Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    can money buy moral support?can money buy a shoulder to lean on?
     i dont need a man to fix things for me. 
    i was on the roof of my house sunday
    i also fixed my own washing machine,heater,change the oil in my
    car.
    i get dependant on their sensitivity. how can money buy feelings???
    					kelly

    re. .2
    
    But Kelly, you don't necessarily need a person of the male sex to
    provide moral support/a shoulder/sensitivity/feelings.  Women can
    provide those things just as well.
    
    G
    

    Personally, I have yet to find something that you could *pay* a
    man to do that could not be done by a woman (aside from sexual or
    reproductive matters).  However, I certainly enjoy the company of
    my male friends, and would not want to do without them.  Men can
    be people, too.  :-)
    
                  Carol

    
    Must people depend upon people ?
    

    re.3
    well to be honest you dont need men for all that. i am 25 years
    old single,and it is in only the last couple of years that ihave
    really started to like and apreciate women as people. i always
    viewed them as "competion". i get along better with men,but that
    is starting to change. i am now starting to make friends with women.
    					kelly

    I like men....I like women....I like babies....I like children....
    I like animals.
    
    I think the key is being able to figure out a person and what your
    friendship can offer each other.  
    
    I expect the woman that have had good marriages and/or relationships
    will tell us that they don't expect anything but have a good idea
    how their partner will respond to a given situation.  
    
    Unhappiness in male/female relationships seem to be based not on
    what occurs but what does not occur.  
    
    The process for establishing relationships has many parts....I think
    I have skipped a few in times past and I am responsible for the
    friendship not living up to my expectations.
    
    Joyce

    I find it less a question of "am I having to depend on a man?" than
    a question of "having to depend on someone who knows more about
    something than I do".
    
    There are plenty of things out there that I am totally ignorant
    of, or have become lazy about, since there is someone around who
    takes care of it.
    
    Car repair is probably the cliche area - though for a while I was
    doing most of the servicing of my own car.  
    
    Moving heavy objects is another cliche - but how many men do you know
    that can lift a piano without any assistance? Those of us that aren't
    as strong (and that isn't limited to just females, I know plenty of
    weak males) learn ways to compensate. And,when the need has come up, I
    have figured out ways of moving something that I should have better
    sense to leave alone. 
    
    There are probably very few things out there, that given a little
    knowledge or need, that someone can't do. I think that dependancy,
    at least in my case, is 90% laziness. It's easier for me to take
    my car to the garage then learn about maintenance. It's easier for
    me to hire movers than strain my back moving objects. It's easier
    for me to let my SO remove the dead mice from the back stoop (presents
    from the cats), but I have done it when I had to. 
        
    And, just because I can't/won't do something, doesn't mean I am
    always looking for a *male* to do it - I try to solve my problems
    with qualified people, male or female. 
    
    There are always going to be something that you cannot do - there are
    just too many things in this world for someone to know everything.
    So why *can't* we depend on the others around us for help - isn't
    that what a "society" is all about? (of course when "society" forces
    us to *depend* on someone because of my/their sex, then it is absurd!!)
    
    janet b.

    Re .5, .8, I agree that we cannot ignore the fact that people depend
    on other people.  As the last response said, there isn't anybody
    on the face of earth who is capable of doing or fixing every single
    thing they are ever going to need in life.  Dependence works both
    ways.  You may depend on others in certain areas, but people may
    depend on you in other ways.  It's only bad in excess when a person
    can't seem to do anything for themselves.
    
    I do wish I didn't have to depend on my ex-husband to totally support
    our daughter (and, therefore live with him), but since I do I'm
    glad that he's a good parent.
    
    Just because a woman sometimes complains about men, Steve, doesn't
    mean she wishes they didn't exist.  Even if I became a millionaire
    today I'd still want there to be men in the world.  I like variety,
    and having some people be men adds to that.
    
    Lorna
    

    			As far as changing tires goes, I'm totally
    		willing to admit that I don't like to do it (and
    		would rather pay someone else to do it.)  But --
    		that's not the same thing as not knowing *HOW* to
    		do it (I verbally taught my son and one of his
    		friends how to do it in the most intricate detail
    		you could ask for including all the safety tips,
    		then took them out for dinner after they did it
    		for me.)
    
    			Not preferring to change tires is also *NOT*
    		the same thing as being dependent on men.  If my son
    		and his friend hadn't been handy, I would most likely
    		have paid a gas station to do it for me (the flat
    		happened overnight at home.)
    
    			If it had happened on the freeway, I would
    		have done it myself (out of necessity.)
    
    			I don't feel that I have to "prove" anything
    		to anyone by insisting on doing chores that are thought
    		of as "masculine" (when I can afford to choose to pay
    		someone else to do them.)  I do the ones I *want* to
    		do (or *have* to do out of necessity), then "contract
    		out" the rest.
    
    			As for heavy lifting, I (like many present and
    		ex-Field Service Engineers) have a "compromised back."
    		I hurt my back (mildly) a number of times on the job
    		for Digital (moving or lifting computer hardware.) 
    		My back is perfectly FINE as long as I don't try to
    		lift in the wrong position (or overdo it in some other
    		way.)  I got off LUCKY in that regard (because I know
    		less fortunate Field Service people who now have life-
    		long back problems while doing ordinary living.)

    			Again, I don't feel I need to prove myself by
    		refusing to let other people (male or female) assist
    		me when I move things.  When I do lift heavy objects,
    		I am "smart" about how I do it.  I don't feel that this
    		means I am either helpless or dependent.  I just try
    		to use common sense.  :-)
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    I understand what Steve is saying.  I'm constantly telling my
    girlfriend to learn about her car.  I make her watch when I fix
    something and even help.  I tell her its because if I'm ever not
    around she might have to do it herself.   Well ....
    
    Just that happened, it had been raining for quite some time, and
    when she got to work she drove through a puddle, and her car stalled
    and wouldn't start.  Luckily she reconized the symptoms from the
    last time I fixed her car.  So,  at lunch she borrowed a friends
    car, drove to the autoparts store picked up a distributer cap and
    replaced it at lunch, her car has run fine since then.
    
    Moral of the story, if you can learn to exist on your own, your
    much better off, ... that doesn't mean you always have to do it
    yourself, but someday you may have to.
    
    Paul

    RE .13
    
    Steve, as my favorite fortune cookie says, you're never too old
    to learn new mistakes.
    
    

    	    RE:  .13
    
    			So-called "old-fashioned" men are INDEED
    		obsolete when and if they find that the ONLY identity
    		they feel comfortable with is as "rescuers of helpless
    		women."
    
    			People (of BOTH sexes) who enjoy helping
    		others will always be well-received as the "givers"
    		that they are (when help is needed and welcome, that
    		is.)  It can be *very* gratifying to help others --
    		please don't mis-understand what I'm saying here.
    
    			But -- for men who feel that "helping
    		women" is the only/most valuable thing they have to
    		offer women -- I think you are probably selling your-
    		self short.
    
    			If any man approached me with the idea "Be with
    		me because I can fix everything in your house", my
    		response would be "No thanks, I can afford to hire
    		a handyman."  I would rather a man approach me with
    		the idea "Be with me because I love you and want to
    		share my life experiences with you and want you to
    		share yours with me."  (That would mean a lot more
    		to me -- there's no way I can do that particular
    		thing alone {the sharing of a life}, and I couldn't
    		pay anyone to do it for me, either.)

    			For any man who feels his only value is in
    		his ability to do concrete things that women "cannot"
    		do -- he is just as sad (to me) as a woman who feels
    		that her greatest (FOREMOST) contribution to a marriage
    		is the ability to cook and wash floors.
    
    			This is not to say, of course, that anyone in
    		this conference falls into those categories (or that
    		it is WRONG to do things for women per se, or that
    		women shouldn't cook or clean floors.)  If I missed
    		anyone in that disclaimer, I apologize in advance.
    	
    			I'm talking about "self-image" here (not
    		specific actions by one sex or another.)
    
    							Suzanne...

    re .-1   I agree with this and as a man I would and have rapidly backed
    out of any relationship where I felt that my main involvement
    was to simply *provide*,  whether it be car-fixing,  carnal
    satisfaction or anything other than mainly simply to *be*.
    
    I can see no harm in sharing activities for expediency,  provided
    that the behaviour is not "other-orientated" (see below).  But to
    idealise to the extent that a person has to be independent in all 
    ways seems to me to be a symptom of INSECURITY ("I feel that my
    independence is threatened and I cannot deal with this other than
    by eradicating suspects [usually men as seen by women] from my world."
    
    - A better criteria is to assess whether another person is doing it because
    one has copped out (dependence) or whether it is only the result of
    sharing tasks (independent action to the benefit of a group or
    partnership).
    
    We can go further and distinguish between (1) self-orientation (the
    orientation towards the self),  which means "I am in charge of myself
    and (corollary:) can realistically CHOOSE to let someone do something
    for me or NOT.")  [not to be confused with self-centredness (i.e. "I
    look at other people only in terms of what they can do for me."]  (The
    latter being also known as Psychopathic) And (2) Other-orientated:  "I look
    first to others to solve a problem rather than tackle it first myself".
    
    The extreme of other-orientation is actually paranoia: "Those things
    I cannot deal with I have already programmed for projecting onto
    the outside world,  perhaps onto others."  Perhaps the Eradication
    of Suspect Dependees sometimes works like this:  "I cannot cope with
    the idea that I am dependent on you so I feel that _you_ are creating the
    dependence."  (Instead of *taking charge* of myself so that I can feely
    choose what I let you do for me.)  Almost everyone has residual
    paranoid tendencies.  For further reading:  "Families And How To
    Survive Them" by Robin Skynner and John Cleese.
    
    As a digression,  heres a joke from the said book:  Two paranoids crash
    into each other in their cars,  they both get out shaking their fists:
    "You fool!  Couldn't you see that I was driving recklessly?"
    " - Don't blame me,  I haven't even got a driving licence!"

    SDC.

    	RE:  .16
    
    			No offense, but I've noticed (in this file)
    		that the idea of "female independence" is often
    		mis-understood (in the sense that a woman who
    		desires independence is seen in black and white
    		terms:  "If I am to be independent, then I can never
    		ever allow *ANYONE* to ever do anything for me!!")

    			I can't help wondering why some folks assume
    		that words like "self-sufficient" and "independent"
    		seem so radical when used by women (and are so diffi-
    		cult to accept.)

    			In my note (the one you responded to), I
    		said I was talking about "self-images" (NOT specific
    		actions performed by either sex.)  What I meant was
    		that I wouldn't be happy with someone who saw himself
    		primarily in the "role" of my "rescuer" (that includes
    		financial rescuer as well as "repair-person" for my
    		house.)  That doesn't mean that I would be insulted
    		if he offered to fix something (or that it would affect
    		*MY* self-image to allow him to do it.)
    
    			In general, I'm usually capable of fixing things
    		in my house.  DEC has paid me for years to fix their
    		biggest and best (and most expensive) computers, so
    		I have an extensive knowledge of how to use tools and
    		a fairly decent troubleshooting technique on devices
    		that I've never fixed before -- (that talent is a MUST
    		in Field Service, God knows.)  :-)
    
    			But -- I happen to consider it sort of a
    		"Busman's Holiday" to fix things around the house
    		(unless I'm in a hurry.)  So I "contract it out"
    		usually.  My time is worth more to me than the cost
    		of getting someone else to do it.  If an SO of mine
    		*wanted* to do it, I wouldn't have a fit about it.
    
    			There is a *VAST* middle ground between saying
    		"I like being able to take care of myself" and "I only
    		feel good about myself if I am able to refuse all human
    		help of any kind."

    							Suzanne...

    re .-1
    
    Yes you are right that things will not in general be as clear cut
    as this.  And I am not saying I cannot accept that a woman should
    be independent.  I was deliberately being extreme because these
    extremes,  while not in practice likely,  can provide a clear point
    of reference.  I was trying to provoke thought along particular
    lines.  I hope I haven't overdone it!
    
    Simon.

    Yea,...I own my own house,
    Yea,...I support a family,
    Yea,...I'll probably work till I die,
    Yea,...I'm dependent on men and will accept will EXTREME gratitude
    any fixing of cars, plumbing, or whatever assistance I'm offered.
    Yea,...I'll walk a mile for a pat on the head on a bad day.
    Yea,...Sometimes I feel like I'm still twelve and wish Daddy would
    come back from the dead and take care of me.
    Yea,...I'll bet there are plenty of men out there who feel the same
    way from time to time.                              
    Life can be long and tough,  the little kindnesses are appreciated
    no matter who offers them.  Men are so practical and pragmatic and
    I feel a lot more secure when they are around.  Men are SO MECHANICAL
    some times and can figure out all kinds of things.  Men smell good.
    Men like my cooking.  Men always tell you that strange noises in
    the night are "the house creaking".  Men keep you from taking yourself
    too seriously.  Men listen well.  Men watch sports and shout at
    the t.v. set.  Men keep beer in the refrigerator.  Men make you
    feel important and needed.  I like men.  I guess I'm dependent on
    men because I'd rather have them around than not have them around..
    even if their teenagers, even if they have tempers, even if they
    act like jerks sometimes.
    
    

-.1 Mary, and a few others:

Thanks.  I feel a bit better now.  

Could have said most of the same things myself, by substituting a 
few verbs and nouns.

	~Mike

    >no matter who offers them.  Men are so practical and pragmatic and
    >I feel a lot more secure when they are around.  Men are SO MECHANICAL
    >some times and can figure out all kinds of things.  Men smell good.
    >Men like my cooking.  Men always tell you that strange noises in
    >the night are "the house creaking".  Men keep you from taking yourself
    >too seriously.  Men listen well.  Men watch sports and shout at
    >the t.v. set.  Men keep beer in the refrigerator.  Men make you
    >feel important and needed.  I like men.  I guess I'm dependent on
    >men because I'd rather have them around than not have them around..
    >even if their teenagers, even if they have tempers, even if they
    >act like jerks sometimes.
    
    My SO doesn't do half these things.  He's definitely a man, though.
    And I like having him around :-) which is not the same as dependence.
    
    Gross generalizations about either sex = sexism.
    
    	-Ellen    

    Yea, but I'm talking about why "I'm" dependent on men....you have
    to come up with your own list :-)  Oh,...add one more,...I've never
    had a man call me sexist :-).

    re .19
    
    
    WAY TO GO!!! I loved how "you" feel about your life.  That was very
    honest and I'm glad to share your feelings.
    
    I'm also glad that I am not strong for ERA!  It would allow me to
    say "yea, I want to have kids but I want to stay home with them
    and well the money, well Dad, that's "your" job until these kids
    are in school.  Then we'll share the expenses but until then, I'm
    staying home".
    
    Unfortunately, not everyone can do this, at least not in "this"
    state.  Too expensive to live here.  But, I can dream can't I?
    
    Cathy

    Hope I'm not out of line replying to this.  If so I apologize...(don't
    mean to put words into your mouth :-)
    
    She probably feels that way I do Steve.
    She's FOR the ERA because we (women) need all the help we can get.
    
    But she wishes our society had evolved in a different direction
    so that it was economically feasible for mothers to stay home with
    their pre-school children.  I agree with her.  Babies need mothers.
    (and mothers need babies:-).
    

re: .25
>    But she wishes our society had evolved in a different direction
>    so that it was economically feasible for mothers to stay home with
>    their pre-school children.  I agree with her.  Babies need mothers.

do they need mothers, or one parent staying home to care for them?

    The human species has evolved for thousands of years into a fairly
    complex and intricate animal.  We don't really understand ourselves
    very well.  Our customs and social mores changes every hundred years
    or so and yet...still we survive.  Much of our human interchange
    is based on bonding and signals that are not yet acknowledged, never
    mind understood.  If any one fact remains constant throughout our
    complex evolution,..its that babies need mothers.  
    
    Please don't misunderstand me....babies need fathers too.  And in
    those circumstances where (for whatever reason,... lack of interest,
    death, abandonment, illness) the father (or another individual)
    takes over the care and protection of the infant, the infant will
    be just fine.  And in the case of the toddler, either parent will do.
    
    But, if you are talking about the human species as a whole, (and
    this is 'alas' only my opinion), babies (infants) need mothers.
    I am sure my opinion is not shared by many industries and government
    officials who believe that a woman should have a baby and be back
    at work within days.  But then.....women have been having babies
    far longer than they have been running governments and industries
    eh? :-)                                                      
    

    Well, babies and young children need SOMEONE to care for them, but
    there is no real reason why the caretaker should have to be the
    mother, or the father for that matter.  Not everyone is cut out
    to be (or even trained to be) a nurse or a child psychologist.  I'm
    certainly not.   A sick child would be much better off with someone
    other me than me caring for him/her - I hardly ever get sick myself
    and know very little about what to do for symptoms I don't experience
    (for example, earaches).  The important point is that none of us
    should try to shoehorn each other into role models we don't fit.
    We are all individuals, and have individual talents and needs. 
    There shouldn't be any reason to demand that everyone show the same
    abilities, or that all women (or all men, for that matter) show
    the same abilities as each other.

    re.25

    My opinion about ERA was that I'm not a great pusher of it.  I've
    changed since working for DEC.  Before DEC, I was going to own my
    own company and make lots of money and have 3 cars and 3 babies
    and a swimming pool and live in California and have a live in nanny
    for my kids (because I would be so busy at the office that I wouldn't
    have time).   But, that's all changed.  So, when it comes to ERA
    and "equal pay", it isn't going to happen in my lifetime.  So, I
    just want to have a nice job where I am appreciated (sometimes it's
    hard in a company with 100,000 employees), become as successful
    as I can with my one (not 3) college degreee and then settle down
    and have a family.
    
    I remember stating in another note:  if I could work part-time,
    work out at a health spa, cook for my husband and sip coffee by
    a fireplace, well, I think I would be content.  
    
    But, I also stated that in the "expensive" state I live in, this
    might not happen.  But *I CAN DREAM*.  
    

I don't really know if babies or children Need a parent or parents 
presence or to what extent.

My concern is that, because of todays economy/society, most parents 
do not have the opportunity to decide the issue as individuals for 
themselves.

	~Mike