Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    Re: .1, 	Very well written. Truly words of wisdom for us all.
    

    re .1

    I don't think this is what you mean, but your comments sound like
    social Darwinism...
        
    It sounds to me as if you are saying that the poor are poor because
    they want to be, that people stand in lines at the soup kitchen
    because they like the food, and that people are homeless because
    they like the outdoors.
    
    Say it ain't so, Suzanne...
    
    	Bruce

    	RE:  .3
    
    	That's not what I said at all.
    
    	I said that it's *TRUE* that it isn't the fault of the poor,
    	and it's *TRUE* that it isn't fair that these things happen.
    
    	But knowing that it isn't our fault and it isn't fair *DOESN'T*
    	solve it.
    
    	If someone had told me (back when I was struggling to get my
    	degree when my son was a baby) that I shouldn't have *had* to
    	work that hard, and that it was *society* that should change
    	and take care of me (instead of *me* having to do it) -- maybe
    	I would have said, "YEAH!!  Why *should* I have to do this???
    	It's not my fault and it's unfair!!"
    
    	And, today -- I'd still be poor.  What good would it have done
    	me *or* my son?
    
    						     Suzanne... ;-)

    I admire you achievement...
    
    but the statistics that i remember  claim that *very large* number
    of children in the US live in poverty... they are undereducated
    and underfed. I think that it's cruel, wasteful and disgraceful
    that we as a nation allow this to continue. I'm sure that struggling
    indeed builds character, but I think perhaps we're expecting too
    much.
    
    This discussion started in 314, women/poverty/era... maybe we should
    continue it there?
    
    	Bruce

    	RE: .5
    
    	Is it any less cruel to hold up a "pipedream" to the poor
    	by suggesting that society *WILL* end this disgrace sometime
    	soon (so that the poor will sit back and wait for it to
    	happen)?
    
    	What society/the_government *SHOULD* do and what it *WILL*
    	do are two different things.
    
    	All I'm saying is that there is no point in encouraging the
    	poor to wait for something that may never happen.
    
    	Instead, we need to show them that it *IS* possible to
    	overcome poverty on their own.  Lots of people have done
    	it (and they weren't all geniuses or "super-beings.")
    
    	They were just determined.
    
    						     Suzanne... ;-)

Suzanne,

I have really enjoyed your entries in this conference, but I feel the need 
to respond to some of what you said in .1.  It strikes me that one of the 
things you might not see is just how remarkable your own story is.  Somehow 
you managed to learn a trade, raise babies, and land an interesting, growth 
oriented job.  All this as a single parent!  You mentioned in .1 that you 
figured that if other women could do it, you could do it.  And I think you 
have since grown to believe that if you can do it, anyone can do it.  It is 
there that I think your logic may be flawed.  We all respond to life's 
challenges differently.  And I think that, with regard to poverty, it does 
take a certain set of tools (such as courage, self-respect, and maybe some 
anger, to name a few) to emerge "successful."  For every woman who pulls 
herself out of poverty, I believe there are many more who are unable to do 
so.  I think that in the vast majority of those cases the cause lies not in 
the individual's drive to succeed but in our social structure and 
priorities.  That is not to say that impoverished women should not *try* to 
improve their lot, but I believe that many will not succeed no matter how
    hard they try, and many who leave the ranks of the poor will take 
    low-paying jobs and will constantly struggle to make ends meet.  

However, what I really want to talk about is the tone of some of your 
remarks.  I think that whenever we overcome some obstacle, we really want 
to share the wealth of our knowledge with others and may come to believe
that we know what others ought to do to overcome similar obstacles.  I 
think we run the risk, though, of sounding judgemental when we really wish 
to be helpful.  I'd like to share something from my personal experience to 
see if I can make my point clearer.  <gulp>  ...  A while ago I was in a 
long-term relationship which grew to be physically abusive.  Ironically, I 
was volunteering at a shelter for battered women at the time, but I still 
went through all the stages:  denial, self-blame, hoping it would go away, 
etc., and it took some time before I was *ready* to admit that the 
relationship was over and that I had to leave.  Before I left and while the 
abuse was happening, I really needed support, and I finally got up the 
nerve to tell a friend of mine about it.  She looked at me with horror, 
couldn't understand why I didn't just leave, and things were really never 
the same between us again.  My point is that I wasn't ready to act yet, and 
my friend's judgemental attitude just made things worse... made me feel 
even more isolated.  Finally, I was able to build up the self-confidence I 
needed to leave and get my life in order.  Some women might have left after 
the first violent episode; others never leave.  One thing that's clear to 
me is that having a network of supportive, non-judgemental friends really 
helped me get through the tough times.  It would be nice if we could do 
more of that for each other here.  Hearing the success stories of our 
sisters is a source of strength and inspiration for us, but I hope that we 
can remain sensitive to the fact that we all respond differently to the 
challenges that face us.
                        
Justine

Re: -1 and .1:

I can't help but feel that you have misinterpreted Suzanne's comments in
reply .1.  I took her entry to be encouragement, not as a put-down.  It
is indeed a bit bracing, but I essentially agree with her comments.

Here is my story:

In August 1956, my father died leaving 2 sons, 3 daughters, and a wife
who had no work experience and could speak only minimal english.  We had
all immigrated from Germany at the end of WWII.  My father left almost no
life insurance, and no savings to speak of.  

All we had was Social Security (a grand total of $168 per month).  We were
not eligible for welfare because we owned the house we lived in.  The welfare
people told my mother that since it was an asset (even though the mortgage
was nowhere near paid off) she couldn't get wellfare unless she sold it.
She refused to sell it, and the wellfare people literally kicked her out of
the office for insubordination and then tried to take us kids away from her
because she was obviously not a fit mother.

So my mother went to work - as a nurse's aide.  She could only work part-time,
because if she earned over a set limit her social security payments were 
stopped.  But she sent 4 of us to college and the other one went to Nursing
school.  She did it alone, with the five of us helping as we could.  We were
expected to get scholarships for college - and we did.  But she did it without
welfare, and with no other help from the "authorities".

The record so far:  

		1 PHD in Biochemistry - now a professor at Cornell University.
		1 MS in Nursing       - Head Nurse Childrens Dept St Luke's
					Hospital in New York City
		2 Teachers
		1 MS Economics        - Now a Digit

The message is clear -- it can be done by anyone.  But you need to do it, and
not just sit around and complain about how unfair life is.

And Suzanne and my mother are not alone - I am currently living with a woman
who had no education and was raising 2 kids on her own who is now a Principal
Tech Writer for Dec.  The list is long.  And it all goes to show that others
can do it also.

Again please take this entry as an exhortation to accomplish something, not 
as a put-down -- It can happen, but you have to make it happen.

In Peace and Freindship:

Dirk

	re .1-.8: There are two points of view towards dealing with
	poverty - society's and the individual's. What society must do
	is to smooth the way, to make the road easier for those
	unfortunate enough to be in poverty. There is plenty of valid
	disagreement on how to do this, what government's role should
	be, etc. The problem in the poverty discussion was that some
	of that valid disagreement became mistaken as insensitivity to
	the problem itself. And some people mistake anecdotes about
	abuses of current "solutions" as evidence there really isn't a
	problem.
	
	Suzanne was looking at it from the point of view of the
	individual in that situation - she was just saying that
	complaining about it isn't productive, we all know there are
	those roadblocks in your way. The point is, you can't just sit
	back and say "there's nothing I can do", you have to get up
	and do the best you can to overcome those roadblocks. Not
	everyone can do it, sometimes and for some people those
	roadblocks are just too big, and that's where "society" should
	be stepping in to make up the difference.
	
	re .0: Joyce, I know it's frustrating when you can't get
	people to recognize where you're coming from, when they just
	can't see things the way you do. But there are things that
	just can't be shared. A man can't ever know the pain of
	childbirth. And someone born and raised in economic comfort
	can't understand what living in poverty is really like. You
	just do the best you can (and you have been doing well).
	
	Please stay,
	
	Mike

    
    You're being too hard on yourself, Joyce.  If none of us ever stumbled,
    if we were all rational all the time, few of the issues raised in
    conferences like this would exist.
    
    It would be wonderful if we could be nice all the time.  It isn't
    a nice world, though.
    
    DFW

    re .7, Justine's words, which to me sum up perfectly why some people
    *can* do it and others just *can't*.
    
    >We all respond to life's challenges differently.  And I think that,
    >with regard to poverty, it does take a certain set of tools (such
    >as courage, self-respect, and maybe some anger, to name a few)
    >to emerge "successful."  For every woman who pulls herself out
    >of poverty, I believe there are many more who are unable to do
    >so.

    re Suzanne's story and Dirk's (.8) story about his widowed mother -
    Suzanne, *you* had the tools to make your life better, those mentioned
    by Justine - courage, self-respect, and common sense.  Dirk, your
    mother had those tools too.  Most people in poverty *do not* have
    those tools.  For *many* people in poverty, the material dearth
    accompanies a personal and emotional well-being dearth as well.
    When the system has kicked a person down hard enough and often enough,
    and when a person has *grown up* in poverty, knowing nothing else,it
    is hard to get back up again, especially when that person has never
    learned those skills of self-respect, courage, common sense, and
    hard work.  Our society doesn't teach those things to people in
    poverty.  I'm going to take a wild guess (please, no flames, just
    a hypothesis), that perhaps people like Suzanne and Dirk's mother
    both *had* known something other than poverty at some point in their
    lives, and knew things *could* be different.  *Not* everyone has had
    that.  Also, I believe that being raised as a baby and child by loving,
    encouraging parents makes a *big* difference in a person's ability
    later in life to achieve.  Not everyone has had that.
    
    Which brings me to something I've been thinking about lately.  I've
    wondered if the best thing for people in poverty is to have someone
    who *cares* about them, someone who is a good role model, someone
    who can teach by example and by caring the tools that one needs
    to make a good life.
    
    	-Ellen

    You make a good point, Ellen.  
    
    I grew up without any money, but we were never 'poor' or 'impoverished'
    because we knew that most of the things that make life worth living,
    and worth living well, can't be bought with money. Self-respect,
    personal integrity, and courage are some of them.  Love, a caring
    family, the pleasures of sharing and helping each other, are others.
    And we had richness in our life that far wealthier families than ours
    never thought to enjoy -- the library was free, and so are the air
    waves, so I learned classical music and the whole world of education.
    
    But being without money in this country for any length of time is
    something that grinds all these values out of you.  Your importance as
    a person is weighed entirely by its monetary value (it took me five
    minutes to find a way to phrase that sentence that didn't use words
    that imply money -- your personal worth, your value as a person, all
    use words that can be taken to refer to only what you could sell your
    life for.) Your mother comes to your home economics class's "reception"
    and the other mothers don't talk to her because she "doesn't have
    anything to say" about piano lessons or redecorating the house. 
    You can only listen to that kind of stuff for so long before you
    start to believe it yourself.
     
    In compassion also one must mention those who do try to get out of
    poverty and fail.  Whether the responsibility lies with the poor person
    or with society, the difficulties to be overcome in getting an
    education and a good job are very real.  You can go at it with all the
    self-respect and courage in the world and still not make it. Neighbors
    who got drafted, served their college years in the swamps, and got back
    to educational "benefits" that won't even cover their own expenses,
    illnesses and injuries, unplanned pregnancies -- you have so many fewer
    chances and options.  
    
    I nearly didn't make it msyelf. I won't repeat my entire story here
    since I just told it in 34.73.  You can look there if you want the
    details.  I know how difficult and painful it can be, and it's tempting
    to think that if I could handle that, anybody could.  But I know,
    too, how easy it would be for things to have gone wrong, and I will
    be the last one to say that someone else SHOULD do the same thing
    I did. 
    
    --bonnie
    
    
    
    

    	P.S.  By the way, I wouldn't be writing all these things
    	about poverty if I didn't care about the people who are
    	still suffering from it.
    
    	We can't define "people who care about the poor" as being
    	only those who *agree* with the bitterness and despair that saddle
    	many poor people.  Caring can *also* take the form of saying,
    	"You don't have to stay poor.  You *can* overcome it."
    
    	Caring is not limited to one certain attitude, and it bothers
    	me a lot when I see people accuse others of not caring about
    	the poor simply because these others are looking for solutions
    	that have a better chance of working.
    
    	Revamping our entire economy may be a nice idea, but it isn't
    	terribly realistic to expect it to happen any time soon.  The
    	poor need encouragement and answers about what they can do
    	to help themselves *now*!

    						    Suzanne... ;-)

    Joyce, I hope that even if you need to leave now, you consider
    rejoining us in a few weeks or months when the topics and tone of
    the conference have undergone a few more cyclic changes.  I will
    miss you if you go.
    
    There is another factor that hasn't been mentioned in the list of
    factors which help someone succeed in spite of difficulties.  That
    is charisma, which I define as a combination of good looks, persuasive
    speaking abilities, enthusiasm, leadership abiltiy, and the ability 
    to quickly understand what is going on.  (A person doesn't have to 
    have every one of those characteristics to be "charismatic", but a 
    sufficient amount of at least some of them.  My personal definition.)
    
    A poor person with tons of charisma is going to have lots of doors
    open, seemingly easily.  A totally non charismatic person who has
    had every advantage may have trouble getting to square one.
    
    My point is that it is very important that people with a lot of
    "charisma" acknowledge it as a factor in their success and not assume
    that others can do it if they did.  
    
    It's a factor like money, education, talent, and smarts that often
    gets overlooked.  It can be developed or improved, but there are
    some intrinsic aspects to it as well.
              
    My experience is that people often respond to "charisma" factors
    subconsciously, but rarely consciously.  In addition, I think charisma
    and "personal style" are related.  I haven't fully thought this
    one through, but one of the problems I think women encounter in
    the DEC culture is having their own "charisma" style which does
    not always look like the male version.  Since people respond to
    this sort of the thing subconsciously, women may be judged by men
    as not having enough leadership ability, when in fact it is a style
    difference.
    
    As I say, I haven't finished thinking that one through, but wanted
    to include it here as food for thought.
    
    Holly

    The whole idea of determination, charisma, character, and role-models
    as ingredients for success is fascinating.  I believe that each
    of these help a person to rise and succeed.   I was especially
    intrigued by what someone said about role-models.  I believe that
    a lot of people (rich or poor) do not have people in their lives
    to inspire them.  
    
    Because of my life (which I won't go into :-)) experiences, I have
    the feeling of "if you really want to, you can do anything".  I'm
    not naive enough to think that's true for everyone.  However, I
    have learned that many people can achieve amazing things with just
    a little encouragement and belief in themselves.  One of the things
    I enjoy most in my life is my part-time teaching.  My favorite type
    of student is the one (any age, any background) who comes sidling
    in, and says to me, "well, I'm really too (pick one or more) old,
    fat, out of shape, uncoordinated, young, whatever to do this." 
    (I teach karate and self-defense)  I tell them, "If I believe you
    can do it, do you think YOU can believe you can do it?"
    
    A little off the subject, but I know that (for me) having someone
    who inspired me and believed in me really helped me in all ways.
    Perhaps this is the best way we can help each other--person by person,
    a bit at a time.
    
    With hope,
    
    Jane

    I don't think anyone was saying that determination and all the rest
    can't work miracles.  I certainly didn't mean to.
    
    All I'm saying is that determination and personal responsibility:
    
    a. aren't enough by themselves, and
    
    b. don't relieve the rest of us of the responsibility of doing what
       we can to change the social system that caused the problems and
       continues to fight against people's attempts to help themselves.

    Furthermore, none of this addresses the problem of how we get *our*
    belief in the ability of ordinary people to work miracles to the people
    who need to hear it.  You don't have to tell me, I'm already out. We
    need to reach the teenage girls living in dirty apartments fighting the
    urge to beat their toddler simply because they're so miserable, the
    teenage boys contemplating suicide because life doesn't seem worth
    living without a girlfriend, the elderly people living alone without
    turning the heat up so they can save pennies for food. 
    
    Or how about the divorced mother of three trying to support her kids on
    a nurse's salary in a town where the average cost of housing has gone
    up to $600 a month?  In case you don't have your calculator handy,
    that's roughly the after-tax pay of someone making $24000 a year. It
    doesn't leave a lot of money for groceries and gymnastics schools. She
    already displayed a lot of personal determination just getting to where
    she is.  What good is more determination going to do her?
    
    Unless it's *our* determination to change the society that's doing
    this to her.
    
    --bonnie 
    
    p.s. Oh, by the way, the woman I'm talking about above lost custody of
    the three kids because she couldn't provide for them adequately . . . 

    Poverty feeds upon Itself but Wefare is the Cancer of the society.
    
    Welfare Can be a good thing if used to train a person or retrain
    a person...but the Person must have some feeling of self worth
    and a desire to improve their lot in life.  I-F t-h-e  PERSON
    IS content with what they have or have no desire to improve
    then the gifts from a loving and caring society can do nothing 
    but hinder them.
    
    For further on poverty look at my note on 314.52..system going
    down bye
    
    DAVE
    

    Not so long ago there was no welfare. Most of us (in the USA) have family
    stories about relatives or freinds who suffered in the American
    depression. The private sector *totally*failed* to meet the need
    when a major depression occure (cf the 1930s) tho they had done
    reasonably well - given the limits of their social beliefs before
    then....but when large numbers of people were turned into "bums"
    the national response was welfare...it has never worked as well
    as it could have because it was always a compromise between those
    who thought it was essential and those who thougth it was destructive
    ...very much like the debates we have today. We are a nation of
    compromises ....like the story of the man and the boy and the donkey...
    the 'collective we' tries to accomodate everyones point of view
    and succeeds in in ending up pleasing no one.
    
    Bonnie J.
    

    	RE:  .19
    
    	My thoughts and remarks have been primarily directed at women
    	(especially women who find themselves in the situation of being
    	the primary/sole support of a family that includes children.)
    	
    	My feeling is not so much that "ordinary" people are capable of
    	performing miraculous transformations on their lives.  My basic
    	feeling is that many women *believe* that they are "ordinary"
    	(or even LESS than ordinary) when in *reality* they possess
    	wonderful gifts that could be developed enough to provide
    	economic security for their families as well as a lifetime of
    	interesting challenges for the women themselves.
    
    	Women have been taught forever to believe that they are not
    	as gifted as men.  As a result, our gifts and extraordinary
    	talents have gone to waste for centuries and centuries.
    
    	There are still relatively few women who are reaching the
    	sorts of heights that are possible to reach (with a few extra
    	brain cells and a lot of determination.)  I'd like to see more
    	of these capable women *REALIZE* their potential by reaching
    	out for these opportunities.
    
    	There are no easy answers that will solve the problems of 100%
    	of the poor.  As difficult and varied as their problems are,
    	it is difficult to know where to begin to help everyone.
    
    	But, meanwhile, there is a sizable segment of women who have
    	the *abilities* to make a significant contribution to our
    	culture (and as *resources*, many of these women are remaining
    	untapped *merely* because they don't recognize their own worth
    	and their own gifts.)

    	I didn't mean to say that going to college is the easiest
    	thing in the world.  I just think that many, many women
    	underestimate their own abilities and I would like to see
    	*more* women accept the fact that they have the "right stuff"
    	to succeed.
    
    	As tragic as it is to see women and their children living in
    	poverty, it is even more tragic when you realize that much of
    	it is entirely *unnecessary* (but continues to happen because
    	so many women are blind to their worth.)
    
    	Society spends precious little time telling women to *expect*
    	to find talents within themselves.  As a result, there are
    	too many gifts out there that end up going to waste.
    
    	As far as "ordinary" people go -- any person (male or female)
    	who has the dogged determination to succeed (with an ordinary
    	level of intelligence) has the ability to do quite well, too!
    
    	Dogged determination is a gift in itself.  The nicest part about
    	THAT one is the fact that it is one that we can *ACQUIRE* if
    	we aren't born with a lot of *natural* gifts.  People who *DO*
    	have natural gifts *AND* have the acquired gift of determination
    	-- they have the world by the tail.

    	I'd like to see successful women *stop* being seen as some sort
    	of elite group.  I'd like to see more women realize that they,
    	too, have gifts -- if they would only *see* them and *use* them.
    
    						    Suzanne... ;-)

    re: my own note .19 :
    
    I made a typo, that's $14,000, not $24,000. (On $24,000 you would still
    have about $500 a month left to pay your food, clothing, utility, and
    transportation bills. . . )
    
    Re: .20 and .21 :
    
    I don't recall at any point advocating "welfare payments"; that
    system is obviously not working.  
    
    But I don't think the alternative is to shrug our shoulders and
    say "not my problem."
    
    I find this happens repeatedly when I advocate some compassion and
    understanding for people who are less well off than we are -- everybody
    assumes that means handing out money. I've had conversations that ended
    in the other person's total inability to see that there are nonmonetary
    and noncondescending ways of offering assistance.  Not through
    government agencies, perhaps -- governments don't show compassion,
    people do. 
    
    No, I don't know HOW to set this "program" in motion.  I'm still
    working on it. (Give me a year or two, I'm only 33!)  Ideas welcome.
    
    Re: 22: 
    
    I think we are, as they say, in the middle of a violent agreement.
    You're saying that a great many women are much worse off than they need
    to be because they have been raised to think they can't "do" for
    themselves, that they have to be taken care of.  I'm saying that until
    we treat the societal sexism, callousness, and money-grubbing that
    *causes* their lack of belief in themselves, many people of all sexes
    will be unfairly penalized. 
    
    Yeah, nobody ever said life was fair, but I don't think that is
    sufficient justification for us as a society to go out of our way
    to walk on the other side of the road when we see somebody in need
    of help.
    
    --bonnie

    Consider this : if 50 % of the federal budget supports
    Welfare and various other 'safety net' programs, it follows
    that 50 % of MY tax money is so allocated. My taxes last year
    were about $5000 last year, so $2500 went to what I consider
    charities. Mind you, I was NOT given a choice in the matter,
    either to contribute, or which charities would receive what.
    If I had that $2500 to give to charity, I might. Or I might
    not. But to be forced to be charitable at gunpoint offends
    me. To have no say in how MY money is spent bothers me. That
    the recipients of my money can vote to take more money from
    me bothers me. That those recipients are arrogant and not at
    all grateful bothers me. It adds up to this - all my
    charitable feelings are pretty well buried in outrage. I still
    give to the Lions club and the Shriners, but that is because
    I CHOOSE to. I support their causes. 
    
    And if anyone thinks welfare is not 'charity at gunpoint',
    try not paying your income tax. You will be vsited by men
    in dark suits with 357s under their jackets. Good luck.
    
    Dana

    What happens to the rest 50% of your contribution?  You must be
    delighted to know that your $2500 are spent on making new devices
    to kill more people.
    
    - Vikas

    I think that courts and police, and by extension the military,
    are the ONLY legitimate concerns of government.

    re 24, your statement that you have no choice on how your money
    is spent - when was the last time you wrote or called your state
    rep, state senator, US congressperson?  Don't cry that that you
    have no choice in here if you haven't done that recently.
    
    As has been pointed out, if we depended on private sources for the
    money needed to help out people who would *die* of starvation,
    exposure, or lack of medical care.  Your attitude shows that we
    *very obviously* could not depend on *you* to do your part if we
    were to depend on private sources.  Do you need any more evidence
    than your own admissions that the "private source" option would not
    work?  I don't, because there are *millions* more in this country
    who feel exactly the way you do, which is "not my problem".
    
    I think most of us who have responded to this topic are trying to
    assess the hard problems, talk about possible *real* answers, and
    *understand* the problems and the people they involve.  Then you
    come along with a pat response like "it's your money and no one has
    a right to take it from you".  You do not offer any new information
    to this topic.  I think we all *know* that there are attitudes like
    yours out there.
    
    Personally, I think your attitude *stinks* royally and I can see
    why JLAMOTTE (was it her, sorry I forget) doesn't want to be here
    any more.
    
    Sorry to get so worked up, but did you really expect not to get
    flamed?
        
    	-Ellen

    Ellen -- I couldn't have said it better myself . . . 
    
    But we've got to come up with something better than the same old
    programs that haven't worked.  With all this creative power out
    here being freed when women break their old bonds of fear and begin
    to believe in ourselves, we should be able to do *something* more
    than hand out money paternalistically!
    
    --bonnie

    re: .24
    
    You mentioned that the "fact" that the recipients of your money
    are arrogant and not at all grateful bothers you.  Excuse me,
    but that statement sounds like a self-righteous generalization,
    and that bothers me.

  Can we dispense with the ad hominem attacks?  I see here arguments of the
  form, "You are a selfish louse and I will therefore ignore any issues you
  raise."

  Calling one's congresscritter is a procedure for expressing an opinion
  and nothing more. The link between this act and actual choice as to
  where tax money is spent is very tenuous. 

  Maybe this isn't the proper forum for discussion of tax policy or
  philosophy, but I would ask the last few respondents whether they
  believe that the majority has an absolute right to tax at whatever level
  is deemed necessary and for whatever purpose the majority decides.  If
  you do believe that, suppose, just suppose, that the majority decided to
  eliminate all social programs and triple the defense budget.  Would you
  still believe it? 

  Ellen is quite right when she says these are hard problems looking for
  real answers.  I don't have any of those answers, either (though I have
  expressed where I would draw the lines were I running things).  But
  I *hate* to see the excellent discussion herein devolve into name-calling.

  JP

    I'm a bit disappointed in most of the replies here.  Rather than
    being concerned about Joyce's belief that we noters, as a class,
    lack compassion, people are arguing about welfare again - thus
    tending to reinforce Joyce's complaint.
    
    I believe that many of us ARE compassionate, and DO care about those
    who are not as advantaged as we are.  Some don't really understand,
    and a healthy discussion can only serve to enlighten.  I've asked
    Joyce (by mail) to consider this, to take the bad with the good,
    and to rejoin us.  I feel (and Joyce has told me also) that
    participating in conferences such as this one helps a person to
    grow.  I know I have learned a lot from this particular conference,
    hence my continued and eager participation.  I would hope that
    Joyce, and anyone else who is upset by certain notes, can accept
    a bit of pain in compensation for a world of caring.
    
    						Steve

    	RE:  .32
    
    	Steve, we *are* paying attention.  Not all people express
    	their concern in the same way.  If one person feels compassion
    	and doesn't see the exact same sentiments being expressed
    	by others, does that mean that no one else cares?  Is there
    	one definitive way to care about others (while all *other*
    	ways are a sure sign of heartlessness?)
    
    	I think we have seen (in this note) that there are other
    	answers -- other ways to care and try to help.  
    
    	No one can help it if one or two noters decide to gripe about
    	welfare in this particular spot.  It's a free discussion.
    
    	So let's get on with it.  (We really have had more than we
    	need of a free-running critique of the conference every time
    	we turn around.)  
    
    						    Suzanne... ;-)

    Re: .34
    
    So, Mr. Eagles, why are you still here?
    
    				Steve

    Steve_the_eagle --  
    
    What a wonderful metaphor about teaching people to fish!  That is
    exactly what I would *like* to do.
    
    But your reply sounded like you think sympathy for people in poverty
    actually precludes helping them -- that you have to be unsympathetic in
    order to teach people to fish. 
    
    Did I interpret your statement wrong?  Would you care to elaborate?
    I think the exact opposite is true. (For one thing, if you didn't
    care about them, you would never start teaching them.)
    
    --bonnie

    There are many ways of teaching people.  Two extremes: a sargeant
    barking at some kid in the military to do it now, this way, faster,
    better, quit yer beefin, and the very sympathetic person saying
    I know honey, it looks hard but if you do this...
    
    Arguments I have heard for the first method (which I find too
    aggressive; I refuse to be on either end of that sort of exchange)
    is that it instills discipline and rules the value of which become
    obvious with some experience.  Sort of the "chuck 'em in da water"
    approach.  I think this instills nothing but resentment, fear, and
    it actively represses imagination and innovation.
    
    Arguments I have heard against the second method (infinitely preferable
    when you have to teach or learn from me!) run along the lines of
    "you do no one a favor by letting the kid know it's hard, s/he'll
    get discouraged and not want to go and try..."  Yes it can be
    condescending, but I think it is also more human(e).  The second
    method teaches someone how to _learn_ -- with or without later
    instruction -- and the first teaches someone how to follow the rules.
    [Clearly, I am very biased... I'd say the first is a male approach
    and the second is a female approach, but that's REALLY overgeneralizing
    and I don't want to be flamed too much for a bad mood...:/ ]
    
    
    Methods for dealing with poverty run along similar lines: shut up
    and work for it, or yes it's terribly hard why don't you try this?
     Yes, teach someone how to fish and they are fed for a lifetime,
    but if you don't feed them while they are learning they keel over
    dead.  Yes sympathy can be condescending, but without some recognition
    that poverty sucks, the person feels like a failure from day 1,
    why bother?  Teach someone to _want_ and to _know_they_can_change_
    _their_situation... heck, if you're good at it, you not only teach
    someone to fish, but you teach them how to learn and they might
    be able to eat caviar!
    
    I guess I've been stuffed with rhetoric from my Dad (I was raised
    in a prep school, and Dad teaches math), but ... I still think it's
    a better approach than whipping someone for saying 2X3=5.
    
    Lee
   
    
    

    Re: .38 -- thanks for clarifying that, Steve. I see your point and
    it's a good one.
    
    re: .40 -- nice explanation, Lee.  Thank you, too.
    
    --bonnie, feeling much better about her morning