Conference yukon::christian_v7

1. T F  Men Commit the vast majority of acts of criminal child abuse
        reported each year.

    False.

    According to recent studies by the American Association for
    Protecting Children (AAPC) and the American Humane Association,
    most acts of criminal child abuse are performed by women.  Men
    commit 46.7% of such crimes; women, 53.3%.

2  T F  Most of the children actually murdered each year are killed by
        men.

    False.

    A study of 556 infant fatalities by the AAPC revealed that 55.7%
    of the perpetrators were women.  David Thomas, in _Not Guilty, the
    Case in Defense of Men_ (209), cites the 1990 report of the
    National Committee for the Prevention of Childs Abuse and Neglect,
    which indicates that during that year, 1211 children were killed
    by 678 women and 533 men.

3  T F  Most of the children killed by adults are little girls.

    False.

    Studies show that in the U.S., 53.7% of the children killed are
    little boys.  In Britain, between 1980 and 1990, 57% of the
    children killed were boys.  David Thomas says that in Britain, a
    baby is 30 times more likely to be murdered than any other
    citizen.  A paper published in the _Monograph of the National
    Center on Child Abuse Protection_ affirmed that the victims of
    infanticide "are typically males, under two years of age...who die
    at the hands of a single mother."  The facts seem to vary
    radically from the ideas gleaned by the popular media.

4  T F  Husbands physically attack wives about twice as often as wives
        physically attack husbands.

    False.

    A study in Brinkerhoff and Lupri (1988) showed that American wives
    did more kicking, slapping, hitting, biting, and "beating up" than
    husbands (Canadian Journal of Sociology).  Of course, husbands,
    being stronger, can inflict more damage.  A study of 562 couples
    in Calgary, Canada, showed that college-educated women were almost
    twice as likely to attack a husband than college-educated men  are
    to attack a wife. (D. Thomas 1981).  A study of Quaker families
    (1984) revealed that wife-to-husband violence was three times as
    frequent as husband-to-wife violence.  Professor R.L. Neely and
    Gloria Robinson-Simpson, who work for the Norfolk, Virginia, public
    schools, published their findings in Social Work (March 1988).
    Their study concluded that during the period of observation, 1.8
    million incidents of wife/girlfriend abuse occurred, compared to
    2.1 million cases of severe husband abuse.  Why haven't we heard
    about these?  Men are much more reluctant than women to report
    abuse -- and the authorities don't often take the complaints
    seriously.

5  T F  Men are more likely than women to use a deadly weapon in an
        attack on a spouse.

    False.

    The Canadian study (Brinkerhoff and Lupri) showed that among 562
    couples observed, women were twice as likely to use a gun or knife
    against a spouse.  A study by M. McCleod, a British female
    academic, of 6000 cases of domestic violence reported to police
    (Justice Quarterly 1, 1984) revealed that 80% of the men studied
    had been attacked with deadly weapons.  About 25% of the women had
    been so attacked.  Among these 6000 cases, 55% of the women
    received serious injury; 75% of he men had been seriously injured.

6  T F  In the average household, when both husband and wife work
        outside the home, women have a longer work week when household
        chores, commuting time, and work hours are totaled.

    False.

    According to the Journal of Economic Literature, men work 61 hours;
    women, 56.  She does more inside the house: cooking, cleaning,
    laundry, etc.  He does more outside chores: mowing, car washing,
    painting, etc.

7  T F  Some 51% of homeless persons in the US are women.

    False.

    Studies show that some 15 to 20% of the homeless are women.  Six
    percent are children or adolescents, 74% are men (Public Affairs
    Report, Berkeley California, October-December, 1985).  A more
    recent report by James D. Wright (Address Unknown: The Homeless in
    America, 1989) reveals that there are three times as many homeless
    *single* men as there are homeless children, teens, and women
    combined.

8  T F  Women have a shorter life expectancy than men.

    False.

    Women live longer.  The gap between the life expectancy of men and
    women has increased 600% since 1920 when women lived a year
    longer.  According to the Monthly Vital Statistics Report for the
    National Center for Health Statistics (August 28, 1991), women
    lived seven years longer by 1990.  The life expectancy of White
    women-79; Black women-74; White men-72; Black men-65.

9  T F  Funding for research and treatment for prostate cancer (male
        disease) is far greater than funding for breast cancer (female
        disease).

    False.

    Breast Cancer is 14% more likely to kill a woman that prostate
    cancer is to kill a man.  Yet the federal government provides 660%
    more funding to fight breast cancer than prostate cancer.  The
    death-to-funding ratio is 47:1 in women's favor.  The gap is even
    greater for American Black males.  The have they highest prostate
    cancer death rate in the world (Farell, 1990).

10 T F  Though women are now as vulnerable to heart attacks as men,
        sexism is the reason that only men have been studied.

    False.

    Though heart disease is growing among women, men in all age-groups
    die of heart attacks in greater numbers.  Before age 65, men are
    three times more likely to die of heart disease than women.
    Further, three fourths of the women who die of heart attacks are
    75 or older.  By this time, the average man as been dead for three
    years.

11 T F  The suicide rate for women is slightly higher than it is for
        men.

    False.

    Male suicides far outnumber female suicides.  Suicide rates are
    very low until the 10 to 14 age bracket.  By that time, boys kill
    themselves twice as frequently as girls do.  In their early 20s,
    the suicide rate for men is six time that of women.  As the boy
    grows from early childhood to adulthood, the male suicide rate
    increases 25,000%.  Further, the suicide rate for men over 85 is
    1,350% higher than for women of that same age-group (Farell, 31).

12 T F  Men spend most of the money in the U.S.

    False.

    The net worth of women who are heads of households is 141% more
    than the net worth of male heads of households.  Further,
    according to _American Demographics_, January 1992, women dominate
    spending in nearly every category: clothing, food, personal items
    (cosmetics), and books.  Men are about even with women in spending
    for cars and furniture.  The typical mall gives seven times as
    much sales floor space to women's items as to men's.  Both sexes
    spend more for women.

13 T F  Achievement tests show that female students outperform males
        in almost every category.

    False.

    For more than 20 years, males have dominated in the SAT scores.
    In 1990, males led in the verbal test 434 to 421.  in the lath
    scores, they led 500 to 434.

14 T F  Given the rapid improvement in women's athletic achievements,
        they will soon match or surpass men.

    False.

    Some doctors have made that claim, but it seems unlikely in view
    of the facts.  One fact to consider when someone makes that remark
    is this: Arnie Bolt, winner of the high jump at the 1992
    Paralympics, has jumped two centimeters higher that the gold
    medalist in the Barcelona women's high jump.  Two centimeters is
    not much of a margin -- until you discover that Arnie Bolt has
    just one leg.

15 T F  When a man is accused of rape, he is, almost without
        exception, guilty.  A woman wouldn't lie about such a thing.

    False.

    An Air Force study conducted by Dr. Charles P. McDowell
    investigated 556 cases of alleged rape.  Some 27% of the women
    admitted that they made it all up.  Overall, 60% of the
    accusations turned out to be false.  Two southwestern cities came
    up with the same rate of false rape charges.  The _Washington
    Post_ studies of Prince George County, Maryland, and Fairfax
    County, Virginia, revealed that false rape charges in those two
    counties were 30% and 40%.

    The radical feminists pound their soapboxes and proclaim that no
    woman would lie about being raped.  And most women wouldn't, but
    some women do.  Tawana Brawley embarrassed Governor Cuomo, who
    declared that he believed her because no woman would lie about
    being gang-raped.  It turned out to be a hoax.

    Remember Roe vs. Wade, the landmark abortion case?  The "Jane Roe"
    was Norma McCorvey, who sought an abortion because she had been
    raped.  Fourteen years later, she said she lied.  She thought the
    rape charge would gain approval for an abortion.

    Kathryn Tucci was mad when her boyfriend dumped her.  She accused
    him of rape.  He was jailed.  A year and a month later, she
    admitted she had lied.

    When it was discovered that Catherine C. Webb was sexually active,
    she covered up her involvement with her boyfriend by accusing Gary
    Dotson of raping her.  He went to prison for 12 years even though
    DNA testing showed that he could not have done it.  Finally, Webb
    admitted that she lied.

    Warren Farell, in chapter 14 of _The Myth of Male Power_, records
    many cases in which women lied about rape.  The reasons included:
    an excuse for coming in late, explanation of teen pregnancies,
    attempts to get a husband's attention or to test his love, revenge
    on former boyfriends, method of covering up an affair,
    compensation for feeling shame over sexual activity, attempts to
    show friends that she wasn't "too easy," and several more.  One
    woman charged the paperboy with raping her at gunpoint because, as
    she later admitted, she needed an excuse for being late to work!

    But radical feminists do not waste energy sympathizing with men
    falsely accused of rape.  As Catherine Comins, assistant dean of
    students at Vassar College, was quoted in _Time_ (June 3, 1991):
    "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the
    experience."

16 T F  Government regulations of hiring practices specify that the
        most qualified person be hired regardless of gender.

    False.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that in "mostly male" vocations, a
    "less qualified" woman may be hired.

17 T F  Women make up 42.5% of the workforce, but much less than 42.5%
        of the management ranks are female.

    False.

    Women fill precisely 42.5% of management positions.  It is true,
    however, that most top management jobs are filled by males.

18 T F  The laws and practices pertaining to sexual harassment protect
        both genders equally.

    False.

    The reality of practice is that women are much better protected
    from romantic advances, sexual propositions, and dirty jokes that
    men are protected from aggressive sexual behavior of women.  For
    example, _Cosmopolitan_ coached its readers about how to impress
    male supervisors and coworkers.  "Wear body hugging styles, ...
    vivid eye make-up, and lipstick.  A lush style is a sexual
    signaler...wear a very tight short skirt and very high heels.
    Bend over with your back to a man...  Touch him in some way, even
    if it is only to pick off imaginary lint... Run your finger over a
    man's knuckles.  It will send shivers... Cross and uncross your
    legs a lot....Drop anything as you pass his desk, then stoop to
    gather it up.  He will help.  Lean close.... put your hand on his
    shoulder... Talk sexy or at least suggestive" (Feb. 1989).  It got
    worse but we couldn't print some of the things _Cosmo_ said.  [],
    men everywhere know that such behavior should be called sexual
    harassment -- or at least, their wives know it is.

19 T F  About equal numbers of men and women die from accidents on the
        job.

    False.

    According to _Jobs Relates Almanac_, nearly all workers (97%) in
    the 24 most dangerous occupations are men.  Women have not entered
    and vocation in great numbers until it has been made safe
    (Farell, 106).

20 T F  Women and men serve similar sentences for similar crimes.

    False.

    Studies by the Justice Department and states such as Washington
    and North Carolina show that, on average, men serve 70% longer
    sentences than women convicted of the same crimes.  _Psychology
    Today_ readers rated killing a wife by stabbing as 41% more severe
    that killing a husband by stabbing.

    A lot of this is pure exageration.  I don't know from where this was
    contrived, but it is most blatantly a piece of work to once again show
    male superiority.
    
    When will this end.  

Any surprises or comment?  I've taken the write-lock off this note (and
only had it on for continuity of the answers).

This check list is not a female-bashing reaction to male-bashing, but
rather a look at the data.  We are left to consider whether our conditioning
and understanding of male-female relations in society is accurate or
a composite of agendas and ad campaigns.

True "equality" begins with accurate and objective data and the acknowledgment
that unequal doesn't have to mean inequity or better/worse.

Mark

>    A lot of this is pure exageration.  I don't know from where this was
>    contrived, but it is most blatantly a piece of work to once again show
>    male superiority.
    
You can read the data points in the article for yourself.  Some of these
are hardly mechanisms of patriarchal establismentarianism.

>    When will this end.  

When men and women recognise that working in concert is better than
working in competition.

Mark

>A lot of this is pure exageration.

For instance?

This article was published in the _Herald of Holiness_, February 1995, 
Volume 84. No. 2.  HH is a monthly magazine published out of Kansas City.

The studies were conducted by the magazine, companies, and government
agencies listed in the article.

    I don't take issue with the fact that women perpetrate
    criminal and violent acts.  I do take issue with the effort made
    towards depicting women as *more* violent or criminal then men.
    
    I'd also say that MUCH abuse perpetrated by men is not reported as
    well.  Most of the women I've met in my lifetime did not report crimes
    against them that were committed by fathers, uncles, brothers and
    cousins.  
    
    This article is totally out of proportion.  It is very one-sided and I
    wonder what the motivation was behind said article.
    
    Nancy
    

I've contacted the Editor in Cheif of the HH and asked him if they have an
online feedback response mechanism for you.

I think you have just exhibited a knee-jerk reaction to the data points
based on your experience and spheres in which you circulate.

>    This article is totally out of proportion.  It is very one-sided and I
>    wonder what the motivation was behind said article.

You've now questioned the data given by these different agencies with 
no visible axe to grind, and now have called into question the axe behind
publiching such an article.  You speculate that it is totally out of 
proportion.

Perhaps the motivation is to see things as they are and not how we perceive
them to be.  I've stated many times that AIDS research is way out of 
proportion to the number of people it is infecting and affecting.  The 
item on prostate versus breast cancer research illustrates my point very 
well on that matter.  When we look at the statistics, how do we justify
the ATTITUDES we have?  How do we justify the blanketing statements and
sweeping generalizations that testimonies, such as Nancy's *real*
experiences fuel?  I mean, this article does NOT discount Nancy very real
experiences, but it ALSO does NOT mean that all or the majority of 
experiences are the same as Nancy's and when looked from the raw data, 
we then need to ask, how does this data affect my perception?

Mark

   re: 680.26 <JULIET::MORALES_NA>

   >Most of the women I've met in my lifetime did not report crimes against
   >them that were committed by fathers, uncles, brothers and cousins.

       It works both ways.  If you think that women would be unlikely to
   report crimes against themselves...what man would want to report to the
   police that he was "taken" by a woman.

   Tony

    .27
    
    I accept that fact that because I'm open about my background that this
    somehow disqualifies me from having an objective view, however, it
    doesn't negate these ponderings:
    
    1. Why such an article?  The motiviation please?
    
    2. Why is .18 conclusive based on a magazine article?
    
    3. As you stated so boldly offline, it is true that men create more
       violence and intensity in their reported crimes than do women.
    
        What you fail to recognize is the NUMBER OF WOMEN who do not 
    	report crimes against them which are so severe that fear
    	keeps them in tow.  If we had truly accurate reportings I 
    	maintain that this article would be reversed in many of its 
    	findings.
    
    
    
    
    

    .28
    
    I suppose you failed to read my opening statement which says I do
    not reject the idea that women *do* these crimes?????????????

...recent studies by the American Association for Protecting Children (AAPC)
and the American Humane Association,

....A study of 556 infant fatalities by the AAPC 

David Thomas, in _Not Guilty, the Case in Defense of Men_ (209), cites 
the 1990 report of the National Committee for the Prevention of Child 
Abuse and Neglect

[unnamed] Studies show that in the U.S.... In Britain...

David Thomas says...

A paper published in the _Monograph of the National Center on Child Abuse
Protection_ 

A study in Brinkerhoff and Lupri (1988) (Canadian Journal of Sociology)
(D. Thomas 1981).  
A study of Quaker families (1984) 

Professor R.L. Neely and Gloria Robinson-Simpson, who work for the Norfolk,
Virginia, public schools, published their findings in Social Work (March 1988). 


The Canadian study (Brinkerhoff and Lupri) 

A study by M. McCleod, a British female academic, of 6000 cases of domestic
violence reported to police (Justice Quarterly 1, 1984)

According to the Journal of Economic Literature, 

Public Affairs Report, Berkeley California, October-December, 1985. 

A more recent report by James D. Wright (Address Unknown: The Homeless in
America, 1989) 

According to the Monthly Vital Statistics Report for the National Center for
Health Statistics (August 28, 1991)

Warren Farell, in chapter 14 of _The Myth of Male Power_
Farell, 1990.
(Farell, 31).

...according to _American Demographics_

SAT stats.

An Air Force study conducted by Dr. Charles P. McDowell

Two southwestern cities came up with the same rate...

The _Washington Post_ studies of Prince George County, Maryland, and Fairfax
County, Virginia, 


As Catherine Comins, assistant dean of students at Vassar College, was quoted
in _Time_ (June 3, 1991)


The Supreme Court

_Cosmopolitan_ 

According to _Jobs Relates Almanac_

(Farell, 106).

Studies by the Justice Department and states such as Washington
    and North Carolina

_Psychology Today_ 

    Regarding #6
    
    Was this information taken on the one week of the year that 
    the house needed painting?
    
    I have a major problem with this because I have never
    known a family in my lifetime that has an equitable distribution
    of the work, be it inside or outside of the home.  
    
    My day starts at 4:30 am when I make my sons lunch for school
    and ends at 9:00 am when story time is done.  At no point
    during this time am I not working to satisfy the needs of
    someone else.  I can't say that the same schedule applies to
    my husband.  But, it works for us (most of the time 8*)
    
    As for the other answers,  the statistics given have not
    been what is evident in my experience.  I know of no man
    who has been raped, beaten or sexually abused - I know
    several women.  I know of no women who have commited a crime
    and been in jail - I know a couple men.  As far as the job
    market goes, my husband and I have the same job - I am a temp
    so, make less money.  My managers are both women - every manager
    above them (and there area several) are men.  And finally,
    I know of noone (praise God) who has physically or sexually
    abused their children.
    
    I don't know what all this means and will look at the data
    more closely. But, to me it feels like somewhat of a backlash
    for the inappropriate male bashing that has gone on too long.
    
    Just my opinion and experience,
    Pam

   re: 680.30 <JULIET::MORALES_NA>

   >I suppose you failed to read my opening statement which says I do not
   >reject the idea that women *do* these crimes?????????????

       No, I did not FAIL to read your opening statement.  I was simply
   pointing out that even as you feel that unreported crimes perpetrated on
   women have skewed the facts; unreported crimes on men has as well.

   Tony

>    
>    3. As you stated so boldly offline, it is true that men create more
>       violence and intensity in their reported crimes than do women.
>    
>        What you fail to recognize is the NUMBER OF WOMEN who do not 
>    	report crimes against them which are so severe that fear
>    	keeps them in tow.  If we had truly accurate reportings I 
>    	maintain that this article would be reversed in many of its 
>    	findings.

Horse feathers, Nancy.  (a) I stated it boldly ONLINE, if you read the
article.  I restated it offline.  Please don't make it sound as if I had
whispered something out of the side of my mouth.  It's there in item .4
for all to see!

I don't fail to recognize it.  I merely quoted statistics.

>    1. Why such an article?  The motiviation please?

I might counter by asking why are you so defensive about statistics from 
various sources not related to the data dispenser?

The entire magazine this month is devoted to Men's role in Christianity,
Nancy: how to become good fathers, what men need most, masculine journey,
good husbands, good sons.  It is NOT geared towards bashing women, which 
by your reaction seems to me your thought on this article.

>    2. Why is .18 conclusive based on a magazine article?

The magazine article is an *example* (clearly stated in the item for the
careful reader).  I do not see a source documenting a "study" of item
.18 so you have to make up your own mind.  The example was given in the
space the article provided in support of the contention.

Mark

    I really resent the effort made by this magazine and this article to
    "put women in their place".  Men for centuries has twisted the
    scriptures and used supremacy as a means of control over women, which
    unfortunately led to the abuse of many women in our country.
    
    I do not say that in 1995 women are not more aggressive and violent. 
    Unfortunately, I know it to be true.  But let's not pour salt into the
    wound of failed relationships, let's build one another in faith and
    harmony.
    
    I am against bashing anyone in general.  This type of dialogue only
    causes more division and puts up blocks between Christian women who
    have been abused and the Christian men to which they are to submit.
    
    I find this article not to be mean-spirited, but ignorant.  Ignorant of
    the many women who want desperately to serve and love God, but will
    reject and disobey because of efforts such as this article.  I see 
    it unfortunately in many places in the Christian community today.
    
    I am so saddened in reading this...
    

    Mark, I apologize if I made it sound as though you wouldn't state
    online the fact regarding *intensity* of male crimes.
    
    Nancy

.32  Pam So

The work distribution in my home isn't equal either.  But I don't deny that
the Journal of Economic Literature did a study that found data outside of
the experiences you and I have had.

>    I know of no man
>    who has been raped, beaten or sexually abused - I know
>    several women.  I know of no women who have commited a crime
>    and been in jail - I know a couple men. 

The study did not cite men being raped.  It cited women being rape and the
rate of false accusations.  And the fact that you don't know of any only
shows that your experiences is not in line with the majority of the findings
of these institutions.  Lastly, if 60% do and 40% don't, and you're part
of the 40% and deal mainly with the 40%, it will seem like you're in
the majority.  That's what surveys and studies help people to understand.

>    I know of noone (praise God) who has physically or sexually
>    abused their children.

One rarely does, it is so well hidden.

>    But, to me it feels like somewhat of a backlash
>    for the inappropriate male bashing that has gone on too long.

In this you may be right.  I don't seek to swing the pendulum to the other
extreme!  No way!  But let's stop the pendulum swings and put it in the
center!

Mark

>    I really resent the effort made by this magazine and this article to
>    "put women in their place".  Men for centuries has twisted the
>    scriptures and used supremacy as a means of control over women, which
>    unfortunately led to the abuse of many women in our country.

More horse feathers and I begin to wonder whch brain has been influenced
by what.

>    I am against bashing anyone in general.  This type of dialogue only
>    causes more division and puts up blocks between Christian women who
>    have been abused and the Christian men to which they are to submit.

Only when there is a knee-jerk reaction without a careful consideration 
of the data, who collected it, and what it really has to say.  I think
you've done a disservice by bashing it out-of-hand.  You expect it to 
"put women in their place" and therefore have condemned it immediately.
*THAT's* what puts up the blocks, Nance.

>    I find this article not to be mean-spirited, but ignorant.  Ignorant of
>    the many women who want desperately to serve and love God, but will
>    reject and disobey because of efforts such as this article.  I see 
>    it unfortunately in many places in the Christian community today.

I see it as inconsiderate prejudgment.

MM

Hi Mark,

I'm not clear how this report is intended to be taken, in this conference.
Certainly we repudiate crime, and the sinful acts you list, whoever they
are committed by.  Are you trying to understand the motives and causes for
what are commonly thought of as male domains of offense and behaviour,
being thought now to be moving into the female province?  If this is
intended to clarify an expression or perception of, for instance, feminism,
it seems a rather confused way to present it, so presume that is not your
intent? 

One thing to bear in mind when presenting public statistics on these areas
is certainly that they can only begin to enumerate those cases which have 
entered the domain of public knowledge.  There is reason to suppose that in
some areas, particularly of exaggerated sexual role behaviour, a
considerable amount goes unreported and hidden.  I cannot quote statistics
on these, as each one I collect is instantly invalidated .... ;-} 

I'm unable to stay with you longer tonight, but I have a sense that you 
are trying to say something beyond what you've expressed so far.

I'll be interested to see more tomorrow....!

								Andrew

Again, this article is one of many on a theme of features for this month.

The table of contents for the magazine are:

What Men Need Most
The Masculine Journey, from Adam to Zaken
Male-Basher's Checklist
Forgive Us Our Fathers
A Renewed Vision for Marriage
The New Christian Man
The Fine Art of Good Fathering
Promise Keepers Helped.

This article is meant to check your perceptions against data.  That's the
motivation.  Are you (generic) a male-basher in your attitude?  If so, then
consider some of the facts in contrast to your perception.  Tearing down
barriers, false notions, misconceptions is a good thing; building them
up is bad.  Building up people is a good thing; tearing them down is bad.
If anyone has a perception outside the truth of the matter, then perhaps 
they are tearing down (men, in this case) people by their attitudes which
don't like up with the facts.  Yes, both men and women commit crime - that
wasn't the point.  The point was that if you think that men commit all the
crime such that a disproportionate effort is directed at men than women, 
then perhaps a dose of reality may help us to make better choices, such
as fair sentencing, and treating the stabbing of a spouse equally horrific.

Mark

P.S.  As an aside and for no particular reason I can think of beyond 
informing you, the Herald of Holiness has a standing article space
entitled "In a Woman's Voice" even in this issue dedicated to the theme
of the Christian man.  Of the articles, I do count more male authors
than female, but "In a Woman's Voice" is not the only woman's article in 
this male issue.

>Are you trying to understand the motives and causes for
>what are commonly thought of as male domains of offense and behaviour,
>being thought now to be moving into the female province? 

No!  I am presenting the data in this article to provoke thought by
comparing what the sources in .31 had collected and the perceptions 
of male in today's society, even held by Christian men and women.

> a considerable amount goes unreported and hidden.

There is similar criticism of things like counting the homeless.
I didn't see many *projections* in the data.  You will also have to
speak to better statisticians than I who can claim with accuracy
a plus or minus error margin depending on the statistical population
that they sample.  Sampling 100 water bufflo lodge members will yield
far different results than sampling 100 people from various ethnic
and socio-economic areas.

>I'm unable to stay with you longer tonight, but I have a sense that you 
>are trying to say something beyond what you've expressed so far.

Sure.  Anytime someone highlights a flashpoint issue, there's something
hidden.  Here it is folks:  if you have an opinion of all men or most
men that doesn't line up with some of the data, then consider your attitudes
as to whether the attitudes you harbor place you in the seat of judgment on
many people.

The same holds true of men and their attitudes towards women!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But let's not accept things as they seem to be --- EVEN from the results
of this data!!  How can I say this?  Haven't I just refuted the data by 
suggesting this?  Not at all.  My problem is that people have perception
problems about other people and have accepted blindly some agenda and
propoganda that is not necessarily borne out by reality.

Anyone care to speculate on any ulterior motives I might have?  I'f
love to hear them because I'm fresh out of ideas.

Mark

      Hi,
    
        I'm only up to .26 and I have just a couple "knee jerk" thoughts.
    
        1) Fascinating.
    
        2) I think the data about women abusing children more often is
           misleading.  This is because women are around children a much
           higher percentage of the time (on average) and thus are more
           prone to the related stress.
    
                                                         Tony

Ah! Gotcha!  You were impressed enough by the article to enter it for us 
all, thinking that these are areas where there is significant 
misunderstanding!

Do you perceive this as a blind spot to Christians specifically, or to the 
U.S., or universally?  Do you think that the shift in public perception is 
exaggerating an actual but smaller move, or reflecting the political agenda 
of a vociferous group?

							Andrew

A sermon last Sunday had these illustrations:

A man and his two children got on a Subway.  The man sat down next to
an observer, and the two children were obnoxiouly bouncing off the walls
and being a nuisance and irritant to the other passengers.  The observer
noted that the father was not paying attention and his own irritation 
welled up.  After a while, he summoned the courage to speak to the father.
"Sir, haven't you noticed that your children are running free and irritating
people?  Shouldn't you do something about it?"

The man looked up as if coming out of a daze.  "Oh.  I suppose you're right.
You see, I just came from the hospital where my wife died an hour ago and
they probably don't know how to handle it."

Immediately, the man irritation changed to compassion and the activity of
the children took on a different hue.

Why?  Because he saw the reality of the situation and not just the perception.

The second illustration had to do with three-dimensional pictures and
how the two-dimensional picture looks like a jumble of dots and nothing
very impressive at all.  But when you alter your focus, all of a sudden, 
you begin to see the three-dimensional image pop up from what you previously
only saw as a bunch of unrelated dots.

God sees us in 3D folks.  God sees us and knows when our wife died an hour
ago.  We need to attempt to alter our focus so that we see people in 
reality and not merely in perception.

Mark

>Do you perceive this as a blind spot to Christians specifically, or to the 
>U.S., or universally?  

My perception is that whatever the data, very few of us can see beyond
our perceptions.  And our perceptions are formed by influences and 
circumstances rather than by fact and reality.

My perception is that this is not limited to Christianity but pervades the
society of which Christianity is a part.  For example, the divorce rate
is about 50% in society and only *slightly* lower in Christian institutions.
One may rightly ask why make the distinction.  For one, if anything,
the divorce rate in Christianity should not be nearly as high, and there
is no comfort in knowing it is lower (but not as great).  

It is an ALARM for Christianity to do something within its own ranks.
It is an alarm for the Christian *individual* to take stock of
 his or her own perception and clean the house personally so that the
 ranks of Christendom can thereby be also cleaned.

So, it is not an effort to change a cultural percpetion *except* by
virtue of changing the individual by seeing things as they are and
responding accordingly.

>Do you think that the shift in public perception is exaggerating an actual 
>but smaller move, or reflecting the political agenda 
>of a vociferous group?

I am not sure I understand the question.  What shift?  What move?  What group?
To guess, the answer is no.  I do think of some groups that are more prone
to perpetuate propoganda one way or the other, but this is more of a call
to personal accountability and then by expression, helping others to see
things as they are and work towards the building of effective relationships
between men and women, where most social effort have only seen them compete
for the dominance whip.

Mark

    >but this is more of a call
    >to personal accountability and then by expression, helping others to
    >see things as they are and work towards the building of effective
    >relationships between men and women, where most social effort have 
    >only seen them compete for the dominance whip.
    
    This is what I take to exception.  "See things as they are" is
    definitely not YES I'LL SAY IT BOLDLY not in my experience, not in the
    experience of law officers with which I go to church or the vast many
    women I've met in person and over the net.
    
    I STRONGLY disagree with this so called newer, truer perception of
    criminal activity being more prevalent among women.  It's false,
    blatant propoganda.  Yes, I'd be more than happy to check the
    "resources" of said information.  I'd not be surprised that with a
    little detective work, flaws easily could be found.
    
    And again, I am NOT stating that women don't commit crimes.  But to put
    in percentages as hard facts that women commit more crimes then men,
    serves no other purpose but to alienate women.
    
    You may perceive it as balance, I perceive it as supremacy wars.
    

I don't think the intent of this list is woman-bashing in the least, though
some may use it as such.  It's simply making a point about the uneven press
that men and women have been getting in recent years.  The media, the
academic institutions, and increasingly (because of the first two) the
general public in this country has come to be taught and believe that men are
the primary cause of most of the problems in the country, and that women are
always on the receiving end of abuse and short-shrifting.  By selectively and
consistently reporting on statistics that reinforce this and ignoring
statistics that do not reinforce it, the perception can be generated without
actually lying.

I believe that this article was simply meant to show that the same effect can
be generated in the opposite direction, not to return the 'favor' and try to
show that women are more of a 'problem.'  You're right, Nancy, that in the
wrong hands with the wrong motivation it could be used in exactly that way,
but I don't believe that was the intent.

This effect was reported on extensively in the book "Who Stole Feminism" by
Christina Hoff Sommers.  She spends much of the book researching the uneven
reporting and unsubstantiated claims against men.  Her point is exactly
yours, Nancy - neither men nor women should be attacking the other.

Some of the facts in this survey I'm familiar with, such as the difference in
suicide rates, and others seem a bit dubious, like the study which shows that
men do more work.  I've seen other studies that show the opposite.  But in
general I believe that most of these statistics are probably factually
accurate, or at least reasonably so.

I think the major point is to say: "So, you've shown that men have more
difficulties then women in some areas of life.  It's also true that women
have more difficulties than men in other areas of life.  Can we please stop
the 'you're bad because you do this' infighting and begin to work at helping
both women and men overcome their difficulties?'

A good statistic in this regard to note is the difference in suicide rates.
If you asked people on the street which sex had a higher suicide rate, I'm
sure that the majority would have absolutely no idea, having never heard any
reporting on the statistics.  If you asked them to guess, given the climate
that has been generated against men, I would bet that a majority would guess
that women have a higher suicide rate.

But if in fact the statistic were reversed, if women were killing themselves
at a rate many times higher than men, every citizen in this country would
know it.  The feminist machine would have glommed onto that statistic and
would have trumpeted it from every rooftop, as proof positive of how women
were second-class citizens in this country.  Dozens of studies would have
been done to try to get to the bottom of this horrible inequity.

This survey of questions doesn't in any way minimize the ways that men abuse
women - they do.  It's simply an attempt by the kettle, not to claim that it
is not black, but to note that the pot is also black, and to suggest that
they seek to work together to get the soot off rather than engaging in
fruitless finger-pointing.

Paul

Nancy, I think the point is that certain statistics regarding crimes can be
used to create a certain perception.

For example, the statistics reported on child abuse.  They showed that a
slightly higher percentage of child abuse cases and infant deaths were
reported from women.  But as someone else noted here, women spend a vastly
larger amount of time with children.  If the statistic were reported as
instances of child abuse per 1000 hours spent with children, then men would
an abuse rate much higher than women, perhaps 10 times higher or more.  That
statistic is in fact a more accurate representation, but the statistic that
women commit more (numeric) acts of child abuse is still factual (if true, it
seems at least plausible).

Similarly for the statistics reported on spouse abuse.  I've seen similar
statistics that show that physical abuse in terms of number of incidents is
about equal between men and women.  So this statistic is actually factually
true.  However, for the most part 'abuse' by wives consists of throwing
objects or slaps that do no real damage.  This study just passes off, with
"of course, men, being stronger, inflict more damage" the fact that male
abuse of women is vastly more serious.  Likewise with the statistics about
women being more likely to use weapons - they have to, either to inflict
damage or to protect themselves.  Men's fists with their greater strength
doesn't count as a 'weapon,' so even though the violence level is the same or
greater, men didn't use a 'weapon.'

I would not at all support this kind of selective statistic reporting for any
purpose but one - to point out that this has been done in the opposite
direction.  And that's exactly the case.  The media is delighted to believe
and report on any statistic that portrays men in a bad light.

For example, a few years ago, due to a misunderstanding, it was reported by
one organization that physical abuse was the leading cause of birth defects.
Now this claim is absurd on the face of it, if you just take a moment to
think - defects due to the mother being abused are more than all other
defects?  Down's syndrome?  But the statistic was gleefully picked up and
reported across the country without the slightest question by any of the
people reporting it and propogating it.  They were looking for just this sort
of statistic, and had conditioned themselves to believe anything against men
uncritically.

Paul

re: .47 Nancy

Take a look at the language in this notes string and tell me who is
beating up on whom?

>    I STRONGLY disagree with this so called newer, truer perception of
>    criminal activity being more prevalent among women.  It's false,
>    blatant propoganda.  Yes, I'd be more than happy to check the
>    "resources" of said information.  I'd not be surprised that with a
>    little detective work, flaws easily could be found.

Let us know what you find.  Don't just say it; do it.

>    And again, I am NOT stating that women don't commit crimes.  But to put
>    in percentages as hard facts that women commit more crimes then men,
>    serves no other purpose but to alienate women.

Btw, the study did NOT say that women commit crimes more often than
men.  Please be clear.  It said that women committed *specific* crimes
more often than did men.  And this was ONLY part of the survey on a
WIDE variety of perceptions.

As for alienation, you can only say this for women (and men) who see
this as the purpose of the article.  In other words, people who jump
to conclusions about it.

----

Next, consider, if you will that every single one of these statistics
were wrong.  Consider that you can't trust ANY study from ANY source,
no matter how reputable.  What are we left with?

We choose our perceptions.  But you can't leave it there when faced
with data - EVEN IF THE DATA IS NOT COMPLETE.  Why?  Because when you
are left in a factual vacuum, you are faced with the question:

  How do my perceptions stack up against what they SHOULD be?

In this case, the article calls for an examination of perceptions
towards men.  Your experiences in your sphere of experience causes you
to perceive characteristics in a statistical popluation called "All
men Nancy has come into contact with on varying levels of contact." If
the closer contact males present a bad experience, your sampling of
men can color the entire male population.  Is this how it SHOULD be?
Even "intellectuals" recognize that even though they SHOULD see each
person individually, they just can't get past some of the experiences
that cause them to feel the way they do.

If you are reacting to data point .1 through .3 that's one thing, but 
I sense a[n over-]reaction to the whole thing.

Mark

    Re: Note 680.3 by TOKNOW::METCALFE
    
>3  T F  Most of the children killed by adults are little girls.
>   False.
    
    I would imagine that in China this would be true.

    I think this whole string (which I've read up until 680.44) highlights
    for me the error of information publishing systems, be they word of
    mouth, individual experiences, research studies, newspapers, television
    news or fictional movies.
    
    They do not and cannot represent reality, yet we take them as doing so.
    
    More fool us.

    Well said James.
    
    

    FWIW, I'd take just as much issue with an article depicting men as
    villains.  Again, I'm for building, not tearing down.

>    FWIW, I'd take just as much issue with an article depicting men as
>    villains.  Again, I'm for building, not tearing down.

I do not know what you are talking about.  BOTH genders are *villains*
in the items of this article that pertain to crime.  It doesn't single
out women as villains and elevate men as angels!  That's what YOU have
PROJECTED onto the data.  It's data.

Take item 1.  46.7% versus 53.3%

(a) it doesn't treat men as angels or women as villains
(b) it only talks about Criminal Child Abusers
       NOT simply men and women (i.e. it does not call
       all women or men abusers)
(c) this datum shows that the numbers are fairly close to one another

If (a), (b), and (c) are taken into consideration, why can't we see
the true/false statement for what it is?

I don't see the reaction as building, except maybe building walls based on a
foundation of misperception of what has been said in this article.

Mark

For information about the Herald of Holiness, a Nazarene periodical,
I can put you in contact with these people.  If you want to send E-Mail
to the Editor of the Herald, let me know.  - MM

      re: .55
    
      Not to suggest I'm speaking for Nancy, but she could have meant
      'villain' in a relative and not an absolute sense.  In other words,
      every answer 'seemed' to depict women as being more likely to be
      MORE villainous.
    
      Or was it just some sort of coincedence that virtually every 
      question had an answer which painted the picture a certain way?
    
      What was the point of the survey I wonder?  The main reason I ask
      is the obvious bias of the question which referred to who victi-
      mizes children more; mothers or fathers.  (I forget the exact 
      wording of the question.)
    
      The bias of not even mentioning the factor of differences in
      time of exposure to children is dramatic.
    
      Anyway, the above is what Nancy might have meant when she used 
      the term 'villain.'
    
                                                   Tony
                                                                     

>      Not to suggest I'm speaking for Nancy, but she could have meant

I have had e-mail exchanges with Nancy, and my wife has also had some
exchanges with her.

>      What was the point of the survey I wonder?  

The checklist is a mechnism for people to guage their notions on certain
issues.  "What do you think the answer is to this question:  Is it true
or false that ...."  You read the question, scratch your head and guess
at an answer.  Was that answer based on your experience, on a wild guess,
or by a presumption of society's propaganda and conditioning through the
TV, cinema, or other media hype?  Regardless of what you base your guess
on, some people (different group sources in now way affiliated with the
magazine for the different items) did studies and these are their findings.
Now, compare your guess with their finding.  Examine whether your guess 
was based on a supposition that is male-bashing or whether it was a 
pie in the sky guess that may have been right or wrong.

>      The main reason I ask
>      is the obvious bias of the question which referred to who victi-
>      mizes children more; mothers or fathers.  (I forget the exact 
>      wording of the question.)

For the exact wording (WHICH MAKES A DIFFERENCE DOESN'T IT?) each question
was broken into its own reply.  Why did I do that?  Well, I saw order in 
putting item 1 in .1 and item 2 in .2, etc.  And it was too long to post
all at once.

Items 1, 2, and 3 talk about these issues.  NONE of them talk about 
fathers or mothers.  None of them talks about "victimizing" children
which could easily mean a number of things.  (But yes, it does talk 
about abuse where the children are victims.)

>      The bias of not even mentioning the factor of differences in
>      time of exposure to children is dramatic.

What you call a "bias" is to me a narrow focus on the article.  What's 
the intent?  Seeing if your [pre]conceptions about men are correct.
What's the item in question?  It is SUPPOSED to examine prejudgments on
men, not prejudgments on people or child molesters or anything else.
Incidentally, the *abuse* in item 1 is not "sexual abuse" as some may
infer.  The item says "criminal abuse".

What I have seen from this posting and its reaction is a demonstration 
of how people read things into things rather than reading what was presented.

I would have liked to talk about the role of men and how society has
come to view men in the general sense, but I don't see that happening 
with any clarity at this point.

Mark

� I would have liked to talk about the role of men and how society has
� come to view men in the general sense, but I don't see that happening 
� with any clarity at this point.

That was the agenda I was looking for around .40 .  I think we've had 
misunderstandings about how the note was meant, possibly coloured by the 
title 'Male-Basher's Checklist'.  It got focussed on the title, rather 
than on perceptions of the subject matter.

Possibly it could help to have some sort of table of results, to give an 
overview, with comments specifically invited around the area you intended... 

Maybe we could then move on to discuss how society's perception and 
expectations of male behaviour is changing [if I've got that right!].

								Andrew

    I suppose that the survey you typed in was supposed to say to
    women "hey, guys don't do all the crimes, etc" and even if it wasn't
    meant this way, as I read it it made me mad.  Every question was
    targeted at women.  Its like women are REALLY the problem.  
    
    I know thats not what the article intended and am not going to debate
    with you over it.  I'm just telling you that when I read it, it seemed
    like women bashing.  All it did was make me mad.  I wouldn't like for
    an article to be onesided and bash either sex--male or female.
    
    I understand why Nancy got upset, even if you don't.
    
    
    
    Donna  

.59  Andrew...

Regarding the title:  That was the title in the Magazine.  Since I have the
title listed in .0, I suppose I can change the title to reflect something
else.

>The following is a Male-Basher's checklist taken from the Herald of Holiness,
>a magazine publication of the Church of the Nazarene, February 1995 issue.
>If you want to, extract this note and send me your answers.  I'll try and post
>the answers in the magazines with the explanitory text one at a time as I
>have time.  In the meantime, see how well you do:

The offer to "send me your answers" was a personal pseudo-scientific poll
of my own to see how well we as a Christian community responded to the
notions put forth by each of these items.  A lot of people I have spoken with,
for example, don't think #6 (work hours) is accurate; but a few have then
backpeddled and thought of people where the data does indeed fit.

My wife was talking to me this morning (because I have shared this string with
her) and she got onto "submission" and said that she doesn't think that 
Christian women aren't having problem with submitting to Christy-like 
husbands but many Christian men are not leaders because their wives
(and society won't let them; hasn't taught them proper leadership, etc.).
Mind you, this is Joy saying these things.  She cited people in our
larger church where marriage after marriage is marked by husband and 
wive co-ops (at best) and meeley-mouthed men who are afraid to discuss
leadership, let alone assume it.  (AND THIS IS **NOT** ABOUT SUPREMACY!!!!!)

We nod our heads when we hear about husbands loving as Christ loved, but
somehow that gets translated as fawning with some men; we have distorted
the meaning of mutual submission and wifely submission and husband headship.
I am convinced that 90% of the men and women in the Christian sphere DON'T
UNDERSTAND the proper way to deal with each other.  (How's that for
unsubstantiated data?  Source: Mark Metcalfe)

Leading without Dominance; headship without supremacy, submission without
reliquishing identity and freedom.  These are alien concepts to us so we 
react against them and hunt them down as if they are the creatures from 
the black lagoon.  Do you see Christ as fawning and weak?  Look again.
Do you see Christ as losing his identity and power by submitting to 
others?  Look again.  Do you see Christ lording it over people, EVEN
THOUGH HE IS RIGHTFULLY OUR LORD?  Look again.

God wants us to see ourselves as He sees us.  He wants us to know the truth
about Him and ourselves.  He doesn't want us accepting society's conditioning,
being squeezed into the world's mold, being "conformed to this world" 
instead of being "transformed by the renewing of our minds."

The first step is to "tear down."  Not tearing down people, but tearing down
bigoted notions about people.  I see that as the point of this article.  It
could easily have been an article about African Americans, multiracial
marriages, women, or something else.  This one happened to deal with the
preconceptions people may have about men.

If you want to build people up, you MUST start from a sure foundation, right?
You have to know that you're building on the rock of truth and not the sand
of supposition, suspicion, conditioning, propaganda.

How long have you known me, some of you?  Do you think I am out to set *men*
up as supremecists?  Faugh!  Men are people with weaknesses just like women
are people with weaknesses.  That's not the way of it.  God has a way for
men and women to be and to be perceived by each other.  Let's allow His
Light to cut through our mirky notions that are a false foundation for
how we perceive men (and others).

Mark

Well as long as we're all putting our reactions to the article in here, 
it affected me the same way that it affected Donna Huddleston.  It didn't 
seem healing or balancing at all, but rather inflammatory.  I take your 
word for it that the article wasn't meant to be a bit of women-bashing 
in place of men-bashing Mark, but that's not how it felt when I read it.

I felt like it was saying, "many, many, many men have led such miserable 
lives because of the terrible, abusive, violent women they're coupled 
with so they've committed suicide in huge numbers.  Oh, and you think 
woman have been discriminated against in the job market, well you're wrong!"
I can see why a woman who has experienced abuse at the hands of a father 
and a husband, like Nancy M. has, would react the way she did.

Sorry, that's just the impression the article gave to me, a woman who has 
had a remarkably blessed life with wonderful parents and an extra super,
marvelous husband.

Leslie

    Whew !!! [me wiping sweat off brow] :-)  Thanks for the affirmations
    ladies, I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt this way.
    
    However, I think had the article been presented differently along with
    the actual purpose, we may still have objected but not felt as
    aggravated. :-)  well, maybe...
    
    Nancy

I find it interesting that you felt it was a dig at women.

You see, rather than examining your perspectives on men, you've examined
how women were portrayed by the article.

I forgot to change the title before lunch.  I'll do that now.

P.S.  Any reaction to .61, men? women?

	Well, count me in with Nancy, Leslie, and Donna.

	I hear you, Mark, but as Nancy said, the presentation "style"
	was poor.  I have no problem coping with the data, I just
	don't like the way it was presented.

	There are too many unknowns in too many of these situations,
	besides.  

	For example:

	A woman wants to pick up her crying child.  Her husband, angry
	over some other issue, stands in her way.  He is bigger, stronger,
	and cannot be moved.  The woman strikes out in anger.  The woman
	has hit the man, the man has not hit the woman.  Who is the
	aggressor, though ?


	I'm much less concerned about *who* is doing the abusing than
	about the fact that it occurs at all.

	Karen

Also, now that you have had your initial impression and reaction, 
what is your impression and reaction about the impressions and
reactions?

All the reactions I have seen said something to the effect that they
felt that it was saying this or that (that is, interpretation) rather
than what it was saying.  You felt it was bashing women to elevate men;
you felt that it treated women unfairly...

Taking item 1 for example: it did not say that 53.3% of ALL women
were criminal child abusers.  It did say that of all criminal child
abusers 53.3 percent were women.  Do you think 46.7 percent is something
to boast about as men?

To me, the REACTION (however natural; and perhaps especially BECAUSE it
was a natural "knee jerk" reaction) is as interesting as the article itself.
I'm trying not to place too much interpretation on the reaction but
I'm having some twitches in my knees, I confess.

Mark

>	I hear you, Mark, but as Nancy said, the presentation "style"
>	was poor.  I have no problem coping with the data, I just
>	don't like the way it was presented.

I presented it [nearly] as the way it was presented in the Article.
It did not have any introductory text, except a subtitle that read:
"Don't launch a career in male bashing before taking this fact checker test."

It showed the 20 question on pages 20 and 21.  On pages 22 through 24, it
provided the answers I reproduced.  (I told you why I broke the questions
across note entries.)  The article does have a picture cartoon (editorial
style) that I couldn't reproduce in Notes.

If you mean how *I* presented it, what didn't you like.  If you mean how
the Herald presented it?  What didn't you like and how would it have been
better presented?  How would you answer a statement that says, "Men commit
the vast majority of criminal child abuse reported each year." if you had
statistics that showed that they didn't yet this was a commonly held
perception?

I appreciate the fact that you women felt attacked by these stats.
Believe it or not.  But tell me how you would have approached the
misperceptions for this item (for example) without implicating
women as part of removing this misperception?

Remember, you have four pages of space in a magazine issue that is 
dedicated to building up Christian males in Christendom.

Mark

� P.S.  Any reaction to .61, men? women?

� Regarding the title:  That was the title in the Magazine.  

The magazine context is a little different from here, where subjects raised 
have a wider potential variation, without a consistent editorship.  I guess
that most of us are unfamiliar with the magazine, and the note title makes
the first impact. 

I strongly agree with your paragraph(s) about the failure of husband and
wife roles.  There is a wishy washy fallacy around which tries to present
men and women as not just 'equal', but 'equivalent'.  Masculine leadership
characteristics are then decried as dominant and offensive.  Certainly they
*can* be wrongly manifested as such, but that does not invalidate the
correct role.  But the attack on sexual roles is just part of the
opposition to the awareness of God.  Any evidence of design in creation
ultimately points people back to a perfect Designer, and imperfect people,
needing His way of salvation, and they have to stamp this out of their
world. 

The historic failure of men (generally) to reflect God in fulfillment of
the role He has given them has given a distorted picture which women (again 
generally) rightly reject.  The sad but inevitable result has meant that 
instead of trying to learn of the LORD, people tend to set themselves up as 
individual gods, of ultimate authority...

I believe a month or to back I entered a note somewhere here with the line 
of responsibility, and how, when it gets broken, the devil has access to 
introduce a false authority.  At that time it concerned the broken marriage 
path, but it is equally relevant to the man who doesn't take his authority 
from God.

I hope this is response rather than reaction, and I'm not sure if it
addresses what you really wanted to hear, but that's what came when this 
man (uh, well, I, anyway ;-) went through .61.


							Andrew

I've exchanged mail with Mark Graham, editor of the Herald of Holiness.
He is going to have an electronic mailbox installed just for electronic
feedback.  When he gets it going, I'll post it and you can send a 
"Letter to the Editor" if the Article bugged you.  If *I* bugged you
by the way I presented it, flames come this-a-way.

When he gets through setting up this online feedback mechanism, they are
going to be some new avenues opening up for the Herald of Holiness that
they haven't dreamed of, yet.  I hope they are ready for it; well, at 
least willing.

Mark

(I'm going to have to apologize to Mr. Graham for giving people such a
 dubious introduction to this religious periodical.)

I had the same reaction to the article posted here as I did the first time I 
saw it - I "next unseened". 

Chele

Mark,

The article is most likely to be totally different in the magazine context.
The contents list included in .41 puts it - at least, the somewhat emotive
name - in a different perspective. 

Standing alone - eg in the conference context - the title combined with the
wording of the questions presents an image which is easily interpreted as
aggressive.  Each of the points is worded [even with the T/F option] not as
a question, but as an erronious statement, as if to presume that the
readership is either ignorant of the facts, or foolish enough to swallow
what is presented as biased and unfounded reporting.  The individual
refutations then slap back, not with an assortment of 'true's and 'false's,
[as a genuine random assortment would give] but with every one false,
putting down any reader na�ve enough to accept the magazine statements at
face value.  I recognise that the article is intended to emphasise the
breadth of misunderstanding of the situation, but to an intelligent
audience, it's overkill. 

The information may be of value, but its presentation is offensive.  I
would not choose to read a magazine which assumed I was a na�ve fool.  I
would rather read an honest factual presentation. 

In the magazine context, the readership presumably knows the editorial
approach, and is used to this sort of thing.  For them, the straight
'false' answers were possibly obvious without even reading the questions. 

However, not knowing the magazine, I cannot comment with any confidence on
its style or readership.  Only say that presenting it out of context needed
a gentler approach to indicate clearly what discussion you actually
intended to introduce. 

If you feel that my input would be of any value to the editor, or that he 
should have the opportunity to respond personally, you're welcome to 
forward my responses by any convenient means.  I can only speak regarding
my own input, though!  And it might be pertinent to bear in mind that I am 
not only an alien to this world, but also to the U.S. ! ;-)


							Andrew 

            <<< Note 680.71 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>
Andrew,

You've keyed in on some of my key :-) objections to the article and did it 
well, except that I think I would personally just say 'the wording of the 
questions', and drop the first part of your sentence:

>>Standing alone - eg in the conference context - the title combined with the
>>wording of the questions presents an image which is easily interpreted as
>>aggressive.  

The wording of the questions presents an image which is easily interpeted as
aggresive.

The rest of your paragraph, I agree with completely!

>>Each of the points is worded [even with the T/F option] not as
>>a question, but as an erronious statement, as if to presume that the
>>readership is either ignorant of the facts, or foolish enough to swallow
>>what is presented as biased and unfounded reporting.  The individual
>>refutations then slap back, not with an assortment of 'true's and 'false's,
>>[as a genuine random assortment would give] but with every one false,
>>putting down any reader na�ve enough to accept the magazine statements at
>>face value.  I recognise that the article is intended to emphasise the
>>breadth of misunderstanding of the situation, but to an intelligent
>>audience, it's overkill. 

Another thing is that, to my mind, some of the "questions" had very little
to say about what I think was supposed to be its main treatise: men have been 
portrayed negatively in the media and popular thought in a biased, untrue 
fashion.  For example, what difference does it make if the child that is 
molested or abused is a boy or a girl?  Young boys are not men, they will grow
into men but that doesn't really infer that society is somehow out to dominate
and malign men because there are more boys than girls are molested.  It does,
I think, show that acts of violence and desecration are more normally done by 
those who are bigger and stronger against the smaller and weaker - in this case
sick adults preying on children who do not have the the resources to protect 
and defend themselves.  Another example is the suicide question.  I happened to 
have been under the impression that more men than woman committed suicide
before I read the article.  What does it have to do with "male-bashing" though?
The factors that bring a person to suicide are varied and complex and personal,
and probably have little to do with the perceived image of men or women in the
media.

Last but not least, most of things the article brings up are a lot more complex
than the simple statistics and few words of text and explanation they printed.
It was too pat.  They simplified so much that again, it assumes a lack of 
intelligence and awareness on the part of their readers.  But I find that a lot
of "Christian" writing does that.  We need to become nuance thinkers, maybe then
we'll be better able to be salt and light to the world because we will show that
we care deeply about humanity and are not going to take the easy way out when 
facing an issue.

Leslie

Re: 71 (Andrew) and .72 (Leslie)

I can buy those criticisms, and recognize that out of the context of the 
magazine it presents a harsher edge than inside the magazine.  That's my
error in judgment (and me a huge advocate about context).

With the context that we have: "The following is a Male-Basher's checklist"
I was still surprised by the [level of] reactions.  Are the male-basher's
the ones becoming defensive?  Surely, each of us would not say that we
feel down on men, would we?  And yet, what *was* the reaction?  It was
taken as a hit on women instead of fact check *about men*.  

You may ask, what's the difference?  Focus.  The focus of the article,
(in or out of context) was not about women at all.  That it was made out
to be a women-basher's article, as if by some guise, shows (at least to me)
that many of us leap before we look.

You can pick apart some of the items.  I might do the same.  But it only
serves to draw away from the focus, either consciously or subconsciously.

I'll own the error for not easing us into the discussion in a less abrupt
way.  However, it concerns me seriously that reflection and questioning
did not precede response, and may be an indicator in itself.  Just so you 
know that all women didn't react this way (but admittedly, my wife saw the
article in context), my wife was as surprised as I was regarding the
reaction to it.  She shocked me with a comment she made last night, which 
I will not repeat here lest I inflame things more. 

I didn't have a problem with it as is.  Some other noters didn't either.
They (and I) claim to have understood the context.  Some of you have and 
reacted negatively to it.  That can't be changed.  But it can be examined.

Mark

    
    .71 Yes, well put.

    Mark,
    
    I printed off a hard copy and showed it to Sarah (my wife).  No
    introduction or background, just "I thought you might like to read
    this."  Her reaction was very positive and supportive of the statistics
    in the article.  She didn't cite any exceptions at the time, but we'll 
    discuss it more later.  The statistics in the article overall agreed
    with what she had found in past sociological studies (her schooling is
    in sociology so she's seen quite a few studies). Again, we didn't discuss 
    it question by question so there may be exceptions. She did tell me
    about a conversation she had with a social worker regarding spousal
    abuse.  The social worker was director of a battered women's shelter. 
    They were discussing the need for secrecy (the location of the shelter
    is secret) and the rules regarding male visitors (no males over 16 are
    allowed; no sons over 16, brothers, fathers, pastors, couselors, no
    one).  These rules are there for the mental and physical health of the
    women.  Having counseled a few abused women I can well sympathize with
    these rules.  Sarah said, "It's a shame there's no support mechanism
    for abused husbands." (not a shelter necessarily but couseling or legal
    intervention or even societal acceptance of the phenomenon)  The
    social worker responded with what I believe would be most first
    reactions.  "Well," she said, "if a man's abused there must be some
    ~other~ reason he's vulnerable."  In other words, a man who lets his
    with beat on him is not really a man.  Sarah's response was, "Maybe he
    was just taught that real men don't hit women."  The social worker went
    crimson.
    
    Kent
    

| <<< Note 680.65 by CNTROL::JENNISON "No turning back" >>>



| A woman wants to pick up her crying child. Her husband, angry over some other 
| issue, stands in her way.  He is bigger, stronger, and cannot be moved. The 
| woman strikes out in anger. The woman has hit the man, the man has not hit the
| woman. Who is the aggressor, though ?

	Karen, both would be.


Glen

Thanks, Kent, for your information.  Maybe I'll talk to you a little more in
E-Mail about it.


(Glen, .76 is a rare moment for us.  We agree on what you said.)

Mark

>The information may be of value, but its presentation is offensive.

Btw, I have said this before: "Offense of taken more often than it is given."

Mark,

You are not being accused of taking offense here, so no need to worry.  And 
as for Joy - she is not as familiar (I presume) with this environment, so 
you do not be unduly concerned about her reaction either.

I would imagine that most of us would know that you did not intend any
offense.  However, we all have a responsibility [to an unseen readership,
as well as those known] not to present a wrong impression. 

I really think it's been hammered out enough, and would prefer any 
continuation to consider Mark's original intent, now thathit has been 
clarified...

							Andrew

>You are not being accused of taking offense here

Of course, I knew that.  I meant that for those who *took* offense.

>I would imagine that most of us would know that you did not intend any
>offense.  However, we all have a responsibility [to an unseen readership,
>as well as those known] not to present a wrong impression. 

Present a wrong impression?  What do you mean?
There are two sides: implication and inferrence.
What was implied by the article?   My responsibility.
What was inferred by the article?  Your responsibility.

I presented a right impression.  It was received by inferrence.

Did I consider that people would react to it?  You bet, and it is what
I hoped, though please do not infer that I was intending to bash women
by trascribing this article.  To have no reaction means that it is ineffective 
and even negative reactions are better than none.  Did I consider the types of
reactions or the level of reaction?  Not really, because I had hoped to
get people's impressions and discuss them, without "easing things in;"
"just the facts, ma'am."  Again, it raised my eyebrows.

>I really think it's been hammered out enough, and would prefer any 
>continuation to consider Mark's original intent, now that it has been 
>clarified...

Perhaps.

Mark

:-(

That peoples' perceptions and concerns have been met with a pointed 
finger saying in effect, "Ah ha, your feeling that the way this article 
expressed itself was hostile means there is something wrong with you"
is a worse offense than the article itself.

Leslie

    .81
    
    Agreed Leslie.  
    
    
    Kent,
    
    I don't believe anyone is denying that women perpetrate criminals
    activities.  What the objection was to said article is its presentation
    and inference that women perpetrate *more* but an 'enth of a percentage
    than do men.
    
    Like Andrew said, if it were a combination of trues and false, it most
    likely would have been received differently.  Now this may in fact seem
    ludicrous because there are those who will believe that these scores
    are fact.  I, for one, don't believe them to be.  While I cannot speak
    for every item, one in particular comes to mind as being completely
    unfounded.  Which I will take up with the editor of the magazine.
    Others are questionable and require further investigation.
    
    

There is something wrong with all of us, myself included.  To declare that
we are all right in our perceptions may not be an offense in people's 
eyes.  I understand the call of God to have us constantly examine ourselves.
The Lord has offended me many times... and I am grateful to Him.

Mark

Psalms 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my
    thoughts:
 24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way
    everlasting.


P.S. This is not about invalidating *YOU* but invalidating *misperception.*

>I can buy those criticisms, and recognize that out of the context of the 
>magazine it presents a harsher edge than inside the magazine.  That's my
>error in judgment (and me a huge advocate about context).
    
    Well there you have it Mark.  Honestly, you say this and I am a bit
    confused as to why you go further to then invalidate the women's view
    of the article.
    

>You may ask, what's the difference?  Focus.  The focus of the article,
>(in or out of context) was not about women at all.  That it was made out
>to be a women-basher's article, as if by some guise, shows (at least to me)
>that many of us leap before we look.
    
    We looked in the context in which it was presented, NONE, it appeared
    as a dig against women to WAKE UP and SMELL the ROSES, it was
    offensive in its crude form.
    
>You can pick apart some of the items.  I might do the same.  But it only
>serves to draw away from the focus, either consciously or subconsciously.
    
    Well now that we know the focus, perhaps.
    

>I'll own the error for not easing us into the discussion in a less abrupt
>way.  However, it concerns me seriously that reflection and questioning
>did not precede response, and may be an indicator in itself.  Just so you 
>know that all women didn't react this way (but admittedly, my wife saw the
>article in context), my wife was as surprised as I was regarding the
>reaction to it.  She shocked me with a comment she made last night, which 
>I will not repeat here lest I inflame things more. 
    
    Well that doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.  So did she call us all
    disease minded women who have taken up the feminist agenda and
    compromised our Christianity??????  [I can't see Joy saying this, but
    you certainly leave the door open for misperceptions]
    
>I didn't have a problem with it as is.  Some other noters didn't either.
>They (and I) claim to have understood the context.  Some of you have and 
>reacted negatively to it.  That can't be changed.  But it can be examined.
    
    We've examined it... now what?  What are you expecting of us?  To say
    we're sorry, that err'ed and women do commit more crimes than men?
    That women are not only responsible for the fall of man in the
    beginning, but now women are responsible for the evil world in which we
    live?
    
    Perhaps this is not what you want?  Perhaps if we went back and
    examined your previous note about the failure of Christian men to know
    the proper way to *lead* their wives into subjection, we'd get
    somewhere.
    
    I contend that God did not take Adam's excuse of blaming it on the
    woman, but instead held Adam accountable and furthermore, accountable
    to the point of, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world
    and death by sin, for that all have sinned."
    
    If this truly is the focus of the article, to build men, then why
    continue harping on the way we receive the "introduction" of the
    article?
    
    I'm more than happy to challenge the article with the editor myself as
    a different issue.
    
    Nancy

.84  Nancy

>    We looked in the context in which it was presented, NONE, it appeared
>    as a dig against women to WAKE UP and SMELL the ROSES, it was
>    offensive in its crude form.

Wrong.  See .0 the context was a "male-basher's checklist."  

>    Well that doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.  So did she call us all
>    disease minded women who have taken up the feminist agenda and
>    compromised our Christianity??????  [I can't see Joy saying this, but
>    you certainly leave the door open for misperceptions]

She didn't, but I'm still not sure I even want to say, so I won't.
    
>    We've examined it... now what?  What are you expecting of us?  To say
>    we're sorry, that err'ed and women do commit more crimes than men?

The article doesn't say women commit more crimes than men.

I don't expect you to tell me anything.  You are not responsible to 
me for me to expect anything.

>    That women are not only responsible for the fall of man in the
>    beginning, but now women are responsible for the evil world in which we
>    live?

I don't know where you even get this.

>    If this truly is the focus of the article, to build men, then why
>    continue harping on the way we receive the "introduction" of the
>    article?

....to smash mispercpetions about men.

MM

	Mark, do ya think we'll ever agree again? heh heh......

>	Mark, do ya think we'll ever agree again? heh heh......

Maybe, but the odds are agin' it.  ;-)

>>I can buy those criticisms, and recognize that out of the context of the 
>>magazine it presents a harsher edge than inside the magazine.  That's my
>>error in judgment (and me a huge advocate about context).
>    
>    Well there you have it Mark.  Honestly, you say this and I am a bit
>    confused as to why you go further to then invalidate the women's view
>    of the article.

I forgot to answer this.  (Sorry.)

Harsher edge does not invalidate the article.  The error in judgment was
only on not easing it in with many words of short-circuiting language.

Also, what you propose as "the women's view" is *SOME* women's view.
It is apparent that both men and women view this article in different
lights.

I still take note that the focus is constantly shifted from "male-bashing"
(male focus) to "female-bashing" (female focus).  Does this imply that
"whenever you try to invalidate misperceptions of men you are 
engaged in female-bashing"?  That's what it seems to be here.

What's the outcry? That women are being treated unfairly by this article!?
See how the focus was pulled from it?  Perhaps not.

Mark

      Well, I have felt the perception 'out there' that males are
      pretty pathetic creatures.  That we just seem to screw so many
      things up.  Lets face it, that media perception is out there.
    
      Its refreshing in an odd sort of way to realize that women are
      as messed up as I am!
    
      Just goes to show you...we all need 100% of Jesus Christ.  We need
      ALL of His righteousness because we, men and women alike, have
      NONE!!
    
      Praise the Lord for making up for our complete lack of anything good!
    
                                                       Tony

    It still seems with every reply that you enter, Mark, that the women
    (and perhaps the men too) who took offense with the article are naive
    or stupid, over reacting, and/or just "don't get it".  We "get it", and we
    don't happen to like it.   Why is that such a problem.  We can all have
    our opinions---right??  
    
    And no, you did not use the words naive, etc.  Lets not get into name
    calling.  Its a perception I got (right or wrong) from your notes
    regarding those of us who did not like the article.
    
    
    dlh

    If I may, let me throw out a real-life example of what I perceive to be
    happening in this string.
    
    My mother-in-law is a family counselor focussing on parent/child
    problems.  When she first began counseling every case was unique and
    she approached it objectively.  Over time she saw a preponderance of
    abused and neglected children which began to taint her objectivity. 
    When this happened she superimposed the abuse/neglect she saw in the
    previous family on the next family coming into her office.  She reacted
    out of emotion rather than objectivity.  Eventually, she projected
    those same emotions on to ALL families and began to presume that all
    parents, to a greater or lesser degree, were abusive to their children. 
    Ultimately she became very bitter and had to quit her job.  None of the
    offenses had happened to her and none of them had happened in her home. 
    She had no objective basis for her assumption "All parents are
    abusive" but it discolored her perception of reality.  All parents are
    not abusive.  Most parents are not abusive.  But the data she was
    receiving was so strong and so emotionally charged that she could not
    (not "would not") see the truth.  She had to step way back and refocus.
    
    We can discuss "offended" until the Lord's return (pre-,post-, or
    mid-trib) but I, for one would like to see an objective discussion of
    the questions raised in the base note.
    
    Kent
    

Donna, 

>We "get it", and we don't happen to like it.   Why is that such a problem.

This is not a problem.  This is also not what I have seen.
What I have seen is "we get it but don't believe it."

>We can all have our opinions---right??  

Yes we can.  We can even embrace misperception if we want to, can't we?

With knowledge comes responsibility.  With opinion, there is no need for
responsibility.  When opinion is faced with reality, there is a responsibility;
a call for a respond.  Nothing is ever neutral, is it?  Or if it is, 
neutrality is only temporary.

I've made some of you madder than i care to think about.  I could have
backed off but I asked myself "from what?"  What are the objections
raised?  Why are they being raised?

Okay, we have some defensiveness caused by what was seen as female-bashing.
Pointing out the focus of the article didn't change that; it is still seen
as female bashing.  Reemphasizing that the article deals with misperceptions
that people have about men didn't change it; it is still seen as female
bashing.

On a different but strangely related tack:

I was listeing to some tapes and the speaked spoke of the works of grace in
the various persuasions of Christendom.  He talked about the Baptist and
similar persuasion with once-saved-always-saved mindset of coming to God
and that there is only onw work.  He talked about the Nazarene persuasion
that places an emphasis on Holiness and a second work of grace they (we)
call sanctification.  And he pointed to the some charismatic persuasions
that go one step further and emphasize a baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Then he said, but Biblical anthropologists have come over from europe 
(pulling this out of the gray cells, folks) instead speak of many 
works of grace, continually happening throughout the Christian walk.
not one, not two not three, but as many as the Spirit gives.  Each
time we are faced with something new that the Spirit deals with in
our life, we are faced with a work of grace because we can't do it on
our own.  Each instance requires a response of Yes or No to the Spirit.
You ask, does this mean when I say no that I'll be unsaved?  No!  But 
when the Spirit deals with you about something, when have you know Him to 
not return to the same thing?  We kind of hope He'll change His mind
about the thing he's been speaking to us about.

Who am I to bring this up?  Nobody.  But I did.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    I'm interested in the articles that were calling men to be leaders in
    their homes, how do they tie in with this article?

>    Mark,
>
>    I'm interested in the articles that were calling men to be leaders in
>    their homes, how do they tie in with this article?

I haven't read all the articles so I cannot comment completely, but I will
make some comment based on another article I read.  (Not necessarily "leaders
in their homes" but that was the likely thrust of the articles that pertained
to homes where fathers are present - I'll read up on those articles and
post some comment later this week.  The magazine theme was about men.
I posted the table of contents of feature articles.  I did not include 
some of the other articles that were not part of the theme.)

First, in this call to smash misperceptions about men, it is careful to
warn men not to supplant bigotry with bigotry.  Replacing one form of 
oppression with another form of oppression is just as wrong, and in my
mind, perhaps even moreso because of the hypocrisy involved.

One of the articles said that women's lighter side has been compared to
men's darker side and the results have been unsurpisingly alarming.
I'm recollecting (don't have the magazine with me today), but the article
referred to Newsweek or Time doing a story about violence and showed a 
woman on the cover (someone please verify - or I'll get the HH tomorrow)
even though statistically 84% of the victims (and likely perpetrators) of 
violence were men.  It isn't that men don't have a dark side: we do.
And it isn't that women don't have a light side: they do.  But men have
a light side and women have a dark side.  We haven't been comparing light 
with light and dark with dark in today's (American) society/Western culture.
We have been fed for a long time the male-bad/female-good propaganda that
we don't even realize it much of the time.  The fact is that the ratio
is a lot like male-good/female-good and male-bad/female-bad; people
have their sinister and their good sides.

You see, I believe this article was seen by some to say that women were bad.
I think this is where you were coming from.  I saw it as saying, whereas
the dark side of men is apparent in statistics, the perception is that 
men's dark side figures overwhelmingly in these areas.  Not so.  Why?
I believe it is because people are people, regardless of your hormones,
and genetic makeup.  And that means that bad people are bad people.
This article does say that SOME women are bad.  There is no denying that
and to do so is to deny human nature.  It ALSO says that SOME men are bad.
It attempts to show that while both men and women are bad in these areas
of study, what we thought was a primarily-male-bad/infrequently-female-bad
issue turned out to be fairly equal on the scale.

Yes, why not show some positive statistics.  I wonder what they would be?
For example, "men give more money for research against the Creeping Crud 
disease."  But even this shows that any comparison is going to show one
as greater than, lesser than, or equal to.  

So, again, back to the theme: misperceptions about men.  Not misperceptions
about people in general, or African Americans, of single parents, or whatever.

Way beyond leadership in the home, Nancy, and others, masculinity is confused
and undefined.  We get mixed signals from our female counterparts as to what
even they want to see in a man.  Some people have given it a name and call
it the feminization of males, whereby Johnny is taught to be docile, yet
the mixed signals come when mommy watches TV and gushes over the male hunk
who is committing acts of violence.  Don't make a quick judgment here, please.
Violence is not a male trait any less than it is a female trait.  I do *think*
that it is expressed differently in each gender.

Consider the signals the government sends about males and females.
Males between the ages of 18 and 24 are expendable.  We want to know
where all these males are so that in time of war, this group can be summoned
to go to war without choice.  Women fought for the choice to participate in
combat, but they have not fought for the requirement of women between 18 
and 24 to be available for combat.  Am I advocating it?  NO!  I'm just
highlighting one of the many subliminal signals we have in this country
alone about male and female.

TV more often than not shows males as buffoons (heads of household, usually)
and the female as the wise mainstay of the family.  I've seen this played
out in marriages in my own church.  It's a ha-ha when the husband is 
belittled.

  You know, I use to tell "Fat-ugly wife" jokes (a la Rodney Dangerfield).
  My wife is neighter fat, nor ugly, yet I was informed that some others 
  were taking offense for my wife (who took no offense from me).  I was
  asked by my Pastor to refrain from doing so.  I thought it was unnecessary,
  but I complied for their sake (I will eat no meat if it causes offense-type
  of attitude).  Since then, these "trivialities" can no longer hinder my
  relationship with some of these people.

  Now, if you say that the ha-ha of husband belittlement is only in good
  fun, then so are my fat, ugly wife jokes.  Somehow, the offense doesn't
  seem as severe when poking fun at the men.  Why?  Because it is accepted.
  
I am one of the last people to whine about taking offense.  I hope to have
a much thicker skin and enjoy a good poke at me from time to time!  Really!
So why do I take up such a cause?  Rather than poking at individual *friends*
we have this transferrence to all people.  Poking fun at my wife, who was
obviously neither fat, nor ugly, translated into poking fun at anyone's
wife who may be fat or ugly.  At that point, it loses its humor and then
begins the cycle of oppression.  The oppressed should be sympathetic and 
sensitized to oppression, even when it is the opporession of their [perceived]
oppressors (or be guilty of hypocrisy).

Is male bashing accepted in America?  (I'm not asking if you accept it and
perpetuate it, and would be most grateful is you did not.)  If it is 
accepted, and part of the article in question is to guage some of the
misperceptions some people have about males in general, then what have
we done to contribute to it?

I said that there is something wrong with the reaction and it includes me
because I've been tainted myself.  And this is very important: EVEN IF EVERY
SINGLE DATUM WAS INCORRECT, I am still accountable for my reaction to people,
to classes of people, and to individual people.

What is the model we should follow?  Jesus Christ is the best example of
masculinity I know.  And, curiously enough, He works for women, too.
Masculinity and femininity is MUCH LESS in the testosterone and estrogen
as it is in the attitude of the heart.  When that attitude is firmly rooted
in Christlikeness, the expression of masculine and feminine are icing on the
cake.

Jesus was not an anemic, weak, powerless, resistless person.  He knew
exactly when and where to yield - why? - for God's purpose to be fulfilled.
But he never backed off what was right.  He always used tact but never was
wishy-washy.  He made people angry at times, too, by what he said.  He sent
people away sad because they could not accept His words.  When we examine
what Jesus did, and said, and why he did the things he did and said the 
things he said, we can only then begin to get a true picture of what men
and women should be.  Yes, we live in a fallen world with people who have
distorted, perverted, oppressed, and mismanaged.  But this isn't all people,
nor all men, nor all women.  Jim Bakker was not all AG ministers (incidently,
why didn't Tammy ever come up on charges - weren't they co-founders of the
ministry?).  Anyway, we need to think about the models we find ourselves
in these days and ask ourselves whether it is God's model or has out culture
impacted us to the extent where we perpetuate misperceptions and sometimes
downright ungodly images of maleness.  (Femaleness, too, by the way.
But like I said, what is accepted these days by our culture?)

MM

More...

The following are two *instances* and do not reflect on all men, all women, 
or anything like that.  They *are* meant to point out a deficiency in our
society.

"The same year that Mike Tyson was convicted for date rape of an underage 
beauty contestant, a 45-year old woman, Pam Douer, admitted in court to
having a sexual relationship with a 12-year old boy who was under her care.
Tyson got six years; Douer got probation."  -HH

Instances, and we don't know all the circumstances, but on the face of things
it doesn't seem like equal treatment under the law.  Perhaps this was a
race issue more than a gender issue.  I don't know the race of Ms. Douer.
Is this a case of female-bashing?  I don't think so.  I think date rape
is a serious crime.  I also think having a sexual relationship with a
child is serious too.  In these two instances, we see male-bad/female-bad
cases, yet the punishments that society administers sends out odd signals.
(And it isn't just because of the fame of Mike Tyson.  I can pull out
faceless names and give similar results.)

"Some me have traded their own identity for the delicious feeling of
pleasing women.  Some join the battle against men and revel when the
ladies applaud.  _Psychology Today_ asked its female readers to vote on
the men the 'admired most.' The results: Jesus, Ghandi, and - are you ready
for this? - Alan Alda!  He spent a lot of time in the '70s and '80s telling
women's groups how awful men are.  It worked for him." -HH

Now, as a husband, I want to please my wife.  She wants to please me!
She hasn't lost her identity, and neither have I.  As has been rightly pointed
out, we shouldn't lift ourselves up at the expense of another.  And that's
why comparing male-bad/female-good or male-good/female-bad is wrong.  But
we can compare dark to dark and light to light and "think of ourselves
as we ought."  ("Do not think more highly of yourselves than you ought.")

I am glad to see Jesus top the list, but wonder what kind of Jesus the 
PT female readers know and understand?  To have seen so many different
ideas about who Jesus was and what He was like makes me wonder.

Jesus *is* the ultimate model.  How closely have we studied Him for the
model of manhood?  We study Him for spiritual guidance, why not manhood?
We study Him to know the way to salvation and eternal life; why not manhood?
(Personhood, for the PeeCee.)

I'll leave this note with a quote from another article, which I'll digest and
comment on later:

  "A man is not a human having a spiritual experience.  
   He is a spiritual being having a human experience."

Mark

�  "A man is not a human having a spiritual experience.  
�   He is a spiritual being having a human experience."

I like that one.  Puts the right emphasis.

						Andrew

>�  "A man is not a human having a spiritual experience.  
>�   He is a spiritual being having a human experience."
>
>I like that one.  Puts the right emphasis.

That quote came from the HH Article "What Men Need Most" by C. Neil Strait
("see kneel straight"  :-) ), superintendent of the Michigan District.
Here's more of his article.

He declares "the purpose of this article is to help bring God into the
masculine vacuum.  To offer hope of the gospel to those in search for 
meaning and relationship.  The one ingredient conspicuous by its absence
on the masculine smorgasborg is the hope of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

...

  "Sam Keen...writes: '...men misidentify themselves.  They act out the 
drama of their lives before the audience of their contemporaries rather
than before the all-knowing and merciful eye of God.  They get mired in
the limited perspective of their immediate desires rather than seek
harmony with the will of God.'"

  "Men need to find principles to live by.  Stephen R. Covey, in 
_First_Things_First_ states, 'The power of principles is that they're 
universal, timeless truths.  If we understand and live our lives based
on principles, we can quickly adapt; we can apply them anywhere.'"

  "The agenda of self and secula philosophies are too powerful for any male
to conquer alone.... Charlie Littlejohn wrote: '...Only as a man .surrenders.
his manhood completely to the Father through the Son can he ever hope to 
become truly a .man.'"

  "...Paul cautions: 'See to it that no one takes you captive through
hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and 
the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Colossians 2:8 NIV)."

More....

Mark

Continuing from "What Men Need Most" by C. Neil Strait...

"1.  Man needs spiritual direction.... Robert Stackel summarizes that 
'there is no aspect of our life, however big or small, that is not
related to the will and pleasure of our king [Lord].'

2. Jesus, as Lord, give authority to the plans, passions, and pursuits of 
life.  ... In their book _A_Man_and_His_Loves_, Ray and Anne Ortlund
express Lordship with this analogy:

  What happens to a man who loves God?  In times of tempation he hears
  God's love say to him, 'I won't let you.'  And the man believes that 
  and stands tall.
 
  The law condemns us because we break it.  God's love builds strength
  into us so that we won't break it.

...

3.  Jesus, as Lord, nurtures and teaches the heart, out of which the
principles of life are formed.

   Pat Morley observed that "we live under the tyranny of today's problems."
Jesus, as Lord, confronts the issue of life with light and truth, bringing
authority to the turbulence that would destroy us.
   ....
   _Newsweek_, writing about the Jesus of the Christian men's movement, 
pictures Him as:
  
    Not the androgynous Sunday school Jesus... No, this is the Jesus [who]
... trumps all the secular archetypes.  He's a mighty King and Warrior, a
    Leader of Men and their Savior, a Wild Man with redeeming purpose --
    and absolutely the best buddy a guy could ever have.

Men in quest for meaning need the Lord."

More to come, I am sure.  but this concludes snippets from 
"What Men Need Most."

Mark

Snippets from the HH article "Forgive Us Our Fathers" by Gene Van Note...

"Fathers are 'love, anger, rage, compassion, teacher, confusion, and
strength... emotionally powerful men,' says Robert Ackerman.  'In
fact,' he continues, 'the are the most emotionally powerful men in 
the lives [of their sons].  You can love your father, hate him, or be
somewhere in between.  You can move away, be abandoned, abused, or 
forgotten, but you can never get an "emotional divorce" from your
father.'"
.
.
.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a simple formula to repair the
fractured relationships we have with our earthly fathers?  But we don't.
... Here are some tools men have used to help them deal with their sorrow....

1.  Admit you have a problem

  This is where we all must begin, by admitting that it is our personal
  torment, not our fathers'.   ...

2. Decide to do something about your problem.

  Don't wait for your father to set you free.... There comes a point in
  adulthood when we can no longer blame others for the kind of person we
  choose to be.  Each of us holds the key tothe lock that binds us to the
  past.  With God's help, we can decide to turn the key and unlock a better
  future.

3.  Begin to build a positive thought life.

  ...We might begin by honestly evaluating the selectivity of our memories....
  If you are going to make peace with the past, you'll need to stop pulling
  stuff out of the [sorrow] bag.  It may help to plan a formal ceremony to
  'burn the bag.'... of angry thoughts.

4.  Be honest and realistic in your expectations.

  What do I want my father to do?  What can I reasonably expect him to do?
  What is he able to do?  What am I willing to do to make peace?

  Reconciliation is our goal, but it is not always possible.  My father
  may be dead or unknown.  My father may not wish to face the past.  If that's
  the case, that's his problem.  But I still have mine.

5.  Break the pattern with your family.

  'Children have never been very good at listening to their elders,' James
  Baldwin said, 'but they have never failed to imitate them.'  ...  That
  family tragedy can be interrupted with one man chooses to say "Enough is
  enough!  I will end this stupid cycle."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article reminds us that babies don't come with an instruction manual and
that fathers can do dumb things often (and evil things sometimes).  Forgiving
even when forgiveness isn't accepted is a key to freeing us from the tyranny
of the past, whether or not we can make peace with our fathers here on earth.

Mark

� ... Here are some tools men have used to help them deal with their sorrow....

A couple of these caught my eye,and I thought them worth a little extra 
comment :

� 1.  Admit you have a problem

This is key in many areas of life.  Admitting that there is a problem opens 
the way to finding a solution.  Denying that there is a problem refuses the 
possibility of any need for a solution!  Getting to the point of 
admitting our weakness can in itself be of immense healing value.

And admitting that there is a problem is the essential prerequisite for
looking for salvation! 

To deny that there is a problem is to suffer from pride, the worst of 
problems, and the devils downfall...



� 5.  Break the pattern with your family.

�  'Children have never been very good at listening to their elders,' James
�  Baldwin said, 'but they have never failed to imitate them.'  ...  That
�  family tragedy can be interrupted with one man chooses to say "Enough is
�  enough!  I will end this stupid cycle."
Sadly I have heard this said in a situation where there was no power to 
carry it out...  To say "'I will' do it in my own strength" is not enough. 
Many of these things take the LORD's strength and wisdom, teaching us His 
patience.  The behavioural patterns which most control our relationships 
are ones which stem from character weaknesses (or strengths), rather than 
those to which we hold more lightly.  They can grow in the protection of 
our hearts all unseen, until such time as external pressures put a strain 
on relationships, and our weaknesses are perceived as eyesores instead of 
endearments.

LORD, grant me the grace of this man I admire.  Help me to see in myself 
any danger of the weaknesses which I see in him, that I may quickly give 
them to Your purging....

							Andrew

Snippets from the HH article  _The New Christian Man_, by Steve Rabey

.
.
.
Promise Keepers is just a small part of a much larger Christian men's movement,
which is a response to the secular men's movement.  It is, in part, an attempt
to come to grips with the wrenching social changes and questions about gender
roles inspired by the women's movement of the '60s and '70s.

  The secular men's movement has its spokesmen, like...

  In the Christian counterpart, men seek definition of masculinity through a
new look at an old source: the Bible....

  ...Picking up steam, it is spreading the message that men must get serious
about their spiritual development and their roles as husbands, fathers, and
sons of God.

  Here's how Focus on the Family magazine described it:

  The Christian men's movement take several guises.  Some are "men-only"
  Bible studies, with time set aside at the end for prayer.  Others are
  less structured: guys eating out together, chatting over food, discussing
  their relationships with their families or the progress of their spiritual
  growth.

  Some men attend once-a-year retreats; other prefer a large-group setting
  at weekly breakfast meetings.  Another trend is three or four men meeting
  in an "accountability" group.
.
.
.

...Ted Haggard..."When there are no women and children present, the
men feel uninhibited and free to worship because they're not concerned
about having to be masculine.  Now, some of the best worship we have
is in our men's meetings."

...Howard Hendricks... "A man who is not in a group with other men is
an accident waiting to happen."

...Stu Weber... "Men just can't be assigned to a small group.  Men
don't assign well; they tend not to be joiners."
.
.
.
  Some leaders in the movement have emphasized a hierarchical view of
male-female relationships, a view that worries some Christians who
espouse a more egalitarian family model.
  Gary Gulbranson...is upbeat about the results of the men's movement. 
"Promise Keepers and the Christian men's movement are calling men back
to responsibility.  But let's just make sure they know what their
responsibility is."  Some men, Gulbranson says, interpret their
responsibility as going back to the home in a controlling manner. 
"The commitment to the family should look less like control and more
like research and development.  The husband's job is to draw out all
the giftedness that God has placed in the family."
...
-------

Mark

The following snippets are from _Promise_Keepers_Helped_ by David McDonald in
the Herald of Holiness.

. . .

"It was the fifth year for the [Promise Keepers] event, which started
with 72 men in 1990 by Bill McCartney, former coach of the University
of Colorado Buffaloes football team.  In half a decade, the movement
has exploded to 233,000 men meeting in six cities.  Attendence for the
summer 1995 conferences is projected at from 700,000 to 800,000.  It
could well be the makings of the greatest revival of this century --
starting with men in North America."

David tells his story of a marriage that required salvaging.  Promise
Keepers helped him among other things.  While I am happy for his
story, I was disappointed that Promise Keepers was not as prominently
discussed.  Perhaps that's my fault.  Perhaps Promise Keepers was the
necessary spark to ignite the fuse rather than the explosion itself.

People in this conference have been to Promise Keepers, an event for
men with a call towards godliness in their roles as men.

MM

The following snippets are from _The_Fine_art_of_Good_Fathering_ by 
Victor M. Parachin in the Herald of Holiness.

....
Here are ways to cultivate good fathering:

o Understand the importance of the father role.

...new research reveals that a positive and active involvement by a
father results in children who are better adjusted socially,
experience better sexual development, and undergo greater intellectual
growth.  "Everything we know shows that when men are involved with
their children, the children's IQ increases by the time they are six
or seven," says pediatrician Dr. T. Berry Brazelton.  He points out
that with the father's involvement, "the child is also more likely to
have a sense of humor, to develop a sort of inner excitement, to
believe in himself or herself, to be more motivated to learn."

On the other hand, a father's emotional distance can have a profound
negative impact.  Dr. Louise B. Silverstein of New York University
says, "Research clearly documents the direct correlation between
father absence and higher rates of aggressive behavior in sons,
sexually precocious behavior in daughters, and more rigid sex
stereotypes in children of both sexes."

...Scripture [says]...good father produce good children, and bad
fathering produces problem children.  For example, Ahaziah, one of
Israel's kings, is described as conducting an evil reign.  "He did
evil in the eyes of the Lord, because he walked in the ways of his
father." (1 Kings 22:52)  [Good example used, too.]

o Commit to being a major player

...Cultivating the fine art of good fathering means making a
commitment to be deeply and passionately involved in the lives of your
children.  ...
  Too many children have unhappy memories of little contact or
conversation with their fathers. ...

o Don't let materialism erode relationships

Although working hard in order to provide for family is important,
every father should avoid the seduction of material success, which
interferes and prevents strong bonds from being forged with children. 
Good fathers will take seriously the warning of Scripture: "The love
of money is the root of all kinds of evil.  Some people, eager for
money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many
griefs." (1 Timothy 6:10 NIV) ...Child psychologist Lee Salk,
"...Children can tell fairly young what their parents consider
important.  If they see everything comes ahead of them, there is
likely to be trouble ahead."  Wise fathers know that relationships,
not material things, bring satisfaction in life. ...

o Know your children

...Effective fathers know what really hurts and haunts their children
as well as what brings them joy and pleasure....They are aware of
various shade, colors, and hues in their children's personalities.
Ken R. Canfield, author of _The Seven Secrets of Effective Fathers_,
surveyed 4000 men...good father knew the following specifics about
their children:

  . when his child had a difficult day
  . when his child was upset about something
  . the names of his child's best friends
  . what encouraged his child the most
  . when he had hurt his child's feelings
  . his child's strengths and weaknesses
  . what motivated his child
  . when his child was embarrassed
  . most of his child's recent disappointing experiences

Effective fathers aggressively pursue knowledge about their children
for two very important reasons, notes Canfield.  "First, so that they
can help create the conditions under which this unique personality
[their child] can best blossom and prosper; and second, so that by
recognizing danger signals, they can alert themselves to situations
where their children need guidance and intervention."

o Parent by the three "Ls"

Good fathers _look_ [for healthy role models], _listen_ [to other
successful parents], and _learn_ [from them to become better and more
effective fathers].  

"Effective fathers know they need support and aren't afraid to ask for
it," says Paul Lewis, author of _The Five Key Habits of Smart Dads_. 
"They talk to other fathers, and perhaps choose one as a model or
mentor.... Effective fathers put fathering on their agendas and use
all the resources available to them."


o Be your child's hero.

"Parents are the pride of their children," declares the writer of
Proverbs 17:6, NIV.  Good fathers emerge as their child's hero.  That
happens when father consistently role model the virtues of integrity,
compassion, sacrifice, hard work, discipline, love, and faithfulness
in the discharge of duties.  Too many fathers have unwittingly allowed
someone else to become their child's hero. ...

In the final analysis, good fathering is an investment in the future.
...

      re: .103
    
      Good stuff Mark, thanks.
    
                                          Tony

Snippets from the HH article  _The Masculine Journey: �dam to Zaken_, by 
Mark Graham

. 
. 
. 

  Educational counselor, Robert Hicks in his book
  _The_Masculine_Journey_ said that each man's life is an eventful
  pilgrimage through six stages of life.  Hicks find the foundation
  for these stages in the Hebrew terms in the OT.

  �dam    - creational male
  zakar   - phallic male
  gibbor  - warrior
  enosh   - wounded male
  ish     - the mature man
  zaken   - sage

  ----
  �dam

  �dam, the generic term for humanity...is the only stage that Hicks
  believes applies to both sexes.

  God said, "Let us make man [�dam] in our image...And God created man
  [�dam] in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male
  and female he created them." (Gen. 1:26-27, NIV)

  �dam applies to humankind at its most basic level.  Hicks says it
  has four aspects: [summary follows]

  1. Man is created for relationship
  2. Man is created with dignity (In God's image)
  3. Man is created mortal.
  4. Man is fallen...is capable of becoming a monster.

  -----
  zakar

  ...Man is a sexual being...  Sexuality is not negative...  The
  problem arises when man becomes fixated on the phallic stage of
  development.  Sexual energy must be focused in appropriate channels;
  otherwise it becomes a destructive force.  (Sampson is used as an
  example of being led by libido.)

  ------
  gibbor

  [The Warrior] part of man's nature has been denigrated by society. 
  It is not a shameful thing for a man to be a warrior, for it is the
  gibbor within that pushes him to succeed in his home or business,
  that causes him to fight for the values and beliefs he holds dear.

  Hicks notes that God Himself is a warrior.  "There is non like Thee,
  O Lord; Thou art great, and great is Thy name in might (gibbor)." 
  (Jer. 10:6 NASB).  God shows his power as a warrior when He goes to
  battle for Israel throughout its history...

  But gibbor also has spiritual connotations....  Real warrior
  strength "lies in such things as repentance, resting in one's
  salvation, and in the quiet trust in God (Isa 20:15)."  The true
  warrior is aware of the source of his strength.

  David is the example of the ultimate warrior.  He prevails through
  the power of God and overcomes his enemies.  Yet he is not allowed
  to do that which he most wants to do - build God's temple.  Hicks
  notes that there is something about the person given to warring that
  disqualifies him for certain types of spiritual service.

  -----
  enosh

  "This word describes man in his weakness, in his frailty, and in his
  woundedness...the wounded warrior...the wounded male."  .... He is
  the man who has been damaged through any number of life experiences.

  Job is the epitome of the wounded male.  He loses everything -
  possessions, family, and health - everything except God.  Yet God is
  there to restore him.

  ...woundedness...is to be expected in a fallen world.  But
  woundedness does not mean checkmate.  Woundedness may be "the entry
  point for new wisdom and power; it may be the voice of God...."

  ------
  ish

  ...a work that simply means "of something."  Ish represents the
  mature male - a man who is known by his attributes, such as bravery
  (), kindness (), peacefulness (), and trustworthiness (). 
  [References omitted for brevity.]

  ...
  The ish man is not an island.  He is a man of relationships, a man
  who has learned from his wounding what is gold and what is brass.

  ...
  ----
  zaken

  ...wise sage... literally "gray-headed." ...  "The biblical image
  sees this man connected to all of life and making his finest and
  most important contribution to the community and culture.  He is the
  one who sits at the political, civic, and religious centers of the
  society making his most significant contribution."

  Not all men make it to the stage of zaken, but it represents God's
  ideal destination for us on our life journey.

  A man's stages, according to Hicks, generally correspond with
  chronological age, although the periods are not hard and fast.  One
  may find himself both wounded and a warrior.  Certainly, a man's sex
  drive may play a role in his life long after he has passed middle
  age.

  Regardless of the stage, faith in God is a key to finding
  fulfillment in the life of a man, according to Hicks.  "Each stop on
  the journey is different and consequently calls for a unique
  expression of faith.  But faith is faith.  We either trust Christ
  for what we are facing or we don't....At every point on the journey,
  I face some unique area that demands a new expression of faith."

    Thanks for posting .105 Mark.  I know somebody who needs to hear this
    right now (fellow brother in the Lord) and I'm going to print this off
    and give it to him.
    
    Karen

This month's Herald of Holiness is dedicated to Women!

In the interest of "equal time" I should read and post exerpts of
those articles.  In the interest of "my time" maybe I can get a copy
to someone who would do the work (because it was work to summarize
those articles).

I didn't read the issue, yet, but skimmed it for a Female-basher's list.
Didn't find one.  But please don't make assumptions until you check out
the magazine articles. 

If I can get a spare issue, does someone want to devote some time to
summarizing some articles?  :-)

Mark

	Somehow it is hard to picture the Herald & Holiness together...:-)

I see your point, but be assured that the Boston Herald and the 
Herald of Holiness have no relationship with each other.

Snippets from the HH article  _A renewed Vision for Marriage_, by J. Paul
Turner.

Subtitle:  Husbands!  Five things about your marriage you normally don't think
about during the day but could lose sleep over during the night.

. 
. 
. 

o It's a covenant, not a contract

    ...There is a different model of marriage that has crept into the
    church, built upon consumer economics - a shopper's mentality. 
    This model not only shops for computers and compact discs, but
    friends and mates.  The fidelity of the Christian marriage does
    not make sense to one whose marriage is based upon consumer
    culture.... "Why not think of contractual fidelity?" [Rhetorical
    question highlighting the concept of consumer culture.]

    Christian covenants are based on a promise.  They are indeed risky
    because they have no escape clause. ...

o It's headship, not headache

    (a) ...[A wife] wants to be loved by you realistically.   [...love
    as Christ loved the church and us, "while we were yet sinners."

    (b) [A wife] wants to be loved sacrificially.  ... It means giving
    up some of our own interests, time, and pleasure.  There is no
    substitute for the giving of ourselves in love to our wives....

    (c) [A wife] wants to be loved purposefully.  ...it is not enough
    for husbands to sing, "Take my wife and let her be consecrated
    Lord to Thee!"  You are the one who must love her with purpose - a
    shared life of spiritual discipleship. ...

o It's salt and light, not bushel.

    The late Francais Schaeffer described marriage as "a sacred
    mystery that, when honored, reveals something about the very
    character of God."  ... It's possible you will find your greatest
    ministry through your marriage.  ...

    The fact is, each marriage broadcasts some kind of message about
    our faith.  Either our faith works at home as well as at church or
    its an inadequate faith.

o It's commitment and skill, not chance.

    ...Husbands are trained to be accountants, salesmen, storekeepers,
    manager, and account executives.  Yet despite evidence to the
    contrary, many assume they can be good husbands and fathers
    without devoting much thought to it or developing the necessary
    skills....Christian husbands need to be willing to ask for help -
    something husbands have difficulty doing.

    This means we must be intentional about learning the necessary
    skills to manage issues and communicate responsibly. ... The
    applied information [from workshops and other mechanisms], thus
    behavior change, is available just for the asking.

o It's renewed vision, not lost art.

    Marriage is a renewed vision if we say and believe, "My marriage
    to you is permanently Christian.  It is more important to me than
    winning, losing, withdrawing, or feeling comfortable."  It's a
    lost art if we say and believe, "Whatever feels right, as long as
    nobody gets hurt, there's no reason for us not to do it."

    ...

    Marriage is renewed vision if we decide to be a
    leading-servant-learner in our marriage.

 Reply .112 moved to new topic 703.  Subesquent replies set hidden and will
 be deleted as they were replies to .112.





Jim