me rewrite the note to say that I just disagree with your 
    view of women as victims most of the time and men as victimizers.
    At least thats what you seem to imply. 
    By entering in MN you spark a good debate which makes it interesting
    sometimes.
                                         Bill   

    
    
    Suzanne,
    
    Just because I don't buy into _your_ particular brand of "logic" doesn't 
    necessarily mean I'm the one with the problem.  On the contrary, I do 
    believe I have an excellent understanding just what it is you are 
    expecting us to swallow. 
    
    fred();
    

    
    Fred, you are too confused to engage in a conversation about this.

    Example:  'The hunt for testosterone is a process, but testosterone 
    is not a person.'  'Oh, so they don't hire people for these jobs?  
    Do they hire aliens instead?'

    Although your confusion is pretty cute at times, it makes conversing
    out of the question.

    RE: .498  Bill Perry
    
    Thanks much for your apology.
    

    re Suzanne,
    
    The "whoosh" was my sarcasm going right over your head.  Once again
    you have been heaving boulders out of your glass house.

    fred();

    
    Nice try anyway, Fred.  :>
    

    
    Darryl, your claim is pure smoke.
    

    .507
    
    I wonder if you will ever come to terms with the bias, predjudice and
    hostility you harbor.  Your positions and "logic" become more
    marginalized each time you respond.
    
    I really hope you get help.
    

                     <<< Note 262.509 by PIET01::TRUDEAU >>>
                     -< from a firefighter's perspective >-

My sister is in from California for a visit.  One of her friends is a
firefighter out there.  I asked her if there was any discussion around
different standards for  women than there are for men regarding the amount of
weight they can lift.  There certainly is...which no one here denies.  What I
found interesting was what MY perception has been. I've been assuming
firefighters need to be so strong to be able to carry occupants of the burning
building to safety.  The firefighter's perspective is they don't mind going
into the burning building with a partner as long as they feel  confident that
partner can carry THEM to safety in the event they become incapacita- ted.  To
that end, they do pretty much what it takes to keep in shape....at least at
his firehouse!

    RE: .508  Rocush

    > I wonder if you will ever come to terms with the bias, predjudice
    > and hostility you harbor.  Your positions and "logic" become more
    > marginalized each time you respond.
      
    The bias, prejudice and hostility is coming from you.  This note from 
    you is a prime exhibition of it.  

    > I really hope you get help.

    I have no hope that you will ever be enlightened enough to realize
    what you are doing when you say such things to a fellow co-worker.

    
>    I have no hope that you will ever be enlightened enough to realize
>    what you are doing when you say such things to a fellow co-worker.

    And the rocks that you keep catapulting out of that glass house of
    yours just keep getting bigger.

    fred();

    
    Fred, your house is a maze with no exit.  
    
    Let Rocush answer for himself, if he can.
    

    re. .513
    then ditto .512 for myself.
    fred();

    
    Ditto is so noted.
    

    .511
    
    Please identify the bias, predjudice or hostility in my note.  If you
    can idenitfy any, I will be pleased to eliminate or clarify.
    
    As far as the last part, I am very concerned about all of my co-workers
    and do not want to see any of them subject to discrimination for the
    sake of someone or some group's private agenda.  So far I have not seen
    any acknowledgement that there are excesses in how standards are being
    "adjusted" in order to meet an agenda, not any real needs.
    

    
    Rocush - you aren't concerned about 'all of [your] co-workers'.
    Not by a long shot.  Not by light years.
    
    Don't say this again.
    
           

    
    By the way, Rocush, I'll let your hostility in .508 slide.
    
    As long as you promise to seek some help.  And I suggest 
    you do this very soon.
    

    
    Gee Susan, I didn't know you have a psychology degree too.
    fred();

    
    Frod, there are a lot of things you don't know.
    

    re .520
    
    >    Frod, there are a lot of things you don't know.
    
    Yea, just ask my teenagers. :^).
    
    And a lot that I do.  One of which is that I seriously doubt  that
    you have anything that resembles a degree in psychology.  Which makes
    you last few notes nothing more than _yet another_ fine example of your
    hypocrisy and agenda. 
    
    fred();

    
    I have a ph.d. in Life from Ardnox U.  And I do know how to spot an
    agenda when I see one.
    
    fred();

    
    Frod, you have about 1/5th the college education that I have (not
    counting my graduate school studies.)
    
    What would you know about college degrees?
    
    

    
    Oh, I've got several Ph.D.s in Life, in addition to the degrees
    I earned the regular way.
    
    Not that it matters, of course.  Might makes right in your world.
    Nothing else comes within light years.
    

    
    re 524
    Actually what we have here is an excellent example of the liberal
    "debating" style.  If you can't win with logic, reason, and evidence,
    then start with the personal attacks and name calling.
    
    Has anyone else ever noticed that trying to debate a liberal is like
    trying to debate the existance of God with a Southern Baptist preacher?
    They both start with the presumption that they are right--and you are
    bad.
    
    fred();

    I am considered a liberal, in thought, words, and deeds.
    But Suzanne with this firefighter issue shows me that 
    you let the liberal agenda cloud the issue. If a person  
    can not do the physical part of the job, we should not
    lower the standards of that job to accomadate their
    diversity. Plain and simple.. common sense.

    RE: .525  Fred

    > Actually what we have here is an excellent example of the liberal
    > "debating" style.  If you can't win with logic, reason, and
    > evidence, then start with the personal attacks and name calling.

    At least you didn't call me a hypocrite again (which is usually a
    big part of your personal attacks and name calling against me.)

    You make a real point of labeling me, though (as a rallying cry to
    others.)  
    
    So what else is new.

    RE: .526

    > I am considered a liberal, in thought, words, and deeds.
    > But Suzanne with this firefighter issue shows me that
    > you let the liberal agenda cloud the issue. 

    You could be a conservative at heart if you truly believe 
    in the term 'liberal agenda'.

    > If a person can not do the physical part of the job, 
    > we should not lower the standards of that job to 
    > accomadate their diversity. Plain and simple.. 
    > common sense.

    Men and women who are above average in physical fitness
    and strength *CAN* do the job - that's the point.

    Creating an arbitrary test for some skill that is NOT
    used on the job (such as bench pressing) is not common
    sense.  It's used as a way to discriminate against
    qualified people.

    Ask yourselves sometime how the subject of weight lifting
    requirements for firefighters comes up in topics like this
    one (which have absolutely nothing to do with firefighting.)

    Why would a group of mostly men (some of whom claim to be 
    'the protectors of women') gather around in a group to fight
    a solitary woman to the ends of the earth on a single point
    on which we all know we'll never be willing to agree.

    We can agree to disagree, as fellow co-workers in this company.

    So let's do it - agree to disagree.  As equal partners in the
    human race, not to mention this company.

    I could not agree more, no one is sitting around in a group
    plotting against you, I do not even know or have spoken
    with anyone in this file. Perhaps your style of "picking
    nits" could be the issue. 
    
    My only beef is that I have done the job (firefighting)
    and I know what it takes. Lowering standards will
    only hurt the people whom need the help. I could care
    less who does the job, as long as they are qualified.
     

    If you were a man, and you still had this ensuing disagreement,
    what  would you say about that?  The single, solitary woman
    complaint doesn't cut ice with me for this reason:
    
    when a disagreement occurs in this file, (especially one centered
    around feminism ) it's primarily 
    between you, fred and al.  it's a very rare thing that
    you share the same opinion on ANYTHING with al or fred.
    funnily enough, nobody actually says you have to either,
    however, they need not believe as you do, yet both sides
    seem to want to *convince* the other of the errors of their
    ways.  ain't gonna happen. however, imo, when you use the
    big group of men *fighting* a single, solitary woman, scenario,
    it makes me queasy because while your intent may not be to 
    picture those with whom you disagree as violent and oppressive,
    it translates as such to this reader.  no matter how circular
    or frustrating a communication between a group of people gets,
    i don't think your imagery is fair or reflects properly whatever
    dynamic you are trying to highlight.  Why the imagery?  Why not
    simply state, 'hey, it's obvious we'll never see eye to eye on
    this'? 
    
    re:  men who are protectors or women....the way you use that,
    seems derisive to me.  you aren't a woman who seems to appreciate how
    some men hold and or show such an attitude, but there are men
    who can show such in a manner that is not demeaning to their
    partner.
    
    as for how firefighting gets introduced..well, can you say rathole?
    seems to me the primary discussion had already been derailed and
    al chose to share his views on the equality of sexes as relates to
    employment.  as such, he stated that he believes in some cases,
    standards are lowered to make positions easier for women to obtain.
    you may disagree with this to your heart's content (and you have) and 
    you will probably find you have as many, if not more supporters than Al
    (especially in a different forum).  Exactly what are you trying to
    get at when you say, 'ask yourselves how....comes up in topics like
    this'?  it almost sounds as tho you feel there's some consipracy
    afoot.
    
    i'm not at all trying to say discrimination doesn't exist. you and
    i and probably most participants here recognize that fact.  i think
    some noters here don't believe you feel that men can also suffer
    discrimination.  i don't think that's true, but i also think you do
    tend to be more aware of and supportive of what women still suffer
    than you are about what men feel they are suffering/starting to suffer.
    there's absolutely nothing wrong with this, if true.  but this being
    mennotes, i can see why some folks may get frustrated at how much some
    of this talk centers at times more about the plight of women vs. the
    plight of men.
            

    RE: .530  TDavis

    > I could not agree more, no one is sitting around in a group
    > plotting against you, I do not even know or have spoken
    > with anyone in this file. Perhaps your style of "picking
    > nits" could be the issue. 
    
    Well, I'm so glad to find out that this entire string has
    been a figment of my imagination.  I might have been a bit
    concerned otherwise.

    > My only beef is that I have done the job (firefighting)
    > and I know what it takes. Lowering standards will
    > only hurt the people whom need the help. I could care
    > less who does the job, as long as they are qualified.

    Agreed.

    I am concerned when qualified people are turned away due
    to an arbitrary test which is not part of the job (but
    which is likely to eliminate qualified people of a certain
    class who are under attack.)

    
    Christine - well, I know that you and I can agree to disagree, 
    so I'm glad to see you express your opinions here.
    

    ok, suzanne, but i haven't missed any of the dynamics as i've
    read the exchange from the beginning.  i even went back and
    reread it prior to responding.
    
    if you wish not to respond to any of my questions, i'll let it
    go at that.

    If you hadn't missed some of the major dynamics going on here, 
    you would have mentioned them.  You didn't.  You missed them.
    Or else you just didn't care about them.
    
    It doesn't matter, though.  Let's let it go.
    

    honestly, suzanne.  i mentioned the ones *I* am concerned with,
    just as you will go on about the ones you are concerned with.
    I am perfectly happy to let it go, but not as long as I feel
    you are purposely misrepresenting me.  After already telling you
    I'm quite aware of what has transpired in this note, it's rather
    high-handed of you to claim what you are claiming.  If you want
    to let it go, do so, but please, do not insist that I don't know
    what I'm talking about in the same breath.  You won't stand for
    such, neither will I.

    Fine - so you mentioned the dynamics which concern you (and
    left out the ones which concern me.)
    
    Each of us is entitled to our own point of view.  No problem.
    

    reply

>    Why would a group of mostly men (some of whom claim to be 
>    'the protectors of women') gather around in a group to fight
>    a solitary woman to the ends of the earth on a single point
>    on which we all know we'll never be willing to agree.

    If there is any "conspiricy" type things going on here, it is
    as I've said before, the attempts of certain people to rat-hole
    nearly every discussion that we try to have on *mens* issues into 
    a (yet another) "poor little women vs. big bad men" tirade.  As I've 
    also said before, there really _are_ men's issues that do need to be 
    discussed, and this _is_ MENNOTES.  Yet it seems that there are 
    certain people determined to keep that from happening.

    fred();

    
    When people make claims about women here (as keeps happening in
    every topic, pretty much) - some women are bound to respond about
    them.

    If you spent so much of your time talking about African-Americans 
    in a file for Caucasians, you can bet that some co-workers who 
    happen to be African-Americans would wish to respond as well.

    Again you tend to be rather selective in your "facts".
    
    1) Such a file on Caucasians probably would not be allowed.
    2) Any Caucasian demonstrating such behavior in a file on 
       African-Americans would probably not have a long employment
       expectancy in Digital.  
    
    And, as I've said before,  I've seen men banned from other notes files
    for such behavior.

    fred();

    RE: .540  Fred

    > And, as I've said before,  I've seen men banned from other notes
    > files for such behavior.

    Men have only been banned when they repeatedly refused to accept
    the moderators' decisions (and re-posted their deleted notes many
    times.)  It's happened twice, and the second banning was rescinded.

    
    reply

>    Men have only been banned when they repeatedly refused to accept
>    the moderators' decisions (and re-posted their deleted notes many
>    times.)  It's happened twice, and the second banning was rescinded.

    Which brings up the question about what were the "moderators"
    decisions, and what was in the notes?  And why, and on whose
    instigation  was the second banning rescinded?  In the first case
    I saw the notes in question.  They were deleted because the person
    was repeatedly disrupting the discussion and "women need safe space
    to discuss _women's_ issues".

    fred();

    Fred, all the first male noter had to do was to rewrite his note.
    It had something objectionable in general (which would have been
    deleted if a female had written it, and God knows I've had many
    notes deleted in that file myself.)

    He refused.  He kept re-posting the same words over and over,
    and he was warned about what would happen if he persisted.
    He persisted anyway.
    
    The same thing would have happened to me if I'd re-posted the
    same thing over and over.

    The second person was banned for a basenote that was posted
    repeatedly.  It wasn't part of an ongoing discussion.

    .517 & .518
    
    You are very, very wrong in your assumption.  You also apparently
    mistake an unwillingness to continue to participate in circular
    arguments as hostility.  That seems to be your issue.
    
    Lastly, you have ignored the entire issue regarding the different
    standards that I originally posted.  the point was, and you proved it
    many times, is that there is no reason to have two different standards
    for the same job unless you are trying to achieve something other than
    finding the best person for the job.
    
    The firefighter test was just one example.  As I said several times, if
    you object to the specific test, that's fine.  I suggested several
    alternatives that would have been directly job related and more
    demanding than the simple test being given, but you chose to never
    respond to the suggestions.  It makes it appear that equality and
    fairness are not part of your goals.
    

    RE: .544  Rocush

    > You are very, very wrong in your assumption.  

    You certainly feel entitled to make whatever assumptions you
    care to make about others, though.

    > You also apparently mistake an unwillingness to continue to 
    > participate in circular arguments as hostility.  That seems 
    > to be your issue.

    You wish.  I would welcome it with open arms if you would agree
    to disagree.

    Instead, you seem to believe that you have the authority to
    declare someone else as hostile, as well as having the authority 
    to declare that certain others do not have this authority.

    You keep ignoring my suggestion that 'physical fitness' be the
    true requirement for firefighters, in which case it won't matter
    if all the firefighters are given the same bench pressing level
    to reach.  The defining requirement will be that they are above
    average physically fit and strong.  I've said this several times,
    but you refuse to acknowledge it.

    > It makes it appear that equality and fairness are not part of 
    > your goals.

    It appears that you believe you have the authority to decide such
    things for someone else.   This is neither equal nor fair.
    
    "The best person for the job" is not always the one with the most
    strength.  Even in software engineering, sometimes the 'best person
    for the job' is not the one with a particular strong skill.
    
    "The best person for the job" is not some universal thing that can
    be measured objectively (with an absolute which would be shared
    by all parties who hire for such positions.)
    
    If you set up a qualification process which is designed to exclude
    a group of qualified applicants due to their sex or race, etc.,
    it's discrimination.

    .545
    
    I did not ignore your comment about abovr average physical fitness
    being the deciding factor.  I did not respond to it as others did. 
    Since you still hold this view, I will respond directly.  Above average
    is not the deciding factor and should not be the deciding factor.  the
    deciding factor should be that you can accomplish all of the
    requirements of the job, including all of the physical aspects.
    
    You can have all of the skills you want, but if you can't do all of the
    job, then you are not qualified.  In the firefighter example, if you
    can not carry a hose to a specific location in a specified time, or
    carry an oxygen tank, then you can not do the job.  It is irrelevant
    whether or not you can do other parts of the job.  Being above average
    does not mean that you can do the job, all it means is that for your
    height and weight you can do more than the average.  If that is not
    enough, then you don't get the job.
    
    the same would be true of software engineers.  You may have many of the
    skills, but can't write code.  the rest really doesn't matter if you
    can not meet the requirements of the job.
    

    Rocush, the requirement to be above average physically fit and
    strong *means* that the physical job requirements are fulfilled.

    People aren't hired on physical requirements alone, of course.

    If the person is above average in physical fitness and strength,
    however, the physical requirements (at least) are being met.

    Will everyone have the same exact degree of strength?  No.  They
    don't have the same degree of strength now.

    As for your comment about software engineers, new hires often
    start out doing maintenance work (where they don't actually write
    new code themselves.)
    
    At times, companies (including Digital) target jobs to new engineers
    with little or no prior experience in software engineering.
    
    The 'best person for the job' is the one who fits the position,
    and it's very much a subjective thing.
    

    
    reply .543

>    Fred, all the first male noter had to do was to rewrite his note.
>    It had something objectionable in general (which would have been
>    deleted if a female had written it, and God knows I've had many
>    notes deleted in that file myself.)

    Which ignores the question of just why was the note "objectionable"?
    Also the note in question being deleted and reposted was after several
    of the authors previous notes had been deleted for rather questionable
    (as if there really was any question) reasons.

    Whether it was written by a male or female is irrelevant.  The 
    _content_ was what got it deleted.  The content basically ruffled
    the feathers of "the powers that be" in the file.  I've seen a lot
    worse get a pass in other files (three guesses as to which one in
    particular?).

    fred();

    
>    At times, companies (including Digital) target jobs to new engineers
>    with little or no prior experience in software engineering.

    1)Can you say "Affirmative Action"?  

    2)There are also budget considerations.  I doubt that a "trainee" gets
    paid as much as a Consultant.  Under your agenda a trainee would get
    paid the same as a Consultant II.

    3) How many engineers are killed or people die as the result of a
    "trainee" engineer".  Granted maybe a few, but their stock-in-trade
    does not deal daily in life and death.

    fred();

    .547
    
    Your current entry differs from your prior.  You previously stated that
    the above average component would be different for men and women.  this
    is discrimination.  If you are now saying that it is an absolute
    standard, then maybe you agree with me.
    
    If this is still an attempt to hae different standards, then you are
    still trying to press an agenda that establishes two different sets of
    criteria for men and women.  Either there is a single standard or there
    isn't.
    

    RE: .549  Fred
    
    > Which ignores the question of just why was the note "objectionable"?
    > Also the note in question being deleted and reposted was after several
    > of the authors previous notes had been deleted for rather questionable
    > (as if there really was any question) reasons.

    The grounds were legitimate.  Many of my notes have been deleted over
    the years, too.
    
    Noters were warned that if they repeatedly re-posted a deleted note,
    they could be suspended from the file.  All noters need to do is to
    remove the objectionable word or phrase, and then they are free to
    enter the note again.  I've done it many times myself.
    
    > Whether it was written by a male or female is irrelevant.  The 
    > _content_ was what got it deleted.  The content basically ruffled
    > the feathers of "the powers that be" in the file.  
    
    It broke one of the rules (which men AND women must follow.)
    Pure and simple.
    
    > I've seen a lot worse get a pass in other files (three guesses as 
    > to which one in particular?).

    All the noter had to do was to remove the offending word or phrase.
    Instead, he refused to accept that the women moderators had authority
    over his notes.  So he deliberately broke another rule by re-posting
    the deleted note, and he did it DOZENS of times.

    RE: .550  Fred
    
    >> At times, companies (including Digital) target jobs to new engineers
    >> with little or no prior experience in software engineering.

    > 1)Can you say "Affirmative Action"?  

    Can you say "COLLEGE HIRE" ??????????
    
    Do you understand what kind of company employs you, pal?
    
    > 2)There are also budget considerations.  I doubt that a "trainee" gets
    > paid as much as a Consultant.  Under your agenda a trainee would get
    > paid the same as a Consultant II.

    This is a deliberate falsehood, of course.
    
    > 3) How many engineers are killed or people die as the result of a
    > "trainee" engineer".  Granted maybe a few, but their stock-in-trade
    > does not deal daily in life and death.

    So firefighters never get trained?  Sounds rather dangerous.

    RE: .551  Rocush

    > Your current entry differs from your prior.  You previously stated that
    > the above average component would be different for men and women.  this
    > is discrimination.  If you are now saying that it is an absolute
    > standard, then maybe you agree with me.
    
    If you define physical fitness in terms that will favor men (as a way
    to exclude women), we disagree.  This would be discrimination.

    Physical fitness is not the same thing as brute strength.  Fitness
    should be the criteria, with above average strength following it.
    An above average physically fit and strong woman is qualified.

    > If this is still an attempt to hae different standards, then you are
    > still trying to press an agenda that establishes two different sets of
    > criteria for men and women.  Either there is a single standard or there
    > isn't.

    Adopt a single standard which sets a percentile for fitness level.
    Either a person is fit or not.  Don't set up the test to favor men
    (as a way to exclude women), that's all.

    
    Rocush, do you accept that the woman who won the most recent
    Boston marathon is more fit than you are?  Would you accept
    that she is more fit than most men?

    She may even be more fit than the man who also won the Boston
    marathon, even though he came in faster.

    Fitness should not be measured in terms that are designed to
    favor one sex over the other. 
    

        
    By the way, the industry average for a brand new software engineer
    from an Ivy League college is around $55,000 (for men and women.)
    Such engineers are new to the workplace.

    College hires are not dirt cheap, by any means.  Computer companies
    have special reasons for wanting to hire them, though.

    re .556.
    
    >    Can you say "COLLEGE HIRE" ??????????
>    
>    Do you understand what kind of company employs you, pal?
    
    
    
        Well if the oh so highly educated Suzanne Conlon says so, then that's
    that I guess.  You know Suzanne,  I'm beginning to believe that you
    really do think you are so much more morally and mentally superior
    to everyone else in this file.

    >So firefighters never get trained?  Sounds rather dangerous

    Even after training.  To try to compare the requirements of being
    an engineer to the requirements of a fire fighter is cute, but
    not even close.

    fred()

    re .552
    
> The grounds were legitimate.  
    
    I have no doubt that you would think that they were..
    
    >Many of my notes have been deleted over
>    the years, too.
    
    Now what does that tell us.....Hmmmmm.  Maybe  what I said is true and 
    Mennotes really is more tollerant about such things?
    
    fred();

    
    
    >       -< Non-Ivy League college hires have an industry avg of ~$45,000 >-
    
    Dang, I need to go out and come back in again.
    
    fred();

    RE: .558  Fred
    
    >> The grounds were legitimate.  
    
    > I have no doubt that you would think that they were..
    
    The person broke a stated rule.  The initial break wasn't a problem,
    though.  The note was deleted, and all the person had to do was to
    rewrite it.  The person chose to re-post the same exact note dozens
    of times (which broke another posted rule dozens of times.)
    
    >> Many of my notes have been deleted over the years, too.
    
    > Now what does that tell us.....Hmmmmm.  
    
    It tells us that the guidelines are enforced for women and men.

    
    Fred, let's cut to the chase here.

    Pretend you've made 50 more accusations about this other file, and
    I'll pretend that I've responded to each one of your accusations.

    Mennotes does not permit discussion of its policies, so I don't
    think it's appropriate to compare this file's policies with another
    file.

    So do we agree to disagree about this?

    If so, thanks.

    
    
    >I'll pretend that I've responded to each one of your accusations.
    
    I thougt that was what you were doing all along ;^}
    
    >    So do we agree to disagree about this?
    
    Given that we shall probably never agree on much of anything.  Probably
    a good idea.
    
    fred();

    
    Yuk, yuk.  :>
    
    I'll take it as progress, though (relatively speaking.)  ;)
    

    Tell you what, Suzanne,  I'll even do you one better.  I'll leave 
    Mennotes forever if you promise to do the same.  No tricks. I'm not
    leaving Digital (that I know of).  All that I ask is that Mennotes
    be left to discuss men's issues without constant outside interference.
    If my leaving Mennotes is what it takes to do that, so be it.

    fred();

    re .555 et al
    
    Relative physical "fitness" has little or nothing to do with
    someone's ability to perform as a firefighter. It's relevant,
    certainly, but I don't see how it's the bottom line.
    
    The winner of the Boston Marathon (either sex) is physically fit. I
    have no idea if either of them would be competent to act as a
    firefighter in terms of the physical requirements. Firefighting
    would appear to place extra demands on upper body strength --
    hauling long, heavy hoses isn't something I'd expect a marathon
    runner to excel at. (They could get _to_ the hose faster than most
    people, though.)
    
    The physical requirements of a distance runner are different from
    the requirements for a sumo wrestler, different from the
    requirements for a piano mover, or a truckdriver, or a firefighter.
    
    The issue is defining the physical requirements for the job at hand.
    Some abstract definition of "more than average fitness for X
    category" is irrelevant. The requirements of the job need to be
    assessed, and those parameters used to assess candidates.
    
    It's possible the the prior "bench pressing" requirements were
    excessive, and the lowered requirements still result in acceptable
    performance. I have no idea. But the notion that "physically fit
    within a particular population" is an acceptable definition of
    fitness for a particular occupation, _without_ analysis of the
    specific requirements of that occupation, doesn't wash.
                    

    Fred, all it would take is for you (and some others) to accept
    that not everyone sees the world the way you do.

    If you, Al, etc., didn't keep writing to me over and over and
    over and over, I wouldn't keep responding.

    You guys (mostly) agree, so you tend not to talk to each other
    much, except for words of advice here and there when someone
    says he is going through a divorce or a custody situation.

    If you make all sorts of statements about women and someone
    disagrees with you about it, LET IT GO.  If you've got so
    much to talk about to other men, then do it.  Talk to the
    other men and let go of the responses to the statements 
    about women.  You know that such matters will never result
    in an agreement.  

    So what if people disagree, though?  Why does it matter?
    We're equal partners in this species, so we're SUPPOSED
    to have our own points of view.  It's completely natural.

    Exactly, Paul.
    
    How does one define above average fitness for a particular occupation?
    
    I may be above average than john doe next to me, but does that make my
    above average good enough to do the job?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  While
    I agree that perhaps benchpressing ISN'T the ONLY be all and end all 
    test of physical fitness for a firefighter position, simply requiring
    one to be of above average fitness for their gender group isn't any
    better (IMO) without some qualifying point.  How does one assess what
    physical skills should be tested and to what level of correlating 
    fitness should be the questions answered and I think they can be
    answered using one standard for both genders, without excluding one
    over the other.

    RE: .565  Paul Beck

    Please keep in mind that I also said that qualified applicants
    would be above average in strength, too.  I said 'above average
    physically fit and strong'.

    Physical fitness should come first, rather than brute strength.

    Keep in mind, also, that upper body strength can be improved with
    work (especially for someone above average physically fit and
    strong in the first place.)

    Re. 566
    
    Well said, Suzanne.  Nobody has anything against issues pertaining to
    men being discussed in this notesfile, however when derogatory remarks
    are repeatedly made about women, one cannot expect these to go
    unnoticed or unchallenged.  I am also amazed at just how many of these
    male issues concern negative talk directed at women.  Of course, if
    anything remotely anti-men is even suggested, all hell breaks loose.  A
    serious case of double standards, methinks.
    
    Perhaps the contingent who view feminists (or any woman with an 
    opinion, for that matter) as adversaries are incapable of discussion
    when a difference of opinion is expressed by said individuals.
    Wouldn't it just be better to have constructive discussion completely
    devoid of gender slurs?  Can't we strive for equality through rational
    debate and respect for differences?
    
    Anyway, enough discussion, I think it's time for a divorce story...  
    <cue violins>... 
    
    CHARLOTTE 
                                                                       

   <<< Note 262.569 by CHEFS::7A1_GRN "A hangover is the wrath of grapes" >>>
    
  >  Anyway, enough discussion, I think it's time for a divorce story...  
  >  <cue violins>... 
   
    So much for rational discussion and respect.

    daryll

:-)

.564>    Tell you what, Suzanne,  I'll even do you one better.  I'll leave 
.564>    Mennotes forever if you promise to do the same.  No tricks. I'm not
.564>    leaving Digital (that I know of).  All that I ask is that Mennotes
.564>    be left to discuss men's issues without constant outside interference.

I just can't let this one go by.  There is very little *discussion* of men's
issues in this notesfile.  Only one opinion is allowed.

Fred and others are attempting to impose their own politically correct slant
on anything said in the notesfile.  This is certainly not discussion, more
often, it is pointless browbeating, and that is last thing in the world to
change anyone's point of view.

Yes, the court systems are very screwed up, and often heavily biased against
men. But that should not be an excuse to bash anyone who disagrees with you.

As I said in a note some months ago, when my marriage crashed and burned,
I was really hoping to find some useful discussion of the issues I faced,
and it sure ain't happening here. 

-Steve

If a job exists that demands, or calls on, strength during some portion of
that job, (notice I'm not saying "requires" here so as to avoid any confusion
as to an actual requirement for the position), how can anyone deny that the
ability of the applicant to muster the necessary strength to do said job when
strength is needed, should take second fiddle to being just physically fit? 

When a firefighter is in action, strength becomes a very important factor. The
firefighter may not be calling upon his/her strength at every moment, but must
be able to do so when need be. If he/she consistantly falls short at those
times, that person should not be in that position.

Therefore, in applying for a position, strength MUST be taken into
consideration, and tested for in some manner. Being both physically fit AND
being able to muster the necessary strength are equaling important, especially
where lives are at stake. 

-Bob

    
    Bob, standing-still-brute-strength is less likely to be available
    in the middle of the 'action' if the person isn't physically fit.

    I do agree that they should go hand in hand, though.

    Physical fitness and strength should be measured in a way that the
    top n% of men are eligible and the top n% of women are eligible
    (so that the most physically fit and strong men and women will be
    hired for the job, although it is very likely that the percentage
    of women will always be substantially smaller than men in the total
    firefighting force.)

    
    re Ruzich, Conlon, Charlotte,

    Oh well, at least I made the offer.  Only to get ripped *again*.  
    If you insist on continuing, if you insist on heaving rocks out of
    your glass houses, one thing you might want to check first---whether
    or not the glass is shatterproof.

    fred();