Conference turris::womannotes-v1

RE: .0
    
    How true!  Unfortunately your scenario of a woman president in White
    House is far fetched.  For crying out loud, the population could not
    even accept a woman president in a TV series (Ref: Hail To The Chief)!! 
    
- Vikas

Norway, Iceland, The Phillipines, Israel and India currently have, or
previously had female heads of state.  Why should this be impossible
in America?  What is there about the United States that make this
such an *important* question?

The only thing that worries me about a female president is that
it might be either Jeanne Kirkpatrick or Phyllis Schlafly.

Martin.

    While I don't argue with the "double standard", I don't believe
    that most would consider JFK a "great" president, at least not now
    a days.
    
    One can, however, cite Martin Luther King Jr.'s "wandering ways"
    and get the same result.

    RE: .0  "public knowledge"
    
    Please cite contemprary references to document your allegation that
    John F. Kennedy's "philanderings while in the white house were well
    known _even at the time_" (emphasis added).  Well known to whom?
    Were you in the White House during that period?  Did you read it
    in the papers?  Was it on the TV news?  Or maybe you saw it in the
    National Enquirer, a rag which plays loose enough with the truth
    when the subject is still alive and capable of suing, but slips
    the bonds of credulity when slandering the dead.
    
    

    Why do you want references? Do you disagree with my allegations?  
    Does it make a difference? 
    
    Offering JFK for comparison is just to help illustrate my point by 
    showing that behavior considered acceptable and even envied in a
    man might not be so glorified in a woman but if the comparison 
    doesn't help you to see my point then ignore it.  We could debate 
    the issue of JFK's behavior, (and whether or not I spent any time
    in the White House then ;-),  but that's not my intent here.
    
    Are you stopping at this hitch, (asking for references), so that you 
    don't have to proceed to the real point of the topic? 

For every male politician who is "glorified" for his philandrings,
there are at least two who were thrown out for the same reason.
(And the same certainly goes for religious leaders, too.)

I haven't heard any scandal pertaining to female politicians -- but,
then I haven't been looking.

As to whether this is due to a double standard of morality, or whether
women politicians have to be twice as wise as men to get to
the same level of success (and this wisdom results in their leading
circumspect, proper lives) is left as an exercise for the reader.

Perhaps the successful female politician is able to choose a mate
who satisfies their needs sufficiently well that they don't need
to philander.

Martin.

    Well,I suppose if the female head of state wanted to get "FRISKY"I"m
    sure it could be arranged.So whats the problem?

    I think this has the ability to bring up a number of double 
    standards. I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you
    sit on, or if your a man or a woman.
    
    Take a look at the popular portrayed "image" of any highly successful
    man, and it is always portrayed as his having a group of attractive
    women around him. The women are touted as one of the status symbols
    that fall inline with the cars, clothes and other surroundings of
    wealth, power and success, ala the "playboy" image. Money and power
    have been known to be very attractive to women for a long time.
    Many men who work themselves up and into that situation become quickly
    seduced to the instant popularity they now have with women.
    
    Take away the power and position and many women wouldn't give this
    guy a second look. On the other side the successful woman is portrayed
    more in a business environment as statements and viewing of her success.
    The men in her life are portrayed in a much more private mannerism.
    It just seems that it is not a symbol of success to have a lot of
    men around them such as men do.
    
    I think that a man with money and power are much more alluring to a
    woman than a woman in the same position of power is to a man.
    
                                          Bob B  

    Recently on PBS they did a piece on Margaret Thatcher's attempt
    to define a new image for herself. Some of the things that she
    had done was to allow the media to take a tour of her wardrobe,
    and to discuss with them how she depends on her husband. Rather
    different from the "image" of any previous (male) prime minister.

    >I think that a man with money and power are [sic] much more alluring 
    to a woman than a woman with power is to a man.
    
    My point exactly.  Money and power in the opposite sex is attractive
    to women but money and power in the opposite sex is frightening,
    intimidating - what is the exact word - to men.  Why is this so
    and is this male reaction to feminine wealth and power responsible
    in whole or in part for women not being 'allowed' the same
    opportunities as men?  Did men way back when decide that women must
    not be allowed to ever think that they could attain wealth and power
    no matter HOW hard they worked, (prostitution excepted for obvious
    male reasons - they seem very willing to give women PLENTY of money
    for doing this!), and to that end removed the possibilities from their
    lives?  Were the messages, 
    
    "don't bother with anything but secretarial school because unless
    you are very lucky NO ONE is going to give you any other kind of job"
      
    and,
    
    "don't bother working late or going back to school because although
    you may get a promotion if you make enough noise and are supremely 
    qualified, your ambition is basically a waste of time"
    
    intentionally developed for women over time as a result of the
    uneasiness of men to deal with a world in which women are as ambitious
    AND, (worse), as successful as they are? 

Generally, I tend to doubt conspiracy theories, and find sociological
theories more appealing. Men are competitive with men AND women. So,
perhaps a group of men wanted to deny all other people wealth and power,
but they only succeeded in denying the women (and persons whose color
or other physical characteristics made them easy to identify as the
"other"?).

The Second Sex addresses some of these issues (even though her biology
is woefully out of date).
	Mez

    In reply .12, the question is asked:
    
    "Seriously, what IMPROVEMENTS do you suppose a good Female president
    could offer which her male counterparts lack ?"
    
    This note is NOT entitled "Beyond Today's Pinnacle of Success".
    It askes why women do not reach the SAME heights of success as
    men do.  The question I quoted implies part of the answer -- which
    we've heard many times before -- A woman has to be a lot better
    than a man to be even considered for the position of "equal".
    
    Why shouldn't a woman president be of *only* the same quality
    as a man president?  Why shouldn't she capitalize on her name
    like men do?  Et cetera, et cetera?
    
    							Ann B.

    re: .12  
    
    > Would any real feminist want a woman in the White House who aspired 
    to only be like her male predecessors?
    
    I'm not talking about aspirations but about personalities.  Any
    woman who gets to the White House has commendable aspirations. 
    I'm talking about the personalities of those who's aspirations get
    them in positions of public scrutiny, i.e. the President.  If strong
    aspirations and abilities alone ever land a woman the presidency, will
    her personality be under more pressure than a man's?  If in addition
    to her supreme qualifications and abilities for the job she turns
    out to also have a passion for wild parties, fast cars and a Princess Di
    size wardrobe would that be as okay with society as JFK's passions
    turned out to be? 
                    
    And put the way you did above, what's so wrong with her 'male
    predecessors' that being 'ONLY' like them isn't good enough?  Is this
    a cagey way of saying a woman had better be one hell of a lot better
    than a man in the same position?  She must also be 'moral' or meet
    some other societal requirement that her 'male'redecessors' do not?
    Why do you expect a woman candidate must prove not only that SHE is 
    qualified, but also that femininity will be 'better' than
    masculinity?  Why aren't her personal qualifications, drive, education 
    and ability proof enough of her capability for the position?  Why must 
    she defend her sex as well?
    
    To your question "Seriously, what IMPROVEMENTS do you suppose a good 
    female president could offer which her male counterparts lack?"
    I answer without question, NONE.  Women will succeed and fail, be
    brilliant and ignorant in exactly the same ratios as men do, presidents
    included.  Is 'mere equality' with men a good reason to deny them
    equality of opportunity?  It sounds like you expect women will need to 
    demonstrate not only their personal qualifications but also WHY they 
    deserve the chance to succeed or fail.  You're not alone, I think the 
    majority of voters have this idea subconsciously.  
    
    There's no question that people don't get where they are strictly on
    their qualifications, but women have an extra burden of proof on them
    - they must prove that their sex makes them not just equal, but BETTER 
    and if they can't prove this, (and who can and why should we bother 
    wondering which sex is 'better' anyway?), then society feels
    witholding opportunity and the fruits of success from them is
    justified.  Do you see in this scenario it is MEN who have introduced 
    the aspect of 'sex'?  That a woman's abilities are only her
    'application fee' which gets her 'an interview' and she must still
    pass the acid test of defending being female.  Women KNOW they cannot 
    fail as gracefully as men can because the skeptics are watching for
    one, JUST ONE weak moment that will prove what they have 'known' all 
    along - women are simply human like men are, but sorry ladies, that's 
    just not good enough.  You must be better.  You must also be moral,
    and you MUST NEVER FAIL!!
    
    If you can't prove to men that you are all this and qualified for
    the job too, then forget it and stick with your job as a para-legal
    - a helpmate to a mere, mortal man.

Re: .0
I'd like to know how understanding how things got this way is going 
to help change anything.  If the purpose is to establish blame, 
you've clearly established that you consider men at fault for the 
inequities that now exist.  What else do you want to know?

Whether the relationship is between two individuals in a marriage
or two genders in a society, you can spend forever VENTING about
how rotten a deal you got, but the fact remains: understanding is
no excuse for not getting what you want. 

I think the real issue is, What will it take to achieve equality 
for women?

One clue is in your original note:
  "...men EXPECT they will get further than women do and this 
   expectation is not unfounded.  Men DO get further."

If you take the position that change starts from within, then
acting on the expectation that you will get what you want in the
world is a very powerful starting point.  The problem doesn't
only lie in the fact that men have had the power, but that women
have co-conspired to condition themselves to GIVE UP their power
to men.  Until a generation of women is taught to act with the
expectation they *will* get what they want, then don't expect to
see a woman president for the U.S. anytime soon. 

On a societal level, those in power have long known that you have
to have a strong base of support to maintain that power.  That's
why there's a government who taxes the people, made up of men who
make sure other men maintain that power.  But like all institutions,
the longer you have the power, the duller and more corrupt you
become. And the pinnacle of THAT success is our very own
Ronnie--a real tribute of what men have to offer the highest
position in the country. 

As men learn to feel less threatened of women expressing their
power and leadership capabilities, they'll be more tolerant of
the shortcomings and failures that go along with being in the hot
seat.  Women growing up and taking leadership capabilities need
to develop the true tools of power if they're going to reach the
pinnacle of success: a vision of the possible and an inner source
of strength to push through resistence.  Clearly the foundation
has been laid, but the house is still under construction. 

To make these kinds of changes takes generations because as we 
grow older it becomes harder and harder to forget the past.  
As oppression weakens our bodies, our desire to bring the next 
generation through the birthing pains of increased awareness 
grows.  Like the old people say, "The young ones don't know how 
hard it was back then."

Like at Digital, the people who know how to get things done have
learned that influencing with integrity and "getting buy-in"
means everyone's on the same team.  The managers who tell you
what to do and when they want it by get their short-term results
with malicious compliance, but at the cost of high turn-over in
the long term.  On a larger scale, the same is true for the
coming generation--a generation marked by remarkable optimism and
despair. 

What will it take for women to reach the pinnacle of success? To
start: forge the swords of feminist rage into plowshares of
vision for the future.  I see an incredible possibility for the
coming generation.  Please excuse a somewhat tacky analogy, but
the seeds of the feminist movement have been planted and are
sprouting new life, and some of them are men!  There's a very
significant movement beginning to grow among men that came from
the fruit of the feminist movement.  Someday these men will be
fighting side-by-side the women to bring forth another generation
of change...even as it's beginning to happen how. 

Then there'll be enough momentum to have a woman as president, 
and really support her!

In trust-
chuck

    re: -.1
    
    YAYY chuck!!!
    
    It has already started, too.  Many older feminists get frustrated
    when dealing with women of my generation because we don't see an
    evil plot to "keep us down."  Our mothers and their sisters have
    trained us to _expect_ equality, and we are often shocked when we
    are not treated equally.
    
    I think because I was raised at a time when feminism was very strident
    (it had to be), I am still a little hyper-conscious of differing
    sex treatment when it happens.  Nonetheless, the days are coming
    when we will all be treated as the _people_ we are, with gender
    differences being only one other interesting difference among _people_.
    
    If you expect to be treated as a person, it comes as a surprise
    to find someone treating you as a lower being because of what you
    consider to be merely one of your attributes (ie. gender).  Most
    of my identity is tied up in me_as_a_person_with_faults_and_strengths,
     not in me_as_a_female_with_all_the_faults_and_strengths_associated_
    with_the_female_gender.
    
    I think (hope) that we will continue to teach the coming generations
    to care more about people and less about the attributes/stereotypes
    that go along with gender [race, ethnic group, economic class, etc].
    
    But then again, I am young and it is easy to be idealistic when
    one is young.  The more I see/experience, the less I _know_.
    
    Lee

    
    I've noticed a lot of men saying something like "well, women have
    to be strong and fight for what they want, do their best, etc.
    and then women will have what they want".  Which is, of course, true.
    However, I feel sometimes that the men who say this are passing the
    *blame* for women's condition to women by saying things like this,
    instead of taking responsibility for analyzing their *own* actions
    towards women to see whether they are helping or hurting women.
    
    What bothers me about this is the pretty otherwise liberated men I
    hear it coming from (including my SO).
    
    I read into the reply in .17 some of this, though there was certainly
    a lot more than that said there that I thought was very good.
    
    	-Ellen

>I'd like to know how understanding how things got this way is going 
>to help change anything.  

I believe understanding changes everything.  The more I understand
the less angry I become but I'm still not convinced that MEN truly
understand.  In another note I stated that it's not the sexism that
bothers me as much as it is men's refusal to see it.  They've first
got to see it - believe it exists - before we can begin any kind of
work to replace it with something else, something better.  Women
don't know all the answers and are not fighting to just get men to agree
with their fully-developed idea of how the world should be.  Women are 
fighting simply to be paid the same kind of respectful attention that 
men receive.  In an oversimplification, if men ever take us seriously 
then we can all discuss the situation before us and find ways to satisfy 
us all.  Whether this takes place in the House, the Senate, any cor-
porate boardroom or at home, women are generally simply NOT taken into
consideration much beyond their physical benefits to men.

It's men's unwillingness to throw down the shield and meet us as equal
partners with needs and concerns about life in general and our own lives
in particular that still grate at women despite the relatively meager 
'strides women have made' that many men feel should satisfy us and quiet 
us down.

>The problem doesn't only lie in the fact that men have had the power, 
but that women have co-conspired to condition themselves to GIVE UP their 
power to men.  

This is a serious but sadly common misconception and it demonstrates
clearly why women still aren't convinced that men understand.  Women by
NO means "co-conspired" to give up their power.  Give it up to gain 
what?  Women with no reliable birth control had NO CHOICE in the matter 
once they began having sex.  It was a form of physical blackmail - a 
pregnant woman with children was in NO position to negotiate with her 
man and men KNEW it, and they USED it.  It became the norm that women 
did what they were told in order to survive.  Only women with no use for 
heterosexual sex escaped this form of blackmail.  The rest of the female 
human race was doomed to subservience once they gave in to their sex drive.  

All of the so-called 'women's movement' is the direct result of the de-
velopment of reliable birth control, (the pill), which freed women from 
what men were surprised to learn they had considered 'bondage'.  We are
STILL in the process of telling men that science has freed our bodies
from this blackmail but men continue on as if nothing has changed.

>As men learn to feel less threatened of women expressing their
>power and leadership capabilities, they'll be more tolerant of
>the shortcomings and failures that go along with being in the hot
>seat.  

And how will they learn?  What are they doing to learn?  What will con-
vince them better than to see firsthand that women 'expressing their power 
and leadership capabilities' does not mean that men will become just super-
fluous slugs in their lives.  Men and women will ALWAYS need/want/love
each other and it doesn't take blackmail to keep us near you.  Set us free.
Let us live as you do and you will be surprised.

Men are frantically holding the cage door closed on an angry tiger and 
have every right to fear what the tiger may do if they open the door but 
the cage is weakening and we ARE going to get out.

>What will it take for women to reach the pinnacle of success? To
>start: forge the swords of feminist rage into plowshares of
>vision for the future.  

Done.  Women have done that.  Take a look around you.  ALL of the 'strides'
    women have made have been made because of WOMEN'S vision and men's     
    reluctant allowance.

>the seeds of the feminist movement have been planted and are
>sprouting new life, and some of them are men!

Good.  We still need to get men 'on our side'.  Please be more vocal -
you are still heard louder than we are.

>Someday these men will be fighting side-by-side the women to bring forth 
>another generation of change...even as it's beginning to happen how. 

We want/need/deserve it NOW!
    

    We *have* come so far, and I'm sure each generation will see
    further growth in the women's movement.
    
    However, until the day that men can take their turn at becoming
    pregnant & undergoing childbirth... and women can become as
    physically strong as men, I personally do not feel we will ever
    experience true equality in our society.
    
    Jacki
    
    

    re .21
    
    I don't think that we will *never* get true equality unless we
    can reverse the roles of biology and make us all sexaully
    neuter or hermaphrodtitic.
    
    We can have equality if we look upon the differences as pluses
    not minuses.

    The male/female polarity is found through out the animal kingdom,
    it is found in plants, it is even found in bacteria. We aren't
    going to get very far by trying to deny or eliminate it. We need
    to value it and transcend it.
    
    Bonnie

Re: .20

>I believe understanding changes everything.  The more I understand
>the less angry I become...

My point was not "don't understand things."  But that 
understanding the past won't change it.  I can spend my whole 
life trying understand why my father beat me, why my mother left 
when I was six--and BLAMING them--for how screwed up I am.  Now 
THAT'S taking on the role of the victim.

>In another note I stated that it's not the sexism that
>bothers me as much as it is men's refusal to see it.  They've first
>got to see it - believe it exists - before we can begin any kind of
>work to replace it with something else, something better.

Update your perceptions!  There is a remarkable awareness among men 
today of how sexist our society is.  Older men clearly are not 
going to "see" it.  But I would say the majority of men under 40 
are VERY aware of many issues.  Given the tone of your writing, I 
would say it's YOUR RAGE that prevents YOU from seeing that men 
DO believe it exists, DO see it, and ARE willing to act on it.  
The real issue NOW is not whether men believe it exists, but how 
to act on it.

>...women are generally simply NOT taken into consideration much
>beyond their physical benefits to men. 

This is an insulting, ludicrous and incredibly sexist 
statement.  Men have strong needs for intimacy, companionship, 
mutuality, friendship, and spiritual connection with women.

>It's men's unwillingness to throw down the shield and meet us as equal
>partners...

Many men are still feeling very defensive and unsure about how to 
make the changes that women need.  A lot simply depends on how 
you communicate it (hence my example about influencing with 
integrity).  When I read your contributions, the rage expressed 
in your writing DOES make me want to put a shield up.  Rage can 
also be a shield.  The feminists I talk with and admire 
communicate in way that develops dialog and thereby promotes 
lasting change.  But I continually have to ignore YOUR antagonistic 
writing style to even begin to hear the issue you raise.

>Women by NO means "co-conspired" to give up their power.  Give it
>up to gain what? 

Women have co-conspired in the same way a spouse co-conspires to
support his or her spouse's alcoholism or drug addiction or any
other destructive behavior.  The conspiracy is one of
co-dependancy, each one gives up freedom to support the
addiction. 

>Men are frantically holding the cage door closed on an angry tiger and 
>have every right to fear what the tiger may do if they open the door but 
>the cage is weakening and we ARE going to get out.

If anything will prevent the changes from taking place, it's 
provocative statements like that.  Men have a NEED to feel safe too!!  
And making a statement with a phrase like men "...have every right 
to fear what the tiger may do..." only ensures that men will 
respond to the kind of angry rage you continue to express with 
digging their heels in further.

>We want/need/deserve it NOW!

Well, I certainly agree.  But it'll take generations for it to 
truly come about.    

Question:  When you say "men" are you talking about all men 
everywhere, all American or North American men, all age groups?


In trust-
chuck

    EQUALITY - n. pl. 1. The condition of being equal.
    
    Men do not have to experience childbirth for women to ever be equal.
    This excuse is simply more of the same physical blackmail.  "Women
    will never be equal until we, (men), can give birth".  How different
    from that statement is "..until hell freezes over"?
    
    Women's physical abilities are just fine and needn't be denied or
    shared with men for equality.  What needs to be changed is men's VIEW of
    women's abilities so that they are seen as just that - ABILITIES
    - and not detriments.
    
    Mensturation makes women crazy.  Pregnancy makes them unfit for
    career development.  Their hormones make them too unreliable for
    high-level positions.  Their empathetic abilities make them too
    'soft' for the cut-throat business world.  Their sex drives make
    them irresponsible sluts.  Their diseases are due to promiscuity.
    The amount of attention they give to their children make them unfit
    for the work world.  I'm sure you can think of a few hundred more
    'reasons' why we don't really deserve equal protection and equal
    opportunity under the law.
    
    We don't have to change what we are in ANY way.  Men need to change
    their negative, stereotypical and sexist attitudes about women and their
    differences from men.
    
    Childbirth for instance in this country is not seen as a plus for
    two people but as a minus for one, the woman.  She looses her job.
    Until very recently, even a married woman was expected to 'go quietly'
    as soon as she started to 'show'.  Men didn't get pregnant so therefore
    pregnancy must be 'bad' and must be hidden.
    
    In Sweden and some other countries, maternity AND paternity leave
    are granted and jobs for both guaranteed upon return.  THIS is looking
    at the ability to get pregnant as a PLUS for two people rather than
    a minus for one.  Do you see the difference?
    
    Bonnie you are absolutely right that differences between people
    must be celebrated rather than used by white males as an excuse to serve
    the white males' purpose.  Women have always been more than ready to 
    use the special characteristics and abilities that make them women for 
    the good of the union, (the relationship not the country!).  Men seem 
    willing only to contribute financially, to 'bring home the bacon' and
    to view their women's 'differences' with suspicion and unease.  
    
    Women's work, women's talk, women's beauty shops, women's bathrooms, 
    women's problems, etc are considered mysterious and forbidden to men
    but they are forbidden BY men and that's the difference.  Men fear
    'women's' things and it may help to find out what that fear stems
    from.  I was reading a book about an ambitious woman, (of course!),
    who had an appointment with a surly male she needed to convince
    of something.  She decided what she was going to do was walk in there 
    with her head up and place her purse right smack on his desk because 
    men are 'uneasy' about women's purses and she wanted to get him off 
    guard.  What is this 'uneasiness' that the author was referring
    to?  What do men fear about, (and have come to hate), women's things?
    
    Both sexes, (and every human alive), of course need 'retreats'
    from the rest of the world, but the difference is that men's retreats,
    (bars, men's clubs, locker rooms, etc), are viewed by society, (and
    it IS men who decide how 'society' will view something), as good
    things, wonderful things, and womens' retreats, (above), are viewed
    as silly at best, 'destructive to the family unit' at worst.
    
    Until women are seen as real humans with as much potential for
    greateness and failure as men there will never be equality. 
    Childbirth USED to have everything to do with it.  But no more. 
    
               

    RE: .23  (Yes, this means you Chuck :-)
    
    >My point was not "don't understand things."  But that understanding
    >the past won't change it.
    
    Ms. Ciccolini is *NOT* talking about the past!!!   I certainly disagree
    with your statements that the majority of men under 40 are even
    aware that there is a problem with sexism (or even care if there
    is).   Going through school (I was graduated from college in May
    of 1986), I heard comments about how most women are incapable of
    doing math due to their gender (the proof: look at how few women
    are in engineering).   I've heard *A LOT* of "I'ld want my wife
    to stay home with the kids."   Don't fool yourself, Chuck--just
    because *you* happen to have enlightened friends and acquaintances!
    
    Tamar

My reasons for stating childbearing as a factor in "inequality" are:
    
    Once we give birth, we are no longer as "free" and "independent"
    as men. (Actually, once we become pregnant).  As in nearly all
    animal species, the female becomes the primary care giver. And
    although women today may not always be the *primary* care *giver*,
    they are usually the one compelled to finding, monitoring, and 
    properly maintaining the childcare. 
    
    Personally, I feel this strong instinctive bond between child-bearer
    and child (beautiful as it may be) puts a reign on her in life,
    creating a "difference" in men and women in the world outside the
    home.  A difference, I feel deters real equality.
    
    It is a difficult concept for me to transmit, but something I
    (unfortunately for me) believe to be true.
    
    The other point I had made earlier which I feel defies equality
    is the difference in physical strength between men & women.
    I think the note on womens fears substantiates that claim. Those
    fears that we've all said we "live" with, affect our lives everyday.
    
    I see this as another means of stripping our "freedom" in the world,
    and thereby affecting the equality issue again.
    
    
    Jacki
    

    re: .25
    Yes, thank you Tamar. You pointed out two things that happen often
    in this notes files (and probably others):
    1) One side of a point thinks another side is saying something they're
    not. If I dare, remember the strange argument about freedom of expression
    vs. understanding how that expression effects others, and this
    juxtaposition of understanding the past vs. understanding and changing
    the present and future. These points work together; they are not
    antithetical (boy, I sure hope I'm using these words correctly).
    
    2) Don't forget hometown USA. They are not in our environment. A
    friend of mine just had a baby. She's always been unfashionably
    plump (like most women I know). She's having a real tough time coping
    with post-pregnancy weight gain. I suddenly realized, she doesn't
    have all these neat people around her I do, mentioning all the work
    done on fat and feminism. Hey, I'll send her a book! (Kim Chernin's
    The Obsession) Guess what, she likes it! And the ideas are all totally
    new. She's a CPA in New Haven, CT; there are tons more places that
    are even less "enlightened".
    
    	Mez

>    In Sweden and some other countries, maternity AND paternity leave
>    are granted and jobs for both guaranteed upon return.  THIS is looking
>    at the ability to get pregnant as a PLUS for two people rather than
>    a minus for one.  Do you see the difference?

It's actually "parental" leave, one year of sick-pay (paid by national
health) which can be taken by either parent, or split among the two
parents.  I believe there is an additional month that can be taken
by the mother before the expected birth date.  Also, the parent is
guaranteed a comparable job for (I believe) two years after birth.

This is not so much seen as "a plus for two people" but as a way to
increase the Swedish birth rate and decrease unemployment.  Also,
the concept of a full-time mother-at-home is seen as a distinct luxury
in Sweden (no tax breaks, for example).

In general, about 90% of the parental leave is taken by the mother.

Martin.

Re: .25
My original reply (.17) was in reference to the base note, which 
said:

>    In wondering how the 'duality' of society came about, (which I do
>    often - how the hell did we get this way?)...

My response in .23 was based on that statement.

To your second point:

>I certainly disagree with your statements that the majority of
>men under 40 are even aware that there is a problem with sexism
>(or even care if there is). 

Well, then we disagree.  Just for the record, what I said was
that most men under 40 are aware of MANY sexist issues.  And I
definitely think that is so.  But I think men (ALL men with
negligible exception) are still very threatened by it all, at a
total loss as to how to respond, and the responses that do exist
around male/female issues are marked by anger and suspicion.  Not
very fertile ground for a dialog, I'd say.  It doesn't surprise 
me at all that you'd hear the kind sexist crap you heard just 
recently.  Sexism is a pervasive, (virtually) all-encompassing 
aspect of our society, and every other society that I've ever 
heard of (since all societies seem to divide labor according to 
gender).

>Don't fool yourself, Chuck--just because *you* happen to have
>enlightened friends and acquaintances! 

Men haven't shared with women how aware they really are of 
sexism.  They don't want to admit to knowing!  It's scary for men, 
because it does mean giving up power--at least, that's the 
perception.  (What it really means is giving up a lot of bullshit 
roles that constrict men as well.)  No, I'm not fooling myself, but 
I'm very involved with the (very small, at this point) men's 
movement, which is an attempt for men to go into our own experiences and 
respond from the heart.  And all I can tell you is that men ARE 
AWARE, but they ain't admitting to it yet.  (Well, OK, *I'll* admit 
to it--but don't include me in the statistics :-).)

I would say that men today probably hold a wide range of 
contradictory attitudes and beliefs.  "I want MY woman to stay at 
home," oh, but, "she should be strong and independent."  God, the 
list goes on.  You know what I mean.  

In trust-
chuck

re: Martin Minow

>This is not so much seen as "a plus for two people" but as a way to
>increase the Swedish birth rate and decrease unemployment."

Well I'm guilty of assuming the motivation was a good one.  I guess
even in a very enlightened country as Sweden, this particular benefit
is granted only because it directly benefits the men who run the country,
(who want more soldiers and taxpayers!).  Still, it's a good thing for
the perception of childbirth.  It instills the idea that it's an event
for two people worth pausing in their work-lives for.  Whatever the moti-
vation, the result still beats the idea in this country that pregnancy is
proof that women are unfit for a decent work-life in the first place!

re: Chuck Hitchcock - 

>But I think men (ALL men with negligible exception) are still very 
>threatened by it all, at a total loss as to how to respond, and the re-
>sponses that do exist around male/female issues are marked by anger and 
>suspicion.  Not very fertile ground for a dialog, I'd say.  

The 'women's movement' is over 30 years old.  Dialogue has been tried.  The
ERA still is not past.  The men who run this country still don't think women
deserve equal protection and opportunity under the law.  What if it were
denying rights to people with your eye color rather than people with our 
genital type?  

And at what point in your personal life when pursuing an issue vital to the 
quality of your very existence, do you stop being a 'nice guy' and start 
busting heads?  The perception here is that you don't think women have 
tried all the 'proper' approaches and are just raging away shaking their 
fists at the sky.  I'm afraid you are wrong.

>Men haven't shared with women how aware they really are of 
>sexism.  They don't want to admit to knowing!  

This may be WHY women aren't convinced that men understand.  This coupled
with the fact that sexism continues daily in women's lives, (DESPITE the
fact you encounter self-proclaimed 'enlightened men' daily in yours),
makes women feel that we have gone nowhere accept on the small inroads
made by our champions, the very vocal women of the 60's and 70's.
A man saying he's enlightened, or even admitting to you that he realizes 
sexism exists, simply doesn't count!  You offered this perspective as per-
suasion but it doesn't work.  The world you see and hear is NOT the world 
women see and hear.

>What it really means is giving up a lot of bullshit roles that constrict 
men as well. 

This is lip-service.  If you and the rest of our male society believed that 
abolishing sexism would free them from roles they find 'constricting', sexism 
would be abolished.

>Well, OK, *I'll* admit to it--but don't include me in the statistics :-)

What are you hiding from?  Why do you think a belief that all people are
equal under the law, (if this in fact your belief), is shameful?  Are you
afraid your enlightened buddies might not accept this?

>I would say that men today probably hold a wide range of contradictory 
>attitudes and beliefs.  "I want MY woman to stay at home," oh, but, "she 
>should be strong and independent."

No, the more common contradictory attitude I run into in men is the lip-
service type of one above.  They believe in principle that women have
gotten the short end of the stick and deserve to be treated equal under
the law, but they feel, "Why does it have to start with me?"  

Men expect that someone else will take care of this issue, and they will go 
along with equality if it ever becomes the norm, but they are not going to 
assist in the demise of their top-dog status and are going to cling very 
tightly to the image of THEIR women, ('other' women, women 'in general' is 
a different story!), being good little homebodies making their dinner, bear-
ing their children and keeping quiet for as long as they can.

>...women are generally simply NOT taken into consideration much
>beyond their physical benefits to men. 
>This is an insulting, ludicrous and incredibly sexist statement.  

You should try living in a world run by people who believe this about
you.  THAT is insulting, ludicrous and incredibly sexist.

>Question:  When you say "men" are you talking about all men 
>everywhere, all American or North American men, all age groups?

All men who live in patriarchal, (sexist), cultures.  Lest you jump on
some imagined slight here, I believe that a matriarchal culture is just
as sexist.  I believe women should not get special treatment because they
are women whether the 'special' means the treatement is better or worse
than the norm.  Women simply should not be singled out because of their
sex.  Sex belongs in one part of life ONLY!
    

re: lipservice

A very interesting thing happened when I got engaged. I learned alot
about how a female cousin of mine and her husband looked at marriage
in particular, and male/female relationships in general. Her husband
stated that he thought Joe and I would indeed have a relationship that
was "different" than the hometown norm, because I have a job that pays.
She has a job that pays too, only it happens to be house cleaning (and
she does it part time, and she's mother of his children; I'm not quite
sure what factors made him draw that line). My cousin, on the other
hand, thought I was destined to lie about when Kmart closes with a year
(no joke!).

re: .30

>>Well, OK, *I'll* admit to it--but don't include me in the statistics :-)

>What are you hiding from?  

I think Chuck was jokingly bending to pressure that he not assume all
mean are like himself. Yes?
	Mez

Re: .30

>The men who run this country still don't think women deserve
>equal protection and opportunity under the law. 

The men I'm talking about aren't running the country.  That's why
I've said over and over again in my responses to you, it'll take
generations to make the changes you're talking about.  That's why
I used the analogy of the fruit from the women's movement JUST
beginning to bring forth even some of the changes of feminism.

>The perception here is that you don't think women have tried all
>the 'proper' approaches and are just raging away shaking their
>fists at the sky.

That's a projection on your part.  In fact, my issue was
specifically with the tone of your writing, which is remarkably
less inflammatory and calmer in .30 than previous contributions. 
Just for the record though, I have no issues with writing as a
means to express rage or using any other means to express emotion
(short of physical violence) to promote change in our society. 

>>What it really means is giving up a lot of bullshit roles that constrict 
>>men as well. 
>This is lip-service.  If you and the rest of our male society believed that 
>abolishing sexism would free them from roles they find 'constricting', sexism 
>would be abolished.

No, you are wrong.  Very wrong.  This is a statement from someone
who has struggled and continues to struggle with some very
important issues and has come to a limited -- but nevertheless
hard-won -- understanding about what it really takes to make
major life changes.  It's too bad you think it's lip service,
because it's an important statement from the heart of a MAN who
is working through these issues.  Perhaps even more important is
that it's a statement based on knowing many men personally and
knowing of thousands of men who are ACTING on this. 

>A man saying he's enlightened, or even admitting to you that he realizes 
>sexism exists, simply doesn't count!  You offered this perspective as per-
>suasion but it doesn't work.

Again, another projection on your part.  What do you think I'm
trying to persuade you about?  If you want to know what my
intention was behind a statement, ask. 

>>Well, OK, *I'll* admit to it--but don't include me in the statistics :-)
>What are you hiding from?  Why do you think a belief that all people are
>equal under the law, (if this in fact your belief), is shameful?  Are you
>afraid your enlightened buddies might not accept this?

No, that "in fact" is not my belief.  My point was to say that I
am not speaking only for myself, but there are others you don't
know of that I speak for.  Also, given that the line ends with a
:-) I think your last sentence is an insipid and self-serving
question. 

>Men expect that someone else will take care of this issue, and they will go 
>along with equality if it ever becomes the norm, but they are not going to 
>assist in the demise of their top-dog status...

No kidding!  The fact is, most *people* are followers.  It takes
a lot of pain and fortitude (among other qualities) to become a
visionary and go against the norm. Again, I say to you, some
change is beginning to take place. 

>>...women are generally simply NOT taken into consideration much
>>beyond their physical benefits to men. 
>>This is an insulting, ludicrous and incredibly sexist statement.  
>You should try living in a world run by people who believe this about
>you.  THAT is insulting, ludicrous and incredibly sexist.

The reason why I found your statement insulting, ludicrous and
sexist is because it ignores what you chose to ignore again (by
excluding it from your reply), namely that "men have strong needs
for intimacy, companionship, mutuality, friendship, and spiritual
connection with women." 

Now, from another angle...

I don't know where you're located, but in the Boston area there's
a local radio talk show host named Jerry Williams who's very
outspoken against police road blocks as a means of catching drunk
drivers.  He has stated thousands of times he wants drunk drivers
off the road and prosecuted, but not at the expense of assuming
guilt first and stopping all cars (and thereby allowing the
police even more ability to intrude into our lives). 

A couple days ago, he was in a public forum debating against the
Mass. President of MADD and the Commissioner of Roads, both of whom
are very in favor of road blocks.  At the end of the forum,
several people were interviewed by different stations and
remarkably some of them said, "I'm very angry that Jerry
Williams is in favor of drunk driving!"  At no time did he even 
imply such a position.  They made this equation because the issue 
is so charged that being against road blocks means you're in 
favor of drunk driving.

THAT's analogous to how I feel discussing these issues with you. I
make a clear and unambiguous statement like, "What it really
means is giving up a lot of bullshit roles that constrict men as
well," and your response is "This is lip-service."  And later 
when I was trying to get you to see that some changes are ARE 
taking place with men, your response is "it simply doesn't count."

Does your statement that "the women's movement is 30 years old"
mean that's justification to "start bashing heads?" [your
phrase]  It's gonna take a lot longer than a mere generation
and a half to change the ubiquitous sexism in our country today. 
It may take 300 years years to see any pervasive changes; perhaps
3000 years to rid the Earth of gender-based inequality.  But now
it's time to start bashing heads?  THAT's your response?  I point
out some valuable changes are happening today and your response
is "it doesn't count"?? 

I'm trying to point out at least SOME color in an otherwise gray
picture of 1987 and your response is to continue to see the world
as black and white.  You may consider yourself "a very happy
woman" [123.61] but I think your bitterness prevents you from
accepting some of the changes in men -- who in turn will begin to
have an increasing affect on the nation -- that are happening
now.  I KNOW they're happening.  I KNOW men's lives are changing.
I KNOW progress is being made.  And your continued scenarios of
angry women in cages with men frantically holding the doors
closed does not cloud my vision of the future! 

In trust-
chuck

    Just to clarify a statement made in previous notes...the women's
    movement is clearly more than 30 years old if one considers the
    Suffrage Movement.  I expect that there have been other visionary
    women prior to this time that have contributed to the women's 
    movement.
    
    I think that Chuck has some valid points and I can understand Sandy's
    frustration.  But again as we so often do we bash around generalities.
    
    It seems that the need has been identified and it is time to work
    specifics.  
    
    If as the base note suggests it is difficult for a woman to be
    president let us work that issue.  Clearly Geraldine Ferraro was
    not the appropriate choice in the last election.  
    
    Let's take this note and work an issue...who is a viable candidate
    for the upcoming election.  What qualities to we want in a President
    and who amoungst our sisters qualifies.

    In the sixties there were plenty of politicians who told black
    americans that they might have to wait 300 or 3000 years for 
    equality to emerge.  Black america did not accept that and 
    neither can we.  
    
    The fact is that sexism is not hurting men.  It is hurting women
    and children.  So many institutions are designed around sexist 
    principles.  Churches will accept our money every week and our time
    but not even consider us as priests, ministers, or rabis.
    How many little girls learn very early that they are not 
    (what? ...worthy?, competent?, adequate?) to serve a God.
    
    When we talk about sexism we are talking about money and power and
    issues that directly contribute to the quality of our daily lives.
    Pay us the same amount of money as the guy doing the same job next
    to us.  Give us an equal consideration in the court room.  Treat
    legislation aimed at making life easier for us with favor.  Stop
    trying to regulate our bodies.
    
    I would not vote for any politician that votes against woman's issues.
    I would not attend any church that held sexist attitudes.  Its the
    Sandy's of the world who will carve out the future for us.  
    
    
    
    
    
     
    

    Just a small nit: my rabbi IS a woman.  SHe was the fourth one ordained
    in this country.  That's not why I picked what synagogue to join,
    however.
    
    I, too, find the progress towards equality in this country to be
    depressingly slow.  And all of the qualified, honest, intelligent
    people that I know whom I would love to vote into public office
    (such as my boss, for example) are not interested in the job, since
    they are qualified, honest, and intelligent...  Particularly at
    the level of the senate (or worse, the president), to be interested
    in the job you would have to enoy and desire power over people.
    That's not a role women have tradtionally held in the U.S., and
    not one we are trained to be comfortable with - me even less than
    most people, probably!  Sad, isn't it?

Re: .35

Why waste your time in a church trying to serve some old fart of
a God when you can be out in nature having fun loving the
Goddess? ;-)

In trust-
chuck

            <<< RANGER::$2$DUA11:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 219.38                  The Pinnacle of Success                    38 of 38
CSSE::CICCOLINI                                     269 lines   9-MAR-1987 13:52
               -< This is long, sorry.  Thanx, MANTIS::PARE!!!! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chuck,
    
    God is not the old fart.  The old farts are the men who have decided
    that God wants only men to be his 'direct reports'.
    
>The men I'm talking about aren't running the country.  

I'm glad because then we're talking about two totally different 
groups here and that explains our brick wall on that point!  I AM 
talking about the men who run the country.  The men who run our world,
making decisions that affect the lives of women without taking in-
to consideration what women want/need.  The men who feel that women
don't need/deserve, (whatever the rationalization is), equal pro-
tection and opportunity under the law.  Those men who don't feel women
need THAT much money for their work.  The men who operate in government,
industry social programs, banks, etc with certain assumptions about women 
and who bristle at the thought that those assumptions may be wrong.
Bristle if they hear anything contradictory from men or elsewhere but get 
downright outraged if they here anything contradictory from women.  Those men.
Your peers and mine, our generation, our relatively enlightened work-
force at Digital is of COURSE much different from this.  Change starts
with either youth and/or education and of COURSE a microcosm of enlighten-
ment has developed among our colleagues and peers and is spreading.  But
my point is these people, while their enlightenment is needed, can only
affect the NEXT generation at best.  The men who run the world and make de-
cisions that affect our peers are NOT of this microcosm and it's THOSE men who
have been hearing from women for some 30 years but have ignored it and
continue to 'groom their successors' in their image.  Eventually, the
'successors' will be enlightened men who will be strong enough to stand up 
and say "this is wrong" OR WOMEN who already KNOW this is wrong and
who aren't afraid to say so, (good reason to keep them out?) but for right 
now the men close to the high places play the game to win and fairness to
all people be damned.

>In fact, my issue was specifically with the tone of your writing, which is 
remarkably less inflammatory and calmer in .30 than previous contributions. 

Well good.  I AM outraged at the shoddy treatment I am expected to good-
naturedly endure and I am guilty for occasionally letting my outrage show.
I can't apologize - it's a pretty normal reaction.  I'll just try and keep 
it in check.

I haven't learned my lessons too well and I just expect to get a job be-
cause I'm the most qualified, I just expect to get paid what men of equal 
status get paid, I just expect that men who assault me will pay under the law, 
and I just expect that I will be viewed and treated as a business person when
I'm on business.  When these things don't happen it is a blatant slap in
the face to me and because they happen a lot, I've built up a LOT of anger.

>>What are you hiding from?  Why do you think a belief that all people are
>>equal under the law, (if this in fact your belief), is shameful?  Are you
>>afraid your enlightened buddies might not accept this?
>No, that "in fact" is not my belief.  

Well this says it all.  If you don't believe all people are equal under the 
law then we shouldn't even be wasting disk space here.  You and I are from
two different planets.

>It takes a lot of pain and fortitude (among other qualities) to become a
>visionary and go against the norm. 

I'm not sure you believe this when it applies to women.  Outspoken women are 
without question going against the norm and the issue of women's rights is 
often diluted with 'accusations' because of this deviation rather than treated 
with respect because of the "pain and fortitude, (and other qualities), it 
takes to go against the norm".  Even you have done it by commenting on 
my 'writing style'.  A lot of times women get silenced with these very handy 
names such as 'loud-mouths', 'militant feminists', and others for women who 
go against this particular norm of women keeping quiet and just accepting what
is.  Of course, I'm sure you already realize I'm not one of them :-).

>it ignores what you chose to ignore again (by excluding it from your reply), 
>namely that "men have strong needs for intimacy, companionship, mutuality, 
>friendship, and spiritual connection with women." 

I didn't want to get into the tangent which needs to be gotten into to deal 
with this statement but I can handle this point.  Men view women dually.  
There are 'their' women, (wives, mothers, daughters, SO's, etc), and then 
there are 'women', which is all the women they haven't met.  Men use very 
different standards for women depending on which group the woman belongs 
to. 
    
For example men may often try and pick up cocktail waitresses but are negative
if one of 'thier' women chooses to be one.  Another example is a man attracted
to some woman's revealing clothing but if she ever crosses over into the other
group, becomes 'his', he will begin to object about the clothing.  I could 
give a lot of examples but I know I've discussed this point in another note.
Now given that, I agree with you fully that men need intimacy, companship, 
mutuality, friendship, and spiritual connection with women", but I believe
they neither need nor even think of it except in the context of 'their'
    women.  I believe most men think it's pretty much open season on all
    the rest of the women in the world, what I refer to as 'women'.  Men
    don't make decisions that affect all women based on their perceptions
    of 'their' women and I wish this would be so.  I wish that men who say 
    insulting things to women on the street, (and this is STILL a very
    common occurrence), realize at least that if they don't think
    themselves that we are actual human beings that they realize some men do.

    We are the daughters, wives, SO's of SOMEBODY!  This could go right up the
ladder to men who are drooling over the 'women as ornaments' publications
to the men who are deciding on important social policies and laws.  My ver-
sion of the double standard is not so much the standard differences between
men and women, (what the double standard refers to), but I think it's better
used to refer to the double view of women depending on her relationship to
the man 'viewing'.

>I make a clear and unambiguous statement like, "What it really
>means is giving up a lot of bullshit roles that constrict men as
>well," and your response is "This is lip-service."  

We seem to differe here only in that I believe that if men felt constricted 
by sexism they would do away with it.  Your statement is clear and un-
ambiguous enough but I just don't believe MEN believe that's true.  I believe
it IS true but I think men still persist because they BELIEVE they have more
to lose than to gain.  On this point we really agree - that men have much
to gain as well.  We just differ in that I think men's fear of losing con-
trol over both groups of women, ('their' women and all the unmet women), 
eclipses their attention to the possiblity of anything else working out in
their favor.

>when I was trying to get you to see that some changes are ARE 
>taking place with men, your response is "it simply doesn't count."

No, that response was to men telling YOU that they are enlightened.  Yes 
you hear it, yes you may eve SEE progress in your world and women see
progress too but the MAJORITY of the world is STILL hostile
to women and from our perspective the paltry changes are a drop in the
bucket compared to the big one - guaranteed equallity under the law.  You're
looking at the glass as one quarter full because you have plenty of water
for your self.  We are the group dying of thirst who naturally are going
to see it as 3/4's empty.  After 30 some odd years of telling men we would 
like as much water as they have, that miniscule little sip looks pretty 
pathetic to us.  Our difference on this point is one of perspective.

>Does your statement that "the women's movement is 30 years old"
>mean that's justification to "start bashing heads?" [your phrase].

No.  The justification is in that after all this time we are still pretty
much just patted on the head and smiled at when we raise a serious concern
and are thrown the catch-22 that if we get TOO vocal men will start name-
calling to silence us.  Given all this, I think the women that got us as
far as we are must be extraordinary women.  How DO you get what you want/
need/deserve and STILL be a 'nice girl'?  

I know we don't differ on this point.  I'm quite sure you've reached your 
frustration and anger point in your life more than once.  We differ in what 
we feel is justification.  So are we really discussing what women's boiling
point SHOULD be instead of realizing lots of women have reached it?

> It's gonna take a lot longer than a mere generation and a half to change 
>the ubiquitous sexism in our country today.  It may take 300 years years to 
>see any pervasive changes; perhaps 3000 years to rid the Earth of gender-based
>inequality.  

It will if men have their way.  First you say that changes ARE being made
and now you say it will take hundreds/thousands of years?   I believe women
are ready and able RIGHT NOW to begin working to create a non-sexist/non-racist
society and men are the limiting factor due to their fear of this change.  I've
discussed this in another note as well.  Women, (and blacks, and every non-
white male), have a vested interest in promoting the changes and we embrace 
them heartily.  White men, (not necessarily this microcosm of ours, now!), have 
a vested interested in promoting the status quo and are resisting strongly.  
It's this resistance that is my whole point.  This turning a deaf ear to a
woman's voice, or offering a tiny concession that is supposed to satisfy
them once and for all so "real business" can be gotten back to.

>I'm trying to point out at least SOME color in an otherwise gray picture of 
>1987 and your response is to continue to see the world as black and white.  

I appreciate it but this is beside the point.  Of COURSE there is some color
in an otherwise gray picture of 1987, but I'm discussing the GRAY!  Making
assumptions about how I view the world because of how I view this particular
PART of the world is dangerous.  I'm making a particular point and you are
saying "don't view the world so black and white".  Let's discuss how you and
I view the world some other time and get back to this particular facet of
'the world'.

>You may consider yourself "a very happy woman" [123.61] but I think your 
>bitterness prevents you from accepting some of the changes in men.

I know you think that but I don't know why.  I met a man for whom sexism
was not something you're raised into and I've done more than just 'accept'
him, I've grabbed him before any other woman realizes what a truly rare
bird he is indeed.  I've dated hundreds of men in my short lifetime and almost
every one of them has all the usual sexist expectations of 'their' women.
They're attracted by my open and honest, bottom-line style and are put off
by it once I cross the boundary and become one of 'their' women.  I'm not
stating this as a problem for me.  I don't expect to single-handedly change
the world so meeting a 'traditional' male, (shall we use the nicer sounding
way of saying sexist?), doesn't surprise me or depress me.  Meeting a non-
traditional male on the other hand elates me, (which you seem to be saying
you think I'm incapable of recognizing), as would the finding of any rare
treasure.

re:  Lee Tatistcheff

    >First of all, good going chuck: it takes something special to persevere
    >in an argument/discussion with someone who is expressing such extreme
    >rage.  

Guilty as charged.  I don't apologize for the rage, but for letting it show.
(I'm eliminating some sarcasm about how I know I should be nice and
quite here - but it's tough!)
    
>Also, addressing the fact that sexism is not just hurting women but men as 
>well is an important step.
 
True, and that fact HAS been addressed but I say the fact that sexism
still exists proves that men don't really believe they will gain by
eliminating it.

>but if people are willing to listen to your reason and change their opinions 
>and behavior as a result of your reason, why use them as an outlet for your 
>rage which is largely directed at others?
 
There's a confusion between the message and the medium and I apologize for my 
part in the confusion.  I have no desire to vent rage at people who are "willing
to listen to [my] reason and change their opinions and behavior...", but if 
someone is talking to someone about a topic that outrages them, than it's easy
to assume that anger is directed at the listener.  My rage is not directed at
Chuck but at the situation we are discussing which angers me greatly.

>Example: almost any man who is willing to participate in this conference seems
>(to me) to be trying to understand what we think is wrong, why, HOW wrong it 
>is, and how to change it.

I'd say only SOME are.  I think plenty of men are in this conference out of
amusement and/or out of a search for the seeds of arguments to support already
held assumptions.  Because I have an issue, I don't need to argue with the
men who are in this conference to try and understand.  Because they are al-
ready 'on our side' I turn my attention to the others.  This doesn't mean I 
don't KNOW that sincere men are writing in and reading this conference.

>yet they are willing to _TRY_!!! That counts for a lot, and it is relatively 
new.

I agree.  We differ here in that I don't believe reading a notes conference
proves that 'men' are trying to understand 'women'.  We're a select group
of society.  If someone polled DEC employees and then published a book on
the findings, people would be all over that person for using such a non-
representative group of people.  DEC men, (the majority of the ones that
read this conference in particular), are NOT representative of the world at
large and if my anger slips out anywhere it's when a DEC man assumes in this
conference that they ARE by stating things like they know men who are en-
lightened, etc.  People say all SORTS of things and that's why I said to
you Chuck that men simply saying they are enlightened or saying that they 
believe sexism is wrong doesn't count. Talk is cheap.  Actions speak louder 
and the actions I am looking at are the ones that tell women that sure, all 
men are created equal but women are a different story.

>Sisters, we need our rage, but we also need the cooperation of our
>brothers.  If men never "buy in" to eradicating sexism, we will
>never get what we  ALL need -- equality.
 
We just need men to 'buy in' to the idea that women have issues and concerns
that deserve to be taken into consideration.  If they 'buy into' this, sexism
will fall immediately.

>We will keep talking, acting and teaching our children; 

And the world will keep contradicting that teaching by telling men they are
the supreme sex and must keep it that way.

>feminism will not die.
 
We can't turn back.  Science has freed our bodies and there is no reason any
longer to keep up what is now only a charade continuing not because of women
but because of men's fear.
    
                        
    

    RE: .37
    Good point chuck :-)

Re: .38

I was gratified to read your acknowledgment of some perspectives
other than your own.  But you misunderstand my attitude about
expressing rage, and if I wasn't clear enough by saying "I have
no issues with writing as a means to express rage or using any
other means to express emotion (short of physical violence) to
promote change in our society," [.32] then I'll elaborate. 

My issue is with the way you express your rage and not with your
content (you have many, many valid points).  Specifically, I have
two issues with you. 

1.  You project motivations onto me (or "men") that don't exist
and justify your argument from there.  Two examples: 

>>>What are you hiding from?  Why do you think a belief that all people are
>>>equal under the law, (if this in fact your belief), is shameful?  Are you
>>>afraid your enlightened buddies might not accept this?
>>No, that "in fact" is not my belief.  
>Well this says it all.  If you don't believe all people are equal under the 
>law then we shouldn't even be wasting disk space here.  You and I are from
>two different planets.

Read the question carefully, it says (without the parenthetical
statement): "Why do you think a belief that all people are equal
under the law is shameful?"  My response is that that is *NOT* my
belief, meaning that I DON'T believe it is shameful for all
people to be equal under the law!!  You projected into my
response what you WANTED to see, NOT what I explicitly wrote. 

Then, in addition to that, you chose to include your moronic and
insipid question again!  It's this defensive and retaliatory
style that undermines your credibility and anyone else's attempt
at dialog with you.  (But as you already said in reply .30:
"Dialogue has been tried.") 

Although you have many important points to bring out, because 
your anger controls you you're continually subject to projecting 
motivations onto me to justify your anger.  Another example:

>..if my anger slips out anywhere it's when a DEC man assumes in this
>conference that they ARE by stating things like they know men who are en-
>lightened, etc.

Who made this assumption?  I've read every note and reply in this
conference and never ONCE has anyone--male or female--made this
assumption.  Yet you do.  When I was talking about the men I
know, I in fact was talking about men who DON'T work at DEC
(which isn't to say there aren't "enlightened" men at DEC, only
that I wasn't referring to men here when I made my statement).  I
was, however,  talking about men who are trying to understand the
issues of the women in this world and seeking a response of love
and support that comes from within them. 


2.  My second issue is that when you point the spotlight on one 
problem and I respond with telling you that you don't have the 
complete story (about men's experience), you change tactics.  In 
the example below, it's even at the expense of contradicting 
yourself.

>People say all SORTS of things and that's why I said to
>you Chuck that men simply saying they are enlightened or saying that they 
>believe sexism is wrong doesn't count. Talk is cheap.  Actions speak louder 
>and the actions I am looking at are the ones that tell women that sure, all 
>men are created equal but women are a different story.

YOU need to decide what you want as a response from men, because 
if it's action you want to see and saying that men believing 
sexism is wrong "doesn't count" then why in the world did you make
the following statement in reply .20?

>...it's not the sexism that bothers me as much as it is men's refusal to
>see it.  They've first got to see it - believe it exists - before we can
>begin any kind of work to replace it with something else, something better.

When I responded with pointing out that many men do believe it,
do see, and have begun some work, you turn around and say a
belief that sexism exists doesn't even count and contradict
yourself in the process! 

My point in persevering with you is that because so many of the
issues you raise are good ones, valid ones, ones that men (and
women) need to hear and understand, that it's painful to see you
undermine your credibility by victimizing yourself with your own
anger. 

And too much good work has already been and so much more NEEDS to
be done for me to passively allow one woman to undermine the
credibility of what feminism has accomplished thus far.

In trust-
Chuck

    so much
    
    1. disproportionate number of scandals....male/female pols.
    
    	pick one or more
    	a. 99.999999% of american pols are men.
    		that could be why there are more male scandals.
    	b. having spoken to men and women on many subjects....women
    	seem to care more about people and men seem to care more
    	about power and influence.
    		just an opinion.
    	c. women tend to not degrade the sexuality of men.....men
    	seem to do the reverse....
    		just an opinion.
    
    2. money and power in a man is attractive to women.
    	maybe, but isn't it odd that, according to lastest stats,
    	98% of people in TOP EXECUTIVE LEVEL MANAGEMENT are white
    	males?....seems to indicate that men have more of a liking
    	for money and power than women.
    
    3.women's movement more than 30 years old?
    	177?  abigail adams requested that her husband "remember the
    ladies" when structuring the new laws of the land.
    	John asked abigail if she had had a bad day and please don't
    be foolish dear....is dinner ready?
    
    4. idealism in the young vs old.
    	idealism is youth is slightly encouraged and usually forgiven.
    	idealism in the old is treated as immaturity.
    	I know.
    	
    
    when i opened up wommannotes today there was a little sign that
    said
    
    	something like
    
    	"together we can change the world"
    
    	I like to see things like that but it seems as though people
    who use those cute madison ave slogans tend to leave out the
    qualifications that they really recognize.
    
    	yes, together we can change the world....a little.
    	united we can move mountains...well, mole hilles, anyway...
    
    	people (not everyone) use that slogan as though it means
    something important and THEN they say...
    	that's the way it is.
    	That's life...
    	Nothing you can do about it....
    	etc....
    
    	if only more people would really mean it when they
    said.....together we can change the world.
    
    it seems to me that there are more people who really don't
    want drastic changes. I thinks that's why they tell me to
    shut up when i say "let's make the world a better place...."
    for women, minorities, animals...everyone...
    
    in fact, they actually act as a negative force to keep these
    wonderful changes from happening....
    
    when 1 person says....equal rights for women
    and 10 people say...shut up ya jerk!
    the first person feels (guilty? silly? alone?) and backs off.
    
    that's negative reinforcment, i think.
    
    little  boy says "daddy, what am i gonna be when i grow up?"
    and daddy says (still!)
    	"son, you're gonna go to college and get a good education
    	and find a wife and buy a house and make lotsa money and
    	be a real success and have kids....lucky you!"
    little girl says "daddy, what am i gonna do when i grow up?"
    and daddy says (still)
    	"baby (not daughter....BABY!)((or sweetie...or hon))...
    	you're gonna meet some wonderful boy and get married and
    	have a house and kids and a wonderful life....lucky you!"
    
    	now that's inequality.
    	perpetual notions!
    
    	ok, i recognize that women are now allowed to get educations
    and jobs and be more competitive?....but the other myths are
    still thrown in for good measure.
    
    	when people say to their daughters and sons....
    	"child...you can be anything you want and do anything
    you want"
    	we'll have a better chance for equality.
    
    	I'm a single parent with 2 daughters and I discourage as
    many of the old myths as i can.
    	and there's plenty of them.
    	I want my daughters to not have to have this same discussion
    with their co0workers because the problems have been solved.
    
    	so, since we can change the world if we act together, i add
    my name to the roll call of people working together to change the
    world.
    
    	rik
    

    re: .41
    ".. together we can change the world .." isn't an idealistic cliche.It
    was one of the sl;ogans used by the "Martin Luther King" following,
    amnd loosely translated, it was used by Gandhi. It is still used
    bymany "peace activists", "Anti-Nuclear" groups, and a fair number
    of other people.
    
    It buigs me a little to think that "according to some opinion" that
    when the balance of power shifts gender, we will miraculously see
    an end to all the "sexist oriented" abuse. Yet, already we are 
    "seeing" some signs of "self same " abuse being conducted by
    propfessional women in the way they treat "domeestics","houshold
    help", and each other.  Of several Female sales people I've had
    call on me,ONE (only one) had the audacity to try the "poor me,
    if I don't get a sale my boss will be MAD at me !".
    
    Why is it, if people arte people, and the only real difference is
    in the genitals (so some choose to tell me) - how can "things"
    be any different when the balance of power shifts gender ? Think
    about it !
    
    Bob

    	RE:  .42
    
    			Why does there have to be *one* gender
    		dominant over the *other* gender?  Personally,
    		I would be just as unhappy if *women* were
    		dominant over *men* -- I see no necessity for
    		it and I would fight it every step of the
    		way if it came to that.

    			As for how professional women treat
    		domestics -- I have a "cleaning service" that
    		comes in to my home every two weeks.  When they
    		arrive, I'm dressed in *my* cleaning duds, too,
    		and I do a lot of *my* share of the cleaning
    		while they are doing theirs.  I only "contract
    		out" certain parts of the work (not all.)
    
    			Not *all* professional women treat
    		domestics (and others) badly.  That seems to be
    		another growing stereotype about women (that we
    		claw over others to get ahead and then treat others
    		of our sex like dirt after we make it.)
    
    			That generalization (like most others) is
    		not accurate or fair.
    
    							Suzanne...