Conference turris::womannotes-v1

re: .0

As someone mentioned in a note recently, there's a lot of anger and strong
emotion expressed in this notesfile.  Generally, that's not directed at
anyone in particular, but at "them" who aren't treating people fairly.  If
you're not one of "them", then you're not being attacked.

  > ...
  > I use the masculine form when talking because that is the way the
  > American language was set up. Don't blame me.
No one's blaming you.  You might consider that just because the language
has always been a certain way doesn't make it right.  Languages are always
changing, and there's a (small) trend now to change the "default" pronoun.

  > I grew up during the Vietnam war and I did not see any ladies in 
  > the line at the draft board. 
Personally, I wouldn't deny equality to someone because she didn't want to
join a war.

  > A fact is that generally a man makes more than a woman. Again not my 
  > fault. I am out to make as much money as possible.
I don't think that anyone's blaming you for this, either, unless you're
responsible for an unjust situation.

  > A fact that it is awful confusing whether the woman you are with
  > wants her door open or not. And that varies whether they are at
  > work or not. Not my fault, yours.
It's no one's fault.  You just have to decide how you're going to deal with
it. If you want to open doors for women, do it; if you don't, then don't get
to the door first.  Some woman will always expect the opposite of what you
do, but then so will some men.

  > Some women have ruin it for you in work place. Example one dispacther
  > I knew that complained that men treated her as a sex object and not
  > as a professional. She wore skin tight sweaters that Ved to the naval
  > and skirts slitted up to her waist. They treated her as she dressed.
To some extent, that's valid.  On the other hand she's allowed to wear
whatever she wants to, and *nobody* has the right to treat her differently
for it.

  >I believe in equality for pay for jobs. But I don't see the women's 
  >equality groups fighting to stand in the draft line.
I'm a man who believes in equality, but I'm not standing in line there,
either!

  >Or state that a man has the same right to have a child during a
  >divorce.
I think that you're wrong on this one.

As humans  beings,  we  can be sensitive to the fact that "we" are stuck (at
times  I feel trapped) with the frailties of being human. Don't ask me to be
consistent  with  every other person - you'd kill me because I wouldn't be a
person  any  more,  I'd  be  a  drone.  Granted, when you were talking about
consistency,  you  probably  didn't mean it to get taken that far, but ... I
don't trust other people not to take it that far.

I open  doors  for  people.  I  like  to open them and I like for them to be
opened  for me (especially if my hands are full). I do tend to be prejudiced
about it -- I do it more for people I think will care (friends).

Just because  things  may have been set up in a skewed fashion does not mean
they can't be corrected.  

The money/draft  stuff  ----  I think we may be catching up on the money bit
(personally my gross pay is higher than my SO's, but his net is higher since
he  lives in an area with a lower cost of living). Things have changed since
the  Vietnam war. I don't see anyone lining up at the draft board. I wish no
one would ever have to. I know people are looking into getting women to have
to sign up, I really don't know.

People are  hard  to  understand.  Legislature  is  harder.  We also have to
educate people to see what is going wrong and why it should be changed. Some
of us also have to get out anger.  A lot of this involves communication.

I guess  what  I'm  trying to say is that in a way, we're all nuts and we'll
never totally agree or totally understand each other. In my opinion, we need
to teach "doors for everyone", not "no doors".

- Linda

        Everyone's different.  If you expect every woman to behave
        the same around you, of course you're going to be disappointed
        and confused.  Have you ever seen two men who were identical
        to each other in every way?  How can you expect women to
        act identically?
        
        If you're walking through a door and a woman's entering behind
        you... fine, hold the door for her.  But think: would you
        do the same for a man?  Why not?  Would you be insulted if
        the woman *ahead* of you held the door for *you*?
        
        Don't expect consistency from everyone else... be consistent
        yourself, but think about why you're doing it, and remember
        that every woman is an individual, just like you are.  If
        you hold a door for someone, just to be nice, and they're
        insulted, so what?  Maybe that person was in a bad mood over
        something else, maybe they took it the wrong way (you didn't
        give them any *reason* to take it the wrong way, I hope!)...
        what's the big deal?
        
        As for draft lines... well, for one thing, the women don't
        have much choice about that.  They're not allowed to, even
        if they wanted to.  And I can't say I blame most women much
        for not wanting to.  Surprize, surprize: most men don't want
        to, either.  The men just don't have any more choice about
        it than the women do.  If individuals could have chosen,
        back during the big wars (especially I and II, where voluntary
        enlistment was big), you'd likely have found a lot more women
        and a lot fewer men in the military.  But don't complain
        to the women.
        
        	/dave

>  > Some women have ruin it for you in work place. Example one dispacther
>  > I knew that complained that men treated her as a sex object and not
>  > as a professional. She wore skin tight sweaters that Ved to the naval
>  > and skirts slitted up to her waist. They treated her as she dressed.
>To some extent, that's valid.  On the other hand she's allowed to wear
>whatever she wants to, and *nobody* has the right to treat her differently
>for it.
        
        "To some extent, that's valid"?  Garbage! Nobody has any right
        to assume personality characteristics on the basis of dress...
        you can't project your own ideas on someone else like that.
        She's got a right to dress by her own ideas of "nicely".
        
        Her style of dress might not have been entirely appropriate
        for a place of business, but that's an entirely different
        issue!  :-)
        
        	/dave 

>    Women should be wives/mothers first and career-persons for enjoyment.
    
Some clarification please.  Is the above the "old-fashioned value" or is
it what you believe we should be?

Bugsy

(me in .1)
>>To some extent, that's valid...

(dave in .5)
> "To some extent, that's valid"?  Garbage! Nobody has any right ...

You're right.  Looking back at that response, I don't know quite what I
meant by it.

Re. Note 133.5 and others

>>  > Some women have ruin it for you in work place. Example one dispacther
>>  > I knew that complained that men treated her as a sex object and not
>>  > as a professional. She wore skin tight sweaters that Ved to the naval
>>  > and skirts slitted up to her waist. They treated her as she dressed.
>>To some extent, that's valid.  On the other hand she's allowed to wear
>>whatever she wants to, and *nobody* has the right to treat her differently
>>for it.
>        
>        "To some extent, that's valid"?  Garbage! Nobody has any right
>        to assume personality characteristics on the basis of dress...
>        you can't project your own ideas on someone else like that.
>        She's got a right to dress by her own ideas of "nicely".

	Of course she has. But if she goes around dressed to enphasise her
sexuallity to the extent that she looks more like an exhibit from some Soho 
stage show she can't expect men to be more aware of the fact that she is a 
woman than they are that she is a professional. To a large extent you 
project something of yourself by the way you dress. If a woman goes around 
dressed as described above then the message she is giving is that she is 
more intrested in stimulating the male mind (et al.) than anything else. 
That may not be true, but it is the impression that would be given.

Peter

    re .2
    >Women should be mothers/wives first and career-persons for enjoyment.
    
    I am not in a career for 'enjoyment'.  It's just that I'd like to
    be able to eat and have a place to live.  It's this attitude that
    has kept secretaries, nurses, teachers, and other women-dominated
    professins underpaid.  It's an attitude that should be *changed*.

    Even women who *are* wives and mothers 'first' have no guarantee that
    they'll be able to do that job and receive compensation for it forever.
    With a 50 percent divorce rate in this country, women who are mothers
    and do not work outside the home have about *zero* (well, 50%) security
    in that job.  With the probability that her husband may be laid
    off someday, it's even *lower* than 50%.  You can say that if she was
    ever divorced she could get a job, but she'd be making close to
    peanuts if she hadn't been in the work world for 5 years or more.

    Important that women have skills and *use* them? (other than the
    wife/mother skills that this country doesn't value.  Just look at
    what wives/children are awarded in the divorce court and the lack
    of enforcement of payments and you get the idea that this country
    doesn't value those skills.)  You bet it's important.  The reason?
    Survival!
    
    	-Ellen G

      
    
       What's this about women not being in the military... I've got
       news for you folks. I grew up during the Vietnam war and I was
       in the military...during the war. Let us not assume..
    
                                                            mt

     REF: .10
    
        Yes, as non-combatant and still are. Taking up jobs that combatant
     were able to rotate into. Not now because they are filled.

    re .11
    
    I think the ratio of non combatants to combantants in the modern
    army is 10 to 1 or higher. So any woman who is in the service
    frees a man to be a combatant. And should they be in a position
    that is over run by an enemy the non combatant women will have
    to defend themselves just as the men do on the lines.

    REF: .12
      Are you saying that there are 10 women to every man in the army?
      The term combatant is the same as male is the service. How many
      women were prisoners of war during any war?

    
    Re .13, you sound as if you wish women had to go to war and fight.
     I don't think anybody should have to go to war, man or woman, and
    I think I'd feel the same way even if I were a man.  In an ideal,
    non-sexist society we would blend the best of being a man with the
    best of being a woman, and hopefully nobody would have to fight.
    
    I think *you* sound angrier at *women* than any *woman* in this
    notesfile sounds about *men*.  Why?  Don't wanta give up the goodies
    to the women and minorities?  Well, no matter what happens you won't
    have to worry about getting pregnant or deal with PMS.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .13
    No Of Course I am not saying that there are 10 women to every man
    in the army. What I am saying is that for every solider in the field
    fighting there are at least 9 others in non combat positions backing
    him up, (and I think the number may be closer to 20 to 1).
    
    

REF: 133.14 
APEHUB::STHILAIRE 
    
>    Re .13, you sound as if you wish women had to go to war and fight.
>     I don't think anybody should have to go to war, man or woman, and
>    I think I'd feel the same way even if I were a man.  In an ideal,
>    non-sexist society we would blend the best of being a man with the
>    best of being a woman, and hopefully nobody would have to fight.
    
   I agree with you. I do not wish to see anyone have to fight again. But
   in dealing with reality we are constantly at war. Some more blatant
   than others. (i.e. Vietnam was not a war but a conflict). But the
   Women's groups tend to fight for more than equal rights if indeed
   they do not support total equality. (i.e. if a war was to come about
   women would be required to fight for their country)

>    I think *you* sound angrier at *women* than any *woman* in this
>    notesfile sounds about *men*.  Why?  Don't wanta give up the goodies
>    to the women and minorities?  Well, no matter what happens you won't
>    have to worry about getting pregnant or deal with PMS.
    
    I am not angry with women, I am not a generalist. Their are just as
    many radical men as there are women. I detest both! What I am seeing
    is though that some women assume that all men are non-equalist and 
    look down at women in the work place. One of the reasons I left my
    last job was because I was being considered for a promotion and my
    boss stated that we needed to hire a male to replace me after I had
    groomed a Female to take my position. Prior to me coming to the
    company and doing the hiring for my group, he would hire girls he
    was dating or picked up in the bar. These women felt they were 
    superior to the females that I hired because they had an in with
    the boss. To them looks, not performance, was what counted.

    So do I look like I hate women?

    One of the things that I understand is that there are women in the
    military who want to be able to have a combat position, but are
    unable to.  Granted, they are very few.  Another thing I understand is
    that the ERA, women's movement, etc. argue that anyone should be
    *allowed*, regardless of gender, to be able to have one of these
    positions.  It would not *require* anyone to do what they don't want
    to do, but would let them do what they *want* to do.  The women's
    movement does not want this type of job or any job to be *mandatory*
    for anyone, male or female.  Isn't that the idea behind having a
    volunteer military?
    
    Besides, not all men are fit for combat positions.  But neither are
    all women *unfit* for combat positions.
    
    Does this help explain things?

    	-Ellen

REF: 133.17 
ULTRA::GUGEL

>    Another thing I understand is
>    that the ERA, women's movement, etc. argue that anyone should be
>    *allowed*, regardless of gender, to be able to have one of these
>    positions.  It would not *require* anyone to do what they don't want
>    to do, but would let them do what they *want* to do.  The women's
>    movement does not want this type of job or any job to be *mandatory*
>    for anyone, male or female.  Isn't that the idea behind having a
>    volunteer military?
    
     You misunderstand our government and our military. The men in the
     service are not allowed to do anything! They are ordered to do
     something and if they don't depending on the situation it is either
     jail or death. The military is NOW in the volunteer stages, but if
     a war or conflict inflicted active drafting, you as an American
     citizen MALE would be required, not allowed, to enter the service.
     And if it is a volunteer force why can't you un-volunteer?

     Now let us think about it as if you were allowed to make that
     discision. If given the choice would you go over to another 
     country and fight for the American way. I seriously doubt it.
     Therefore the government calls it volunteer but what it really
     is is forced slave labor. Women think they have it so bad in the
     market place, take the time to look at your countries defensive
     force. When I left the military I almost tripled my salary for
     the same job, same benefits and got to see my family alot more.

     I volunteered, right, not to go into the army but the navy instead.
     My number was up to go to Vietnam and I beat the draft letter by 
     1 week. So complain about PMS, the side effects of the pill, and
     unfair bosses. But there others far worst off then you. In the
     job you can move on, I haven't heard of women dying from PMS, but
     you were not forced to dodge bullets. Or make that choice.

     It is funny the similarities between the black movement and the 
     women movement. But black men have fought for their country and
     women would probably fair alot better if they could share war
     stories. GOD help us not to have another war. I did not
     like it and many of my friends died. But rights are not to be
     given, but earned. Don't demand equality but earn it, show men
     that you are equal.

Given the chance, I'd rather have Garcia from ALIENS by my side in a
battle than Beetle Bailey....:*)

On a serious note, tho', I would have been willing to fight in a combat
position when I was young and foolish.... but they didn't want me!

And that's not MY fault.

Bugsy

    Oh yuk.  Until women kill and 'dodge bullets' they have no right
    to equality?  Is that what the previous note just said??
    
    We are so lucky because we don't have to fight in the wars men make?
    
    Something like 75% of all women who are killed are murdered by their
    men.  Husbands, boyfriends, fathers, sons, dates.  I'm being conservative
    in case someome takes me to task for accuracy.  I recall being
    astounded when I read the statistic.   Excluding old age, men die 
    mostly from sickness and accidents.  Women die mostly from sickness
    and men.
    
    We're dodging the bullets, my friend.  The worst kind.  The kind
    inflicted by an unseen enemy in an unfair fight.  At least in war
    your enemy is clearly marked and you are armed.  You guys are playing
    Stratego complete with "Christmas truces" and all sorts of little
    rules, regulations and prizes. Women don't get purple hearts for
    being raped.  Women don't get armed and trained against their enemy,
    and life goes on with nary a truce.  Any man, at ANY time could easily
    be her killer.
                  
    Men like playing king of the mountain and probably always will.  They
    have no natural enemies so they take turns being each others'.   I
    can't for the life of me imagine how they can convince you guys to 
    leave your homes, dress alike, and kill for little colored pieces of 
    metal!  I don't care HOW good the brass bands sound - it's death
    in disguise and men eat it up.
    
    So make no mistake, we know the same fear you know.  And men are
    the source of that fear for us and for each other.  And remember
    too that men serve in wars only a portion of their lives.  Women
    spend their entire lives among their 'enemy' and only the strong
    survive.

    
    Re .18, I do not understand why you force the issue of women
    traditionally not having to fight in wars and men traditionally
    having to fight in wars!  What does this have to do with single
    people, men or women, earning enough money to live??  What does
    this have to do with the fact that a male, high-school drop-out
    in this country can earn more money as a janitor or truck-driver,
    or working on roads, than I can as a secretary, with a high school
    diploma and a year of college?
    
    I consider myself a feminist.  I also consider myself a pacifist.
    These are my views as a human being, not as a woman.  I believe
    people should be treated fairly, therefore I consider myself a
    feminist.  I don't believe in violence as an answer to solve problems,
    and I don't believe I should have to kill and die so a handfull
    of old men in power can get a little more money and a little more
    power, therefore I consider myself a pacifist.
    
    A lot of women died in Vietnam.  Maybe not many of them were Americans,
    and the American women who did die were volunteers and nurses. 
    BUT, a lot of women died there (as in all wars).  Civilian women
    who were just trying to live their lives in the country they were
    born in - a lot of them killed BY Americans.  So, don't complain
    about men dying in wars!  Stop going to wars if you don't like them.
     Stay home next time.
    
    You say that women don't die of PMS - no, but a lot of women have
    died of childbirth.  It's only in relatively recent years that doctors
    even knew how to perform a C-Section without risk to the mother
    or baby.  The American West was littered with the graves of women
    who died in childbirth.
    
    I've always thought the worst thing about being a woman is the risk
    of pregnancy and the worst thing about being a man is the risk of
    war.  They can both kill you, but what does that have to do with
    equality.
    
    Lorna
    

REF: 133.20 
CSSE::CICCOLINI

>    Oh yuk.  Until women kill and 'dodge bullets' they have no right
>    to equality?  Is that what the previous note just said??
 
     No. I don't advocate dodging bullets. I just stated that many men
     would probably be more understanding if you had the same disadvantages
     as we.
   
>    We are so lucky because we don't have to fight in the wars men make?
    
     Majority of all wars are fought for religious reasons. And in our
     case the men are the ones who are indentured to do it.

>    Something like 75% of all women who are killed are murdered by their
>    men.  Husbands, boyfriends, fathers, sons, dates.  I'm being conservative
>    in case someome takes me to task for accuracy.  I recall being
>    astounded when I read the statistic.   Excluding old age, men die 
>    mostly from sickness and accidents.  Women die mostly from sickness
>    and men.
    
     Another interesting statistic states that 3 times as many women
     attempt suicide then men, but 3 times as many men succeed.
     When I was a child I was handed a gun, not a doll. Could this
     be why men are more violent? I played in high contact sports
     while women tried out for the PEP rally. Could this be why
     men are more violent? 

>    We're dodging the bullets, my friend.  The worst kind.  The kind
>    inflicted by an unseen enemy in an unfair fight.  At least in war
>    your enemy is clearly marked and you are armed.  You guys are playing
>    Stratego complete with "Christmas truces" and all sorts of little
>    rules, regulations and prizes. Women don't get purple hearts for
>    being raped.  Women don't get armed and trained against their enemy,
>    and life goes on with nary a truce.  Any man, at ANY time could easily
>    be her killer.

     What gave you the idea that war is a game? Those Stratego pieces were
     human lives! And you could not tell the enemy from the people you
     were trying to save. Or any women be my killer.

>    Men like playing king of the mountain and probably always will.  They
>    have no natural enemies so they take turns being each others'.   I
>    can't for the life of me imagine how they can convince you guys to 
>    leave your homes, dress alike, and kill for little colored pieces of 
>    metal!  I don't care HOW good the brass bands sound - it's death
>    in disguise and men eat it up.
    
     I think you have a misconception if you think that men like to be
     shot at. I did not see any of my friends volunteer. But I saw them
     die for this country. Why? I don't know, but as the saying goes
     - for mom, apple pie, and the girl next door -
     Men are basicly trained to be survivalist, which means look for
     weak points in an opponent. Shorter, weaker, and sensitive to
     some object is the easiest to find. This is a world for survival
     the quickest, the smartest, and the person who can manipulate will
     succeed. That is capitalism at its' finest.
     I may not agree with these methods, but I will survive!

>    So make no mistake, we know the same fear you know.  And men are
>    the source of that fear for us and for each other.  And remember
>    too that men serve in wars only a portion of their lives.  Women
>    spend their entire lives among their 'enemy' and only the strong
>    survive.

     I feel sorry for you if you feel that all men are your enemy, how
     will you ever gain there confidence if you treat them as such?
     How can you sleep at night with such paranoia?
     What great wrong has been perpetrated against you by all men, or
     single individual that makes you feel this way?

REF: 133.21
APEHUB::STHILAIRE 

    Let us address these issues one at at time.
    
>    Re .18, I do not understand why you force the issue of women
>    traditionally not having to fight in wars and men traditionally
>    having to fight in wars!  

     I brought that up as a minor point and we seemed to have taken
     a tangent.

>    What does this have to do with single
>    people, men or women, earning enough money to live??  What does
>    this have to do with the fact that a male, high-school drop-out
>    in this country can earn more money as a janitor or truck-driver,
>    or working on roads, than I can as a secretary, with a high school
>    diploma and a year of college?

     Why, because people calling themselves secretaries are a dime
     a dozen. The same is happening to the programming field. Out of
     those who call themself programmers and secretaries only about 10%
     are really what they say they are. Essentially the job market
     for both are saturated. The janitor and the road worker get
     paid high because they are doing a dirty job. The truck driver
     because he has to spend alot of time on the road and away from
     their family. By the way the truck driver doesn't get that much
     about $.22 a mile. My brother drove a truck for many years the
     highest he made was $24000 and spent alot of time on the road.
     If you want to make more money, a person has to have a skill that
     is needed and find a market that is not saturated.

 
>   I believe
>    people should be treated fairly, therefore I consider myself a
>    feminist. 

    Then I am A FEMINIST TOO. Because I believe in treating people
    fairly. And if I see that two people are doing the same job
    and the only difference between them is their sex and the woman
    is being paid less. You will be right in the line behind me to
    set that injustice right.
        
>    A lot of women died in Vietnam.  Maybe not many of them were Americans,
>    and the American women who did die were volunteers and nurses. 
>    BUT, a lot of women died there (as in all wars).  Civilian women
>    who were just trying to live their lives in the country they were
>    born in - a lot of them killed BY Americans.  So, don't complain
>    about men dying in wars!  Stop going to wars if you don't like them.
>    Stay home next time.
 
     Unfortunately, those are the problems with wars. It isn't army
     against army. By the way the majority (@90%) of the 
     intelligent people- doctors, government officials, school teachers 
     and such in vietnam were killed by our enemies. (tangent again)
   
>    You say that women don't die of PMS - no, but a lot of women have
>    died of childbirth.  It's only in relatively recent years that doctors
>    even knew how to perform a C-Section without risk to the mother
>    or baby.  The American West was littered with the graves of women
>    who died in childbirth.
 
     I am sorry that you are the only gender, chosen by (insert belief), 
     to carry on our race. The closest I could get was to be there
     during conception, delivery and hopefully not for his death.
     I would willing risk my life to bring life.

>    I've always thought the worst thing about being a woman is the risk
>    of pregnancy and the worst thing about being a man is the risk of
>    war.  They can both kill you, but what does that have to do with
>    equality.

     No, the worst is to be misunderstood.
    

    
    Re .23, well, if the "worst is to be misunderstood" then you and
    I have hit rock bottom because we clearly do not understand each
    other.
    
    By the way, how uncouth of the enemy in Vietnam to have killed
    "intelligent" people while (according to what you say) Americans
    were careful to kill only stupid people.  
    
    You say it isn't your fault that only women have to give birth?
     Well, no kidding, it isn't *my* fault that women haven't been going
    to war for generations.
    
    I believe that all workers should be paid a living wage.  Nobody
    deserves substandard living when they work for a major company 40
    hrs. a week no matter what they do.
    
    I don't subscribe to the survival of the fittest ethic.  I don't
    totally believe in capitalism either.  I believe we (the human race)
    are all in this world together and we should care about each other
    and help each other - not just look out for no. 1 - which is what
    you seem to be saying.
    
    Lorna
    

REF: 133.24 
APEHUB::STHILAIRE 
    
    
>    By the way, how uncouth of the enemy in Vietnam to have killed
>    "intelligent" people while (according to what you say) Americans
>    were careful to kill only stupid people.  

    You inferred, I did not imply. The communist killed the people
    they feared most. The intellectuals.
    
>    You say it isn't your fault that only women have to give birth?
>     Well, no kidding, it isn't *my* fault that women haven't been going
>    to war for generations.
 
    I did not say it was. Again you inferred.
   
>    I believe that all workers should be paid a living wage.  Nobody
>    deserves substandard living when they work for a major company 40
>    hrs. a week no matter what they do.

    What is substandard living? And why isn't that person bettering them-
    self in a field that is needed. Or are you stating that this person
    is being discriminated against because of her sex and not her job?
    If everybody's pay, that you mentioned, was increase, so would the
    level of substandard.
    
>    I don't subscribe to the survival of the fittest ethic.  I don't
>    totally believe in capitalism either.  I believe we (the human race)
>    are all in this world together and we should care about each other
>    and help each other - not just look out for no. 1 - which is what
>    you seem to be saying.
    
     Unfortunately, that is the way it is now and probably during my son's 
     lifetime. And if you don't look out for no. 1 then how can you look
     out for someone else.

>    Re .23, well, if the "worst is to be misunderstood" then you and
>    I have hit rock bottom because we clearly do not understand each
>    other.

     Does that mean you will give up trying to understand and shut
     off what I say?  To be able to care and help others doesn't
     one first have to have an open mind?
                         

    
    
    The topic of women/men and war was covered a few years ago by 
    Ellen Brownmiller in her book Men, Women and Rape "Against our
    Will."  If you haven't read it do so then comment on women not
    fighting in wars....
    
    _peggy
    

    REF: .26
        agreed, but tangents must converge.
    

    re .23
    
    >...many men would probably be more understanding if you had the
    >same disadvantages as we...
    
    So by your reasoning, women have to have the *same* disadvantages as
    you - not different and more numerous ones - disadvantages that will
    probably affect us all of our lives and not just for two years.
    
    And if it came right down to it, I, for one would trade those
    disadvantages.  *Until* women have equal rights there is no reason
    why we should have to be drafted for war.  If it were as simple a
    solution as that all women were eligible for the draft, and to have us
    magically have all the rights in return, then that would be a price
    I'd be willing to pay.  No more harassment, men and women equally
    paid, etc., etc.  In that case, fine.
    
    Also, let me point out that it was *men* who decided that you had
    to go to war.  Not a single woman was involved (to my knowledge)
    in that decision.  If women decided when we were to go to war, there
    would be a *lot* fewer wars!

    Also, I already notice *many* men who are very understanding about women
    and equality.  I do not understand why you are not as "enlightened".
    I certainly do not count "men" as the enemy.  Though *certain* men
    *certainly* are - former Dorchester district court Judge Paul King, for
    example.  So are certain women - Phyllis Schlafley, for example.

    >... the job market is saturated with secretaries which is why they
    >are not paid as much...
    
    Wrong!
    I notice that the "Help Wanted" signs have been hung up at every
    fast food restaurant for the past two years.  Obviously there is
    *not* currently a glut of people willing to work in fast food
    restaurants.  Neither do those jobs pay very well at all
    ($4-$4.50/hour).  By your reasoning, those jobs should be paying a
    lot more.

	-Ellen

    
    It seems that someone decided just what buttons to push and
    pushed them, and got attention. Ciccolini said it best when
    she mentioned that no medals go out for giving birth, being
    physically assulted...etc. Women have qualities that are
    more characteristic of what I'd like to see in humanity.
    They must compete, yet retain grace; They do all the thankless
    jobs in society, for which I heard no male even allude thanks.
    Men get the glorious and dubious task of going to war (not because
    were better but just because). I'll bet women would win more
    than their share of glory should they be permitted into combat.
    Just living a womans life must take a certain amount of heroism.
    As an aside, I gotta chuckle that he brings up all this 'but-men
    -gotta-fight-and-die-in-combat' bs only to admit that his service
    was in the Navy as an alternative to doing some honest combat
    on the ground. It would serve him right to a) get drafted and
    b) have a woman platoon sergeant.
    
    Bob Holt
    an Army V.V. 

    re .28:
    
    I am not taking sides in this argument, but I think you are making
    a generalization that you may not intend:
    
    > ...disadvantages that will probably affect us all of our lives 
    > and not just for two years.
    
    this may be true now, of the persons who have never seen combat,
    but what I understand of Vietnam Veterans, most have been permanantly
    affected. I don't think I have to list the affects.
    
    There is so much flaming going on here that reason has gone completely
    out to lunch. That does not help anyone, and only provides ammunition
    for the other. Both sides of this argument are playing pretty fast
    and loose with facts and assertions.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

REF: 133.28 
ULTRA::GUGEL 
    
    
>    So by your reasoning, women have to have the *same* disadvantages as
>    you - not different and more numerous ones - disadvantages that will
>    probably affect us all of our lives and not just for two years.

     What disadvantages have you run across?
     Let us discuss them.

>    I do not understand why you are not as "enlightened".
 
     Please enlighten me. I am willing to listen. 

>    Also, let me point out that it was *men* who decided that you had
>    to go to war.  Not a single woman was involved (to my knowledge)
>    in that decision.  If women decided when we were to go to war, there
>    would be a *lot* fewer wars!

     I agree and I have not said anything to imply such.
 

>    Wrong!
>    I notice that the "Help Wanted" signs have been hung up at every
>    fast food restaurant for the past two years.  Obviously there is
>    *not* currently a glut of people willing to work in fast food
>    restaurants.  Neither do those jobs pay very well at all
>    ($4-$4.50/hour).  By your reasoning, those jobs should be paying a
>    lot more.

     Why is that? And what reasoning I am supposed to be using?
     Funny, I remember not to long ago that waiters/waitresses, when
     there was a glut, was being paid $1.25/hr plus tips. Well below
     the minimum wage.

	I believe very strongly that women are equal with men but would
argue that equallity does not always mean "the same as". By which, I mean 
that men and women have different roles in life. Some are obvious, for 
example, women are the child bearers, others are more subtle and may be a 
result of conditioning. I don't intend to debate the whys and wherefores of 
that thorny question.

	The point I want to make is that *sometimes* when women (or any
other group) fight for equal rights they can lose more than they gain and
do no good for themselves or society as a whole. A classic example has 
happened in the area I live (Surrey, England). Since more women started 
going out to work there has been more money in the local economy. One of 
the results of this is that house prices have risen dramatically (about 
20%/year for the last 15 years). This in turn has put buying a house out of 
reach for most people who don't either already own one or who are buying on 
the basis of more than one income. This means that for many young couple 
trying to set up a new life and home together the fight for the womens 
right to work has actually *dimminished* their choices. Far from women 
gaining the right to work, for many they have lost the right to stay at 
home and raise a family if that is their choice. This is meaning that many 
couples are starting families later in life and in some cases not at all. 
Only time will show what results this has on society.

	No flames please. I am really not a woman hater but this does seem 
to me to be the way things are going. Please tell me why you think I'm
wrong (or right) but lets try for light rather than heat. 

Peter.

    ref: .29
    
        If you read the notes, it was only a minor point about the service.
        BTW have you ever heard of the UDT/SEALS? A nice passifist force
        in NAVY.

    re .31
    
    >What disadvantages have you run across?  Let's discuss them.
    
    If you've been reading this file at all you've run across plenty.
    
    Note #77 is a good start. (Sexism is alive and well and living
    at...) and there are over 60 examples in that note alone!
    Note #78 is about the problems that women have obtaining credit
    in their own names, especially if they are married.
    Note #87 addresses the issue of why girls are not encouraged to
    take math that will enable them to get into higher paying technical
    jobs.
    Note #81 talks about the problems of displaced homemakers.
    Note #66 talks about the problems women have travelling alone
    that men do not have.
    Notes #18 and #61 talks about sexist language that most Americans still
    use.
    Note #51, #75, and #102 discuss the problems of contraception that
    women have.
    Note #104 talks about the eating disorders that women have that
    are an effect of ourr "thinness-mania" society that puts a high
    premium on thin women.  That note also shows that men generally
    do not have these same disorders.
    Note #45 talks about pornography (how much more blatantly sexist
    can you get than this?)
    Notes #34 and #91 discuss how women's reproductive rights are still
    not guaranteed.
    Note #14 discusses how shamefully women have been traditionally treated
    by male therapists.
    Note #13 discusses the problems that women have finding good daycare,
    because, be things as they may, this is still mostly a women's
    (mother's) issue and not a parent's issue, as such.
    Note #30 is trying to answer the problems of sexist weddings.
    Note #86 recounts a woman's sexist harassment/experience with a
    policeman.
    Note #9 discusses the sexist institution of a woman taking her
    husband's name.

    I do not have the full up-to-date listing in front of me, but there
    is also a recent note on PMS and a note on battered women.
    So you see, we've been telling you all along.  Perhaps you might
    like to trade places for a lifetime and see.

    Also, concerning jobs and salaries : what you say would be true
    *if* jobs and pay were based solely on economics.  They aren't.
    They are also very *political* as well.  There is almost nothing
    in this world that is not at least a little bit political in some way.
    
    re your last note:
    I believe the word is spelled pacifist.

    	-Ellen

Well, it seems that we have a well-defined rat hole here....  Granted
it's a highly emotional topic, both sides have valid points (simply
because someone's 'opinion' is always valid, especially to that person)
and I doubt if we're going to achieve a meeting of the mind....

I don't want to close this out, as I don't like to restrict ANYONE's
expression of feelings and opinions....

So, can we make a deal here?  Can we all take a deep breath and relax
BEFORE we respond?  The 24-hour flame rule would probably be a good
idea.  No grinding axes on each other....

I think this could be a fairly informative exchange, if the emotions could
be tempered.  Alot of men are really flamed at the injustice that women
never have to fight in wars, and alot of women are equally flamed that
the very thing they're accused of ENJOYING is merely representative of
the oppression they've been fighting for centuries.

Feel free to express yourselves, just please don't be a firm and immovable
object about it.

Bugsy

    
    Re .25, you accuse me of not having an open mind.  I'll let the
    views you have stated in this notesfile and the views I have stated
    speak for themselves.  
    
    You say that if you can't look out for no. 1, how can you take care
    of other people.  I say that if you are that busy looking out for
    no. 1, then you won't have time to help other people.  Also, if
    your primary concern is bettering yourself then what if bettering
    yourself means stepping on others, is that okay in your book?
    
    As far as jobs, pay, etc., go.  It costs a certain amount of money
    to live in this state (country) - rent, car loans, utilities, lunch,
    gas money, clothes, some entertainment.  There are certain jobs
    - secretaries, waitresses, fast food workers, cashiers, - who do
    not get paid enough to have all of the above listed necessities
    of life.  I don't think this should be tolerated by the American
    public.  The answer is not for all of these people to better
    themselves.  There are only so many professionals needed.  We also
    need people to serve food, answer phones, clean bathrooms, run cash
    registers.  Pay these people enough to live in this society so that
    they can have pride, self-respect, and enjoy life.  Don't pay them
    as much engineers, lawyers, or cost center managers.  But, pay them
    what it takes to live in this country!  Is that so difficult for
    you to understand?  Even if I suddenly inherited a million dollars
    I would still feel this way.  It isn't just *me* I want to see get
    ahead!  It's the whole working class!  Can't you understand that?
     And, yes, women, *have* been victimized more by this than men.
     Men were traditionally paid more to support their families.  Now
    there are women who have families to support and they are still
    paid as though they had a man or a father to support them.
    
    If you want to know why women are angry at men and why women want
    equality, go to a bookstore, buy some books about women's history
    and read them - you might learn something!
    
    Lorna
    

REF 133.34 
ULTRA::GUGEL 
    
>    Note #77 is a good start. (Sexism is alive and well and living
>    at...) and there are over 60 examples in that note alone!

    The majority of the sexist comments made are instill by previous
    experience by those who made them. How many times has a salesperson
    call and got the wife who said "you will have to talk to my husband
    about that."
    Also look at the percentage of men and women to the total men and
    women working. Let us take a rough guess at about 90% of the men
    and 50% of the women. (work being defined as out side of the home)
    So when people deal with other people it is an automatic conditioned
    response that the man is the financial bearer when dealing when salespeople.
    Unfortunately, most forms only allow one name on the top.

    Now let us look at the percentage of income comparision in a relationship,
    I think that it has to be admitted that percentage wise, that the man
    makes more than the woman. And financial institutions go for money
    not sex. In the case of the car loan and the persons name being
    left off with GMAC, that is an error on their part, but I will
    guarrantee that if they defaulted on that loan she would have been
    held just as libel.
    The man and the pavement routine, how many times had he dealt with a
    woman in this issue, again how many times had he dealt with a woman
    who stated you will have to talk to my husband?

>    Note #78 is about the problems that women have obtaining credit
>    in their own names, especially if they are married.

    None. My wife has her own credit cards. But we pay the bills, it is
    none of this hers and mine, it is ours. But I will not be able to
    use her cards as a reference when I buy anything.

>    Note #87 addresses the issue of why girls are not encouraged to
>    take math that will enable them to get into higher paying technical
>    jobs.
 
    And I find that the most of the people that supports that archaic
    attitude are the individual parents of the child. Saying  "My son is going
    to be a doctor or lawyer.". "My daughter is going to be a nurse".
    Mom saying "go to college and find a man."

>    Note #81 talks about the problems of displaced homemakers.

    I find that most woman who have been caught up in this situation
    have relied on a man to much. I need nothing from my wife, I can
    do for myself, cook, clean,etc... We are together because we want
    to. I have taught her to independent, I feel she needs to be. I
    may die tomorrow and she will not have any problems with credit
    or how to handle problems that arise. Yes, I said I taught her,
    her parents brought her up to be dependent on a man. We married
    when we were 19 and are still together after 14 yrs. 

>    Note #66 talks about the problems women have travelling alone
>    that men do not have.

    Victims come from all walks of life. Many of which because a person
    was at the wrong place, at the time, and the wrong attitude. 
    From reading that note it appears that there were not that many
    problems, because the people involved had the right attitude
    and stayed away from the wrong areas.

>    Notes #18 and #61 talks about sexist language that most Americans still
>    use.

    I would be the first to use a generic gender noun if one was provided.
    Most people try to work within the framework, causing problems by
    which way is the correct way, so you don't insult someone. The
    words - he, mankind, etc... are generic according to the way I was taught
    by my english teachers, BTW the majority of which were female.
    I wonder if we takes things to far, why are you not upset with the
    words feMALE, woMAN,etc... which are male based with add ons. I 
    wonder how much time is wasted trying to make things equal within
    our language? 

>    Note #51, #75, and #102 discuss the problems of contraception that
>    women have.

    I don't know what these have to do with equality these are conditions
    brought on by your gender. Such as colon cancer in men.

>    Note #104 talks about the eating disorders that women have that
>    are an effect of ourr "thinness-mania" society that puts a high
>    premium on thin women.  That note also shows that men generally
>    do not have these same disorders.

    Most of this hype is in the advertising industry. With a woman as
    the focus. Why do things sell better to both male and female if
    there is a semi-nude thin woman on the screen?

>    Note #45 talks about pornography (how much more blatantly sexist
>    can you get than this?)

    The majority of the women in those pictures are there on the own
    free will. Being paid quite well (penthouse playmate of the year
    gets alot of money and a Pantera if I remember correctly) to do
    those things. Your argument is with them not me.

>    Notes #34 and #91 discuss how women's reproductive rights are still
>    not guaranteed.

    Very hot issue but again it is just as much a battle between women
    as it men, therefore not an equality issue.

>    Note #14 discusses how shamefully women have been traditionally treated
>    by male therapists.

    What? Are there no woman therapist?

>    Note #13 discusses the problems that women have finding good daycare,
>    because, be things as they may, this is still mostly a women's
>    (mother's) issue and not a parent's issue, as such.

    Unfortunately due to the rash amount of lawsuits, insurance rates
    have chased everybody out of day care. I can not at this time
    see the company do such. Because all you need is some greedy
    person who thinks they can get money by screaming "my child
    was sexually abuse at day care." we have a problem.

>    Note #30 is trying to answer the problems of sexist weddings.

    I was forced to go to a sexist wedding, mine. My wife demanded
    a traditional wedding. I wanted a judge, how non-sexist can I get?

>    Note #86 recounts a woman's sexist harassment/experience with a
>    policeman.

    How many times has a policeman been told "I will do anything not
    to get a ticket." Unfortunately some have taken them up on it.

>    Note #9 discusses the sexist institution of a woman taking her
>    husband's name.

     Agian it is a issue of woman against woman against man against parents
     against friends. Not necessarily an equality issue. BTW heavy on the
     parents. My wife choose to take my name, it did not matter to me. She
     is still the same person I fell in love with.

REF: 133.36 
APEHUB::STHILAIRE  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
>    Re .25, you accuse me of not having an open mind.  I'll let the
>    views you have stated in this notesfile and the views I have stated
>    speak for themselves.  
    
    Agian you have inferred, I just ask a question whether you had or not.

>    You say that if you can't look out for no. 1, how can you take care
>    of other people.  I say that if you are that busy looking out for
>    no. 1, then you won't have time to help other people.  Also, if
>    your primary concern is bettering yourself then what if bettering
>    yourself means stepping on others, is that okay in your book?
    
    You don't know me very well. This tube doesn't allow much facial
    and body language communications. I don't only look out for no. 1,
    in fact I try to better those around me, regardless of gender.


>    As far as jobs, pay, etc., go. ....
>    ... and read them - you might learn something!
    
   I believe that Jesus once stated that there will always be poor.
   Welfare addresses some of these issues, but that is another issue.
   Let's see if I can explain it this way. The USA has one of the
   highest standards of living in the world, why? We have things
   that others don't, so we sell. If you were to increase everybodies
   salary by let's say $20,000 a year for every one who makes less
   then $20000 a year. What would happen to the cost of living?
   Of course, every thing would increase in price. If I remember correctly
   there is a note in this file from England stating a opinion about
   the cost of houses. This is a good example. It would be nice to
   be in an ideal world, but unforunately we are not. How would
   you suggest that we raise that standard of living for all without
   lowering it someplace else? And why do you think that women are
   singled out as the fall person? Do you think that if I was a 
   secretary tomorrow that I would be paid more than you?
                                             
    

    I will not enter into this discussion, because I am hoping that
    DDMAIL::MORICK is just playing the devil's advocate, if he isn't,
    well, God help him.  (I hope she will)
    
    As for the last line of your most recent reply, (.38), there are
    men secretaries, the Globe ran an article on them last summer and
    guess what - on an average they made MORE than female secreataries
    make!  Just the facts,
    
    

    Clearly this person is not worth our time or effort.  I suggest that
    from here on, we ignore this woman-hater.
    
    You have a nice day too, Bruce Morick.
    
    	-Ellen

    
    Re .38, I would not suggest raising everybody's salary by $20,000.
    a year.  I would suggest raising every secretary's by $5,000. a
    year and taking that $5K off their bosses.  That $5K would make
    a big difference to me and probably not much to him (really).  I
    mean it wouldn't lower his standard of living that much.
    
    Alice Walker said in a poem, "Jesus should never have said the poor
    we shall have with us always, It makes it harder than ever to change."
    
    This is not a religion file, but I am concerned with the living
    conditions of the people alive in the world today.  Telling me the
    opinion of a man who may or may not have existed means nothing to
    me.
    
    Lorna
    

    
     REF: .39
    
>      (I hope see will)
       A bit sexist isn't it.
    
    
       I would like some more facts. Such as percentage of male to female
       in this field. And what is the percentage of these men work for
       women. 
    
       I think this facts could be quite interesting.

     REF: .41 That is a good start as far as you are concerned but
     how about all the other people who are under paid?

    
    Re .42, I didn't know you cared!
    
    

    REF: .44
    
       You would be surprised about the things I care about. Like giving
       up a promotion and finally being forced out of a job because
       I was a trouble maker. The trouble I made was the inequality
       of treatment for the people that worked for me. I rocked the
       boat and GM/EDS did not like it. My boss, prior to the promotion,
       stated we HAD to hire A man to take my job. This upset me
       considerably because I had already groomed another person to
       take my position. Yes a woman, divorced with child, and not
       because she was a woman, but because she deserved the position.
       One woman who worked for me, hired prior to me, was being
       severely underpaid. I fought for her to get her paid raised
       from 12,500 to 28,500. In fact I got my management to promise
       to give a 12% raise ever three months for 5 quarters. Well she
       got the first one but the second one didn't come. After some
       more lies from them, I help her find a job for $29,000 outside of the
       company.            
    
    

     RE: DDMAIL::MORICK .18

   > It is funny the similarities between the black movement and the 
   > women movement. But black men have fought for their country and
   > women would probably fair alot better if they could share war
   > stories.....
   >                                   .....But rights are not to be
   > given, but earned. Don't demand equality but earn it, show men
   > that you are equal.

    
             As a self-proclaimed WASP male, you were *BORN* with
         your rights!!  You didn't do a blessed thing to earn them
         except to grow white skin and a penis.
    
             You must certainly feel that you are inherently better
         than blacks and females (et al) if you ask us to *EARN* the
         rights that this country *GAVE* you at birth (for merely
         being fortunate enough to have the correct skin color and
         sexual organs.)
    
             Your attitudes are unfortunate.  No matter how many women
         you try to promote (or whatever), you will never have attitudes
         other than decidedly "sexist" until the day you can look at
         me (or any other woman) and see an *INDIVIDUAL PERSON* who
         *DESERVED* to receive the same rights *you* received when
         *you* were born.  
    
             I know you have a son (I don't know if you have any
         daughters.)  If you *do* have any daughters, I'd like to see
         you sit down and explain to all your children *exactly why*
         you think it's fair that your son was born with rights that
         your daughter will have to earn.  
    
             No flames here at all.  It's not worth it....
    
                                                        Suzanne...

RE: < Note 133.41 >
    
>I would suggest raising every secretary's by $5,000. a
>year and taking that $5K off their bosses.  That $5K would make
>a big difference to me and probably not much to HER (really).  I
>mean it wouldn't lower HER standard of living that much.

    A non-scientific poll of 2 female managers who were once secretaries
    found *ZERO* support for this concept.  Both suggested that they
    deserve and expect more themselves, and anyone who wants their salary 
    should be prepared to do their job.  A even more non-scientific
    poll of 1 secretary who used to be a manager yielded essentially
    the same result.
    

    re. .47
    
    I've been a secretary for ten years and I have to agree that raising
    secretaries salaries across the board won't solve any pay inequities.
    
    The *real* reason secretaries are underpaid is that there are too
    many people doing jobs called "secretary" who are clerks,
    receptionists, paper pushers, etc.  I'm a professional with very
    valuable skills, and I'm underpaid because my profession has a very
    fragmented range of acceptable skill levels and abilities.
    
    Theoretically, calling secretaries at DEC Senior, Admin, Executive,
    puts some kind of measurement of skill level, but it has more, I
    think to do with senority that anything else.  
    
    If secretaries were paid what they are worth, I'd be making about
    $30,000 a year, and the other secretary in my cost center would
    make about $15,000 (we're at the same level, so make pretty much
    the same money).
    
    Believe me, Lorna, complaining about inequality in pay as a secretary
    will get you nowhere.  Unless you have a commitment to the profession
    and are willing to accept that fact that you will be paid under
    $30,000 a year over your career (like most nurses, teachers, etc).
    you should explore a career change.  I'd rather be paid more, too,
    and I'm worth more, but I do what I do because being a secretary
    fits my life.
    
    I do agree that there is a sexist bias that affects secretaries
    and contributes to pay inequalities, but it's not the whole problem.
    
    Gloria
    

Note 133.46 
NEXUS::CONLON 
    
>             As a self-proclaimed WASP male, you were *BORN* with
>         your rights!!  You didn't do a blessed thing to earn them
>         except to grow white skin and a penis.

          And you were born with the same rights. I was stating that
          nothing was handed to me on a silver platter just because
          I had a penus. I have worked for every thing I have. It may
          interest some of you to know that for the better part of
          10 years I got tax refunds because I earned below poverty
          level while getting the training I needed (OJT) to be 
          where I am today. I was not GIVEN this job, I earned and
          will continue to have to earn it.
    
 >            You must certainly feel that you are inherently better
 >        than blacks and females (et al) if you ask us to *EARN* the
 >        rights that this country *GAVE* you at birth (for merely
 >        being fortunate enough to have the correct skin color and
 >        sexual organs.)
    
          It is unfortunate when a person asks the question why do you
          feel a certain way and explain so I can better understand
          and make statements that could explain some of it (not
          necessarily my own) to invoke some rethinking of the issues. 
          That the person is immediately labeled "anti-cause". There
          are certainly injustices against women and most of them have
          been induced into us by our parents and theirs, ON BOTH SIDES.
          Alot of them have changed in the last ten years. And things
          that have been instilled in both sexes for 1000's of years
          can not be changed over night. I wish they could. But becoming
          radical about it would help, but only hurt matters.

>             Your attitudes are unfortunate.  No matter how many women
>         you try to promote (or whatever), you will never have attitudes
>         other than decidedly "sexist" until the day you can look at
>         me (or any other woman) and see an *INDIVIDUAL PERSON* who
>         *DESERVED* to receive the same rights *you* received when
>         *you* were born.  
    
          It is obvious that you read my previous note, but did you
          read the part where I said she earned it and she was not
          being considered because she was a woman by me. I fought
          for her because she deserved it and ruined my chances with
          the company, because I went against 3 levels of management
          to make my point. BTW no one has taken my place yet because
          I think I made my point but they have not come around to
          accepting it yet. But there isn't a man there because he
          is a man.

>             I know you have a son (I don't know if you have any
>         daughters.)  If you *do* have any daughters, I'd like to see
>         you sit down and explain to all your children *exactly why*
>         you think it's fair that your son was born with rights that
>         your daughter will have to earn.  
    

          I have only a single child. And if I had a daughter I would
          sit her down and tell her that she will have to fight for
          what she wants, just like a man would. And that I would be there 
          to support her in any way. And if she feels she is being
          discriminated against solely on her sex, then to fight, not
          run because things will not change if they get away with it.
          In some cases she probably will not accomplish things to her liking
          but the next time that person or group discriminates, they will
          think twice about it.

          No flames here at all, either.  


                            

        RE: .49
    
             After reading your reply to my note, it's obvious
          that we are not talking about the same things here.
    
             As far as "earning" our way -- how would you feel
          if you were suddenly thrust into the Twilight Zone
          (as a woman doing your same job with the same effort
          as you've put in -- and you discovered that as a woman
          you were making $10,000 LESS for the identical perfor-
          mance that you have now.)  Then how would you feel if
          someone came along and said to you, "Boy, you women!
          You're always ready to yell discrimination when you
          don't get what you want.  Why is that you didn't go
          die in a war?  If you want to be equal, PROVE it
          FIRST!!!"  Would it make you angry that your sexual
          organs should dictate your pay?
    
             My MAJOR objection to what you've been saying is
          that you started out (right in the basenote) saying 
          that "we" blamed "you" for sexism -- at one point, you
          said "Not my fault, yours."
    
             Exactly who are you talking to here?  I personally
          don't see all men as one (if I did, I would consider all
          of "you" mass-murderers because Ted Bundy and Charles
          Manson are males.)  I see you as an INDIVIDUAL and only
          responsible for what you do as an INDIVIDUAL.
    
              All I'm asking is that you do the same.  Don't blame
          *ME* for your confusion about opening doors.  Don't tell
          *ME* that other women "ruin it for me" -- cuz I'm not
          responsible for what anyone else does (male *OR* female.)
    
              Just see me as me.  
    
                                                       Suzanne...

    
    Re .46, Suzanne, that was a great reply.  I wish I had thought of
    it.  (I especially liked the part about the white skin and penis.)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .32:
    
    I thought about your concerns for a while before answering.

>    	The point I want to make is that *sometimes* when women (or any
>other group) fight for equal rights they can lose more than they gain and
>do no good for themselves or society as a whole. A classic example has 
>happened in the area I live (Surrey, England). Since more women started 
>going out to work there has been more money in the local economy. One of 
>the results of this is that house prices have risen dramatically (about 
>20%/year for the last 15 years). This in turn has put buying a house out of 
>reach for most people who don't either already own one or who are buying on 
>the basis of more than one income. This means that for many young couple 
>trying to set up a new life and home together the fight for the womens 
>right to work has actually *dimminished* their choices. Far from women 
>gaining the right to work, for many they have lost the right to stay at 
>home and raise a family if that is their choice. This is meaning that many 
>couples are starting families later in life and in some cases not at all. 
>Only time will show what results this has on society.

    The women who went to work, in the first place, may have been doing
    so so that their family *could* afford to buy a house if they were
    not able to do so based on one salary.  If it is up to everyone to
    "look out for number 1" as some other (not you, Peter) people have
    been saying here, then I would say that this is a good example.  And
    why not?  A woman who goes to work so that her family can live in a
    nice house is doing this for *her whole family*, not just herself.
    What mother doesn't want what's best for her family?  Her husband is
    probably very glad of it.  If that had the effect of pushing houses out
    of reach for others, that is a shame.  But you could argue (as others
    in this file have - look at the heat headed at Lorna all the time for not
    trying to "better" her position and get out of secretarial work)
    that if that other couple who now used to be able to afford a house
    on just one salary cannot now, that they should not complain about
    it but *do* something about it - i.e. have the woman go to work outside
    the home.

    	-Ellen G

REF: 133.50 
NEXUS::CONLON

>             As far as "earning" our way -- how would you feel
>          if you were suddenly thrust into the Twilight Zone
>          (as a woman doing your same job with the same effort
>          as you've put in -- and you discovered that as a woman
>          you were making $10,000 LESS for the identical perfor-
>          mance that you have now.)  Then how would you feel if
>          someone came along and said to you, "Boy, you women!
>          You're always ready to yell discrimination when you
>          don't get what you want.  Why is that you didn't go
>          die in a war?  If you want to be equal, PROVE it
>          FIRST!!!"  Would it make you angry that your sexual
>          organs should dictate your pay?
    
           If you reread my previous notes way back at the 
           beginning you will see that I stated that if you
           were being treated unfairly, no matter what your
           gender is, You would be right in the line behind
           me to right that wrong.
   
           I don't like it when people say those things and I, personnaly,
           resent the fact the I am considered sexist because I
           used the words- he, mankind,.... As I stated before I
           would be the first one to use a non-gender noun if
           it was provided. I don't like the sounds of using
           the word "IT", how about a suggestion for a word
           and we all start using it. The russians have one -
           "comrad", why can't we? 

>            My MAJOR objection to what you've been saying is
>          that you started out (right in the basenote) saying 
>          that "we" blamed "you" for sexism -- at one point, you
>          said "Not my fault, yours."
 
           A generic use of "we" and "you" was being used.
           But did you see how quick it was seen as me, personally,
           and that I accussed all the women. If you didn't think
           I was talking about you personnally, why did you jump
           in to put a label on me?
   
>             Exactly who are you talking to here?  I personally
>          don't see all men as one (if I did, I would consider all
>          of "you" mass-murderers because Ted Bundy and Charles
>          Manson are males.)  I see you as an INDIVIDUAL and only
>          responsible for what you do as an INDIVIDUAL.

           Unfortunatlely some women do see us that way, just as some
           men see all women a certain way. That is their misfortune for 
           thinking like that, but that is what we have to fight
           against. I am doing my part against the men that
           think that way, are you doing the same for me against women?
  
 >              Just see me as me.  
    
           I do! And I will continue to deal with you as an individual
           even if I feel I have an inappropriate label on me. I am
           in quest for knowledge and any assistance that you can
           offer I will accept, and I will in return share mine. 
             

RE. Note 133.52 


	Thanks Ellen for your reply. I was thinking that my note had been 
buried in the heat generated over women going to or not going to war.

>    that if that other couple who now used to be able to afford a house
>    on just one salary cannot now, that they should not complain about
>    it but *do* something about it - i.e. have the woman go to work outside
>    the home.

	This problem was brought home to me by the situation of some 
friends of mine. They both work because they need to to pay the mortgage. 
They are both very family minded people and want to start a family but live 
in the constant fear that if, despite contraceptive precautions they do, 
they will lose their home because they can't pay for it. the problem is not 
one of not buying the home but of being deprived of the right for them to 
start a family until they can manage on one salary. For this woman the 
issue is not one of gaining the right to have a career and go to work but 
one of LOSING the right to stay home and raise children which is what she 
wants to do! I was interested in the change of perspective and to heard the 
views of women generally about this.

Peter.

    Bruce Morick, do you say inflammatory things on purpose? And is
    the purpose to make people think about their closely held beliefs?
    And, if you do, why do you feel *you* should do it, and do it here?
    
    Basically, I've been interested enough in what you say to read every
    single note you've put in (including that incredibly long one, which I
    felt streched the point here and there). However, I don't enjoy the
    sort of argument you seem to be producing (and is that the desired
    effect?). I'm not sure that I don't consider your style "male" (which
    mostly means foreign and uncomfortable in my context here). (Nothing
    like being sure :-)) I would disagree that it is the only style to
    produce the desired results (although there are obviously enough people
    here interested to keep the discussion going). 
    
    I'm putting this here to see if others agree (or if I'm Twilight
    Zoning it again).
    	Mez

        RE: .53
    
            Bruce, why did you start this whole basenote with the
         words SET/FLAME=ON and then harp on the readers and writers
         of this file about how "disgusted" you were (and then go
         on and on about how we shouldn't blame YOU PERSONALLY for
         sexism?)
    
            You have accused *ME* of taking the generic "you" personally
         (well, isn't that what you started out doing?)
    
            Have I fought to protect men against sexual stereotyping
         and generalizations?  You bet!!  Right in notes, too!!
    
            It seems that you started this note as a fight -- but since
         you claim to be on the side of helping us to acheive fairness,
         why do you seem to resent "us" so much for the opinions that
         have been expressed against sexism?  
    
            If you wanted to make your points here about what you perceive
         to be generalizations of sexism by women against men, you should
         have started out by saying that "SOME WOMEN" do this sort of
         thing (and then state your case.)
    
            When you (Bruce as an individual) throw around words indicating
         you are flaming at *US* (generic meaning for "some women")
         then you are not writing in a way that conveys your meaning
         properly.
    
            There can be *NO* effective communication if you (Bruce
         or generic) can't figure out how to state a valid argument
         without making *INFLAMMATORY* statements that start out
         SET/FLAME=ON.
    
            How do you suppose talks with foreign governments would
         end up if we got their attention before peace talks by
         dropping a few bombs on them?  It's not exactly the most
         effective way to communicate or exchange ideas...
    
                                                    Suzanne...

REF: 133.55 
ULTRA::ZURKO 

>    Bruce Morick, do you say inflammatory things on purpose? And is
>    the purpose to make people think about their closely held beliefs?
>    And, if you do, why do you feel *you* should do it, and do it here?
    
>    I would disagree that it is the only style to
>    produce the desired results (although there are obviously enough people
>    here interested to keep the discussion going). 
    
     Sometimes I do, to dredge up those hidden feelings that most people
     suppress but that is eating them alive. The point is it got some
     people involved who normally just read and put in no comment. I have
     recieved mail from some that said they were not going to enter in
     and refused to note in the file for different reasons. But guess
     what, some are now actively involved!

REF: 133.56 
NEXUS::CONLON 
    
>         You have accused *ME* of taking the generic "you" personally
>         (well, isn't that what you started out doing?)
    
          No.
  
>           Have I fought to protect men against sexual stereotyping
>         and generalizations?  You bet!!  Right in notes, too!!

          Excellent.
    
>            It seems that you started this note as a fight -- but since
>         you claim to be on the side of helping us to acheive fairness,
>         why do you seem to resent "us" so much for the opinions that
>         have been expressed against sexism?  
 
          I don't and haven't resented any who have noted here for your
          expressed opinions.   

>            If you wanted to make your points here about what you perceive
>         to be generalizations of sexism by women against men, you should
>         have started out by saying that "SOME WOMEN" do this sort of
>         thing (and then state your case.)
 
          But would you have jumped in if it became just a bitch session?
   
>            When you (Bruce as an individual) throw around words indicating
>         you are flaming at *US* (generic meaning for "some women")
>         then you are not writing in a way that conveys your meaning
>         properly.
 
          Does what a person states get interpreted as the meaning of what
          they say by all? No, each person reads into what a person says
          based on pass experience. 
    
    
>            How do you suppose talks with foreign governments would
>         end up if we got their attention before peace talks by
>         dropping a few bombs on them?  It's not exactly the most
>         effective way to communicate or exchange ideas...
    
          We do in a way, what do you think all that SDI issue was about?


          Now that we are all here, can we think of ways to bring the
          issues up and come to an agreement on how to solve them?

          Such as a generic noun?
          What can we do, short of anarchy, to solve these probelms?
          The heat has brought alot of issues to the surface. What
          can we do to solve these?
          Or understand why they exist?

          Please refrain from generalist comments, specific incidents
          that you have personally encountered. And how you handled
          them and maybe we can analyse the situation and learn from
          it.

      RE: .57
    
              Glad you had the guts to admit that you deliberately
         made the notes inflammatory so that people would get
         involved in the "discussion."
    
              Sort of like hitting the mule over the head with a
         2x4 to get it's attention, huh?  Now you want to finally
         ADDRESS the issues that were originally on your mind
         (after 57 replies)?
    
    
              I think I'm starting to get fond of the "COLD FEET"
         note (it may be trivial, but at least it's honest.)

                                                  Suzanne...

         
          P.S.  Bruce, don't extract from .58 and imply that
          I'm calling us "mules" -- I'm criticizing your
          tactics (and feel that you badly underestimated 
          the audience in this file.)  You *could* have
          brought the subject up another way and would have
          received reasonable responses.
    
                "COLD FEET" is *not* trivial, either!!  I have
          little size 4 ice cubes at the end of my legs.  :-)
    
                                                 Suzanne...

    
    Re .57, the issues *I* brought up are always on the surface of my
    mind!
    
    The women who reply to and read this file are not half-wits that
    you have to play games with in order to have an intelligent discussion.
    
    Please spare yourself the effort of typing in your usual response
    to my replies - that I *inferred* that you thought we were half-wits,
    that you didn't say it.  In my opinion you implied it.
    
    Now, about cold feet ....
    
    Lorna
    

RE: .32

>	The point I want to make is that *sometimes* when women (or any
>other group) fight for equal rights they can lose more than they gain and
>do no good for themselves or society as a whole. A classic example has 
>happened in the area I live (Surrey, England). Since more women started 
>going out to work there has been more money in the local economy. One of 
>the results of this is that house prices have risen dramatically (about 
>20%/year for the last 15 years). This in turn has put buying a house out of 
>reach for most people who don't either already own one or who are buying on 
>the basis of more than one income. This means that for many young couple 
>trying to set up a new life and home together the fight for the womens 
>right to work has actually *dimminished* their choices. Far from women 
>gaining the right to work, for many they have lost the right to stay at 
>home and raise a family if that is their choice. This is meaning that many 
>couples are starting families later in life and in some cases not at all. 
>Only time will show what results this has on society.


Peter, one problem with your scenerio is that you're saying that the
rising cost of housing is caused by women working.  Therefore, women are
hurting themselves/everyone by working because those who don't/can't work
can not have houses.  That assumption is not necessarily valid.  There are
lots of reasons for the rising cost of homes.  It could be that new industry
has moved into the area and thus more money has gotten into the economy.
Maybe the general economy is having problems.  There are so many factors
that you cannot point to just one.

This is what women and minorities are constantly fighting.  "Don't give jobs
to women/minorities because then some white male won't be able to support
his family!"  It has always been hard for couples starting out to buy
houses (ask my parents).  Sure it's been a lot more expensive lately, but
don't you think that everything is more expensive?  The way I hear it all the
economies of most governments are in trouble.

Trying not to flame... 
	..Karen

re 133.61 
>                     -< don't start any more sexist myths >-

>Peter, one problem with your scenerio is that you're saying that the
>rising cost of housing is caused by women working.  

	No sexist myths intended. The reasoning is pure monetarian 
economics. With *both partners* working there is more money coming into the 
home (assuming both are in paid employment). With more money coming into
the home there is obviously more money available to be spent. If this money
is spent then demand for goods increases which in turn leads to higher
inflation - at least thats what some economists would have us beleive. I
accept that there are other causes for the increase in money supply, and
its consequences, but *both partners* working is one of the major causes. 

	Now, I have no down on women and beleive that if they want to work 
they have as much right to as a man. I am not even objecting to both 
partners working, although perhaps there is an arguement that only one 
should work which could be based on what I have said, it is not my 
intention to argue it! Nor, do I want to raise the question which one.For
the record my wife and I both work, both in computing, me on DEC kit, her
on I?M.  That makes us a contributing factor, particularly as we are both
in fairly highly paid jobs and are just moving to a bigger more expensive
house. 

	I raised this subject because I could see my friends being 
emotionally torn apart by the conflict within. What they fear, losing their 
home because if only one works they can't pay for it, is what they most 
want, to start a family. She (avoiding names carefully) is very keen to 
stay at home and have children, "even if that is not what women are supposed 
to want these days" (her words not mine). Now I think this is a very sad 
but real situation. Perhaps, some of the readers of this file are in a 
similar situation or know people who are. At any rate I would have said 
this was a "topic of interest to women" which is what this file claims to 
address.

Peter.

    re .62
    
    > but *both partners* working is one of the major causes. 
    
    Generally, I have not found economic theory to match reality. Could
    you please give me some facts to support this statement?
    
    The rest of your note (what I'd like to consider the real topic)
    is pretty interesting. Doesn't the government still provide tax
    breaks for the single income family (I've forgotten whether you're
    talking about the USA)? I've heard that the two income family sans
    children is going to get scr*wed by the latest tax reform. Also,
    mortgage payments are still tax deductable. What about long-range
    financial planners? Can they help?
    	Mez

    re .62
    
    > but *both partners* working is one of the major causes. 
    
	I don't want to belabor the point, but I know plenty of people
	who make more than my husband's and my salary combined in a single
	salary.  Did you hear that the US gov. wants to raise the salary
	of secretaries (of what I can't remember) from $80K to $180K?
	a year?  Don't you think that these single incomes might have
	an effect upon the economy?  It's my belief that even if only
	one person per family worked all over, you still couldn't afford
	that house.

	...Karen  
	(dropping out of the topic)

    re .32 et al
    
    You should be lucky that you live in a location where there is such
    a strong economy.  All of these married women who have gone to work
    did not have jobs created *for* them.  One could argue that if women
    had not taken these positions, that more men might have moved into
    the area, taken the jobs, and driven up the price of housing.  I'm
    not saying this is the way it was - maybe a lot of the jobs were
    secretarial or something that most men do not want to do.

    	-Ellen

with regard to housing prices:

Here's a joke that they tell in Poland (according to a friend of mine who
speakes several Eastern European languages and has been there):

Why is it that in communist countries there are shortages of everything, but
in capitalist countries all the shelves in all the stores are stocked all
the time?

It's because capitalist countries the workers are too poor to buy anything,
so all the goods stay in the stores. In communist countries the workers make
so much that they can afford to buy whatever they want, and thus the stores
are always out.

I REALLY DO NOT want to get into a capitalism v. communism debate. This is
for humor only! Something that this particular discussion could use a little
more of.

Don.

re 133.63 

>    Generally, I have not found economic theory to match reality. Could
>    you please give me some facts to support this statement?

	I know what you mean about the economic theory, however in this 
case it does seem to fit with what appears to be happening. The following 
figures are from my memory and so may contain slight rounding errors. For
the area in which I and my friends live something like 30% of married women
work. However, this percentage more than doubles if you consider women
under 30. Over 45% of couples have a joint income (this includes those
where only one works) in excess of twice the national average and 25% (ie
over half the couples who qualify for twice national income) both partners
earn in excess of the national average. House prices are the highest of
anywhere in the U.K. and are still rising faster in percentage terms than
anywhere else. This is partly due to being in the "commuter belt" for
London despite decentralisation, although, to be fair, that only explains
the high prices not the rate of increase. Not proof but I hope this shows
that there is some correlation. 

>    Doesn't the government still provide tax
>    breaks for the single income family (I've forgotten whether you're
>    talking about the USA)? I've heard that the two income family sans
>    children is going to get scr*wed by the latest tax reform. Also,
>    mortgage payments are still tax deductable. What about long-range
>    financial planners? Can they help?

	In the U.K the government provides tax releif on mortgages up to 
30,000 pounds. If you are not married then you can both claim releif but if 
you are married you share it (our government was elected on its belief in 
marrage and the family :-)). Each partner gets a tax allowance (a level 
before thay have to pay tax), which is not transferable if only one works,
and then a married couple also qualify for a further small releif. There is
talk of reforming this (talk is after all cheap :-) ? ). In parts of the
U.K. you can by a 3 bedroom house for 15,000 however in the south east of
the country price are much higher. You can't get a reasonable one bedroom
flat for under about 45,000 round where we live, a small terraced house for 
about 60,000. Where houses are cheap work is scarce (or perhaps more
accurately that should be stated the other way round). 

	Long range financial planners have two disadvantages for my 
friends. Firstly, thay are by their very nature long range. Secondly, you 
still need some spare cash to invest.

	Sorry if I've gone on a bit but I wanted to give you all the facts 
I could.

Peter

    re -1:
    
>however, in the south east of the country price are much higher. You can't
>get a reasonable one bedroom flat for under about 45,000 round where we
>live, a small terraced house for about 60,000. Where houses are cheap work
>is scarce (or perhaps more accurately that should be stated the other way
>round). 

    Well, considering that 1 pound is roughtly equal to $1.50 - $2.50.
    I know pounds are depressed, so I'll be conservative and say 1 pound
    = $2.50, then you can't buy a reasonble one bedroom flat for under
    $115,000.  *Same thing here in Boston*.  And I haven't heard *anyone*
    say that the housing price inflation had anything at all to do with
    women working.  Then again, people might not dare say that :-)

    My personal feeling is that it's just that there's too many people
    in the world and it's naturally getting more expensive to live
    anywhere with more competition.

            	-Ellen

Let's go back to the point Peter brought up in .32:

>	The point I want to make is that *sometimes* when women (or any
> other group) fight for equal rights they can lose more than they gain and
> do no good for themselves or society as a whole.

I think the example of working women => two incomes => rising real estate
prices => constraints on starting a family is quite tenuous. First of all,
there are many factors that influence real estate prices, only one being the
availability of money. Second of all I think people have always and continue
to decide to start families in uncertain economic times, even in very poor
economic conditions. It's not clear to me that this is an example that a
gain for (some) women is a loss for (some other) women or society as a
whole.

However, I agree with some of the point stated above. Sometimes when women
or other groups fight against injustice for the rights to which they're
entitled they can lose more than they gain. Not because of the fight, or
their own successes in changing the unjust situation but because of the
backlash of the group in power that wants to deny them their rights in the
first place. 

I'm not sure I agree that this does no good for women (or the "other group")
or society. Sometimes it takes a backlash reaction to mobilize the oppressed
group to get together to stand up for their rights, or to convince the
majority that the status quo is truly an unjust situation.

Don.

    Equality is a good thing.  There are other good things, like economic
    growth and protecting the weak,...   Somethings these good things
    are in conflict, and one is subordinated to another.  A couple of
    examples are salary and child custody.  Males tend to be paid more
    than females, which compromises equality in favor of capitalism.
    Females are given preference for custodial responsibility for children,
    which compromises equality in favor of the best interest of the
    children.  I'm sure there are better examples, but, in most cases,
    social inequality is a choice made by our society in order to achieve
    some higher goal.

>                                     ... Somethings these good things
>   are in conflict, and one is subordinated to another.  A couple of
>   examples are salary and child custody.  Males tend to be paid more
>   than females, which compromises equality in favor of capitalism.
>   Females are given preference for custodial responsibility for children,
>   which compromises equality in favor of the best interest of the
>   children.
        
        Males tend to be paid more because of an unreasonable myth that
        men are worth more.  What does this myth have to do with
        capitalism? 
        
        Women tend to be given custody of children more often because of
        an unreasonable myth that women are better parents.  What does
        this myth have to do with the best interest of the children? 
        
        What does either myth have to do with justifying inequality?
        What does social inequality have to do with achieving a "higher
        goal", and what do you think this higher goal is?  Personally,
        I can't immediately think of any higher goal than equality.
        Possibly world peace, but it's a close match... and inequality
        sure as hell isn't going to help us get there.  In fact,
        it's one of the things which *keep* us from getting there.
        
        	/dave

< Note 133.71 referencing .70>-
                
>Males tend to be paid more because of an unreasonable myth that
>men are worth more.  What does this myth have to do with
>capitalism? 
 
    Employers pay employees as little as they can for the services they
    need.  A business which based its compensation policy on unreasonable
    myths would be competitively vulnerable to a business that didn't.
    I happen to believe that most behavior in a free market in
    intrinsically reasonable - not fair - not ideal - but reasonable
    in that I can (somewhat) predict and explain it.  I recognize
    that *MANY* people believe that fairness in a market should have
    priority over freedon in a market.
    
>Women tend to be given custody of children more often because of
>an unreasonable myth that women are better parents.  What does
>this myth have to do with the best interest of the children? 
 
    If you were a judge whose job it was to determine the best interests
    of children in divorce proceedings, and the court system was so
    clogged that you couldn't spend the time to explore the parenting
    capabilities of either party, and this belief/myth was also accepted
    in the community and the appeals court, would you dismiss it as
    being unreasonable?  Is so, what guidelines would you use?
    
>What does either myth have to do with justifying inequality?
    
    I regret that what I wrote communicated to you a desire to "justify
    inequality".  That phrase leaves me feeling slimy.

>What does social inequality have to do with achieving a "higher
>goal", and what do you think this higher goal is?  
    
    Given the following five goals, I doubt you could get any sort
    of concensus on how they rank.
	
    	Social equality
	Protecting the other life forms on the planet
    	Equal access to food and medical care
    	Expanding the available supply of goods and services
        Preventing WAR - local and global
    
    Part of what makes our culture work is the unending struggle
    among goals for the hearts and hands of people.

RE: .-1, .-2, .-3

>    Employers pay employees as little as they can for the services they
>    need.

This is a good model of capitalism, but it's a case where the model doesn't
accurately reflect reality. Especially with respect to women and minorities.
It is a fact that supposedly free-market capitalist employers will
preferentially hire, train and promote white men when they could get the
same (or better) service from women or minorities. Since all the competitors
in the market behave the same none has a competitive disadvantage. The model
predicts that some canny business would use this for competitive advantage,
but there are other forces at work that oppose the pure free market
influence. The other forces go by the generic name "sexism." This includs
the myth mentioned by /dave that men are worth more.

The market is not free when it's constrained by sexism.

Don.

    		Merry Christmas, every one.

    In reply to .20 I will always have "that war" in me, I will always
    see my friends with whom I yukked it up one moment and the next
    one they were going back home, but in a plastic bag. I will always
    see in my mind the crap I and 500,000 other young kids (male and
    female) had to endure trying to keep communists from taking things
    that weren't even ours. You *sound* like you *HATE* men and the
    guy that you're having a dispute with in this note and I'm sorry
    that you've gone through whatever it was that makes you come over
    this way but to generalize that *MEN* started all these problems
    that we are ALL having sounds like "Oh yuk, I was bitten by a pit
    bull once so ALL dogs are vicious!!"! 
    
    < Something like 75% of all women who are killed are murdered by
    < their men.
      People do strange things when they feel wronged, some people just
      do strange things but since Vietnam alot of men and boys have
      come home still feeling like they're in a conflict, with themselves,
      their families, lovers, friends etc. and when your government
      turns its back on you after you've given all you can then you
      lose some amount of sanity. I never wanted to kill anyone but
      I still needed counseling. I was trained too kill in 100 ways
      when I was in Special Forces and it was drilled into me for 3
      months, then I went to a place where terror fills every waking
      moment and after I came home I didn't know what to do with my
      life anymore. I'm still scared of things that I once saw but I
      had to deal with them. Some men can't and the results are that
      some of these men take it out on their mates because they lose
      sanity. Not all of the murders or rapes can be blamed on vets
      but I'm sure a large majority of crimes commited to this day are
      because some guy can't handle life anymore. 
    
       I wish I could apologize for everything men have done stupidly
    in history but I'm just one man and I will ALWAYS see what war did
    to me until the day the person upstairs calls for me. Why don't
    we try to get along instead of hating each other???
    
    Tom
    

    RE: violence against women = viet vet stress
    
    I'd like to see the statistics. I very much doubt that this is a
    factor.
    
    In any case, an adult person who has problems goes and gets them
    dealt with. He (in this case) does *not* beat, rape, and/or kill
    "his woman".
    
    Dawn
    

    
    RE .75    Tom ... Forget it man, there isn't a female in here
              that will understand the way you and I do. I've tried 
              before and all you will get is criticism or the morbid
              curiosity. It just goes along with the stupid joke 
              that goes you had to have been there to understand.
    
                                         Bob B

    RE .78
    
    There's no point in directing your sarcasm towards women; there are
    plenty of men (such as me) who had the good luck (my lottery number
    was 16 even) to stay out of the military and have no idea what it
    was like in 'Nam. 
    
    Your experience is common with people of both genders who were there
    (perhaps there were no women on Hamburger Hill, but there were women
    in Viet Nam), and foreign to people of both genders who weren't. 

reply /last
    and there are women who can feel compassion and empathy for someone
    who has been through a great deal of personal pain, even if they
    have never experienced it 
    
    my only frame of reference for the horribleness of warfare would
    be experiences other women have shared with me about rape and their
    recovery from it....(if you exclude reading books about men and
    women who survived war situations.)
    
    that it is something that is terrible and soul shatteri but something
    that you can with time and pain recover from but never forget...
    
    but Bob, if you can't tell us what it was like ....or at least try
    to....then how can we understand you and your
    strength/anger/weaknesses...?
    
    Bonnie
   

       Bonnie

        I'am sorry but I have to disagree with you on this. The majority of 
        people don't want to try and understand. They consider the subject
        something for discussion and debate. I know of so many cases where
        I or a fellow vet have opened up to someone to get the stares of 
        horror and disbelief back. To sit there with your soul bared and
        be called women and baby killer, Uncle Sams lackey and other 
        wonderful things.  To have your reason, rational, motivation, 
        and politics questioned as if it were some philosophy subject.

        To come back and be called a looser, "you guys lost the war".
        We/you should have never been there in the first place. Why
        didn't you go to Canada, why didn't you ... on and on and on.
        We didn't come back to a country that welcomed us. We came back
        to people shunning us, calling us names, spiting at us. Turned their
        back on us that were hurt and hurting mentally and physically.
        To have a "stigmatism" attached to you even till today. To meet
        a woman and start to sense that something good may happen 
        between you. And in the ensuing conversation, the fact your a 
        Viet Vet comes up and she turns cold, turns down your offer for
        dinner, and looks at you like your a freak.

        Then you have the ones that didn't go, or the too young at the time.
        To be questioned about it and have some one press you to relive 
        that which is burned in scar tissue deep in your soul. The things
        that you have tried to leave behind and can't. The things that
        are a part of you that are personal and nobody elses business.
        And to have them turn around and say "OH, I understand, I can
        sympathize/empathize " as they look at you like some kind of
        psychotic and move away.

        Ya they understand all right.....Bullshit. The only people
        I've found that really want to help are the women with the guts 
        to hang in with a man as he tries to work all of this through. 
        They have got the one key element that gets a man to open up
        and not feel like his souls about to be trampled on, belief in
        him and their relation. I have terrible news for you, most women
        can't hack it. Its too easy to trade us in for a new person in 
        their lives, that doesn't have the scars. To through us out,
        and ignore we exist like the rest of the society does. 

        You can't in all fairness equate combat with rape. Now please 
        understand I'am am not in any way or form trying to underplay,
        or downgrade the severity of rape. What I am trying to point out 
        is that in combat there is someone out there who is going to 
        do his or her best to KILL YOU. Not hurt you, beat you up, 
        rape you, but KILL YOU. To end your life on this earth as you 
        know it. Try and mentally picture this as you walk down the 
        hall today.

        Aside from the people in your group, everyone else in the 
        building is the populous. Now mixed in that populous are both
        the friendlys and enemy, but you don't and can't tell which
        is which. As you go down the hall its like going on patrol
        each day. You've got to watch for ambushes, booby traps, 
        snipers, poison snakes, in short everything and everybody
        short of your own people is out to KILL YOU. Try if you 
        can to think of what its like to live like that 24 hrs
        a day for weeks to months at a time day in day out. Then
        you will have an inkaling as to just the beginning of the
        feelings of what living under those conditions is like.

                                     Bob B
    

    Bob, Thankyou for writing that.
                              Bonnie

    After reading your response, Bob, I thought that I would either
    get tough, mean, cynical and learn to play the game, or I would
    become psychotic from trying to resist.
    
    I can understand that vets don't want to hear "Why didn't you..."
    any more than rape victims want to hear "Why didn't you...".
    Once it's happening, you don't think about the choices you might
    have had last month; you try to survive using fair means or foul.
    
    I've only talked with a few vets so I'm glad to hear what you've
    had to say.                           
    
    

    Bob, has the situation (attitude toward vvets) improved over time?
    
    A friend of mine was telling me how he had rocks thrown at him when
    he was getting "de-enlisted" after returning, and he was walking
    around in his uniform. Said the sound of helicopters still make
    him cringe...
    
    But in all of our discussions, I noticed that all the folks were
    very supportive...hence, my question...
    
    Dawn
    

      	Boy, Holly (and Bob), does the "Why didn't you..." sound
    	familiar.
    
    	When you have been married to a violent man and have had
    	bones broken by him in your own bedroom, people ask "Why
    	did you stay with him as long as you did?"  "Why didn't
    	you have him arrested?"  "You must have thought that all
    	men beat their wives, so you didn't know any better."
    	"You must really hate and distrust all men now."  "You
    	probably blame all men (including me) for what he did to you."
    
    	It is healthy to allow yourself to feel the anger when
    	something bad happens in your life.  It is also healthy
    	to feel a degree of anger when people refuse to make an
    	attempt to understand how you feel (and accidently trample
    	over your feelings or deny the *validity* of what you are
    	feeling.)
    
    	There's no way to compare and say that some forms of terror
    	are worse than others (or that a more drastic experience
    	invalidates a less drastic one.)  Each of us has the right
    	to feel the importance of our own experiences and the way
    	they make us feel.  We also deserve to have our unique feelings
    	treated in a respectful manner by others who hear about them.
    
    	Viet Vets certainly deserve our respect and gratitude for the
    	sacrifices made during the Vietnam War (no matter how one feels
    	about the politics of the war itself.)  The men fighting over
    	there did not make the decisions that many people in the U.S.
    	protested during the war.  The Vets were the ones who actually
    	paid the price for those decisions.

    	I don't think that it is mutually exclusive to ask that Viet
    	Vets be given more understanding/support *along with* the
    	ever-increasing number of women who are raped/abused/murdered
    	in our culture today.
    
    							Suzanne...

    Bob, 
    
    I won't argue with you about which is worse: being in a war or being
    raped.  My horror at the idea of having to kill people is pretty
    high, as you may know, and I DO understand that while I can feel
    for you I cannot KNOW (or even imagine) what it really was.
    
    Nevertheless, when I read your .81, I was struck with how similarly
    you feel about people's reactions to your war experiences and I
    feel about "outsider's" reactions to my rape experience.  Please
    bear with me while I quote some of .81 back, and understand that
    I am NOT trying to belittle the way your life has been changed;
    rather, I am trying to show why I think MY life has been changed.
    
    Maybe this will help you (and others) to understand how much a rape
    can traumatize a person, for the rest of their life (because women
    ALWAYS have to decide between "friendlys" and enemies).
    
    [after I wrote this reply, I came back here.  I want to thank you
    for allowing us to see this which you normally keep pretty carefully
    hidden.  It helps to understand better what you talk about, and
    as always, it has helped me work through a little more of MY problems.]
    
�        They consider the subject something for discussion and debate. 
    
    And it is NOT something you can be very rational about.  Their
    "rational discussion", "intellectual debating excercise" HURTS, damnit!
    They walk all over your feelings without even knowing how much it
    makes your stomach twist.
    
 �       I know of so many cases where
 �       I or a fellow vet have opened up to someone to get the stares of 
 �       horror and disbelief back. 
    
    Yup.  Makes it worse when it's someone you LOVE staring back at
    you, huh?  Ooops, that sounded smart-ass.  I don't mean it that
    way.  When I finally tell someone I love about what happened and 
    I see that stare, it's like a slap in the face.  I've quit looking
    at people's faces when I tell them.
    
�        To sit there with your soul bared and
�        be called women and baby killer, Uncle Sams lackey and other 
�        wonderful things.  
    
    To sit there with your whole gut exposed and be called slut, whore,
    liar, tease... no, not "baby-killer" but horrible words to call
    me, sort of like kicking a dying animal, maliciously putting salt
    in a wound which already has come close to incapacitating me.
    
    
�         To have your reason, rational, motivation, 
�        and politics questioned as if it were some philosophy subject.

�            We/you should have never been there in the first place. Why
�        didn't you go to Canada, why didn't you ... on and on and on.
    
    "you shouldn't be walking on the street at night, why didn't you
    gouge out their eyeballs, why didn't you kick him in the balls,
    well no matter what *I* wouldn't have done what *you* did"....
    
    It makes me want to gag.
    
    Bob, the only way I can even BEGIN to understand A LITTLE bit about
    what you describe is to compare it to having been raped.  While
    I know YOU have been supportive of the women you know who have gone
    through what I have, many (if not most) PEOPLE (not just men) are
    not sympathetic and supportive.  They say horrible things.  Some
    of them DON'T EVEN know how hurtful their words are; they may even
    be trying to HELP!
    
    (opening up to a new lover about this can be pretty awful -- it
    will often make-or-break the relationship entirely, EVEN when s/he's
    trying to help or to avoid hurting you)
    
�        Aside from the people in your group, everyone else in the 
�        building is the populous. Now mixed in that populous are both
�        the friendlys and enemy, but you don't and can't tell which
�        is which. As you go down the hall its like going on patrol
�        each day. You've got to watch for ambushes, booby traps, 
�        snipers, poison snakes, in short everything and everybody
�        short of your own people is out to KILL YOU. Try if you 
�        can to think of what its like to live like that 24 hrs
�        a day for weeks to months at a time day in day out. Then
�        you will have an inkaling as to just the beginning of the
�        feelings of what living under those conditions is like.
    
    I tried to make that analogy before, and maggie put it a lot better
    than me.  One of the problems women face is that we DON'T know which
    men are our friends.  At the last second, one of our "friends" will
    literally pull a knife on us!!  We CAN'T GO HOME!  
    
    Ah shit, I said I wouldn't do this, but I'm going to anyway:
    
�            You can't in all fairness equate combat with rape. Now please 
�        understand I'am am not in any way or form trying to underplay,
�        or downgrade the severity of rape. What I am trying to point out 
�        is that in combat there is someone out there who is going to 
�        do his or her best to KILL YOU. Not hurt you, beat you up, 
�        rape you, but KILL YOU. To end your life on this earth as you 
�        know it. Try and mentally picture this as you walk down the 
�        hall today.
    
    You're right; in MOST rapes, the "purpose" is not to kill us, rather
    to rape us, beat us up, demonstrate our weakness, make us submit
    to their "power".  But in some rapes, the purpose IS to kill us
    AND to rape us -- they go hand in hand.  And I'd say in many, many
    rapes, even those where the PURPOSE is not to kill us, they WILL
    kill us if we do not submit.
    
    And we can't always tell the difference: will they kill us or not?
    will they try?  will they do it EVEN if they are successful at raping
    us?
    
    I am alive and I am lucky.  Other rape victims survive worse violence
    than me -- they needed more luck in order to survive than I did.
    You lived through a WAR.  You needed luck more than I did.  Does
    it help at all to know I'm sincerely glad you got that luck?

    Lee

    
    RE .84  > has the situation (attitude toward vvets) improved over
              time.
    
     In some ways yes in too many no.  Yes examples would include,
     were now accepted by the country and society a bit more. You
     can walk around in a military uniform and not get spit on or
     have rocks thrown at you.
    
     The nos...well prime example would be I had Thanksgiving dinner
     with a lady friend that I had been seeing for some 6 weeks or so.
     Everything up to that point has been going really super. We got
     along well and had good times together. The dinner included her
     older son and his new wife and her mother. The "mother in law"
     during the conversations after dinner asked me if I had gone to
     Nam when I was on active duty. I said yes and it started. I got
     the  typical questions on what I had done and such and when I
     told her that I preferred not to talk about it, got the "all you
     baby killers are like that. you know your being there was wrong
     and immoral and you keep quiet about it to cover it up."
    
     Needles to say It got sticky very quickly, and this woman was
     very determined not to let the subject drop. She wasn't happy
     till I admitted that I had killed people and had answered her on
     whether I felt that, we as a country were justified in being there.
     Two days afterwards I was told by the woman that I was seeing, that
     although I was a nice person, that she didn't think we were compatible
     because she didn't know I was like that. My reply was like what
     ? To which I was told my having been a combat vet disturbed her.
    
     To which I stopped seeing her and am again typically spending 
     Christmas alone again. Beyond that would be the lack of pressure
     of both the people and our government to have the Vietnam Government
     account for the over 2400 still listed as MIA. I grieves me to
     no end to think that theres a chance that some of our own people 
     were abandoned and could possibly still be rotting in some POW
     camp over there.
    
     Other example would be like the guy that was the postal system
     that went on a killing spree. The headlines in the paper read 
     Viet vet freaks out and kills co-workers. The truth be told
     two days later that the guy wasn't in Nam, he was in the National
     Guard and haven't even let the country. But the stigma of the "freaked
     out Viet vet " still haunts all of us.
    
     Where and when it will stop ??? who knows. But we all do deserve
     a better break than what we've been getting.
    
                                           Bob B 

    -1>
    I can't feel what a Vietnam Vet feels.  I can only feel what I feel.
    My experience in the service was unique to me. Being a woman
    in uniform during the war I was spit on.  Spit on by kids I had
    grownup with when I came home on 'boot' leave.  I was in the Medical
    Corp.  Several of the women I served with (nurses) went to Vietnam.
    Some did not come home.  For years women vets have been trying to
    get a memorial to those woman vets who died in service to the USA.
     The comissioner of the US park service said just two weeks ago
    when reviewing the request to have women's name added to the wall
    and a statue that.."If we (the park service) did that then all the
    patrol dogs in the service in Vietnam would have to be honored".
    
    I am ashamed of my country when it turns it back on any Vet.  But
    to equate the service of women to the service of dogs.  The women
    that have died in service to their country may be a small and exclusive
    group but they deserve to be honored....I don't give a dam* what
    any stupid official says....
    
    Any Vet deserves better than this...
    
    What frosts me is the 'perception' on the part of the servicemen
    themselves and the nation in general that women who serve, do so
    because they are lesbians, nymphomanicas or desperate.  I was faced
    with a society within the service that was so 'sexist' that I still
    to this day cannot believe that I survived the experience.  I came
    out of that closed society into the wider world and still faced
    'sexism'.                    
    
    But on the issue of a Womens memorial male vets are behind it 100%
    in my experience.
    
    I don't have clear answers but I try to keep my mind open to others
    ideas.  But I will not feel ashamed for having served in the Navy.  I
    feel a great deal of pride for all the sisters that served with
    me and intense pain for those of us who died.  
    
    I've held men in my arms for hours at a time as they cried out in
    pain, fear and anger, and felt helpless rage at a society that has
    turned away from them because they are Vietname Vets.  I spoken
    to my sisters as the nightdreams come to haunt them...
    
    I can only feel what I feel and I feel profoundly sad..
    
    MaggieT 

    Maggie, are you serious?
    
    I had no idea the wall only contained the names of men killed in
    Viet Nam.  Does it include the names of men who had comparable
    positions to the women who were killed?
    
    Or just the names of the men who died fighting?
    
    I always assumed it included all people who died serving this country
    in Viet Nam.  
    
    How many women were killed there, do you happen to know?

      When I started this mess (equality and my addition of V vets)
    I didn't mean to downgrade rape, wife abuse or incest. I in no way
    can begin to know what a woman or female child goes through in these
    instances and I didn't mean to make war sound more painful than any-
    thing any woman has ever been put through. I can't state statistics
    on women being maimed or fatally injured by husbands, lovers, male
    friends or neighbors nor did I attempt to. I merely stated that some
    of these crimes may have been done by a person that still lives in a
    world that only violence and the threat of someone wanting to kill
    you exists. 
        I still cringe when I hear the blades of a "gunship". Are they
    sure of their target, are we going to be mistakenly hit again? I
    lost 13 friends when we were "accidently" hit by one of our own
    choppers. The pilot (I later went through his court martial) had 2
    days left in country and was misinformed of his target and even when
    we tried to chase him off without giving our positions away it was too
    late. He wanted out like the rest of us and I'm sure to this day
    he doesn't feel things anymore. Maybe if you that have gone through
    the shock and sick feelings after rape or know someone that has can
    hate one group of people for their deeds. Like Bob said, we didn't
    know who was who because everyone looked the same and we didn't
    know who to trust or befriend but I don't hate the whole race of
    Vietnamese because of the actions of the north and some southeastern
    asains. You can't sterotype a whole gender or a whole race of people
    because some have done bad things. To hate one group of people, in
    this case men, because of the actions of a few (I don't know how many
    and I won't generalize) means to me that you must be full of hate
    and no one can change how you feel. I do sympathize with you like
    you may with me because of what I went through but we both see anger,
    only difference is you hold the anger until you can't see anything
    else. 
            And I for one believe that anyone, be they female or male,
    that served time in southeast asia deserves to have a memorial no
    matter what some overpaid jerk in the government says. There should
    be no difference as to what you did or what sex you were, you served
    your country, you did what you were trained to do and you didn't
    try to skip out, you're a veteran and I'm still proud of it, anyone
    else that feels different must have good reasons.
         I apologize if anyone feels wronged by what I stated earlier,
     post nam stress affects me everytime I walk into a VA hospital,
    maybe that's why it seemed I was giving vets an excuse for violence.
      There are alot of people in these places that have no idea what
    they've done or who they may have done it to and it shall go on
    this way their entire lives. I don't see rape victims or abused
    women so it doesn't affect me but it does when I read about it and
    it hurts but it goes on...
    
    Tom
    
    
    
    
    
    i
    
    
    
    
    

    	RE:  .90
    
    	Tom, thanks for your remarks, but you have still missed one
    	extremely crucial point here.
    
    	You are assuming that rape/abuse victims hate men as a group,
    	and what we have been trying to emphasize in this conference
    	(for well over a year) is that such an assumption about our
    	feelings is *WRONG*!
    
    	You cannot assume that someone hates men because she hates
    	having been raped (or hates having been abused).  It would be
    	the same thing as if WE assumed that YOU hate all Orientals,
    	or all Vietnamese because of the feelings you have expressed
    	about the war.
    
    	Can you possibly understand that you have made a wrong
    	assumption about what it means to be raped/abused (and that
    	your assumption is actually *part* of the suffering that many
    	of us have gone through *after* the rape/abuse is over?)
    
    	You are so close to understanding -- just take one little
    	step more and realize that if *you* could refrain from hating
    	all Vietnamese in spite of what happened during the war, *women*
    	can refrain from hating men in spite of what has happened to
    	some of us in our culture at the hands of our husbands/lovers/
    	fathers/etc.
    
    							Thank you,
    							  Suzanne...

     Suzanne,
    
                 Sorry, I should have said I was referring to 133.20
           when I replied about the vets. .20 to me sounded very very
           angry and yes full of *hate* and I realize this was written
           in '86' and much time has passed since then. I just wanted
           to reply with what I thought to be maybe a response to the
           author of .20 about how men are always the enemy and only
           the strong survive. Maybe I shouldn't read between the lines,
           I'm afraid I'll always have that habit but it seemed to me
           that there was a lot of hate in that note. 
    
    Tom

    	RE:  .92
    
    	When I read notes that vets have written about their experiences
    	in the war, I often see what I would consider *hate* (towards
    	a society that turned its back on our returning vets, towards
    	the few/many women who cannot accept nor understand the feelings that
    	the Viet Vets have, and towards every single person in our country
    	who *could* have gone over but didn't for whatever reason.)
    
    	Yes, it *sounds* like hate to me, but who am I to judge?  Maybe
    	what *sounds* like hate is merely a healthy release of the normal
    	feelings that many vets have been experiencing since Vietnam.
    
    	I'm willing to believe and accept that the anger I hear from
    	vets is a healthy airing of feelings.
    
    	What I'm asking is that *you* give .20 (Sandy) and *others in
    	this conference* the courtesy of ALSO refraining from making
    	judgments about what we are feeling when you read the notes
    	that we write about the experiences we've had as women in our
    	culture.
    
    	Thanks very much for your interest, and Merry Christmas!!
    
    							Suzanne...

    re: last few
    
    Yes, please do not equate anger with hate. Or hatred of actions
    with hatred of people. Or absence of energy expended toward men
    with hate. I know many women who have been accused of hating men.
    
    I don't know any women who actually *do* hate men.
    
    It is a matter of perception, not actuality.
    
    Dawn
    

RE: .91

"You are assuming that rape/abuse victims hate men as a group,"

Perhaps fear whould be a more accurate term then hate...  Do some women 'fear'
'all men', as in Vietnam soldiers had to 'fear' 'all Vietnamese'?

I have seen a lot of notes which mentioned fear of men... a lot more then I have
where I thought women were saying that they actually hated men. 

"Yes, it *sounds* like hate to me, but who am I to judge?  Maybe what *sounds*
like hate is merely a healthy release of the normal feelings that many vets have
been experiencing since Vietnam."

Try the same paragraph with "women" instead of "vets"...

"I'm willing to believe and accept that the anger I hear from vets is a healthy
airing of feelings."

Yes, to a certain point it is healthy...  but to dwell on it, to live on it, to
live it over and over is not healthy... 

"What I'm asking is that *you* give .20 (Sandy) and *others in this conference*
the courtesy of ALSO refraining from making judgments about what we are feeling
when you read the notes that we write about the experiences we've had as women
in our culture."

I'd like to think that we are helping each other when we point out to each other
that our language is sexist, that what we write sounds like hate and fear, when
the writer did not mean to project hate and fear...

RE: -.1

"It is a matter of perception, not actuality." 
        
Is the problem in the writing, or is it in the reading?  Both, I think... 

Jim.