Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    |An intelligent woman that uses her intelligence is *POWERFUL*.
    
    An intelligent PERSON who uses that intelligence wisely is powerful.
    
    |A beautiful woman is *POWERFUL*.
    
    Interesting thought.  In what way powerful?  Can she (or a male counterpart)
    cull favor from those because of her beauty?  What is expected in
    return?  
    
    
    |An attractive, intelligent woman has *POWER*.
    
    See comment to assertion 1.  
    
    Side note to assertion 3:  Then why are so many people so intimidated
    by people with these qualities?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Do you agree or disagree?  What is the power and how can they use
    it?
    
    
    

re: attractiveness

I believe charisma is indeed a valuable quality in a leader. It produces
attraction.
	Mez

     But many homely people have great charisma.

    re .4:
    
    >> re .3: You think Homely people can't have charisma?
    
    I'd like to know how you get that assumption out of this statement:
    
    .3> But many homely people have great charisma.
    
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Yes: does attractive = beautiful? I say no. MLK was very attractive.
    	Mez

    I'd be willing to bet that a charismatic person would be described
    in abesntia as being very attractive (whatever the describee considered
    "attractive") (um, yes, physically)
    
    They migth even be surprised later in comparing their description
    to a photo, or whatever, that there was a discrepancy.
    
    Dawn
    

    When people  'use'  their  physical  beauty  to  gain  power, they  are
    tacitly  agreeing with the concept that sex is a commodity. The hint of
    _quid  pro  quo_  is  sometimes  as (or more) effective than the actual
    barter. This may appear harmless to some, but let's examine some of the
    repercussions: for one, whatever can be bought or traded can be stolen.
    I  believe this helps create a climate where rape can be interpreted as
    a  form  of robbery, which acts to defuse the moral implications. Also,
    as  with most commodities, those who are robbed of them are quite often
    those  who  can  least  defend themselves - in this case, children, for
    example.

    In a  country  where housing, medical care, and food are commodities to
    be  cynically manipulated for the profit of those who control them, why
    is  sex  any different? Men are much more responsible than women, since
    they  clearly control the economic system. On the other hand, there are
    plenty  of women who subscribe to this point of view and who must share
    the  responsibility.  Look  closely enough and you'll usually find that
    those who profit most are the staunchest defenders of the _status quo_.
    The  double  standard of sex (men are always supposed to want it, women
    aren't) helps reinforce a situation that might collapse by itself given
    a climate of genuine communication and giving.

    There's a  thin  line  between  using sex to gain power and using one's
    ability  to  communicate and be 'attractive' (in the broadest sense) to
    others.  The sticky part of all this is the difference between 'beauty'
    and  'attractiveness.'  The former is involuntary, the latter is an act
    of  volition. One can conceivably be seen as a sex object without doing
    anything  to  foster it or even be aware that it's occurring. Like most
    moral  issues,  the  fact that no exact definition can be given doesn't
    mean  that  there's no morally correct behavior - it's just a matter of
    adult judgment. 

    I think  the most responsible and desirable form of power is that which
    is  conferred  by  consensus  -  a vague process that is susceptible to
    abuse  by  glib,  charismatic individuals. However, the more discerning
    and knowledgeable the group, the more diffuse and appropriate the usage
    of power becomes. And, ironically, less necessary...


						JJRitz

    Actually, I was always told that to be intelligent, a woman "had
    to be ugly as sin," however ugly *that* is.
    
    To be powerful, you had to be attractive OR intelligent, 'cause
    you sure can't be both <very sarcastic tone here>.
    
    Lee

    I could never understand the "dumb blond" stereotype.  I have
    seen many men assume that if she's beautiful, she can't be too 
    smart.  Maybe these are the men that are intimidated by beautiful
    women.
    
    The point I was trying to make in .0 is that if a woman is attractive,
    I think that people (consciously or not) pay more attention to her.
    If a woman is intelligent and *uses* that intelligence and is she
    is attractive, the combination is definitely to her advantage.
    By attractive I don't necessarily mean pretty with a model's figure,
    as stated in earlier notes, charisma is a type of beauty also.
    
    Of course the same holds true, (to a lesser extent) for men. 
                                                                
    Funny though, (or should I say sad and unfortunate) that a *pretty*
    woman that rises to the the top of the executive ladder has to put
    up with the accusation that, "she slept with so and so to get there".
                                                                         
                                                                 
    -nancy

    Re; .8, "When people 'use' their physical beauty to gain power, they
    are tacitly agreeing with the concept that sex is a commodity."
    
    My intent in .0 had nothing to do with sex.  I think people using
    sex to get ahead is an entirely different topic.
    I think in general people pay more attention to people that are
    more attractive or charismatic.
    
    nuf said?
    
    nancy

        I think the dumb blonde stereotype comes from a couple of
        places. First there are any number of glamorous blondes in the
        movie industry who made a career out of appearing "ditsy". There
        have also been "dumb brunettes" in the business, but blondes are
        on the whole treated as more attractive in our culture so the
        ultimates in "looks, but no brains" tended to be blondes. The
        brunettes having to work a little harder and having the
        stereotypes of the dark mysterious Mediterranian to work off of
        tended to the more sultry image when they went for glamour.
        
        Another source, which no doubt set the expectations for the
        famous "dumb blondes" to build on is that in a time when women
        were by and large less well educated than men, attractive women
        found that looks alone could bring power. They traded on the
        commodity that worked, taking the easy road.
        
        Faced with lesser educational opportunities and lowered
        expectations by men, they had three choices as to how to handle
        the question of intellect. They could try to match wits and
        education with the men. They could do nothing, or they could
        make light of it. Humor is often a way to compensate for
        something that is seen as a weakness, and it often works.
        
        I don't mean to say that the women were in any way of inferior
        intellect, but merely that they were at a disadvantage when they
        weren't even permitted to attend most institutions of higher
        learning. They were lacking not in wit but in education and
        credentials.
        
        Some men are intimidated by agressive women or intelligent women
        or powerful women or well-educated women. I don't think it is as
        predominent a motive as it is sometimes taken to be. I think
        that many people ascribe to stereotypes such as the dumb blonde
        not out of fear or insecurity, but through ignorance and
        misinformation, and because the stereotypes *seem* to hold up.
        Many women over the years have reinforced the dumb blonde image,
        and many men don't realize that they are reacting to an unreal
        image rather than actual reality.
        
        By the way, notice that with men as well as women the notion
        that geniuses are odd-looking or homely is quite well ingrained.
        When you think of high intellect what kind of an image comes to
        mind? Albert Einstein? Cary Grant? Are computer hackers good
        looking or slovenly? 
        
        
        JimB. 

    Taking only a small part of .13 to answer....
    
    My sister Dorothy acquired the nickname Ditsey, because that
    was how she prounced her name as a 2 year old --- she was
    blond, darkening to brown as she got into her teens, and until
    she had her first baby - large busted for her height (5'2").
    She was called "ditsy" in the sense that Jim used the word, and
    also "titsy" but was proud of her nickname and made it work for
    her. She is now a grade school teacher , and manages the social
    life and responsbilities of a Coast Guard Commander's wife.
    
    Bonnie  

        Bonnie,
        
        I do hope that my use of the slang term that was so close to
        your sistyer's nickname was not in any way offensive. It was not
        my intent. I was only trying to explain the way in which I felt
        the stereotypes grow and some of the complexities behind the
        imgaes that permiate our culture.
        
        JimB.

     Jim, No offense was taken or even thought of - Bonnie

    The "dumb blonde" stereotype precedes the invention of movies by
    several hundred years. 
    
    The combination of blondeness, naivete, lack of education, and sexual
    purity are found together again and again in heroine after heroine,
    while loose women are almost always brown-haired -- often, it is
    implied or stated, they are of mixed race.  You can trace this
    stereotype through English literature back to at least the Renaissance.
    
    --bonnie

    Lets talk about REAL power. Not necessarily the superficial
    manipulative games we play when young and sexy but the kind of lasting,
    classic power that so many women have.  I have a friend whoes
    grandmother supported and raised eleven children in Georgia during
    a time of intense discrimination against blacks.
    She kept the family together, supported them, educated them, treated
    their illnesses with herbs she grew and fed them with food she grew.
    She lived without electricity, phone or other "modern conveniences".
    Even after her children grew up and wanted to move her into a more
    "modern" house, she refused.   She was a beautiful, powerful woman
    who lived to be 109 years old.  She lost two sons to what she suspected
    was KKK activity,...she never knew for sure what happened to them
    but she had an indomitable spirit.  Beauty is more than the shape
    of your nose or the rosy hue of your complexion.  Beauty is the
    courage and intelligence and style with which you live your life.
    Power comes from within and from your relationship with the earth
    and all the blessings God has given you.
    

    I see nothing wrong in using one's blondness to one's advantage.
    The dumb blond act has contributed to my getting warnings for speeding,
    not tickets.  I think it's financially advantageous... ;-)  
    
    I once asked an older friend why there seemed to be more senile
    women than men.  He said that because women believed in the older
    days that they should let men do all the thinking, they lost their
    ability to think, therefor making it easier to become senile.  I
    wouldn't put any scientific bets on this theory, but it is interesting
    when you think about it, and be happy you can think...
    
    

    
    flame on:
    
    1.  In this ageist society of ours, older men and women are often
    diagnosed as senile when there are actually other physiological
    problems, such as a loss of hearing.
    
    2. I'm not sure about the numbers of senile women vs. senile men,
    but women have a much longer life expectancy than men.  Therefore
    there are more older women than older men, and maybe more senile
    older women than older men.
    
    flame off:
    
    Maybe it wasn't your blondness that got you out of those tickets
    but your belief that you wouldn't get a ticket, a kind of
    creative visualization ;-)
    
    Justine
           

    Everyone determines their own values and thats ok...its a question
    of character.  Don't get upset however if the day comes when your 
    "blondness" isn't enough to get you by in the world....and that
    day WILL come.
    
    If you see nothing wrong in using one's "blondness" (I assume you
    mean physical body/looks) to one's advantage then you must not have
    a problem accepting the karmic return... that is having certain
    segments of society assume that physical attractiveness is all you
    are good for.  Its a two edged sword I'm afraid, we can't have it
    both ways.  Either we stand on our merit as people and accept the
    same treatment everyone else in the world gets, accepting responsibility
    for our actions, or we play on our looks and accept the same treatment
    every other pretty little toy gets eventually.  By the way, there are 
    not more senile women than men, even in the older days women 
    usually outlived the men in their lives.  

    Karma must not work as well as I've sometimes thought, if the return
    is as described in .-1
    
    I'd prefer to think that getting off with a warning was her karmic
    payback for some goodness. I don't see where there's much of an
    issue (in terms of karma or any sort of moral or ethical framework)
    in choosing which of your gifts or talents you uses as a means to
    a good end.
    
    Chuck

    re .21
    But it really IS possible to "have it both ways".  I know (from
    personal experience as well as observing and "evaluating" others)
    that it IS possible to "stand on your own merits as a person" and
    "accept responsibility for your actions" and BE RESPONSIBLE period,
    as well as to "play on your looks".  If a person's "blondness" or
    smile or "nice legs"  :->  gets them a little extra now and then,
    SO WHAT?  Physical attributes, as well as personality traits, are
    part of what makes us up.  Use EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT to your advantage!
    Not everyone has blonde hair, but not everyone has a 140 I.Q.  And
    if you've got both, congratulations!  I think what it boils down
    to is not having everything running by such a strict set of rules
    as to how people interact that there's no room for a little levity!
    (and a little subjectivity).

    It has to do with attitude.  Not just society's attitude toward us
    but with our attitude toward ourselves.  Let me explain;
    Police are the toughest on teenage boys.  If a teenage boy is caught
    speeding he MAY get off with a warning but only if it is made clear
    to him that a favor is being done him.  Society (the police, the
    courts, the schools) is preparing him to assume leadership 
    responsibilities and wants him to be responsible.
    
    When an attractive young girl gets stopped (and yes I was one once
    too_:-).. it doesn't matter so much to society if she learns to
    act responsibily because she is *not* expected to assume leadership,
    she is expected to please/care_for some guy.  You wouldn't tell
    your son that his "blondness or smile or nice legs" will help him
    get better grades or get out of a ticket he deserved if his teacher
    or the cop was gay, would you?  
    You would feel that behavior diminishes your son, that he should have 
    more respect for himself, that he is too valuable to be even considered
    in trade for another man's pleasure.  You would want your son to learn 
    control, to use his head, to be respected and responsible.  Why don't
    we teach our daughters the same things?  Why do we have such different 
    standards for women?  Its a question of power.  The biggest problem
    with this behavior is the attitude it creates in women ourselves.
    We ended up trading the 50 dollar ticket for the 50K per year job
    because of the behavior patterns we develop and the way society
    and men perceive us.  
    Cupcakes get warnings instead of tickets, pats on the head, flowers,
    free lunches and drinks but cupcakes don't get high level management
    jobs or political appointments.  It a matter of power.

    I was going to flame on but Lynne said it quite well in .23.  I
    see nothing degrading in using everything you've got.  Sure it's
    a two edged sword, but I haven't seen much that isn't.  So you evaluate
    what's best for you and act to achieve that.
    
    As far as karma, <cough cough>, I think I won't get into that. 
    Whatever it is, it works.
    

    re .24
    I would want my daughters AND my sons to be responsible people.
    I DON'T have double standards, one for men and one for women, and
    if you re-read my previous note, you will see that.  
    
    I don't feel that women trade in "a $50 speeding ticket for a 50K
    management position."  - that is pure foolishness.  A "cupcake"
    may get pats on the head and not management jobs, but I wouldn't
    trust a "cupcake" in a management job!  Just because a person learns
    to take advantage of ALL his or her assets does not make him/her
    a "cupcake".  In fact, skillful use of said assets can GET you that
    management position.
    
    As an example - I have been with DEC only 2 months.  In my previous
    job (I was there for 5 years) I had "risen" to the reasonably
    responsible job of project leader (a project leader there seemed
    to carry alot more weight than it does at DEC, but that is a different
    story).  Anyway, my responsibilities included interfacing with many
    people in many organizations, many of whom I did not know, and getting
    them to do things for us that they weren't always willing to do.  I
    found it to be alot more effective to look nice (and YES! even
    FEMININE!), and smile alot, especially in the beginning, because
    it gave the other person (most of the time, a man) a better feeling
    about me, and made them more willing to agree to things.  No, I
    didn't "flaunt my wares", but first impressions mean alot.  If another
    person gets a good feeling about you right from the start (and first
    impressions HAVE TO be based almost solely on looks - that's all
    there is time for) then you don't need to spend time winning them
    over to your side.  You can get right down to business.
    
    I was very respected at my old job, so my tactics worked.  The point
    is, be sublte and work WITH the system, don't buck it at every turn.
    Work with age-old attitudes so they work FOR you.
    
    I think I got off the track there, but if my son or daughter got
    off with just a warning for having nice legs, I'd say they were
    equally lucky, and would expect that they would learn equally from
    the experience to not get themselves in a similar situation again.
    

    re: .24 -- very well put.  And in a much calmer, more rational tone
    than what I would use if I were to say anything more. 
    
    I don't mind men saying belittling things about us.  After all these
    years, I'm used to it.  I can ignore them.
    
    But when another woman tells me I should continue to prostitute myself
    to men in order to be approved of, my blood pressure soars.  Sure, it
    gets the job done, but I'd rather hold on to my integrity, thank you. 
    
    --bonnie, holding in her temper with great difficulty

    
>>    I don't feel that women trade in "a $50 speeding ticket for a 50K
>>    management position."  - that is pure foolishness.  A "cupcake"
>>    may get pats on the head and not management jobs, but I wouldn't
>>    trust a "cupcake" in a management job!  Just because a person learns
>>    to take advantage of ALL his or her assets does not make him/her
>>    a "cupcake".  In fact, skillful use of said assets can GET you that
>>    management position.

Cupcakes are not born,...they are made, ...they are taught to be that way. 
Why wouldn't you trust a cupcake in a management job?  Would she crack under
stress?  Is her judgement such that she would evaluate her employees on the
basis of what they looked like?  Would you have faith in her integrity and
fairness?  Why wouldn't you trust a cupcake in a management job?  


>>(and first impressions HAVE TO be based almost solely on looks - that's all
>>there is time for) 

Studies conducted at Stanford University suggest that pretty women are seen
as being less intelligent and less responsible than the general population.
This is not the fault of women, it reflects an attitude of society.
This note is about women and power.  Look at the most powerful women today, 
in politics and in business.  Some are attractive, many are not.  

In the search for power, (and this note is about women and power) it is a 
mistake to place too much emphasis on physical appearance and not enough on 
character, strength, determination, and intelligence.  How you live, how you 
meet the daily challenges of life, how high you set your goals, what you 
expect of yourself, what others expect from you all contribute to the 
development of personal power.    

    re .27
    I think the problem here is that too much is being read into what
    I am trying to say.  Using my looks to my advantage is NOT prostituting
    myself.  I *HAVE* held on to *MY* integrity, thank YOU.
    
    re .28
    I think we may have different definitions of a "cupcake".  What
    I see as a "cupcake" is a woman who relies SOLELY on her looks,
    and not one bit on her brain.  That is why I would not trust a
    "cupcake" in a management position.  A person in that sort of job
    needs to be able to use his or her head consistently.
    
    Cupcakes may be born, or they may be made, but they may be "made"
    by their own choice.  Not all of women's faults and shortcomings
    can be written off by blaming them on society.  If a woman has any
    intelligence at all, there is a great deal she can do to control
    her own destiny.  Yes, there are obstacles to women's success, and
    yes in certain instances success is much more accessible to men.
    But in this day and age, there are many more optons open to a woman
    than becoming a cupcake.  Doing so is her own choice.
    
    I regards to the comment about some women in power being attractive
    but many are not, look around you!  Some PEOPLE are attractive but
    MANY (in fact the majority, really) are *not*.  That says nothing
    about a woman's good looks prcluding her from a powerful position.
    
    Please get one thing stratight.  Just because I feel it makes sense
    to use all of your assets to your advantage, this DOES NOT MEAN
    that I am EMPHASIZING personal appearance over character, strength,
    determination, and intelligence.  PEASE stop READING THINGS INTO
    statements that others make.  I happen to be a 5'7" blonde with
    an IQ over 145, and although I use my looks to my advantage when
    I *want* to, I know, better than anyone else, that it was MY
    determination, character, strength and intelligence that has gotten
    me to where I am now, and to all the places I've been professionally
    in the past.
    

We are not discussing your personal looks, IQ or life my dear, we are
discussing women in general.  Please do not feel as if you must "prove"
to us how smart or how pretty you are, neither IQ nor vital statistics are
necessary...  Nor is the issue centered around what has gotten you personally 
(or any one of us) to where you are now.  As important as I am sure you are to 
family and friends, *you* are not the issue.  We are discussing women as a 
class of people and the attitudes and mores of society that have encouraged 
weakness in us all.

>>    Cupcakes may be born, or they may be made, but they may be "made"
>>    by their own choice.  

I beg to differ with you here but cupcakes are trained and conditioned by
society long before they are old enough to have made a concious choice.
Please don't misunderstand.  We all reach an age where we are free to choose,
but finding the strength to stand alone is so much more difficult for those
of us who have been carried all of our lives.

    I think this discussion has split off into 2 major factions (not
    that these are the only factions that exist):
    
    Group 1:
    
    Women have been treated wrongly throughout history.  To change this
    we must fight for our rights.  Everytime we see injustice we must
    hit back hard.  Society is to blame so me must change society. Every
    woman who accepts things the way they are demeans herself and the
    rest of the female race.
    
    Group 2:
    
    Women have been treated wrongly throughout history.  To change this
    we must have power.  To get get power, we work as hard as possible.
    Society will change in time, but it may not be completely fair until
    after our deaths.  So make do with the way things are, take advantage
    of the double standards society gives us.
    
    Now obviously I am not saying that those in Group 1 do not work
    as hard as those in Group 2, so don't start picking it apart.  It
    is just a crude generalization.  Both groups want the same thing
    though, they just go about it differently.  I am one of Group 2
    but I certainly understand Group 1.  But I feel that by bending
    a little instead of trying to bend others will get me to the
    top with fewer broken bones.  I don't expect you to agree, but
    at least open your mind up to the possibility that there is another
    way, which may be neither wrong nor right any more than yours is.
    
    <flame on>
    
    How come you can use made up examples to prove your points but when
    someone gives you a REAL example, which just happens to be herself,
    you think she is trying to 'prove' herself to you?  She was just
    trying to prove her point as you were.  I think that's kinda double
    standardish of you.
    
    <flame off>
                                      
    

    
Group 3:

Women have been treated wrongly throughout history.  To change this
we must insist on EQUAL treatment FROM ourselves AND for ourselves and 
we must develop our personal power.  We must ACCEPT *equal* treatment and
EXPECT *equal* treatment.  Injustices in society should not be tolerated 
toward ANYONE.  

Well, there's equal and there's equal.  When dealing with contractors and
salesmen (and I mean men), I find I get more information from them than my
husband does because I am a woman.  They don't expect me to know anything
about houses and are more willing to help me.  We use this to find out what
they know, as well as to learn new things.  It's not equal treatment, but
I don't feel that I am demeaning myself by allowing them to judge me as a
stereotyped woman, and not a person.  I will use sexist stereotypes if they
are to my advantage.  It is they, not I who lose by their sexism.  Of course
in an ideal world, everyone should receive the courtesy of explanations etc.
from salespeople.

So if a cop wants to give me a warning instead of a ticket that's ok by me.
Maybe they should give more people warnings for minor offences.

..Karen

    You are right, there are other groups (didn't I say this?).  I hope
    Group 3 understands the other groups as I previously mentioned and
    realizes that Group 3 is no more right or wrong than the other groups.
    
    The reason I wrote my "group" note was to show that this is getting
    out of hand.  When you resort to catty comments and one-up-on-you
    tactics you not only lose the point of the discussion, but you lose
    your ability to see other points of veiw.  Sure it's OK to flame,
    but listen to others too.  Everyone has something to say, if we
    all act maturely we can continue to keep this file as a place to
    air our views.
    
    I apologize if I sound like I am lecturing, I in no way mean to offend
    you or insult your intelligence.  It is just that there are times
    when we should all sit back, take a deep breath and say "this is
    a discussion, not a contest, and I shouldn't take everything so
    seriously".  Not that I'm trying to put words in your mouth ;-)
    
    They say that vitamin B relieves stress.  (That was a joke, ok?)
    
    
    

    re .34
    
    you may have gotten lots of advice (perhaps more than your husband
    or what-not) when buying a house...but when my SO and I went out
    to buy a car, they were all grins and handshakes and immediately
    approached him first.  For various insurance,
    college-grad-special-deals, and credit-reference reasons, though,
    the car was to be in my name (although we do co-own it).  When I
    told them *I* was the one buying the car, they sat us down and
    proceeded to (at least 4 or 5 times out of 6 or 7 dealers) try to
    bamboozle extra money out of us for various charges, and after hearing
    of some other peoples' experiences, I am convinced they did not
    expect me (as a female, although the recent degree should have pointed
    out to them I was no ditz) to talk down their price, or quibble 
    over the various add-on charges, and loan percentages and 
    insurance-fees (should I have an early demise before full payment) 
    that they tried to pass under my nose unnoticed.  Several even 
    gave me different price figures at different times, some including 
    a rebate, some without, within a span of several sentences, trying 
    to convince me the worse deal would be the better.
    
    thank god I can add, subtract, multiply, and divide.
    
-jody
    
    p.s.  anyone know of a car dealership with a woman in a position
    of authority?  Or is it too much of a snake-oil business for any
    to get involved in (boy some of the salesfolk and financefolk are
    real slippery!)
        

    	RE:  Groups 1-n in this file
    
    	Honestly -- I can't see the need for women in this file to
    	allign to any certain groups (as differentiated by their
    	approach to women's issues.)
    
    	I also think that lively debates among different viewpoints
    	are interesting and very healthy!!!  It's what I really enjoy
    	about the file (when we get the chance to do it!)  :-)
    
    	The various sides are *NOT* at cross-purposes with each other
    	at all.  I'll explain what I mean by that.
    
    	Radical feminists played a big role in getting the government
    	to pressure big business to establish EEO policies (this is
    	just a general statement without getting into specific historical
    	events.)  Many women who have had opportunities in the past
    	20 years owe *MUCH* to the feminists who worked hard to get
    	crucial doors open for us.
    
    	However -- having opened those doors a bit, it took an army
    	of women who were willing to work hard (yes, work hard) to
    	make those opportunities **COUNT** for us as a group.  No
    	matter what the government said (or big business), the open
    	doors would have eventually shut if many women had not jumped
    	in with gusto to show society that we are worth having in
    	positions of responsibility.
    
    	EVERY INDIVIDUAL WOMAN WHO IS SUCCESSFUL is a victory for the
    	woman's movement (and for all women.)  The more we are seen
    	in professional/technical jobs, the more society will get used
    	to having us there (and that in itself is **ONE WAY** that
    	society will change its attitude toward us.)
    
    	The people who now want more than anything to change society
    	to solve the rest of the problems -- that viewpoint is certainly
    	valid (and their contributions will be felt as time goes on.)
    	In the long run, society will *have* to address the remaining
    	ways that women are held back (from having equal pay and enough
    	money to support themselves, among other things.)
    
    	My personal position is that the doors *are* somewhat open for
    	us now (and there *are* ways to join in the number of women
    	who have become successful in areas that had not previously
    	seen many women working side by side as peers with men.)  The
    	road to these careers is not an easy one, but for those who
    	have the desire, the talent and the stamina -- the possibilities
    	*are* there.  (Again, this is not for everyone, but there are
    	many women in our culture right now that *could* make it and
    	would *like* to make it, but they just lack encouragement or possibly
    	the knowledge that their chances are good.)
    
    	There is no one easy answer.  In a team (back to the team analogy
    	for a moment), there are many *DIFFERENT POSITIONS* that offer
    	the team *DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES* on the game -- and **ALL**
    	the different postions are *VITAL* to the team's success!
    
    	We can't *ALL* be quarterbacks or wide receivers.  And we can't
    	all be on the starting lineup ("first string").  Some of us
    	are extremely adept at offensive strategy while others of us
    	know defensive strategy better.  We have a passing game to
    	think about as well as a running game.  They're all different
    	aspects of the *SAME THING* and **ALL** are valuable.
    
    	It's healthy and beneficial to share/discuss our different
    	perspectives in the fight for equality/fair_treatment for
    	women.  We need to keep in mind, however, that the battle
    	("sporting event") will not be won by any one philosophy/
    	strategy.  It will take cooperation among *all* the different
    	team players to get the job done.
    
    						      Suzanne... ;-)

    Well said Suzanne....
    
    

    
    The issue between the groups does not go away though.  The issue
    seems to be:
    
    Should a woman trying to advance her position or otherwise get what
    is due to her, use *ALL* of the tools that will help her reach her
    goal or only the ones that don't give her an unfair advantage over
    the opposite sex?
    
    As a man, the woman's movement asks me to stop doing the things
    that give me an unfair advantage over women.  It would be hypocritical
    to also demand that women be allowed to continue using the things
    that give them an unfair advantage over men.
    
    I also believe that women using traditional unfair tactics help
    to perpetuate the same system that they are trying to fight.
    
    I also recognize that demands of "let's fight fair" also tend
    to promote the status quo rather than bring on the fastest change.
    
    It's a knotty issue.
    
    						MJC O->

    	re:  .39
    
    	The issue is not quite as knotty as you imply.
    
    	The white male majority has *always* had (and still has)
    	unfair advantages over women and other minorities.  It isn't
    	even in your POWER to give up the advantages -- they are too
    	deeply ingrained in our culture after so many centuries upon
    	centuries.
    
    	Not all women use whatever you consider to be the "traditional
    	unfair advantages" that women have had over men.  I'm not even
    	sure what these might be, but obviously they were hardly very
    	effective since women have been successfully oppressed for
    	so long.
    
    	Since it is not possible to wipe the slate clean and start
    	over (giving all people equal advantages), the only way that
    	women and other minorities will ever hope to catch up to the
    	majority in terms of economic prosperity and career advance-
    	ment is to allow minorities certain **NEW** advantages until
    	things even up somewhat.
    
    	I realize that it is a very threatening prospect to **some**
    	men in our culture, but none of us are talking about enslaving
    	white men, depriving them of the right to vote, taking away
    	40 per cent of their income or turning them into second-class
    	citizens.  So whatever happens won't be anywhere CLOSE to being
    	as bad as what **WE** have already been through.  
    
    	Yes, fair is fair.  After thousands of years of having had
    	unfair advantages over us, it is a bit too late to say that
    	you will agree to cut down a TAD on *your* advantages but 
    	****ONLY**** if we swear to God that we won't ever try to have
    	even one little teeny advantage over men at all!!!

    	No matter what sort of advantages we *DO* manage to get over
    	the majority, it will never make up for the thousands of years
    	of cultural influences that we'll have to overcome to attain
    	equality.
    
    	What I want to know is -- what frightens some men so much about the
    	the idea of giving women (i.e., minorities) a few advantages to
    	help them exist in a culture that treats them with more fairness?
    	
    						       Suzanne...

    I am beginning to see why it is so hard for men to participate in
    this file.  Any man who writes here is immediately given the feeling
    that the ideas he expresses prove that he is part of a conspiracy
    to oppress all women. Please people.. can we try not to vent so much
    anger every time an idea looks like something an oppressor would
    use?  I am *NOT* the enemy!
    
Suzanne:
    
        > The white male majority has *always* had (and still has)
    	> unfair advantages over women and other minorities.  It isn't
    	> even in your POWER to give up the advantages -- they are too
    	> deeply ingrained in our culture after so many centuries upon
    	> centuries.

    Grated..men have many advantages when they work within their
    traditional roles.  Recognize that woman too have a lot of
    power when they stay in their traditional roles.  Both men
    and woman are stripped of their power when they try to venture
    beyond the traditional roles.  I believe that this leads to waste
    in the current system.  The system needs to be changed.
                               
    	> ...but obviously they were hardly very
    	> effective since women have been successfully oppressed for
    	> so long.
    
    Woman's traditional advantages are only effective within the traditional
    role.  Yes,omen who take too much advantage of traditional power
    are very few and far between.  I have only met one female engineer
    who did this and it was in another company.  She probably did more
    to discredit women engineers in the minds of some men than a
    score of legitimate women engineers could make up for.

        > ...the only way that
    	> women and other minorities will ever hope to catch up to the
    	> majority in terms of economic prosperity and career advance-
    	> ment is to allow minorities certain **NEW** advantages until
    	> things even up somewhat.
    
    Agreed, There are many things that can and should be done.  I only
    wish that woman would avoid taking those advantages that help to
    perpetuate the system as it stands.  The woman above used her
    feminine power to get other men to do her work for her.  I shutter
    to think that some men might have taken her as a typical example
    of a female engineer.

        > ...but none of us are talking about enslaving
    	> white men, depriving them of the right to vote, taking away
    	> 40 per cent of their income or turning them into second-class
    	> citizens.  So whatever happens won't be anywhere CLOSE to being
    	> as bad as what **WE** have already been through.  

    Ah yes...The traditional list of the crimes of white males...strait
    from the party line.  I could try to defend my sex and race against
    this but no mater how good of a case I could make, it would not
    change the party line one bit.  The question is why do you find
    is necessary to make these inflammatory statements?  Is it not
    possible to discuss ideas freely without having to defend all
    my fellow white men?
    
        > ...you will agree to cut down a TAD on *your* advantages but 
    	> ****ONLY**** if we swear to God that we won't ever try to have
    	> even one little teeny advantage over men at all!!!
    
    I believe that by using your advantages you will hurt your own cause.
    I don't think that anyone has gained any real ground any other way.
    
        > What I want to know is -- what frightens some men so much about the
    	> the idea of giving women (i.e., minorities) a few advantages to
    	> help them exist in a culture that treats them with more fairness?
    
    It is my belief that there is a power balance between men and
    women within their traditional roles.  You may not be aware of
    the power that women have over men but I am sure that most men
    are aware of it.  The thing that men see is that women are being
    given more power but men are not.  They fear the loss of the balance
    of power.  If you want to know more about the male experience of
    female power or the male experience of powerlessness in the face of
    female power read the book "Why Men Are The Way They Are" by
    Warren Farrell (McGraw-Hill).  I seems to many men that women are
    asking for not only the power of the traditional female role but
    also for the freedom to some of the power of the male role as well.
    
    						MJC O->

    	RE:  .41
    
    	First off, I sincerely apologize to you if you felt that my
    	last note was written in an inflammatory way or came on too
    	strong.  Please realize that I have difficulty understanding
    	why I should defend or support my ideas any less with a man
    	than I would with a woman (*or* any less than a man would
    	with another man.)
    
    	I'm not blaming you for all the crimes committed by white
    	men over the past centuries.  I don't blame any individual
    	man at all.  The blame belongs to our culture (of which I
    	am a part.)  In that light, I personally hold as much or
    	as little blame as you personally do.
    
    	Please don't blame all women for the actions of the few who
    	hold onto their "traditional power" over men.  Not all of us
    	have had even a *few* of the advantages that you credit us
    	with keeping.  Some of us (even those of us who are Mothers)
    	have never ever in our whole lives been supported by a man.
    	Some of us have supported ourselves and our children from
    	square one (without a single moment of having the luxury of
    	being pampered like new Mothers often are, with husbands and
    	relatives flocking around to "ooh" and "ahh" over us and our
    	infants.)  For some of us, the day we got out of the hospital
    	with our 4 day old infants and went home to empty apartments,
    	it was the day that we went "back to work" (in terms of taking
    	care of ourselves, our homes, and our new child.)  
    
    	That is not your fault personally (nor anyone's fault, as far
    	as I am concerned.)  It's the way things sometimes are and one
    	has to do the best one can in that situation.
    
    	Out in the world, trying to get ahead as a woman is an uphill
    	climb (even today.)  The advantages go to a group that we are
    	physically unable to join because of our biological realities
    	as women.

    	For those of us who want to work in non-traditional jobs (and
    	who have the ability, the desire, the commitment et al), it
    	is unfair that success comes to us at such a higher personal
    	price than it does to persons who belong to a different sex.
    	I would like to see that changed.
    
    	If we were given a few advantages over men (nothing enormous,
    	just a few here and there to help even things out), we'd be
    	following the tradition of our culture in giving some certain
    	groups an edge over others.  Only this time, we'd be helping
    	to even things out a bit (instead of asking for the advantages
    	in order to give one group total power over the other.)
    
    	I've never yet heard a woman realistically say that we should
    	take over the world from men.  I don't want that and I don't
    	personally know any other woman who does.  But I *would* like
    	to see things made more fair, and I don't understand why **some**
    	men are already complaining about us having UNFAIR advantages
    	over men when we aren't anywhere close yet to getting a fair
    	deal from our society.
    
    					           Suzanne... ;-)

        I think the reason that "some men are already complaining about
        [women] having UNFAIR advantages over men when [they] aren't
        anywhere close yet to getting a fair deal from our society" is
        that many of those men don't feel that they've gotten a fair
        deal from society either.
        
        Although many here and in other places have rather elequently
        stated the inequities that have beset women over the ages, and
        the unfair advantage that white men have had over women, the
        experience of many white men is that they've had to fight an
        up-hill battle all of their lives. They may hear second hand
        accounts of the difficulties of women and may even understand
        them with their heads, but their own experiences tell them that
        they haven't had an easy time of it either. Experience always
        speaks much more clearly to us than second hand information. 
        
        The result is that even in the case where the difficulties they
        hear described for women may really be much worse than the
        difficulties they have experienced at first hand for themselves,
        the two come off sounding about equal at worst. This means that
        women sound like complainers or like folk who are asking for an
        unfair advantage. 
        
        The recitation of the difficulties of women and other minorities
        often appear to claim that merely by being a WASP male your life
        should be a cake-walk. A lot of white males have found that life
        was much harder than that. What they're hearing is "It's easy
        being a man (or whatever). It's hard being a woman (or
        whatever)." They know it *isn't* easy being a man, so they
        assume that the other statement is also either untrue or an
        exageration. 
        
        Another aspect of this same issue is that a lot of white men are
        part of some minority that has also been discriminated against
        historically. Take, for instance, an Irish-American. If he is
        old enough, he may have seen signs that said things like "Irish
        and dogs need not apply" on "Help Wanted" signs. If not, he's
        probably heard about it. Today he and his people seem to be
        doing well enough--they're part of the system and in places like
        Boston they're actually near the top pretty often. And now
        someone wants to have an advantage over them! Or to put it
        another way, someone wants to push them back down again. 
        
        Many people who come from groups that have risen up and overcome
        the discrimination against them sympathize with others who are
        treated unfairly. Many will fight ardantly to help others win
        the same kind of battles that they have fought and understood.
        You'll find Irish-Americans in many civil rights and feminist
        groups. But, on the other hand, many will react with resentment
        or fear. They will wonder why women deserve breaks that the
        Irish didn't get--"We did it alone--why cant you?" or they will
        fear that in order for someone else to advance they will have to
        be brought down.
        
        Now all of these reactions can probably be argued against. After
        all, we can't develop a society where everyone is treated fairly
        by oppressing any group, and equality is what most of us are
        really after. But that's all on the intellectual side. It's all
        hearsay. Personal experience weighs more heavily.
        
        Several women have asked "what are men afraid of?" or "why is
        radical feminism so threatening?" Well here's a small example of
        how you can say one thing and be heard to say something quite
        different and more menacing. It will be tempting to dismiss it
        as unimportant, but stop and try to feel it. Try to make it real
        to you. 
        
        Several people have over the months posted a dictionary
        definition of feminism in this file. The definition usually is
        of the form "Advocating the doctrine of equal political,
        economic, and legal rights for all citizens." Sounds pretty
        innocuous. Why should it be threatening?
        
        Well, that's also the definition of "Egalitarianism". Now
        suppose I was to start advicating "Masculism", and tell you it
        meant equality for all--both men and women. Mightn't you wonder
        why the word "Egalitarianism" wasn't good enough? Why have two
        words with the same meaning? Mightn't there be a "real" meaning
        for "Masculism"? Mightn't you suspect that it's goal was really
        the superiority of men over women?
        
        If "feminism" means exactly the same as "egalitarianism" why is
        a gender-based word needed? Does it imply a hidden agenda of
        special advantage for women? Of course, there is a good reason
        for the term. "Egalitarianism" includes equality between the
        sexes implicitly, but it may very well be necessary to include
        it explicitly. People might be all for egalitarianism without
        being concerned about the condition of women. "Feminism" conveys
        that concern, but it also runs the risk of implying more. And
        the phrase "radical feminism" may be seen as differentiating
        "feminism" which is the same as "egalitarianism" from the famale
        superiority brand. 
        
        JimB.

    	RE:  .43
    
    	Thanks, Jim, for your explanation of why some men may be
    	reacting to notes as strongly as they do.  I personally
    	want to say that I appreciate any/all attempts made at
    	arriving at new insights or levels of understanding in
    	this file (or in any other.)
    
    	One thing to remember when you bring up the struggle of
    	other minorities (such as Irish-Americans) is that half
    	of the victims in that group were women.  Of those that
    	were able to rise above being Irish-American in Boston
    	(or wherever) and go on to enjoy success, how many of
    	those individuals were women with their own individual
    	chances for success?  Myself, I happen to be Irish-
    	American (50%) and although my father's family benefited
    	significantly when prejudice against the Irish was no
    	longer a limiting factor, it didn't do much to help or
    	hurt *MY* chances as a woman at all.
    
    	The last thing I want to do is to climb into a rathole
    	to argue about who has suffered more (what minority.)
    	**NOR** do I want to argue about whether or not minority
    	struggles are 10 times worse than majority struggles (or
    	just 25% worse.)  Much of it has to do with individual
    	circumstances (and a fair hearing would require an army
    	of RA82's to hold it all.)  
    
    	I will concede to all white men everywhere that the world
    	is not an easy place for even the most advantaged person
    	or group.  We all have our problems.

    	Getting back to the topic at hand -- I still maintain that
    	there is no good reason for women to feel as if we are all
    	sectioned off into dissenting groups.  When I first came into
    	this file, I had serious disagreements (in my heart) with many
    	of the viewpoints I heard from women and thought that my own
    	views could not be reconciled with theirs.
    
    	I have since changed my mind and see that many different viewpoints
    	from women actually *DO* fit in together (as different aspects
    	and perspectives of the same experience.)  We will increase
    	our combined strength significantly if we can begin to weave
    	our ideas together into a workable multi-faceted approach to
    	our societal situation.
    
    						    Suzanne... ;-)

    Re. .42,.44
    
    Suzanne,
    
    I have read the stories of the way you worked through college in
    this notes file and elsewhere.  I hope that it is easier to do
    for the young women following in you foot steps today.
    
    I can understand what Jim is talking about in .43.  I have felt
    oppression myself as a poor Catholic child in a school of rich Jews.  I
    think that I often overreact when I think that I am being attacked.  I
    am sometimes embarrassed later about the way I reacted to an enemy that
    was never there.  Perhaps some men are reacting to initiatives for
    women the same way to what they see as another attack on what they have
    had to work for.I don't think their fear is rational and should
    not have any bearing on what doing what needs to be done to change
    the system.  Someone is always going to be afraid when you try to
    change anything.
    
    						MJC O->

        The only difference I have with anything you said in 344.44,
        Suzanne is that where you said, "there is no good reason for
        women to feel as if we are all sectioned off into dissenting
        groups", I would have said "there is no good reason for PEOPLE
        (at least people of good will) to feel as if we are all
        sectioned off into dissenting groups". To return to the old team
        metaphore, if we can view ourselves all on the same team and
        value the different perspectives and skills that we can bring to
        the solving of problems that we share it is much better than if
        we work at cross-purposes.
        
        JimB. 

Wouldn't it be nice if we could identify those segments of society that 
discriminate, be it a workplace, housing market, whatever.

Then, as punishment for maintaining discriminatory practices, the group(s) 
who were on the receiving end could then be given 'unfair' advantages until 
the 'party in power' relented and agreed to be fair.

That way, those responsible for perpetuating the racial/social/gender 
imbalances get punished while forward/equality minded people don't get 
punished for past injustices.

I have a dream.....

Comments?  I know it's pipe dream but what do you think?

>>    The reason I wrote my "group" note was to show that this is getting
>>    out of hand.  When you resort to catty comments and one-up-on-you
>>    tactics you not only lose the point of the discussion, but you lose
>>    your ability to see other points of veiw.  Sure it's OK to flame,
>>    but listen to others too.  Everyone has something to say, if we
>>    all act maturely we can continue to keep this file as a place to
>>    air our views.

If you view my comments as "catty, immature, and one-up-on-you tactics" 
you are misunderstanding an attempt to stay focused on issues.  Neither 
(believe it or not) was I flaming,.. that will become obvious when I DO 
flame here sometime.  Since starting to contribute to this note file, I 
have received personal mail asking me not to disagree with other woman
because" we must present a united front to men who are the real enemy".  
I'm getting the feeling that I am being told to be a nice, polite little 
girl ...don't upset anyone and don't make waves.  Unfortunately, I'm 
not a nice, polite little girl.

>>    
>>    I apologize if I sound like I am lecturing, I in no way mean to offend
>>    you or insult your intelligence.  It is just that there are times
>>    when we should all sit back, take a deep breath and say "this is
>>    a discussion, not a contest, and I shouldn't take everything so
>>    seriously".  Not that I'm trying to put words in your mouth ;-)
>>    
>>    They say that vitamin B relieves stress.  (That was a joke, ok?)

Don't worry,... I've been lectured to and offended by the best_:-)  Part of 
the history of women and power has been that we (women_as_a_class_of_people_
in_society) have been conditioned to relinquish our personal power in society
partly as a result of conditioning to be nice, well-mannered, good little girls.  
How often have we been taken advantage of because we were "too polite" to push 
back?  As long as society reserves those positions of power for those of us 
who "use our heads all the time", then we must learn to "use our heads all 
the time"... and pushing back is part of the game.  Personalizing issues 
always detracts from the matter at hand, I try not to do it and I won't be
caught up in it either if possible... I didn't intend my comments to be a
personal attack .. please don't view them that way... The only name calling 
in this note was done by you.  
                 

    re: .45 --
    
    You make a good point that I'm angry because I think that everything I
    have worked so hard to earn is being threatened. 
    
    Certainly when I see someone saying that it's okay to get ahead by
    using men's traditional vulnerability to women's traditional sexual
    enticements, I feel like I am being told that all those years I spent
    learning to be honest, learning to depend on myself, learning to treat
    other people of all sexes, backgrounds, and interests with the same
    respect and consideration I expected from them, were not only wasted
    but stupid. I feel like I am being told I have to go back to being
    pretty, sweet, and inoffensive so I don't make men angry. 
    
    It sounds a whole lot like the things my mother and my teachers
    tried to teach me when I was growing up.

    Yes, I feel threatened when another woman uses her attractions,
    whatever those are, to gain an advantage from a man, because when
    that man meets me, he is that much less likely to take me seriously.
    Maybe this was justified in the days when it was one of the few
    tactics available to the average woman, but it seems to me that
    the only way I'm ever going to be taken seriously as an equal human
    being is if I start acting like an equal.
    
    --bonnie
    

    re JimB .43:
    
    The word "feminism" encompasses all people the same way that
    "mankind" does and we women have had to put up with *that* forever!
    Now you're walking in our shoes and you don't seem to like it much,
    eh?  I have always liked the term "humanist" as all-encompassing
    (or maybe we can change it to "huwomanist? :-) ).  I especially
    like it since all of the right-wing frothy-mouthed types loath it
    so ;-)
    
    Seriously, though.  It is true that many white men have had it hard in
    this world (such as Irish-Americans).  Poor people always have it
    tougher than monied folks.  I guess I'm trying to say that CLASS is
    as important a factor as GENDER or RACE in how hard or how easy you'll
    have it in this world.  Fact is though, that the WOMEN of every CLASS
    and RACE have it *doubly* hard as the men in those same groups.  Maybe
    rich women have it easier than poor white men, maybe it evens out, I
    don't know.    
    
    	-Ellen

    I don't understand the talk about what advantages women have over men.
    I get the impression that we're speaking of sex, and the stereotype of
    the sultry woman who misleads the innocent young man because he is just
    too bowled over by her beauty/sexiness.  Yeah, maybe that's an extreme,
    but it's the gist of what we're talking about.  Well that's a lot of
    crap.  I'm sure men have just as much advantage over women when you're
    talking about attraction.  And there are men who use it to their
    advantage.  So a woman dresses nice and asks for favors in a winning
    way, and a man knocks himself over to help her.  Who's the one being
    sexist?  I think it's the man for thinking that a woman asking nicely
    should mean more than a man asking nicely.  A lot of "female"
    characteristics are just courteous manners that all people should
    exhibit.

    It is also hard to take advantage if someone has the authority to grant
    you a privilege.  "I will do this for you because you're a woman, and
    cannot possibly be strong/intelligent/etc. enough to do it by yourself."

    I'd like to know what ways a woman can take advantage of a man to get
    further in a career.  Maybe there's something I can do :-).

    ...Karen

    re: .51
    
    Karen, you've explained very clearly my exact objection to using one's
    sex appeal to gain favors from men (and being cute to avoid a traffic
    ticket definitely comes under this category):  It confines both the
    woman and the man to rigid and unproductive stereotyped roles. 
    
    Such behavior doesn't have to be explicitly sultry or seductive.
    Often it takes the form of being mildly flirtatious and "cute" in
    order to pamper a man's ego and make him think you're less threatening
    so he'll give you what he wants. 
    
    It's a very fine line between playing Daddy's little girl and simply
    being friendly.  Probably only the person doing the smiling knows
    whether her motives are pure.  
    
    --bonnie

    I find it interesting that we all seem to be assuming that using
     "feminine wiles" works! Is it true that the men who are being 
    "wiled-upon" have no power to resist? Or look askance? Or think
    "My goodness, is this appropriate in a work environment?" Are they
    putty in our hands? Really? If male engineers did a female engineer's
    job for her, it was because they wanted to. Nobody (presumably)
    held a gun to their collective head. And THEN (I'd bet the farm)
    they made obnoxious comments behind her back.
    
    Dawn
    

RE: .53  Right, I don't believe they work!

    I too, have been stopped by Police Officers and given only a warning.
    I did not flirt, act "cute" or coy or play up on the ego of the
    Officer.  I acted in a professional manner.  It was *his* choice
    not to give me a ticket.  Maybe it was because of my physical
    appearance, maybe not.  But don't condemn me for it.
    
    Its a two way street, in female dominated professions, using Retailing
    as an example, there *are* men, nice looking, young ones that probably
    are *judged by people* to have used looks for advancement.
                                       
    Why blame someone for being attractive.  Ultimately the person can
    either do the job or not do the job so whether he or she is attractive
    will be of no real significance in the long run.
    
    Just because someone is attractive doesn't mean he or she *uses*
    that attractiveness deliberately to get ahead.  The guilty ones
    are the ones that hire the pretty female engineer over the plain
    one or the manager that hires the young hunk over someone else simply
    because of his looks.  
    
    Flame away!!!!!  ;^)
                        

    Re: .53
    
    > If male engineers did a female engineer's job for her, it was because
    > they wanted to.
    
    > And THEN (I'd bet the farm) they made obnoxious comments behind
    > her back. 
                                
    Congratulations, You win a farm. :-)  The obnoxious comments came from
    either 1) Men who the woman was not playing too and 2) Men who the
    woman once played to who are no longer useful too her and now are
    feeling used.
    
    If they helped her because they wanted to than how come they didn't
    offer to do another male engineer's work?
    
    But back to the first point:
    
     > I find it interesting that we all seem to be assuming that using
     > "feminine wiles" works!
    
    Sure it does.  Men go through all kinds of things to try to win
    the favor of the highly sought-after women (the woman is question
    fits into this category).  I have heard stories about men in England
    that were too young to join the second world war hoping that the war
    would last a few more years so that they could get some of the
    attention that the solders were getting from the local women.
    There are many men that achieve well beyond their own aspirations
    to win the woman that they want.  I'm flabbergasted by risks
    I have taken in the past in order to maintain contact with
    a woman for whom my interest is strong.  I can even think of one
    or two that I would have given my life to protect.  And you
    are trying to tell me that "feminine wiles" do not work??
    
    
    					MJC O->
    

>    Men go through all kinds of things to try to win
>    the favor of the highly sought-after women ...
    
    You're blaming *women* for these *men's* compulsions??!
                                                           
    							   Oh, GREAT.
    
                                                                 
>        If they helped her because they wanted to than how come they didn't
>    offer to do another male engineer's work?
 
    Because that involves a loss of status in the eyes of your peers,
    for many.  However, in those same eyes, women aren't peers.
    
    
    If you are, as you say, "flabbergasted by risks" you've taken, how
    about just not taking those risks.
    
    Personal responsibility for one's behavior is actually quite exciting 
    in itself.  
    
    Of course, I'm flabbergasted at how much time I've idled away over
    the years... :-)  Honest, just one more game of solitaire!  :-)

    RE: .56, and seconding .57
    
    Nobody holds a gun to anybody's head to succumb to "feminie wiles".
    IF a guy chooses to act based on his hormonal feelings toward someone
    in a work environment, that's *HIS* choice. I do not believe that
    testosterone poisoning is causing males to be unable to resist being
    "wiled-upon". One can *ALWAYS* respond in a businesslike, distant,
    but friendly manner.
    
    Ths "It's not my fault" stuff reminds me of the dating game in the
    50's and 60's in which the girls were told to be responsible for
    the guy's behaviour, because, after all, we can't expect him to
    be able to control himself.
    
    Bull.
    
    --DE
    

    Re. .57

    > You're blaming *women* for these *men's* compulsions??!
    
    I don't call them compulsions.  It is merely the man trying to
    play out his traditional role.  In the traditional role the male
    has to do any number of things to win the female over.  It is his
    assigned part of the game.  All the woman has to do is decide yes
    or no.  A very few women take advantage of this to manipulate the man
    to do the work he would normally do to try to win a woman over,
    which is much more that he would consider doing for any other man
    for any reason.  Why do men stick to this purely sexist form of
    courtship?  Because no other alternative yet exists.  Today, for
    the most part, when a woman is interested in a man she will still
    simply wait for him to do something.  Why do some men choose to
    try to play out this game in a work environment?  This is the
    real problem.  I would like to think that avoiding such behavior
    at work would be part of the definition of being "Professional".
    The one time I was involved in it I was nearly torn apart inside
    by in internal conflict of being "professional" vs. playing out
    my role.  I chose to remain professional and hope that the woman
    in question would make the first move.  Although her interest seemed
    to be strong it soon faded when I did not make a move. 

    > If you are, as you say, "flabbergasted by risks" you've taken, how
    > about just not taking those risks.
    
    Because, assuming again that traditional roles still apply, if I
    don't take the risks I will get *nowhere* with women.  It would
    be nice if I could just sit around and wait for the women to approach me
    but I might be old and gray by that time.
                                                                 
    Re. .58
    
    > One can *ALWAYS* respond in a businesslike, distant, but friendly manner.

    Keep in mind that in this case we are talking about a woman that
    is deliberately trying to manipulate a fellow engineer.  To my
    mind it starts to sound a little like blaming the victim for being
    too weak to avoid the manipulation.  People tend to do the same
    thing to battered women, blame them for being too weak to get out
    of the abusive situation.  I think that you underestimate the
    power the manipulation can have.  To be sure, the woman who use
    it know of it's power.
    
    In the situation with the unprofessional female engineer I did
    take the businesslike path.  I recognized the pattern of manipulation.
    I too could have been taken in if she had approached me before
    I knew of her manipulation.  I hope I would have balked at doing
    her work though.
    
    > This "It's not my fault" stuff reminds me of the dating game in the
    > 50's and 60's in which the girls were told to be responsible for
    > the guy's behavior, because, after all, we can't expect him to
    > be able to control himself.
    
    Initiation is the dirty work of relationships that men have always
    had to take the responsibility for.  In the book "Why Men Are The
    Way They Are" the author documents 151 steps in the traditional
    male/female interaction were the man must initiate the further
    step to intimacy and take the risk of rejection.  The only requirement
    of the female is to say "no" when she feels that they have gone
    far enough.  Even after this rejection the man is expected to try
    this same step at some later date until the woman either consents
    or breaks off the relationship.  In a very real sense the woman
    is in control.  If he ignores her "no" then it is another matter.

    Re. The last several
    
    The last few replies remind me of the same kind of thing that woman
    have been complaining about in this file about notes from men.
    The tendency is to say "You think you feel this way but really
    you feel that way" or "You claim to feel this way but really you
    feel that way".  Listening to other peoples feelings goes both
    ways (I hope).    

    
    					MJC O->
    
                    

    I never claimed you didn't feel as you described it, I said you
    didn't have to feel that way.
    
    You can be in control or you can blame your conditioning.  Some
    women have gone through the same fears of rejection if they fail
    to conform to what they perceive as their role: if I don't {wear
    makeup | act retiring | whatever }, I could grow old and gray alone.
    There's no guarantee that you'll avoid any such horrible :-) fate
    if you conform either, though.
    
    I differ with your view that being able to sit back and say no is
    the same as being in control.  If one doesn't act, one has no idea
    what might come one's way.  Sort of like sitting at home hoping
    someone will mail you a fish instead of going out fishing yourself
    (where you get to decide if you want freshwater or saltwater and
    all that).  :-)
    
    Still, you sound like you're blaming women for the traditional role
    you see.  Is this true?

    Re. .60
    
    > You can be in control or you can blame your conditioning.
    
    Conditioning is a powerful thing.  Yes I can be in control but
    it is often a very hard thing to do.  We can expect that once in
    a while a man will fail.

    Keep in mind that a man must face many, many rejections in his
    lifetime.  The drive must be very strong or he would never overcome
    all those rejections.
    
    > Some women have gone through the same fears of rejection if they fail
    > to conform to what they perceive as their role: if I don't {wear
    > makeup | act retiring | whatever }, I could grow old and gray alone.
    
    The woman's role is still passive.  She need not take any action
    at all.  It is still the man that must initiate the act that
    may cause him to be rejected.  The woman need only be attractive.
    The man must be attractive and prove himself by being brave enough
    to do the initiation.
    
    > Still, you sound like you're blaming women for the traditional role
    > you see.  Is this true?
    
    I may blame a particular woman for taking advantage of the vulnerability
    that men have within the traditional role.  I would also blame a
    man who took advantage of a woman the same way.  The acts of these
    kinds of people drives wedge of mistrust between men and woman.
    Completely innocent people are not trusted because the person that
    they are trying to relate to has been burned by the less than
    innocent.
    
    I am also trying to make the point that the male role is not easy.
    Often the popular media portrays the start of a new relationship
    as magical ("Some enchanted evening, You will see a stranger ...").
    It is not magic.  It may be the result of real bravery of the man
    involved.
    
    					MJC O->

    Re: .-1
    
    > The woman's role is still passive.
    
    Ha.  You obviously interact with a restricted subset of women.
    Heaven help the rest if you're going to interpret they're not doing
    anything as passive waiting!  :-)
    
    I've faced a lot of rejections in my lifetime too, and I hope I'll
    get more (if there aren't any in my forseeable future, it probably
    means I'm going to die soon).

    RE: -2
    
    I hate to gang up on you, but I agree with Lisa: yeah the traditional
    role for a man sucks, but WAKE UP, MANY, MANY OF US DON'T LIKE IT
    EITHER.  It is the traditional male role which is cheifly responsible
    for date-rape [_MY_ opinion only, there]; man keeps asking after
    woman says no, thinking maybe she'll change her mind, and when she
    doesn't, he still ignores "no"... gag.
    
    A lot of us pounce.  We can pounce pretty convincingly, too.  Men
    aren't the only ones who get rejected alot, ya know.
    
    I got sick of waiting for some guy to notice me a long time ago.
    I started leaping.  That worked pretty well sometimes, blew up in
    my face sometimes, but I doubt strongly that this "minority" of
    non-passive women is that small...
    
    FWIW, I am passive when undecided about a guy, and say straight
    out when I am not interested in someone who is trying to hit on
    me.  I get pretty ticked off when mister traditional man decides
    my unambiguous statement of disinterest is just a silly whim, or
    maybe I'm just playing coy, asking him to try harder and scare the
    bejeebers out of me. 
    
    Now I'll agree that what I've said has little to do with the particular
    xxengineer you bring up, at least not at first glance.  I agree
    that she was acting in a despicable manner, but I disagree with
    the excuse you offer to the men who "fell prey to her wiles."  If
    they'd look around them, a lot of attractive women are aggressive,
    and that doesn't mean the men involved have to fall for them.
    
    Although it _does_ give me a sort of sadistic pleasure to watch
    men fall prey to their own role -- maybe _that_ will convince them
    it's a stupid role to expect or maintain.
    
    And I mean no offense to you or any individuals in particular: sadistic
    pleasure stops when the person suffering is a known, nice individual,
    and you seem to be one...
    
    Peace--
    
    Lee

    Re .62
    
    >> The woman's role is still passive.
    
    > Ha.  You obviously interact with a restricted subset of women.

    Or the women I interact with are just not interested in me.  I
    don't think I am the kind of guy that most women tend to try too
    hard on.  Sigh...  So much for my ego today...
    
    > Heaven help the rest if you're going to interpret they're not doing
    > anything as passive waiting!  :-)
    
    No, I don't take "doing nothing" = "passive waiting".  I do pick
    up on positive or negative vibes.  Vibes do tend to be a bit ambiguous
    so sometimes I might make a mistake.  I'm not so bold that I take
    the "Dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitude that I have seen
    some men take.  These men probably have more success but they do
    more damage too.
    
    Re .63

    > It is the traditional male role which is chiefly responsible
    > for date-rape [_MY_ opinion only, there];
    
    Not just your opinion, mine too and the author of "Why Men Are The
    Way They Are" agrees with us.  The author calls the traditional
    male conditioning "Rape Training". There have been tests done to
    compare convicted rapists with a control group.  They showed them
    films to Male/Female interaction and asked them to identify negative
    feed back on the part of the woman.  The convicted rapists saw far
    less negative feedback and even identified some negative feedback
    as positive feedback.  Lack of sensitivity to negative feedback can
    be fatal to human relations.  Over sensitivity can be bad too.
    I often interpret positive feedback as neutral.
    
    > A lot of us pounce.  We can pounce pretty convincingly, too.  Men
    > aren't the only ones who get rejected alot, ya know.
    
    I seem to be immune from pouncing.  Gee, I wasn't planning to feel
    sorry for myself today....Sigh...
    
    > I get pretty ticked off when mister traditional man decides
    > my unambiguous statement of disinterest is just a silly whim...

    Opps...Struck a nerve there...excuse while I flame a little here.
    
    You see there is this woman...She gives the "I just what to be friends"
    and "I don't what to date people I work with" speech to me and two
    of my male colleagues.  I believe her and the other two press on. 
    The first dates her for two months and dumps her.  The second is
    now engaged to her.  I sit here and feel like a fool.
    
    Experiences like this give some men the idea that woman don't know
    what they want.  I think I prefer to go on assuming that a woman
    will straight with me even if I might end up feeling foolish again
    some time in the future.
    
    > If they'd look around them, a lot of attractive women are aggressive,
    > and that doesn't mean the men involved have to fall for them.
    
    We aren't talking about you average aggressive and attractive woman.
    We are talking about a woman how is a pro at manipulating men. 
    Why is it so hard to believe that there may be a few men, possibly
    one's that have not had much luck with women in the past,
    that could be susceptible to her manipulation.
    
    > Although it _does_ give me a sort of sadistic pleasure to watch
    > men fall prey to their own role -- maybe _that_ will convince them
    > it's a stupid role to expect or maintain.
    
    Sorry that you feel that way.  I still see these men as victims.
    Most of the men in this case were recent engineering grads.  Assume
    that the woman is enough of a pro to pick the most vulnerable men.
    Here you have a young man that might be experiencing interest from
    a woman for the first time in his life (He was one of the nerds
    in highschool).  He is willing to try hard to win her.  He gets
    burned.  As the song says "First cut is the deepest...".
    
    Yes, it is a stupid role.  Does the average guy have any real
    alternative?
    
					MJC O->

    The real reason men are active in this file (okay, it's only
    *one* of many real reasons) is to learn the little secret I will
    now reveal:
    
    We passive-appearing women are really working like hell in the
    background to permit men we like to enter into situations in
    which they will ask one or more of those questions to which the
    answer will *not* be no.
    
    Example:  In college, there was this guy I liked.  Very shy.  So
    I found a play that students could go to for free if they exchanged
    a coupon which we'd all gotten when we enrolled.  I told the whole
    gang.  Later that day, it happened that we were walking back from
    class alone together (Was it by chance?  Well, it wasn't my doing.),
    and he asked me for my coupon.
    
    So that was our first date.
    
    He didn't have to fear rejection, he wasn't coerced, and I'm still
    proud of the set up.
    
    		*		*		*
    
    Oh.  A lot of women, a lot of the time, can spot a set up a mile
    away (from farther away than most men would dream possible), but
    will go along with it -- at least part way -- without letting on
    they know.
    
    						Ann B.

    On the subject of dating, pouncing, and general XX-XY interaction
    
    I think it would be nice ifnobody had to pounce, work sub-rosa to
    arrange "chance" encounters, or whatever. With, options open for
    pouncing, the simultaneous-attraction-WOW, etc., I think the ability
    of XX's and XY's who enjoy each other's company to do so would make
    a good beginning for relationships. Then nobody's pressured to "make
    moves" or whatever. The better you get to know the other person,
    the easier it becomes to explore romantic avenues in a non-threatening
    atmosphere. If it becomes romance, great. If not, hey everybody
    needs friends too.
    
    I think the more non-sexist the atmosphere, the more likely this
    is to occur. The key is, poeple-to-people, regardless of "plumbing".
    
    Dawn
    

	I've always felt that men were not able to function well in the
	work place since they really are victims of their hormones.
	My god, we've had to segregate them to high management positions
	cause they were to wild to be near the female secretaries and they
	couldn't think.

	Imagine, if it weren't for Nancy watching him like a hawk Ron
	would probably fall all over Magie Thatcher and promise her
	anything. You know how the boys get when their testosternone
	levels get high. :*))))))) liesl

    re .64 etc
    
    I liked your note, but have one nit: I feel my "sadistic pleasure"
    was misinterpreted, despite the explanatory paragraph immediately
    afterwards.
    
    AS I SAID: the sadistic pleasure is an abstraction, felt in reference
    towards an abstract person being bit back by his behavior, IN THE
    ABSTRACT!!!
    
    If anybody thinks I honestly think the situation is pleasant, I'd
    suggest you think again.  The thought itself _is_ ignoble, agreed,
    and I'll bet a lot of people think "serves 'em right" then dismisses
    it immediately as "no, no, no one could deserve that."
    
    As I said, the woman you mention sounds like pond scum [she doesn't
    work here, right?] and the behavior models stink.
    
    Lee

    Reply to .0;
    
    All of those things are descriptions of how power is used, not how
    power is accumilated (sp?) (other than natural growth). Although
    it is true that some women are naturals at collecting and expressing
    power, most are not and have to learn that as they go through life.
    
    So at one level I agree but would add that gaining power and letting
    power flow through ones being can be learned.
    
    When I am around that kind of power, be it woman or man, I have
    a solid, confident feeling about that person.

	RE: manipulative women and men trying to find someone romantically

	I fail to see how wanting to get in good graces with a woman and
	doing their work for them can get confused.  If you wouldn't help
	a male colleague with a problem, why would you help a woman colleague
	with it?  I understand that you might want to be extra friendly and
	helpful to a woman that you want to get involved with, but why can't
	it be done in other ways?  If doing something that you wouldn't
	do for anyone else (work related) is how you get their interest, they're
	probably not worth getting involved with.  Therefore, there should
	be no way that a woman could hold power over a man (at least where
	your job is involved).

	The other thing that bothers me is that this argument seems to be
	there to counter the claim that men hold power over women in
	their jobs.  There is a basic difference in what kinds of power is
	being discussed.  When men (generic, not a specific person) hold
	power it is because they are in a position of authority, or better
	able to influence those in authority.  This authority is there
	because of their rank in a company.  It has nothing to do with
	sexual attraction.  The female power that's being discussed is
	only sexual.  Therefore it's rather hit-and-miss.  Only sometimes
	can the woman have power, and that's when a man allows them that
	power (including when he can't help himself).  Of course men too
	can have the same hit-and-miss sexual power over a woman.

	...Karen

    Re. .66

    > We passive-appearing women are really working like hell in the
    > background to permit men we like to enter into situations in
    > which they will ask one or more of those questions to which the
    > answer will *not* be no.
    
    > He didn't have to fear rejection...
    
    Yes but he did not know that.  He might get the feeling that things
    are going well but he is never sure, so the fear is still there.

    Re. .68 poor little dears...victims of their hormones.

    I don't reply to sarcasm.
    
    Re. .69

    > I feel my "sadistic pleasure" was misinterpreted, despite the
    > explanatory paragraph immediately afterwards. 
    
    Not misinterpreted...I just over reacted to it...I can understand
    the "sadistic" reaction too.  At best the men in question were
    compromising professional behavior.  They do deserve to get a
    little burned for that but not *that* burned.

    Re. .71
    
    > If doing something that you wouldn't do for anyone else (work related) is
    > how you get their interest, they're probably not worth getting involved
    > with.
    
    We are playing Monday morning quarterback a bit here.  Some men were
    not susceptible to the manipulation for this reason.  Some men were.
    
    > The other thing that bothers me is that this argument seems to be there to
    > counter the claim that men hold power over women in their jobs.
    
    I did not mean to imply this.  What I did say was:
    
    .41> Recognize that woman too have a lot of power when they stay in their
    .41> traditional roles.
    
    The job environment is not part of the traditional female role (other
    than the job of prostitution).  It is not surprising that we will have
    to reinvent the system to give women power in the job world. 

    > The female power that's being discussed is only sexual.  Therefore it's
    > rather hit-and-miss.
    
    The only power that men have over women is the extra physical strength.
    All the rest of the power they have is conferred upon them by the
    traditional system.  The system also confers power on woman but only
    in the traditional role.  I agree that a woman's sexual power is not
    of much use in the work environment.
    
    > Only sometimes can the woman have power, and that's when a man allows them
    > that power (including when he can't help himself).
    
    In the job environment this is true, men and woman can only get power
    from someone who already has power.  A woman *can* have power but
    only if she is willing to take on the traditional role.  Many women,
    understandably, don't consider this an option.  Others choose to
    revert to the traditional role when it looks like a better deal for
    them.
    
    						MJC O->

    re .65
    
    Yep, it's all those evil confident women again ruining nice dumb guys who
    although they're adults still think that one nasty person is the
    rule.                                                                  
    
    
    --------------------okay, so now I'll cool the sarcasm_________________
    
    I'm beginning to think this fear of rejection stuff is a scam. 
    Driving home from the party (Rt 27 is great for contemplating),
    I thought about all the times *I* asked first...it wasn't just fun,
    it was a real, honest-to-goodness, adrenaline high.  They were some
    of the best, too.  And _I_ got to figure out what to propose to
    do!  (And I'm good at that.) 
    Yeah, being turned down is a bit of a drag, but even just getting
    worked up to ask is exciting, and if the other person accepts 
    it's great!!!!!!!!!
    
    So, am I saying here that fear is better than nothing?  :-)
    Uh, well, maybe!  But it's more like I don't think it's that bad
    at all.

    Reply to the last few...
    
    Aren't we talk about different kinds of power here?
    
    In reference to power, women have power just as men have power.
    This not a power over but a power within. I see only one thing that
    can cause a woman to not recognize her power. That is ignorance
    of her nature.
    
    Well some will blame tradition, society or men in general, but woman
    has to make her choice for herself. After she has done that for
    a while both men and women will be less intimidated by her strength.
    
    In reference to power over, women traditionally have power over
    children but not power over corporations. I think that as time goes
    by and as women show an ability to efficently use power over she
    will be given that responsibility. Again, she has to make that choice.
    
      Mikie?

RE: .0

"An intelligent woman that uses her intelligence is *POWERFUL*."

etc...

*Anyone* who uses their intelligence is *POWERFUL*.

etc...

RE: .1

see above

RE: .8

most modern "communities" run by consenus...

RE: .11

The worst part are the "dumb blonds" who are just acting dumb... a crying shame.

"Funny though, (or should I say sad and unfortunate) that a *pretty* woman that
rises to the the top of the executive ladder has to put up with the accusation
that, "she slept with so and so to get there"."

I predict that as more and more women get into management, more and more *men*
will have to contend with 'he slept with so and so to get there.' 

"The more things are Different, the more they are the Same."
    
RE: .13

"Another source, which no doubt set the expectations for the famous "dumb
blondes" to build on is that in a time when women were by and large less well
educated than men, attractive women found that looks alone could bring power.
They traded on the commodity that worked, taking the easy road."

"Half the problems of women's liberation are woman." JB

RE: .18  MANTIS::PARE

Hear Here!

RE: .24

"You wouldn't tell your son that his "blondness or smile or nice legs" will help
him get better grades or get out of a ticket he deserved if his teacher or the
cop was gay, would you?"

No, and I wouldn't tell my son that if the teacher was a hetrosexual woman, and
I wouldn't tell my daughter that if the teacher was a hetrosexual man, or a
homosexual woman.

RE: .36

Ay Yup!

I have a lot of fun with people that, from first impression, think I'm slow... I
give them a lot of rope, and jerk them in, and let them hang themselves. Maybe
one day they'll learn to treate everybody with respect. 

Remember, a Politician is just another salesman.

RE: .41

Yes, women do have power in the traditional roles, and men do not have any power
outside of traditional roles.  Look at what happens during a divorce when a
father would like to have the children.  That's power that sucks.  But do they
stop? 

RE: .44

"One thing to remember when you bring up the struggle of other minorities (such
as Irish-Americans) is that half of the victims in that group were women. ...
Myself, I happen to be Irish- American (50%) and although my father's family
benefited significantly when prejudice against the Irish was no longer a
limiting factor, it didn't do much to help or hurt *MY* chances as a woman at
all."

Then how can you claim to be a victim of Irish prejudice, if it makes no
difference in your life if that prejudice exists or not?

RE: .50

"Man*" has been defined as generic for a loong time.  "Feminism" has not.
The really radical types have a spelling problems with words like "Herstory",
"Womyn", et al.

RE: .57

"You're blaming *women* for these *men's* compulsions??!"

No, he's blaming the women who do encourage such complusions.

RE: .58

"Nobody holds a gun to anybody's head to succumb to "feminie wiles". IF a guy
chooses to act based on his hormonal feelings toward someone in a work
environment, that's *HIS* choice." 
                              
And no one holds a gun to a woman's head to stay in a low paying job, take
abuse etc... (as elaborated in .59)

RE: .63

"but I disagree with the excuse you offer to the men who "fell prey to her
wiles.""

I don't think anyone is trying to "excuse the man".  They are pointing out
the problem that the woman is.

RE: .71

"I understand that you might want to be extra friendly and helpful to a woman
that you want to get involved with, but why can't it be done in other ways?"

Because it was asked of them to do the work.

RE: -.1

Oh No!  I have to agree with Mikie.  That can't be right...

Jim.