Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I agree with Marge about the financial independence and it feels
    good, although I have had to make several hard sacrifices to do
    so.
    
    However the emotional needs are a bit more difficult.  Currently
    I am trying not to get totally involved in one relationship, but
    rather have my needs met by different people at different times
    on all different levels. 
    
   I have found tho, that many men do not relate to me having more than
    one relationship.  It's either be with them and no one else, or
    not be with them.  I have chosen the latter in such cases and feel
    that it is their loss.
    
    This is not to say, that at sometime in the future, I will not ever
    have a 1-1 relationship including fidelity.  But at this point in
    my life, I want to share myself and my life with as many people
    as possible and become richer with each relationship.
    
    Women have always, and will always play a large part in my emotional
    stability.  Thank goodness I have never had to chose in these
    situations.
    
    
    I am not sure I answered your questions, Maggie - but it felt good
    to write what I did.  I am real interested in hearing from others
    about this.
    
    Angeline

    I agree that men can be insensitive at times.  However, after 40
    years on this earth, I am finally learning alot about myself.  And,
    lo and behold, I discovered that I can be just as insensitive to
    my special man's needs at times.
    
    I have chosen to have a special relationship with one man.  Neither
    of us wants marriage right now, nor to live together.  
    
    I find myself very frustrated with Ray when he either doesn't respond
    with sensitivity, or doesn't respond at all.  Fortunately, I have
    a wonderful female friend across the street and we share almost
    everything.  We are in the same situation (single parents with a
    special man).  However, I am able to talk with Ray about what I
    perceive as his insensitivity.  I have found that often he is not
    even aware of the hurt he has caused.  Also, I found that I am
    insensitive to his needs.  He really needs time alone, he really
    must focus on only one thing at a time so that he can do the best
    job (a perfectionist!!).  These are his needs.  They aren't wrong
    because they are him and I fell in love with him.  So I am just
    as insensitive when I ignore these needs.
    
    Thank heaven for my female friends and my kids.
    
    Ellen
    

    I have run across some very insensitive men one in particular here
    at DEC.  They frustrate me totally.  I am very fortunate to have
    found (after 7 years of being divorced) a very kind, loving and
    sensitive man whom I will be marrying on August 2.
    
    I agree that female friendships can provide a great deal of support
    and I have some wonderful friends who have shared a great deal with
    me throughout these last 7 trying years.  However, there is no
    substitute, in my mind for the relationship between man and woman.
    I think some woman, either because they don't want to admit that
    they need a man or for whatever the reason, fail to work at what
    it takes to meet and sustain a lasting relationship with a man.            
    
    If God had meant for us to be alone, He wouldn't have created two
    different sexes!  (As difficult as it can be sometimes)
    
    Donna
    
    

    I vote angeline for president!.....As Woody Allen, among others,
    has said....life is a series of relationships of varying lengths
    of time....take them as they come and enjoy them all as much as
    possible. Noone can ever promise to stay with anyone for ever. 
    People are changing and growing constantly...things you liked 5
    years ago may be things you've outgrown...what you like today you
    may outgrow in 2 years...things and/or people....be flexible.
    
    	I'm a single parent with 2 daughters...have been for 11 years..
    Since I split wit hthe other parent of my children I've had 3 great
    relationships with members of the opposite sex and a hundred nice/
    great relationships with people who became no more than good to
    very good friends.....sometimes I go places alone and some times
    I go with a date and sometimes I go with a friend or friends....
    I have few regrets and lots of nice memories....I'll probably
    continue on this hiway for a long time to come.....
    
    	just thinkink out loud.....
    

    Well, better late than never...
    
    RE:  .5  It was mentioned in this note that "...there is no
    substitute...for the relationship between man and woman.  I think
    some women, either because they don't want to admit that they need
    a man or for whatever reason, fail to work at what it takes to meet
    and sustain a lasting relationship with a man.  If God had meant
    for us to be alone, He wouldn't have created two different sexes!"
    
    Thinking along the lines of valuing differences (as well as people!),
    I would prefer to say that there is no substitute for the relationship
    between two loving people.  I believe most people would agree that
    having a partner to share your life with in a loving and caring
    way is something we all aspire to.  That relationship, however,
    cannot be judged by the sex of the partners--only by the quality
    of the relationship; is it a good relationship?  do the partners
    get their needs met?  etc.
    
    It is a misnomer to assume that all women need a man.  People need
    to feel special--that someone cares for them.  Men need to know
    that they are loved just as much as women do.  Both men and women
    need a partner in their lives to help them deal with the problems
    life throws our way.  But nothing says that partner needs to be
    a man or a woman or whether the partner even has to be a lover.
    
    I also feel certain that God does not want us to be alone...that
    is why there are many people on the earth and not just one.

    
>    I also feel certain that God does not want us to be alone...that
>    is why there are many people on the earth and not just one.

	I heartily agree!

Since this note has been revived, I'd like to add a few thoughts on the 
subject of separatism, in the interest of even more plurality.

All human beings require intimate relationships with other human beings. 
A human in complete isolation tends to be a very sad thing, generally.  
However, the need for intimacy exists in tension with the need for 
individuation, for a sense of one's personal identity apart from others. 
Men are generally raised to emphasize the quest for individuation at the 
expense of intimacy, and women are raised to value intimacy over the 
need to be separate.  Intimacy, when it is established from a strong 
personal identity, is deeply enriching and can complement and re-inforce 
one's own sense of self.  When that central core isn't well-defined, 
intimate relationships can overwhelm and swallow up a person's identity.

I think this is often the case for women.  Like a tree that ends up 
growing around a post or other obstruction, women often end up feeling 
that a relationship with a man is just part of their shape, and can't 
conceive of themselves otherwise.  Even if they haven't got one, from 
childhood they sort of reserve a blank "unfulfilled" spot in their life 
that belongs to The Man That Will Make Them Happy.  I think this 
imagined need for a Man is a combination the natural needs for love and
intimacy, physical affection, and sex. 

I would like to suggest that all three of these things can be separate, 
and the needs met by different individuals in a person's life.  I think 
it is quite wonderful if you can get all three from a single person.  
Even if you do, I still don't think that necessarily represents your 
life quota.  That is many women's expectation, I think, and it doesn't
give them room to grow apart from their main relationship.

That most women's main relationship is with a man introduces a 
significant social/political element into the most mundane of personal 
relationships.  Because the society at present is defined by and for men,
male values, and male experiences, a woman ends up building her life in 
a unconscious way around male-ness in every aspect of her life -- from 
doing the dishes for him to voting for politicians obsessed with nuclear
phallic symbols.  Because she loves her man, and see him as a human
being, she's often unwilling to engage in the harsh analysis of
patriarchy and male values. 

A little separatism is a good thing for women, I think.  It provides the 
space to experience herself as a distinct individual, and it's 
astonishing how one's vision clears when one steps outside the game.
I think it ought to be an alternative more available to women than it is 
-- medieval convents, for all their shortcomings, a good example of such 
an alternative in a society.  It may not be a lifetime choice, but I 
think there are times in most women's lives when it is needed.

Separatism doesn't necessarily involve man-hating.  I am the mother of a 
son and a daughter, and I do not wish to deny either of them their total 
humanity.  I have some very intimate male friends, and am unable to take 
a position that men should be nuked or stored in sperm banks.  If this 
were not a patriarchal society there might not be any need for Amazons,
nuns, or Lesbians.  [I use the latter term in it's original sense, to 
describe Sappho's island community, which offered women the only
opportunity for freedom that could have in a society where they weren't
even considered fully human.]  It IS a patriarchy, though, and that
gives urgency to the need for alternatives. 

As far as there being nothing like that old man-woman magic, ahem,
I'd like to submit that not all of us feel that kind of magic.  Sex is a 
powerful and delightful force, but to equate it only with men is a tad 
narrow-minded, no?

    RE) -1
    
    Hear!  Hear!
    
    Tamar

    re. .8
    
    Whenever I spend an extended period of time outside the system/society
    with on women around and then return to the system/society I feel
    as though my head is getting batter all the time.
    
    If, on the other hand, I spend little bits of time with mostly women,
    and few wonderful men, I just get a lot of "clicks" and a slight
    headache.
    
    BUT I do need the time away.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	Why women need the Goddess
    

    Yup, it is/would be nice to have a female refuge.  Have any of you
    read Suzannah Elgin's books, Native Toungue, and I forget the other
    one?  Reading about the female members of an extended and powerful
    family (in the future) creating a woman's language.  With this
    language, they could communicate and express the feelings and issues
    they thought most important.  The married women looked forward to
    the day when they could move in with the older women...  Sounded
    awfully tempting to me...
    
    Lee

    
    re: adem
    	if qod had meant for us to be alone HE wouldn't created 2 sexes.
    
    	you are assuming that there is a god.
    	you are assuming that god is male.

    	there is no real basis for you to make either of these assumptions.
	and, even if there is a god....and even if this god were "male"....
	why would that prove that "he" made 2 sexes so as to avoid loneliness?
	that doesn't make any sense...
	
    
    from 21-25 i was with "my wife" (i hate possessive terms)
    and from 25-27 i was with my first real lover (male? female? who
    cares...!)
    from 27-29 i was alone....poor me....poor poor me....
    
    I LOVED IT!
    not at first, of course, because of the brainwashing and conditioning
    that society instilled in me...
    	"you're noone unless somebody loves you"
    	"everybody needs somebody"
    
    ...it took awhile to get used to...but i eventually
    ended up enjoying that period of time and remember it quite fondly.
    
    from 29-31 (these are all approximate ranges) i was with my second
    lover....male?...female?....st bernard?....who cares!
    
    from 31-33 i was alone....
    again, i enjoyed it thoroughly!
    
    from 33--?? now...i've been with my 3'rd lover.....
    having a wonderful time, thank you....
    
    i may end up having 99 loving relationships in my life...
    or this could be my last, one way or the other...
    i couldn't care less.
    
    i've been very happy and feel quite confident that i can be happy
    with .....lovers, friends, family, alone....whatever...
    
    re: iannuzzo.....
    	excellent!
    	a wise person you are!!!!
    
    

> < Note 26.12 by SKYLIT::SAWYER "i'll take 2 myths and 3 traditions...to go.." >
>
>    from 27-29 i was alone....poor me....poor poor me....
>    
>    I LOVED IT!
>    not at first, of course, because of the brainwashing and conditioning
>    that society instilled in me...
>    	"you're noone unless somebody loves you"
>    	"everybody needs somebody"

	DON'T I KNOW IT!!!!  I was with the same person from ages 18-23 
[married 2 1/2 years].

	When we got divorced, I WAS MISERABLE!  Why?  Because I was 
'trained' to grow up, get a job, get married.

	When I finally learned to enjoy life for what it is, I found a new 
woman and she found me.  Kind of like "When the student is ready, the 
teacher will come".  Why?  Because I was comfortable with myself.  I 
couldn't expect anyone to love me if I hated myself for the situation I was 
in.
    
>    from 29-31 (these are all approximate ranges) i was with my second
>    lover....male?...female?....st bernard?....who cares!

	Watch it, you may get a call from Bob Guccione :-)

    As far as analyzing the necessity for contact with other women in
    a patriarchal society, I could never hope to top Catherine's wonderful
    explanation.
    
    But I feel a need to state the obvious --
    
    I don't want to cut myself off from roughly half the human race. If I
    were a few years younger, that half I never knew would have been the
    female half.  Now some people (not necessarily anybody here) want me to
    cut off the male half.  Neither makes sense to me.  We're all here,
    we're all sharing the same planet, and we have to learn how to really
    share it instead of bossing it around, before we destroy it. 
    
    --bonnie

RE: .8

"Sex is a powerful and delightful force, but to equate it only with men is a tad
narrow-minded, no?"

Last I knew, Sex involved women as well as men...

RE: .12

"if qod [sic] had meant for us to be alone HE wouldn't created 2 sexes.
    
    	you are assuming that there is a god.
    	you are assuming that god is male."

Not necessarily, the same statement could be just as validly expressed as:
        
If <favorite creation theory> had meant for us to be alone it wouldn't created 2
sexes. 

In other words, there has to be two sexes because there are two sexes... 

Now this can't be applied universally, since there are creatures that do not
have two distinct sexes.  Last I knew there were no sexed, two sexed, and double
sexed, and changable sex creatures; I haven't heard of creatures of more then
two sexes. 

But, the human race is a two sexed race, and I feel that it's a good bet that
both sexes are necessary in more or less the current forms; otherwise
evolutionary pressure would not have evolved two such sexes.

In short, the universe needs to be the way it is because it more or less
works the way it is.  That doesn't mean that it can't be improved, but it's
dammned hard to make *sure* that changes are unmixed improvements.

Jim. 

>But, the human race is a two sexed race, and I feel that it's a good bet that
>both sexes are necessary in more or less the current forms; otherwise
>evolutionary pressure would not have evolved two such sexes.

The two sexes are necessary for reproduction.  Reproduction and sex are
NOT the same thing, and to assume so is not only heterosexist, but
forms the "moral" basis that certain rather powerful churches use
to deny an over-populated world the right to contraception.

Reproduction also has nothing to do with whether one should be "alone"
or not, and whether "aloneness" can be measured in terms of whether
one has a lifetime reproductive partner or not.  The existence of two
sexes imposes no particular social requirement on anyone, any more than
the existence of galapagos turtles imposes a social requirement.

The argument that "everything is the way it is because it's supposed to
be that way" is the sort of thing that historically has been used to 
justify all kinds of exploitive social arrangements: slavery, medieval 
serfdom, marriage.  What nature has given us and what we've made of it 
are two very different things.

    Jim, there are creatures (tiny, simple ones) on this planet with
    as many as seven sexes.  It's probably just that two is the most
    complexity that "we" can handle consistantly.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    (Where "we" is macroscopic animals.)

Re. 15:
	One should of course bear in mind that the theory of
	evolution is just that - a theory. One could as well
	explain the known facts by positing some malignant
	deity who created two human sexes just to cause a
	lot of trouble. (Although personally I'm with the
	evolutionists).

Re. 18:
	I'm curious about seven sexed creatures. Any more info?
	Do all seven sexes have to be together to reproduce?

John.

    As Stephen Jay Gould has drummed into me and his other readers:
    Evolution is a fact.  Darwin's idea about natural selection as
    the/a cause of it is the theory.
    
    No, I don't know anything else about those critters.  Sorry.
    
    							Ann B.

    re tangent:
    
    I don't believe you. Where had you heard of these creatures?
    I think it is much the same source as the kitty-in-the-microwave
    story.(aka "urban legends")
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    I had hoped you would mention the species of fish that is normally
    female when there is at least one male in the school, but if he
    should die, then one of them will sex-change.
                                                                

    Well, I had to wait for my favorite microbe watcher to become
    available, but he knew what I was talking about.  The ciliads
    are one group with multiple sexes; their best known members are
    the paramecia.  (Yes, we are talking one-celled animals here.
    It is a rathole, you know.)  Now, at this level, "sex" is a very
    fuzzy concept, and biologists prefer the term "breeding strain".
    By either name, a paramecium of category <A> cannot conjugate with
    another paramecium of category <A>, but can with a paramecium of
    any (?) other category.
    
    The number I used (seven) was an old one, and is indeed wrong.
    There are as many as twelve.
    
    							Ann B.  :-)

    >I had hoped you would mention the species of fish that is normally
    >female when there is at least one male in the school, but if he
    >should die, then one of them will sex-change.
    
    Not quite.  The fish you are refering to is the anemone fish, several
    different varieties.  They're saltwater fish, common ones for salt
    hobbyists to keep.  You can see them in any well-stocked aquarium
    shop.  Although there is variation among the subspecies, they are
    for the most part red or orange with white stripe(s).  They are
    the ones that live in anemones (those seacritters that look kinda
    like plants with tendrils).  There is always one female.  If the
    female dies, the dominant male in the school undergoes sexual
    differentiation (I'm not sure of the explicit mechanism here, could
    find out if you're _really_ dying to know the gory details) and
    becomes the school's female.
    
    Rita
    

    Personally, I always liked the lesbian lizards (actually salamanders)
    who only needed one sex to reproduce, being stimulated to do so
    by one of her sisters.  What angers me when I think of them, is
    the male biologists who have decided there should be two sexes and
    are trying to create a male of the species.
    
                Carol

    The lesbian lizards are triploid and are able to produce half
    of their eggs with a full set of chromosomes - which will go
    on to produce normal diploid offspring. I think - tho I am not
    up on this - that they need to be fertilized by a male occasionally
    to keep up the line.
    
    In birds and moths and butterflies the sex chromosomes are reversed
    from what we consider the norm in mammals....in mammals the females
    are XX and the male is XY. The Y chromosome has almost *no* genes
    on it (one for ear bristles as I recall, and another for the presence
    or absence of a skin disease), so the male is determined by having
    one fewer chromosome than the female (which has led some more radical
    individuals to say that the male is a mutation :->). 
    
    But in the birds and moths and butterflies the male (perhaps because
    of the more elaborate coloring or different behavior patterns -
    who knows?) is XX and the female is XY, and if a female chicken
    has her single ovary and egg duct removed before she becomes mature..
    she will turn into a rooster.
    
    Nature to put it simply is *weird* and we can find odd things to
    support almost any point of view.
    
    Freud was apparently not aware of the fact that bisexuallity permeates
    most of the plant and animal kingdom - down to the lowest bacteria.
    Even the paramecia that Ann talked about still conjugate and produce
    new forms in pairs - they do not need all 7 or 12 to reproduce...
    in fact I do not recall any organism that needs more than one or
    two to reproduce....
    
    The basic dichotomy has been one resting and storing food, and one
    active, invading the other, without storing food and the exchange
    of genetic material between the two to produce new genetic varieties.
    As an evolutionary scheme, it is excellant. (Imagine the evolutionary
    selection pressures against any organism that need to have more
    than two types to produce an offspring - it would be worse than
    placental mammals vs the marsupials in Austrialia.)

    
    Finally it has been interesting to see the reaction to the broader
    understanding of human embryology. Until the 2nd or 3rd month all
    babies look the same with regard to the structure of the external
    genital organs ( and the internal organs start out in the same place
    up above the kidneys ). Then in the males the organs descend and
    the folds close over and become the male organ with the female organ
    incorporated at the tip.....the seam where the folds joined is of
    course visible in the male. It is not unreasonable to state that
    the female form is the base state and the male form is a variation
    on that. But to make value judgements on either is - to my mind
    anyway - pretty silly/
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    Re: .24
    
    It wouldn't have served Freud's purpose to consider cases from nature
    which conflicted with his goal.  For that matter, citing examples
    from nature doesn't provide much support for anyone's theses of
    What is Right for Humans, except to show that what is claimed to
    be natural may actually be more societally determined than natural.
    
    
    Re: .11
    
    I shouldn't do this, I'm always coming down hard on people who report
    on books that they haven't read.  I will anyway, of course.
    _Native_Tongue_ came up in a discussion elsewhere, and was criticized
    for being too cheap in its showing the successes of separatism and
    for having only feminine good guys.  Since I come close to worshipping
    the dramatic sensibilities of the person who was criticizing, and
    furthermore, for once, I didn't want to appear a total fool, I didn't
    say "Well, we get to read stories all the time that have only men
    as active agents"; bad art is no defense for other bad art.

    <== re .25
    
    I loved the book and the sequel.  Wanna borrow it? [If I don't get
    it back, you're dead meat, Lisa...].
    
    Lee