| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 479.1 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Mon Sep 14 1987 15:27 | 30 |
| RE: .0
Try to remember that the ad in question is evidence that the
advertiser felt that the image of a little girl coming out of
Daddy's room wearing his shirt (just like the woman did, I
presume -- I haven't seen the actual ad) would conjure up some
sort of reaction that would make one want to buy their product.
It is the AD AGENCY that is presuming men (or little girls)
have those fantasies (and some people are just recognizing the
fact that the ad agency is playing to what they THINK will sell
to their intended audience.)
The fact that we recognize who they are playing to (and what
they presume men's fantasies are) is not to say that any of
us HERE believes that all men have incest fantasies.
Personally, I don't believe that one can make that sort of
generalization about either sex (and yes, I'd be disturbed if
someone hinted or stated to me that I had fantasies about incest
with my son.)
I just don't agree that anyone has been insulted here by the
fact that we think that the ad agency for the shirt commercial
DOES obviously think that people (men or little girls) have
incest fantasies and that they can make a buck out of them.
Let's not get mad at the wrong people here.
Suzanne...
|
| 479.2 | Directed at Men? | MAY20::MINOW | Je suis Marxist, tendance Groucho | Mon Sep 14 1987 15:54 | 14 |
| When I saw the ad, I thought it was directed *specifically* at women:
it ran during the Christmas buying season, which is a time when women
buy *a lot* of clothing for their male relations.
In addition to the incest fantasy, I can also think of fantasies involving
half-dressed adult women and their guy's shirts, as well as rather
innocent child dress-up-like-daddy fantasies.
At the tender age of seven years, little did I realize I was nudging
transvestitism when I clumped around in my mom's high heels and wore
lipstick. (Once only: lipstick felt icky, my toes hurt, and my parents
convinced me I'd rather eat dessert tomorrow.)
Martin.
|
| 479.3 | | YODA::COOK | Don't drop it! It's a Zidjian! | Mon Sep 14 1987 15:56 | 2 |
|
This is ridiculous.
|
| 479.4 | Some Balance Here, Please | FDCV03::ROSS | | Mon Sep 14 1987 16:47 | 38 |
| RE: .59 (and others, related to this particular ad)
Dawn, the ad in question, touts Van-Heusen shirts.
I have to disagree that the commercial, albeit for a man's shirt,
is aimed at men (and therefore, *their* sexual fantasies).
This particular ad is trotted out at TWO particular time during
the year - just around Christmas time and just before Father's Day.
Because of the timing, I think the presumption can be made that
the commercial is meant for "those people" who are wondering what
to get for that "special man in their life" - in this case "those
people" being female, since the ad shows the females after they
have appropriated the shirt in question.
So if anything, if one wants to read all sorts of hidden sexual
messages into this commercial, perhaps the message is geared
toward the female's fantasy of seducing *her* man, whether it be
her lover, husband --- OR father. (Remember "Lolita"?)
And to those who feel that, since the name of this Conference is
WOMANOTES, it's acceptable, encouraged even, to make all sorts of
blanket statements dealing with the purported sexual fantasies of men
in general, and then say that men should keep from commenting because
this is a "woman's" file, picture this scenario:
You're a woman and have "insidiously" crept into the
MENNOTES files. Some male in that file says, "Hey guys,
did you see that ad on TV last night, the one where the
stud rips off the woman's dress while they're parked, and
she's PRETENDING she really doesn't want IT? What crap,
THEY ALWAYS WANT IT; they just like to play hard to get!!"
Would you keep quiet, and just carefully tip-toe away? Come on,
now, we know what would happen.
Alan
|
| 479.5 | One more time | VINO::EVANS | | Mon Sep 14 1987 17:11 | 39 |
| OK.
How's this?
I think it is inappropriate to infer in *ANY* advertising, *ANY*
intimate, sexual connection between a child and an adult.
I believe that ad did, simply because the first scene inferred intimacy
between the adult female and the adult male. I also believe that
this was done purposely, since if the ad were not trying to make
a sale using sex, it could have shown scene 1: Little Tommy dressed
in dad's shirt and tie, a too-big hat resting on his ears, then
scene 2: Little Mary in dad's shirt also. Announcer makes appropriate
cutesy comments.
Totally different ad with girl-friend in Harry's shirt. Innuendoes
OK, here.
As I said in my reply to the dust-up in the other note, I would
object equally, if an ad played on female incest fantasies. I
*strongly* object, in general, to the use of sex in selling many
products. This one, if done as I outlined above, is OK because men
want to be attractive to women, and this shirt will help, etc. -
goes the ad-agency thinking.
I simply didn't like the inference of sex from one scene to the
other, and believe it was purposeful, on the part of the ad agency,
for the reasons I stated above.
BTW - don't a lot of guys buy their own shirts? Especially young
singles? I think the first scene intimates a "girl-friend" rather
than a "wife", so maybe the ad was aimed at "young singles"...?
SO: In summation, whomever the ad was aimed at, I object to the
inference of sex/seduction in such close proximity to a child.
Dawn
|
| 479.6 | What did you say? | PSYCHE::SULLIVAN | | Mon Sep 14 1987 17:15 | 33 |
| FWIW
First of all, I don't think your comparison a very good one, but
even if we disagree on that point, I think you're mistaken about
what the response of women would be. I understand that there is
a fair amount of arguing between in men and women in Mennotes, but
I also understand that no men have complained about women's presence
in the file or suggested that men's experience would be enhanced
if women would be more sensitive to their (men's) need to talk to
each other. Secondly, I don't think women (in Mennotes) would go
around demanding an apology. They might say, "When you said this,
this is how it made me feel." In response to that kind of
non-accusatory response, the author of the basenote *might* apologize,
and the women would probably say, "Thanks, but my real hope was
to make you understand how your words might be understood." I hardly
ever see that kind of exchange between men and women in this file.
What I see is men pouncing. Sometimes women retreat and smooth
things over, and sometimes they stand their ground. At which point
they usually get called whicked names or get accused of taking things
too personally, having a grudge against all men, etc.
With regard to your analysis of the ad... I think the fact that
you mentioned women's seduction of men, be they husbands, lovers,
or *fathers* as if it were a common, well-known thing.. suggests
that ads like that one are doing a very effective job of perpetuating
damaging myths about women. I do not ask for an apology on behalf
of women everywhere who are probably wounded at least indirectly
by words like those. I only ask that you reread your note and think
about what it means to suggest that little girls often or even
sometimes seduce their fathers.
Justine
|
| 479.7 | Didn't type fast enough | PSYCHE::SULLIVAN | | Mon Sep 14 1987 17:21 | 4 |
|
My 479.6 is meant as a response to 479.4 (Not 479.5)
Justine
|
| 479.8 | Dang, I agree with DE | VIKING::MODICA | | Mon Sep 14 1987 17:29 | 6 |
|
RE: .5 by Dawn, Your last sentence I agree with completely.
I wish the morons on Madison ave. would use different means
to sell their wares.
|
| 479.9 | ... which I didn't infer when I saw it ... | STAR::BECK | Paul Beck | Mon Sep 14 1987 17:43 | 5 |
| Nit alert re .5 -
The ad didn't infer anything; the viewer did.
The ad might have IMPLIED something...
|
| 479.10 | Back To The Original Premise | FDCV03::ROSS | | Mon Sep 14 1987 17:58 | 18 |
| RE: .6
We seem to have shifted the original point in note 446.* away from
the assertion that this ad played into the MALE fantasy of incest.
I do not disagree that this ad is pitching sex; many ads do - to
both sexes.
However, my point was that I believed it should not have been
construed as it initially was (having male incest overtones).
Should ads use sex to sell their products? We can debate that
aspect if you wish. But I'd like some acknowledgement that, perhaps,
the initial interpretation of the perceived male's incestuous fantasies
could have been jumping to some wrong conclusions.
Alan
|
| 479.11 | | VINO::EVANS | | Mon Sep 14 1987 18:45 | 14 |
| The ad was using sex to sell its product to men. There was a child
in the ad. Inferences could easily be made by the viewer. The child
was female. The ad was aimed at males. I presume most incest fantasy
of males is heterosexual (this must be the flaw in my logic).
I am not now, nor have I ever said, that EVERY male viewer of this
ad has/had such fantasies. I am saying that, for those who have
such fantasies, the ad played into them.
PErhaps I am being obtuse, but I do not see how that particular
ad could've evoked FEMALE incest fantasies.
Dawn
|
| 479.12 | some thoughts on .4 and .10 | WHICH::AUGUSTINE | | Mon Sep 14 1987 19:06 | 43 |
|
[nb: Dawn entered reply .11 while i was writing this.]
re .10
come on! the author has already a) apologized, b) said that HER
interpretation was that the ad designers were playing on male incest
fantasies (others have offered their interpretations) and c) said
that all ads implying sexual attraction between children and adults
are offensive to her. what else do you want?
could you possibly agree to disagree?
re .4
actually, i have snuck quietly away from two conferences, but i
didn't leave until i'd been offended a number of times. mennotes
was one of them. i just didn't like the attitude toward women that
was in the air at the time. i didn't object, because it wasn't "my"
file. i didn't demand an apology, nor did i yell about harrassment.
i merely deleted the conference from my notebook.
the other conference that i left quietly was blacknotes. for a while,
it was one of my favorite conferences. but then the participants
started discussing why anti-semitism was ok. that was not ok with
me -- i felt very uncomfortable -- but again, i was the guest in
that conference and did not feel right intruding into that space.
(fwiw, i'm equally uncomfortable hearing about why it's ok for jews
to hate blacks, and i usually speak up in those cases, too).
in both cases, i feel wounded. i'm sorry there's so much
misunderstanding between the different groups of people. it shows
how much further we have to go. but clearly, the men and blacks
at DEC have carved out a space for themselves that's meant to be
somewhat seperate from other types of people (otherwise, they'd
participate in human relations or something). and i'm unwilling
to intrude on that space.
[disclaimer/further explanation: i'm not suggesting or requesting
that others follow my example, but i did want to describe my behavior,
especially in light of the comments in .4.]
quietly,
liz
|
| 479.13 | Watch out, I'm getting long-winded again... | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Tue Sep 15 1987 00:16 | 100 |
| re .4
> And to those who feel that, since the name of this Conference is
> WOMANOTES, it's acceptable, encouraged even, to make all sorts of
> blanket statements dealing with the purported sexual fantasies of men
> in general, and then say that men should keep from commenting because
> this is a "woman's" file, picture this scenario:
> You're a woman and have "insidiously" crept into the
> MENNOTES files. Some male in that file says, "Hey guys,
> did you see that ad on TV last night, the one where the
> stud rips off the woman's dress while they're parked, and
> she's PRETENDING she really doesn't want IT? What crap,
> THEY ALWAYS WANT IT; they just like to play hard to get!!"
The difference is that there is no difference in victimizers' gender,
whereas there is a difference in the gender running the files (tho some
would argue this last part). In both cases, the same gender is
victimizing the other. Statistics show that the people who victimize
others with their incest fantasies are overwhelmingly men. They (no,
not _you_, they - be ye male or female, I doubt strongly that you are
(or want to be) raping your children) are the bad guys.
Statistics also show that the people who go out and gang rape another
human being are overwhelmingly men. They are the bad guys.
I think the point many of us make without stating it openly in this
conference is that we (women) are sick and tired of being victims.
We are sick of watching our daughters, our sisters, our friends,
(for some of us our lovers) be victims.
Those who victimize us and our loved sisters/daughters/friends/lovers
are, for the most part, male. For now, for many of us, the "enemy",
who is actively causing us pain, is men. Note that I said "men"
and not "a man". There is not one man in this conference who has
actively hurt me or one of my loved sisters (tho there are one or
two who have scared me silly upon meeting them face to face -- but
those few are anomalous).
We are at war with men. We will no longer be victims. We will
no longer allow that amorphous group called "men" to victimize our
sisters and children.
But we love some individuals who are men. We respect and admire
some individuals who are men. We are indebted to many individuals
who are men. We certainly can't blanket them all as our enemies;
we love many of them! So what do we do?
We first try to understand the behaviors of that nasty group. What
do "they" do that hurts us? Why do they do it? Do they know they
are hurting us? Do the individual men we know.. are they aware
of the behavior patterns that hurt and frighten us? Would they
do it if they _knew_ it hurts and scares us?
Then we look at the behaviors of the _women_ who have helped "men"
to oppress us. We wonder, do they know that they could be hurting
themselves, their daughters, their loved ones? Would they still
do it if they knew?
Most of us (unless the scars of our victimization are terribly deep)
think that "the bad guys" will stop it if they know the harm they
cause. If you do something nasty to me or my loved ones, I will
inflict pain on you: I will show you how much you have hurt another
human being. This is a harsh punishment, and usually a very effective
one.
So we talk about it a lot.
This causes big problems when we talk about our victimization and
our anger at our oppressors with people who identify so strongly
with their gender (male) that they ignore the fact that they have
never done most of these nasty things (*certainly* not done them
knowing how awful it has made them feel) and they think our attacks
on the bad guys are attacks on themselves.
We do not want to attack _people_; we want to attack behaviors. If
_you_ are not nasty to me or my loved ones, _you_ are not a "bad guy."
I call you an "honorary woman." You may or not think of this as a
compliment, so I usually hesitate to tell you. Many (if not most) of
the males who contribute to this file are "honorary women" in my eyes.
I am fairly generous with this title. I am certain there are other
women in this file who would be much more sparing. Their list of
grievances is much longer than mine, and they are understandably more
cautious.
Being an "honorary woman" in my eyes does nothing to diminish your
masculinity. Rather, you become more of what is delicious (see
lecherous leer) and wonderful about men. You also share some of
the traits that I love and admire in women.
So the point of this whole treatise, is to remind you that _you_
are _not_ the enemy. I think you are on our side in this war --
you do not want to hurt other people just because you are male.
You want your daughters, sisters, lovers, and mothers, to be safe
from the nasty fellows who hurt us. _You_ can see how much they
hurt us, and I think you hate what they have done as much as we
do. _They_ are the bad guys, not you. Just because you both have
that funny Y chromosome does _not_ mean you are both the enemy.
Lee
|
| 479.14 | Still really don't see it | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Tue Sep 15 1987 00:26 | 41 |
| I should like to respectfully disagree with Dawn Evans'
appraisal of the add, if for no other reason than for novelty of
combining respect and disagreement.
As I said in my first reply over in the original topic, it never
occurred to me that one could draw the inference of incest from
the ad. That is still my view, and in fact, I suspect it would
also surprise the originator of the ad.
What I see in the ad, is a mixture of a couple of messages.
First of all, as the ad in question is specifically run at
gift-giving time (which is my own observation as well as that of
others), I take it that it is at least as much pitched at women
as at men. From that perspective, I infer that the message is
that buying such a shirt will help a woman or girl to win the
love of her man, be he father, lover or husband, or at the very
least that it is a good way to express their love.
Secondly, as the ad is ambiguous as to the relationship between
Harry and his lady-friend, and it also uses a father/daughter
relationship, I take it that the add is pitched at those who buy
shirts for (or the love) of both single and married men.
Thirdly, the add makes winking reference to the male notion that
our women folk only love us for our shirts (or what they can get
out of us), and their deplorable tendency to appropriate our
things, especially our well-beloved things. From this I would
infer that the add is target at men as well as the women who buy
them shirts for romantic or sentimental reasons.
Now, there are a number of stereotypes contained in this ad, and
I'm not really wild about all of them. I don't, however, feel
that the fantasy of incest is intentionally implied in it. I can
see where it can be inferred, however, especially by those (most
probably women) who are especially sensitized to the issue, and
because such an inference can be inferred, we need to be careful
in what we write, be it notes or ads.
That's just my perspective. No claim of infallibility.
JimB.
|
| 479.15 | | PASTIS::MONAHAN | I am not a free number, I am a telephone box | Tue Sep 15 1987 06:10 | 5 |
| I am not sure I see what the fuss is about. Fantasies never
hurt anyone. Anyone is welcome to accuse me of having any fantasies
whatever. A few of them I might even admit to :-)
Dave
|
| 479.16 | | EUCLID::FRASER | Andy Fraser, PAGan. | Tue Sep 15 1987 09:19 | 5 |
| Re: .13 Lee,
That was very well expressed and should be required reading.
Andy.
|
| 479.17 | Fantasies are OK | VINO::EVANS | | Tue Sep 15 1987 10:45 | 11 |
| Yes, Lee. Excellent.
Dave - Thanks! My commentary was not directed at anyone's fantasies.
It was directed at the *ad*. Jim has disagreed with my interperetation.
Fine with me. I was simply giving my opinion of *the ad*.
Thanks again for making the point about fantasies so succinctly.
(sp?)
Dawn
|
| 479.18 | Response From An Honorary Woman | FDCV03::ROSS | | Tue Sep 15 1987 11:40 | 38 |
| RE: .13
Lee, thank you for not lumping me, Alan as an individual, into
that amorphous group of victimizers of women known as men.
You are able to identify me as a person and count me as an "honorary
woman" (I do take that as a compliment). However, I'm not sure that
a lot of other female contributors to this Conference are able to
make that distinction - that not ALL men are the enemy, the victimizers,
the oppressors, the rapists, the abusers.
All too often here, men are told not to respond to a topic, not
to voice an opinion, accused of being incapable of understanding
women's perspectives-- just because they are of that class called
men.
I am an individual. I can't, and won't, be held responsible for
all the hurts my gender has inflicted upon women. I WILL take
responsibility for my own actions. If *I* fall short in some areas
of my life, if *I* inflict pain on another, if *I* am insensitive
to someone's needs and feelings, then *I* deserve that criticism
and will accept it.
Recently, I responded to an entry in BAGELS, the Jewish-oriented
Conference, that was posted by a person who is active in the CHRISTIAN
Conference. In my reply, I gave my reasons for feeling that Jews
historically have had to be wary of Christians, based upon the
past persecution of Jews by Christians.
She replied that *she* wasn't responsible for past hurts, that *she*
wasn't anti-Semitic, and that *she* did not want to be "tarred by
the same broad brush" just because she was Christian.
As an individual male, with my own identity, I ask for the same
consideration.
Alan
|
| 479.19 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Tue Sep 15 1987 12:23 | 70 |
| re .18
� However, I'm not sure that
� a lot of other female contributors to this Conference are able to
� make that distinction - that not ALL men are the enemy, the victimizers,
� the oppressors, the rapists, the abusers.
Many of these women have a very long list of very serious grievances
against the bad guys. _I_ think their anger is too widespread, like
Jews who lived through Nazi Germany and now hate every single person
who speaks German -- there is hatred and it is unreasoning, but
understandable because of the suffering they have witnessed and
endured. We treat both groups of angry people with kid gloves, gently
reminding them that you and I did nothing to hurt them or support the
evil-doers. We are uncomfortable with their anger when it is wrongly
aimed at us but we cannot know that in their places we would act any
differently.
� All too often here, men are told not to respond to a
� topic, not to voice an opinion, accused of being incapable of
� understanding women's perspectives-- just because they are of that
� class called men.
The topics in question are usually ones where we tell of our own
victimization, the feelings associated with it, and where we attempt
to figure the why's and what's of our suffering. We are inordinately
sensitive about aspects of each issue. I remember flaming some poor
guy who suggested that women wouldn't get raped if they were more
careful. Outside the conference, I flamed a woman for the same
thing. Where we have been hurt, we are especially protective of
our wounds. When those wounds have been inflicted by men, we are
very suspicious of any man discussing the issue -- he _might_ be
one of the bad guys, and he _might_ add to our hurt. Once that
person demonstrates that he won't hurt us, then we are much less
suspicious.
In those topics it is unlikely that a woman (who has almost certainly
experienced or witnessed closely the same suffering) will hit a
bruise (tho it happens). But how could any man know where the bruises
_are_? This one fellow hit a very sore spot of mine without even
knowing it. It added hurt to an already painful area. He couldn't
know without having it happen once.
Part of our asking that men not reply to a topic is self protection --
we don't want more hurt, and any man could easily add to the hurt in a
vulnerable area. Part of it is trying to protect him, to keep him from
hurting others (which he would certainly not want to do).
It is wrong of us to _assume_ you will hurt us. But in areas where
our vulnerability is high, we can be fairly confident that you will
have to be very, very careful to _avoid_ hurting us.
When a man who is angry about the terms of his divorce and the
childcare "solution" discusses the issue, women discussing the issue
cannot avoid hitting some very sore spots. When we do so, the flames
run very high because he is very angry. When he tells us this is
hurtful, we try to be more careful in what we say, EVEN THOUGH WE
THINK HE IS WRONG AND CARRYING HIS ANGER TOO FAR.
But when all we hear from him is anger, and we do not know that
anger stems from horrible awful pain, we do not know enough to be
careful of his feelings. It would be very wise of him to ONLY discuss
the issue with other victims until his anger is under enough control
for him to be able to bear the inevitable pain of trying to enlighten
those unfamiliar with his suffering.
Same issue, same problem, same result -- flame, anger, pain.
Lee
|
| 479.20 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Sep 15 1987 14:37 | 47 |
| RE: .18
There is less widespread blaming than you might think. Most
of the women here *DO NOT* blame the men here for the things
that the "bad guys" have done. My sincere belief is that it
is a problem in communication.
Recently, I got into a very heated discussion in the Battered
Women note. I'm a former victim and I rarely talk about it
publicly (especially in notes.) Most of the time, I make very
vague references to it as if it happened to someone else that
I knew. I do that because I don't feel like going into the
details of my situation in a notesfile.
One of the men who wrote in started saying some of the things
that my Mother-in-Law used to say to me (TO EXCUSE THE BEHAVIOR
OF HER VIOLENT SON) and it sent me right up the wall.
I wrote replies to the man, then deleted them and tried again.
I must have written 3 or 4 replies to each of his notes before
I found one that I felt I could leave in the file (and STILL
came out sounding really unreasonable.) When I decided that
there was just no way I could continue the conversation and
stated that feeling, some OTHER guy came in and really flamed
me (saying that my note was offensive, etc.)
Now, I certainly don't consider any of these men as "the enemy"
in any possible way. But I think that there were some difficulties
in communication, and I don't know they can be solved unless
we ALL are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the other.
When women ask men not to respond, give us the benefit of the
doubt that some of us have been THROUGH these experiences and
find it difficult to see men (or anyone) "speculate" on what
it MIGHT be like or why victims MIGHT have stayed after the
problem started. Some speculation is VERY upsetting to see
when you've been through it yourself.
Maybe we (women) need to remind men more often that we KNOW
the difference between the good guys and the bad guys (and
are not accusing anyone here of causing the problems we are
trying to deal with.)
It will take a lot of effort on both sides to make these
communications more effective, and I think it can be done.
Suzanne...
|
| 479.21 | Trying to Open a Window | PSYCHE::SULLIVAN | | Tue Sep 15 1987 15:07 | 81 |
|
I agree that it feels lousy to be considered an enemy just
because you're a man, or just because you're white, rich, whatever.
And it's true that there are some women who have so much anger at
men that they cannot see individuals, many of whom are caring,
sensitive people. But I really don't think there are any such
women here in this file, or working at DEC for that matter.
How could they? Certainly, there are different levels of
anger among the women in this file, just as there are different
levels of sensitivity among the men in this file.
I don't think that the exchanges of anger that have occurred between
men and women in this file are really about one person's anger at
every member of the opposite sex being misdirected at one of the
"good guys". I think the anger expressed here has been about
something said or done, something implied *or inferred*. I think it's
a bit of a cop out to say, "You're just saying that because I'm a man,
and you don't like men." It is an understandable response to a
situation in which you feel criticized, but is it the most productive
response?
Here's one example that might better explain what I'm trying to
describe. I'm a former battered woman. Ever since I began reading
this file, (almost a year) I have wanted to bring up the topic, share
some things, but I was afraid. When I first saw the battered women
note, I was delighted and looked forward to gathering up the courage
to tell some of my story. And then someone (a man) started putting
stuff in like: if we change the laws, then any woman can have her
husband thrown in jail. When I read that, sitting here in my cube,
I started to cry; it just hurt so much. I felt like my experience
was being dismissed, and it felt like that note was not going to
be a very supportive space in which to share some of the most difficult
things I've *ever* encountered, and then I got angry and expressed
that anger (along with others). Now I happen to think that: 1) I was
entitled to feel angry and to express that anger. 2) the fact that the
author of the reply-that-made-me-angry was a man *may* have been
responsible for his views on the topic; he's never been a battered
woman, BUT 3) I was angry *about what he said* not *because he was a man*.
I once received personal (electronic) mail from a man who asked
me what I (in my personal opinion) thought men in this file could
do to be considered more sensitive to women's issues. (here again,
it was only my opinion that was being solicited.) I'm not sure I
had a very good answer for him at the time, but his willingness to
ask the question really impressed me because it seemed to me that
he was open and secure enough in himself to risk hearing something
that might be difficult, someting that might actually disrupt his
sense of how others, (in this case one woman) saw him.
In thinking about that exchange, I have since realized that therein
lies the answer that I would now give to the question raised in
that mail message. Try to be open. Many women in this file have
said "When you hear something that expresses anger at men, don't
*assume* it means you." I agree with that sentiment, and, Lee,
I think you expressed all of that really well. I think letting
go of the feeling that you are personally under attack is a very
important *first* step at reducing the level of anger and
defensiveness so that communication can happen. (Hoping that in light
of all that I've explained above this next part will be understood),
I think the second step in improving communication (once the
defensiveness is gone. Sequence is especially important here!)
is don't assume it doesn't mean you.
I am convinced that we can all be less racist, less sexist, less
classist, etc. We can all understand each other better and listen
better. It seems to me that when we reach the point where we
basically feel good about ourselves, and we know that we are not
perfect but that our intentions are good, *and* our desire is to
grow... once that happens, then we can read something that describes
how one person feels about experiences with members of a group to
which we belong, and we can look at it openly, think about our own
experiences, evaluate them, and keep that which is valid (for us)
and discard that which isn't. It's my opinion that all feedback
has value; either it provides information that we can use, or it
helps us continue to improve our ability to decide what is right
for us. I think that saying, "You're just saying that because I'm
a woman/man...." closes doors; a real shame since so many doors
get closed *for* us.
Justine
|
| 479.22 | | WAGON::RITTNER | | Tue Sep 15 1987 15:59 | 5 |
| I just wanted to express my admiration for notes like .13 and .21
that help to balance the fire with earth and water when it feels
like issues are moving away from being resolved rather than closer...
Elisabeth
|
| 479.23 | More kudos | BUBBLY::LEIGH | Boxes, boxes everywhere! | Wed Sep 16 1987 19:37 | 8 |
| And I want to express *my* admiration for .20. Suzanne, thank you
for being willing to explain all that in this conference.
We *all* have particular hot buttons. I think we all have to feel
indebted to the people who are willing to discuss theirs openly
in this forum. But we have to recognize that they *are* hot buttons;
push them clumsily at your own risk!
|
| 479.24 | Yes, here I go again.. | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Fri Sep 18 1987 14:30 | 85 |
| There are some of you ladies out there that know or have met me.
Many already know that they have my respect although we may dissagree.
Others know that I can get a bit long winded with my philosophy.
Yet there from time to time come a point where I can no longer
remain just a reader of this file and some of what Iam feeling
and thinking needs to be put into written words.
Just some thoughts on all this. I follow this file on a somewhat
regular basis. One of the most consistent emotions in here is
anger. Now this is both good and bad. Its good from the standpoint
of it allows one to vent and express this anger and fustration to
and with their fellow human beings. There is solace and a degree of
comfort when they find that others have had similar experiences to
their own. This gives them a common ground to talk from and sometime
helps releave the anger.
The bad side of this anger is that every time I see it, it is solely
directed to men. Not the individual that was responsible for the problem,
But in each and every instance it has spilled over to include all men.
This has increased the anger level not only to those that have had
similar experiences, but to those outraged by the acts. This now
widens the amount of women with mistrust and ill feelings to all
men in general.
It docent seem to make any difference what the problem is, be it
on a personal level such as rape to a professional level such as
job discrimination. The consensus is that all men rather than some
are responsible for all the evil and wrong doing that all women suffer.
This has set a mind set in so many of you and from my side of perspective
it goes overboard in instances. An example is the comments over the
shirt ad.
This is not a shot at any one but the interpatation of the shirt ad
as being condoning incest and the like is reading a hell of a lot
more into something than is there. yet there are those of you that
actual seek out hidden meanings in anything in the world around us.
WHY ???? are you really convinced that all men are out to get you ??
For the record there are many of you out there that have a 1000 %
right to bitch, be angry, hurt and upset. I dont wish to demean
nor belittle anything that you have had to suffer or go through.
BUT direct that anger to the person that caused the problem,
not all of us lumped into a single "despicable" category.
Suzzan, Lee and others have written "disclaimers" about they are
not lumping men into that "all bad" bucket. But then they go
on with the BUT follower that throughs us back in there again.
What Ive found to be really disturbing is that so many women have
gotten to a point that they no longer know how to believe in or trust
a man. That each and every one of us has a hidden agenda, something
that were not telling them, is only pretending to be nice, is actually
an evil person in discuise. And so rather than excepting that we are
what we are, we get measured against this perfect person thats in her mind.
And when we dont measure up or cant change to fit that image, then were
one of those no good men.
The other thing that is getting a bit old is that we cant understand.
that we cant feel those feelings, that we haven't experienced these things.
To this I say women are not the only people that have been victimized.
Men have been robbed, beaten, molested as a child, discriminated
against, and some even raped. No one sex has an exclusive to the wrongs
that people do to one another. The difference here is that men dont go
blaming all the other men in the world as being just as guilty or
responsible for these things.
The bottom line to all of this is that not all men are your enemy.
We may disagree on many and varied things and subjects BUT it
does not mean that all of us are out to get you. Lets face it, there
are unthinking callous jerks on both sides, nature put them there to
test our strength of goodness as human beings. If you wish to sink to
their level there is little I can do to stop you.
But if you are willing to take those two steeps back to review whats
going on, you may be surprised to find that both the good men and women
are fighting the same bad men and women. Its about time that the good
people became friends and allies against the bad, rather than the war
between the sexes and good and evil, that goes on today. A major peice
of this would be a more open understanding of communication. If you
think someone has said something wrong get a clarification BEFORE you
flame that person as a man jerk. One we all learn to work together
well all acheve our goals sonner.
Bob B
|
| 479.25 | A broad brush paints no portraits. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Fri Sep 18 1987 14:41 | 8 |
| Bob, in your note, you wrote, "But in each and every instance
it has spilled over to include all men."
"Each", "every", and "all" are words that take this statement,
and everything that derives from it, out of the realm of even
possibly true, leaving it as a wildly inaccurate generalization.
Ann B.
|
| 479.26 | Please read Maggie's latest addition to note 1.* ... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Sep 18 1987 14:55 | 33 |
| RE: .24
Bob, speaking of communication -- I think that you personally
need to come a long way before you can claim to know what we
are feeling in our hearts when we write notes.
You say you notice my (and others') disclaimers about NOT
BLAMING ALL MEN but then you refuse to believe that we are
telling the truth.
Why would we lie about such a thing? If I say that I don't
blame all men, who the heck do you think YOU are to tell me
that I'm not telling the truth? You don't even know me and
yet you feel you can read my heart better than I can???????
We have said AD NAUSEUM that we don't blame all men. Either
you aren't paying attention or else you are calling us all
liars.
Maggie even posted a note about this very subject in the
Introduction note (1.*) of this conference.
I'd like to request that you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE try to
keep up with what is really going on here and not try to read
things that we AREN'T SAYING and DON'T MEAN TO SAY.
Communication starts with yourself. Try to read a reply
without deciding ahead of time that we are all mad at all
men. You might be surprised at what you see once you take
that mental barrier down.
In friendship,
Suzanne...
|
| 479.27 | Lee speaks for me, too, in 1.28 .... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Sep 18 1987 15:01 | 12 |
|
P.S. The note in question is 1.28 -- Bob, please go read
it. It is a copy of a note that Lee wrote (and she expressed
her thoughts on this issue quite beautifully and eloquently.)
Someone mentioned that it should be "required reading" for
this conference (and Maggie agreed and reposted it in 1.*)
This may give you a better idea of how many of us feel on
this issue.
Suzanne...
|
| 479.28 | The other side of the coin. | EUCLID::FRASER | Crocodile sandwich & make it snappy! | Fri Sep 18 1987 15:14 | 14 |
| I'd agree with Bob to some extent concerning the feeling of
anger in this conference, and for a time it was difficult not
to feel as if it was directed at men in a generic sense. Now,
thanks to some very well written notes I for one no longer feel
personally 'threatened' by the anger expressed.
I (barely) survived a marraige to an abusive and violent
alcoholic and it took a lot of time, love and reassurance to
give me back my faith and trust in 'women' - I didn't like them
much; imbued them all with the same characteristics as my
ex-wife - I know better now, but for a time........
Andy.
|
| 479.29 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Sep 18 1987 15:24 | 10 |
| Maybe Maggie should replace the notice of the Bork hearings
with the message "Old and new noters -- please read 1.28 if
you haven't already."
If anyone has a difficult time BELIEVING us when we say we
aren't mad at all men, then that is a whole different issue
and probably needs to be addressed outside the realm of this
conference.
Suzanne...
|
| 479.30 | This is not an encapsulation | HPSCAD::WALL | I see the middle kingdom... | Fri Sep 18 1987 15:42 | 4 |
| Rare indeed is the issue raised here that doesn't need to be addressed
outside this conference.
DFW
|
| 479.31 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Fri Sep 18 1987 18:14 | 237 |
|
RE. 26
Suzanne
Your doing exactly what I asked you not to do. You evidently
missed a few lines in the text when you read it. It strikes
me as a bit strange that Ive lost my ability to communicate
properly from just a few months ago.
> I think that you personally need to come a long way before
> you can clam to know what we are feeling in our hearts when
> we write notes.
Go back and reread the 8th paragraph in .24 in it you will find
"To this I say that women are NOT the only people that have
been victimized. Men have been robbed , beaten, molested ECT"
Are you trying to tell me that I (or we [men] as the case may be)
are incapable of feeling hurt, pain anger and fustrartion ??
Are you inferring that men and women cant share the same feelings
in their heart ???? Please enlighten me for I cant understand
that statement.
> You say you notice my (and others') disclaimers about NOT
> BLAMING ALL MEN but then you refuse to believe that we are
> telling the truth.
> Why would we lie about such a thing? If I say that I don't
> blame all men, who the heck do you think YOU are to tell me
> that I'm not telling the truth? You don't even know me and
> yet you feel you can read my heart better than I can???????
> We have said AD NAUSEAM that we don't blame all men. Either
> you aren't paying attention or else you are calling us all
> liars.
I may have been mistaken to have include you specifically in
what I was referring to. If I was wrong on that count I apologize.
I am neither attempting to read your heart nor calling you a
liar. Again if you go back to paragraph 7 of .24 you'll find
" But they go on with the BUT follower that throughs us all
back in there again. Its like a qualifier, "Gee your not that
bad, except , but, ...if you change this about you, you'd be
alright and acceptable. " How ?? why ??? Because each one of
us winds up having to explain himself to you. Needs to
prove that we arnt the bad guy. In essence we are all
guilty until proven innocent. The way that you have come
back at me questioning my ability to understand, to be
able to feel only goes to prove the point.
> Maggie even posted a note about this very subject in the
> Introduction note (1.*) of this conference.
> I'd like to request that you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE try to
> keep up with what is really going on here and not try to read
> things that we AREN'T SAYING and DON'T MEAN TO SAY.
For point of reference I read Lees statement before I wrote mine.
If you and you fellow women view Lees words to be truly representive
of how you think and feel let me point out a few things in
reference to what Ive been talking about. Let me say that I
believe I understand Lees intent, but take another look at
how it reads.
> The difference is that there is no difference in victimizers' gender,
> whereas there is a difference in the gender running the files (tho some
> would argue this last part). In both cases, the same gender is
> victimizing the other.
Point 1 Only men can victimize....Women never do it
> Statistics show that the people who victimize
> others with their incest fantasies are overwhelmingly men. They (no,
> not _you_, they - be ye male or female, I doubt strongly that you are
> (or want to be) raping your children) are the bad guys.
Point 2 Since "they" are overwhemingly men "they" IE men are the bad guys.
> Statistics also show that the people who go out and gang rape another
> human being are overwhelmingly men. They are the bad guys.
Point 3 Again "they" IE men are the bad guys
> I think the point many of us make without stating it openly in this
> conference is that we (women) are sick and tired of being victims.
> We are sick of watching our daughters, our sisters, our friends,
> (for some of us our lovers) be victims.
Point 4 Only women are victims, never men, and therefore men are the
only ones who victimize and are there for bad. (see above)
> Those who victimize us and our loved sisters/daughters/friends/lovers
> are, for the most part, male. For now, for many of us, the "enemy",
> who is actively causing us pain, is men. Note that I said "men"
> and not "a man".
Point 5 The above statement stand by itself "men" no a "man"
is the enemy.
> There is not one man in this conference who has
> actively hurt me or one of my loved sisters (tho there are one or
> two who have scared me silly upon meeting them face to face -- but
> those few are anomalous).
Point 6 No one "man" is to blame only "men"
> We are at war with men. We will no longer be victims. We will
> no longer allow that amorphous group called "men" to victimize our
> sisters and children.
Point 7 Here we are again , only "men" as a class of persons
NOT a MAN who is representative to himself is to blame.
> But we love some individuals who are men. We respect and admire
> some individuals who are men. We are indebted to many individuals
> who are men. We certainly can't blanket them all as our enemies;
> we love many of them! So what do we do?
> We first try to understand the behaviors of that nasty group. What
> do "they" do that hurts us? Why do they do it? Do they know they
> are hurting us? Do the individual men we know.. are they aware
> of the behavior patterns that hurt and frighten us? Would they
> do it if they _knew_ it hurts and scares us?
Point 8 Again its "they" enmass, not the individuals that cause the
problems but "they" et all of men.
> Then we look at the behaviors of the _women_ who have helped "men"
> to oppress us. We wonder, do they know that they could be hurting
> themselves, their daughters, their loved ones? Would they still
> do it if they knew?
Point 9 Women that have helped men have been coerced or tricked
into doing so. Again another case of the bad "men" victimizing
women.
> Most of us (unless the scars of our victimization are terribly deep)
> think that "the bad guys" will stop it if they know the harm they
> cause. If you do something nasty to me or my loved ones, I will
> inflict pain on you: I will show you how much you have hurt another
> human being. This is a harsh punishment, and usually a very effective
> one.
Point 10 "The bad guys"..Plural..IE they again equating to men,
not the small percentage that do these things but,
"The bad guys"
> So we talk about it a lot.
> This causes big problems when we talk about our victimization and
> our anger at our oppressors with people who identify so strongly
> with their gender (male) that they ignore the fact that they have
> never done most of these nasty things (*certainly* not done them
> knowing how awful it has made them feel) and they think our attacks
> on the bad guys are attacks on themselves.
Point 11 When the terms (words) that are meant (see above) and
describe men used as a encompassing plural (confirmed
via the above statements) It VERY difficult NOT to
feel that one is NOT included in that statement.
> We do not want to attack _people_; we want to attack behaviors. If
> _you_ are not nasty to me or my loved ones, _you_ are not a "bad guy."
> I call you an "honorary woman." You may or not think of this as a
> compliment, so I usually hesitate to tell you. Many (if not most) of
> the males who contribute to this file are "honorary women" in my eyes.
> I am fairly generous with this title. I am certain there are other
> women in this file who would be much more sparing. Their list of
> grievances is much longer than mine, and they are understandably more
> cautious.
Point 12 Ah here we have it the "chance" to "prove" that any one
of us is NOT a "bad guy". and just how do we do that ???
Are only the "accepted contributors" to this file
acceptable?? What about all the rest of us out there ???
In Essence a man must prove himself worthy by your standards
in order to remove himself from the" bag guys", "them" "men",
category to the man, honorary woman status.
> Being an "honorary woman" in my eyes does nothing to diminish your
> masculinity. Rather, you become more of what is delicious (see
> lecherous leer) and wonderful about men. You also share some of
> the traits that I love and admire in women.
Point 13 It is not good enough to be just a man, to be a good
and honest person, to be your self. NO !! now you
must take on the attributes and traits of a woman
to be acceptable.
> So the point of this whole treatise, is to remind you that _you_
> are _not_ the enemy. I think you are on our side in this war --
> you do not want to hurt other people just because you are male.
> You want your daughters, sisters, lovers, and mothers, to be safe
> from the nasty fellows who hurt us. _You_ can see how much they
> hurt us, and I think you hate what they have done as much as we
> do. _They_ are the bad guys, not you. Just because you both have
> that funny Y chromosome does _not_ mean you are both the enemy.
> Lee
Point 14 This is the first time I have seen or been told in
this entire text that I, as a man and part of men
am not the enemy. Yet in order not to be the enemy
I must prove and qualify to you that I deserve to
have the "they" stigmatism removed. One can read
the first 90 % of the text and get a VERY POSITIVE
message that the author considers all men the enemy.
Even at the end one comes to the conclusion that they
must qualify to have that bad person label removed.
this falls in line with what I said before that there
is too much of "Gee you would be OK if you changed
this about yourself."
> Communication starts with yourself. Try to read a reply
> without deciding ahead of time that we are all mad at all
> men. You might be surprised at what you see once you take
> that mental barrier down.
In friendship,
Suzanne...
Suzanne, believe it or not THATS exactly WHAT Ive been trying to do.
I would ask you and your fellow women to take those two steps back
and look at what is being written. Iam afraid it may not be what
you wish to express.
In return of friendship
Bob B
|
| 479.32 | Take this in friendship, too.... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Sat Sep 19 1987 14:40 | 61 |
| RE: .31
Bob,
In your remarks, you stated "I think I understood what Lee's
intent was" [when she wrote 1.28] but went on to deliberately
twist all of her words into something hateful (and into some-
thing that YOU KNOW was not her intention when she wrote it.)
You came in here *pontificating* to us about how we should
feel, then you admit to us that you *KNOW* that our words are
not meant to be hateful towards men.
Your opening line to me (in .31) was "Your [sic] doing exactly
what I asked you not to do." I wasn't aware at all that you
had given me orders on how to behave in this conference (or
that you felt you had a right to do that.) What gives here?
Your intent in this note is somewhat suspect because you
started out accusing us of hating men (and feigned friendship
with us in order to convince us not to condemn all men for the
actions of criminals.) Then you went on to indicate that you
*KNOW* that we don't blame all men, but that our words are
capable of being twisted into something hateful (and you want
us to know what sorts of things malicious people could do with
our words.) Yes, I think the hatchet job you did on Lee's
note was malicious and deliberate.
What is your intent in this note? Are you not trying to use
insulting arguments to get *US* to change the way we write
in this file?? Isn't it true that you have done this before
(entered a note out of the blue that damns the whole conference
and everyone in it after having NOT contributed to the file
in quite some time?) I can cite the note if I need to.
My message to you (earlier) was that you did not understand
what was in our hearts when we wrote notes. By that, I meant
that you CANNOT READ MY MIND WHEN I SIT AT MY TERMINAL AND
CREATE ASCII CHARACTERS THAT GET WRITTEN ONTO A DISK ON RAINBO.
I hardly ever write notes when I'm in the midst of a violent
attack. [sarcasm here]
You may or may not know what it is like to be a victim of a
violent crime. Whether you do or not, you *STILL* cannot read
my mind when I sit at my terminal and write notes. If you choose
to READ INTO MY NOTES hatred towards all men, you are ADDING
THINGS THAT AREN'T THERE!! Nowhere have I EVER STATED (nor
MEANT TO STATE) that I either BLAME ALL MEN for the actions
of the criminal that assaulted me or DISLIKE MEN IN GENERAL
merely because of the PROVABLE FACT that men commit more violent
crimes against men & women than women do.
Now, I'd like to ask YOU to do something. I'd like to ask you
to stop coming in here to condemn the whole file for things
that YOU KNOW we are not feeling/thinking. I'd like to ask
you to try to see our notes for the things that we say (and
the obvious intent behind our words.) And when we tell you
A MILLION TIMES that we don't hate men, try to be a GENUINE
FRIEND and do us the courtesy of taking us at our word.
Suzanne....
|
| 479.33 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Sat Sep 19 1987 15:04 | 16 |
|
P.S. By the way, I'd like you to know that I consider the
whole "man-hating" argument to be part of a disturbing
and quite OFFENSIVE stereotype about women.
We seem to hear it every time we raise our voices on any sort
of topic. The fallacy seems to be that any woman who would
publicly confront a man (and disagree with him) must do so
because she hates all men.
It doesn't surprise me much at all to find that we have to
fight off offensive stereotypes within our own file. Our
society is still riddled with them (and many regard them as
the so-called "TRUTH" about us.)
Suzanne...
|
| 479.34 | Sigh | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Sat Sep 19 1987 17:12 | 109 |
| Oh golly, I had a feeling that would erupt sooner or later. Calmness,
Suzanne: I appreciate the support, but please don't fry him _too_
crispy. I'd like to try to deal with this, without totally alienating
Bob.
Now Bob, and any others out there who may not feel very comfortable
with the original note, I'd like to clarify on a few points.
First a little graph. The dashed box stands for all men in
America. The "R" box stands for all rapists in America.
_____________________________________________________________
| |
| |
| |
| RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
| R |R
| R |R
| R |R
| R |R
| R |R
| R |R
| R |R
__________________________________________R__________________R
R R
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Not all men rape, but very nearly all rapists are men.
The relative sizes of the boxes is open to discussion/debate.
Next, I must point out one sad fact: any anger I feel towards
men-in-general is empirically based. The people who have beat me up
are not female. The grandparent who violated my mother and her sisters
was not female. The persons who have beat up my female friends
were not female. The people who raped me were not female. The
people who have tried to rape me were not female. Now once upon
a naive time, I approached everyone as good and trustworthy unless
they proved themselves otherwise. My experience has shown me that
this is very dangerous with men. So I am extremely cautious and
suspicious when first getting to know _any_individual_ man. In
essence, I keep myself well-protected until that individual indicates
that I need fear nothing from him.
To demonstrate that I need fear no harm from you, you need to do
very little. I am relatively quick to assign a man the value of
... "harmlessness" for wont of a better word. It is very easy for
you to show me that I do not need to protect myself from you a whole
lot. Some women have incurred much, much more pain at the hands
of the men in their lives, and they stay suspicious a bit longer.
There is no need for me to suspect any individual woman is going
to hurt me, because not one ever has. I have suffered emotionally
at the hands of women, but not one has assaulted my body under any
pretext. I abhor violence, particularly when it directly involves
me, and no woman has ever used violence with me. For that reason,
I remain unsuspicious of any woman until she demonstrates that I
have nothing to fear from her.
Fair? Not at all. Equal? Not at all. Morally right? Not at
all. Reasonable? Entirely. I started giving _everybody_ the benefit
of the doubt, and then retracted that benefit from a group that
hurt me. When faced with any individual from that group, I will
give back that benefit once I am assured that he will not hurt me,
and that does not take much time to establish.
Every day you pay for the "sins of others" in that you will see
me or one of my sisters withdraw from you if we are alone on a street.
We will _not_ allow you to "come up for a drink" until we are very
certain that the episode will not hurt or scare us. This is what
I mean when I say that all good men have a vested interest in
eradicating sexism; we will no longer assume you are hostile until
shown otherwise.
The parallel case is true. If, for a wild example, you, Bob, had
been hurt terribly by the women in your life, I would expect you
to think that I was out to destroy your self-esteem (or whatever)
until I demonstrated otherwise. I would assume your hostility towards
me was aimed at some other woman (or women). If the hostility were
particularly fervent, I would assume you had been the victim of
many, many emotional hurts at the hands of the women you cared for.
Or I would assume you had one injury, but it was a very bad one.
Or I would assume the injury was particularly fresh and sore.
For that reason, I do not attempt to bludgeon a man who has been
shafted into a rotton child-support situation into recognizing that
no, _all_ men are _not_ wrongfully deprived of their children by
evil ex's and their lawyers, etc. I mention it quietly, once, with
a personal story. If he is unwilling or unable to put aside his
anger, I will not assault his integrity and insult him so I can
make my point. I have no scars such as his, and have no reason
to refresh his pain for my intellectual satisfaction.
If I had such scars, I would feel forced to continue the conversation
(which would probably be a heated one); I would be hurting him no
more than he would be hurting me.
I feel this is why some of the divorce notes have been so hot --
both sides are angry because they have suffered. Neither can bear
to simply afford the other the benefit of the doubt on the grounds
of not having suffered as much as the other.
[BTW, thanks Bob, for not quoting me out of context. Many of the
statements I made in that note cannot stand alone, and I appreciate the
effort you made to maintain context in the quotations.]
Lee
|
| 479.35 | I love the graphic image...Lee | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth | Sat Sep 19 1987 21:44 | 19 |
|
Lee,
You do such a good job at saying what needs to be said - I just
wish that it didn't need to be said so often - especially here.
_peggy
BTW - When I am accused of be a "man-hater" I now take it as
a signal that I am up on points and the accuser has to grab for
a low blow. Since I have a son whom I love dearly - I can't be
a generic "man-hater" in my eyes.
(-)
| Sometimes I get tired of walking your shoes
and want my own back even if they are full
of sand.
|
| 479.36 | This is NOT an invitation to invent new stereotypes, but... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Sun Sep 20 1987 02:38 | 12 |
| RE: .35
Agree heartily with both your statements (that Lee once again
did a good job of explaining things and that it's a shame we
have to keep answering accusations about the same unfair
stereotype over and over and over.)
Next time, I hope someone thinks up a new stereotype to hit
us with (cuz I think we've explained the "man-hater" one to
death at least a dozen times over, don't you?) Sheesh!!!
Suzanne...
|
| 479.38 | | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Sun Sep 20 1987 21:27 | 1 |
| kathie, beautifully spoken
|
| 479.39 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Mon Sep 21 1987 01:19 | 12 |
| Oh kathie, my eyes are misting over again.
I too was touched and encouraged by Andy's note.
By the way Bob, I am wondering: is the dissection of my note actually
the way you read it? If so, I'd like to address some of your points
more specifically. It contained many dangerous statements,
particularly if they are taken out of context. So many, that I
was on the way to delete the whole thing when, er, people seemed
to take it the way I meant it.
Lee
|
| 479.40 | | EUCLID::FRASER | Crocodile sandwich & make it snappy! | Mon Sep 21 1987 10:53 | 23 |
| Re .37, Kathie -
> From Andys words, he was able to finally put the past to rest and
> believe and trust in women again. But I wonder Andy,did you once consider
> all women "Man-Haters" and condemn them for what someone else had put
> you put you through in your past?
Not at any time! The problem _I_ had was of being unable
(unwilling maybe) to open up and let myself trust again, for
fear of being hurt in the same way. It had nothing to do with
seeing women as 'man-haters'; more, it was in my own
perception of women who had the potential to cause the same
hurt I had lived with - it takes time to allay those fears.
The past is gone, the memories fade, and with Sandy the present
and the future are bright and happy. It feels good to be able
to love and trust again when at one time that seemed an
impossible dream.
In friendship,
Andy.
|
| 479.41 | This has gotten out of hand | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Mon Sep 21 1987 14:34 | 42 |
|
Well I must admit that I was under the opinion that I was a reasonably
good communicator. from the replys here I guess not. The whole point
behind what I have written was not to attack anyone. My original words
and intent were to bring out the following points.
The original note written by Lee CAN and WOULD be interpreted by many men
as an anti men statement. I explained that I believed I understood her
original intent, BUT the whole exercise of taking it apart was to SHOW HOW IT
COULD AND WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A NEGATIVE . I did this not as Bob B the
person attacking Lee the author as I have been accused, but a man as part
of men that has been lumped into a bad connotation about men.
The original note was written as a man that was not trying to attack any
one but was disturbed to see a note written that reads that all men are bad.
I am not a bad person, and the whole point was that only a small percentage
of either men or women are the ones responsible for the evil and bad
things done to their fellow human being. I get disturbed, since I am
not one of those people and wind up getting lumped into them because I
am a men. Why is it OK for you to disagree with a man who writes a
generalisation that all women in this file are men haters. But then
one of us objects to a text that can be interpatated as anti man and
he gets leaped all over ????
Even after the first note I can back and apologized if the intent
was taken out of context, yet the flames just went higher. I am not
attempting to tell nor order anyone on how they should think, do or
feel. These notes and others that Ive written on the same lines
are statements that I, for one object to automatically labeled as a
bad person because Iam a man. You go right ahead and think and feel
as you please.
If anyone of you out there, truly believe that I am an evil person,
then that is your purgative. It would appear that I can do little
to change that, since Ive have been judged. BUT for the record, it only
shows that you DONT KNOW who and what I am.
RE .39 Lee , Ide be more than happy to talk about your entry and
its possable perceived interpations.
Bob B
|
| 479.42 | What *do* you want? | PNEUMA::SULLIVAN | | Mon Sep 21 1987 14:52 | 17 |
|
Many women in this file wish to discuss things that are important
to them. This includes discussions of pain, some of which includes
pain that has been inflicted by some men. It seems to me that
the women here go to great lengths to insert the word "some" before
the word "men" in order to avoid offending anyone. When that word
is left out, it is usually by oversight. What would it take for
women to be able to talk about the things important to them without
offending men? I for one, am tired of this fighting back and forth
about women hurting men's feelings. So.. can we draw up some
ground rules? Can we say: When we say "Some men...." we don't
mean you unless we say, "You men..." I would be willing to modify
my language so as to avoid hurting feelings as long as I can
be allowed to talk about my experience in a way that is true for
me.
Justine
|
| 479.43 | Taking the part for the whole | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Sep 21 1987 14:58 | 12 |
| Bob,
It is not yor writing ability which anyone takes exception to,
it is the level of reading comprehension you show. It is
especially the [incredibly low] level of reading comprehension
which *you claim* other men will/may have in reading what women
have written here.
And which you *seem* to think is our problem, or is at least
for us to solve.
Ann B.
|
| 479.44 | *Unbelievably* low reading comprehension level, evidently... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Mon Sep 21 1987 15:11 | 16 |
| Bob, I agree with Ann. How many millions more times do we
have to SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS that we don't hate men until
you are willing to believe us (take us at our word)?
I'm deathly tired of seeing the same old argument (over and
over and over).
I've noticed a DRASTIC REDUCTION in the number of other men
in this conference who think we hate men. It appears that
MOST of the men here have gotten the message.
Yet, you (even today) are STILL asking us not to hate men.
You just aren't listening to a word we say, are you?
Suzanne...
|
| 479.45 | Thoughts from the "enemy" | CYBORG::MALLETT | | Mon Sep 21 1987 15:20 | 50 |
| It seems to me that the assertion by "women" that there exists a
kind of state of war with "men" is valid from what I'd call
the editorial standpoint for lack of a better phrase. As that
beautiful diagram several notes back indicates, there is a large
group of people who, *in general* are/have oppressed women. This
group can be generally classified as "men". It doesn't mean all
men literally, but it does mean that the one most common character-
istic of that group is that they are male. Just as the assertions
"Whites are oppressing Blacks in South Africa" or "Americans are
at war with the Vietnamese" don't mean all whites on the planet
nor all Americans, "Men have oppressed women" doesn't *necessarily*
mean all men.
It also occurs to me that there is at least one way to preface
the assertion that "Men oppress women" such that it is literally
true. No matter what our personal politics, it appears that
everyone agrees that socialization begins at a very early age
(like soon after birth if not, in fact, before). Having been
raised in a male-dominant world, we are all fed an incredible,
often subtle array of information during our formative years.
I suggest then, that the basis for sexism begins so early and
is so profoundly thorough, that we may not be *able* to be
"truly" egalitarian.
My point is not whether any individual is or isn't utterly
equal-minded, it is simply that, given the time and space
coordinates of our birth, it may be impossible to purge out
every last vestige of sexism (or racism, or. . .). It may
thus help us to keep in mind that we're not 100% pure (yet :-D ).
Given an assertion of "Men oppress women", I ask myself "Do I/have
I never exhibited any oppressive behaviors? C'mon Steve, any?
never?. . ." In truth, I find I have been "part of the problem"
sometimes and, even today, though I want to be "part of the
solution", I realize that my upbringing has biased me, created
blind spots, if you will, that make it virtually impossible to
be absolutely even-handed all the time to all people. It seems
to me that in order to help change things, I must admit to myself
that I belong to that general class of women-oppressors called
"men" and that if I look hard within myself, it won't be that
hard to find the weeds of bias growing side-by-side with the
flowers of equality.
Mind you, I *am* getting very close to perfection. The schedule
now calls for my perfection to be on-line in Q4 '88, though I'm
just a tad concerned that the date seems to keep slipping, and
slipping, and. . .
Steve (who reminds you that everything you read here could be wrong).
|
| 479.46 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Mon Sep 21 1987 15:30 | 10 |
| (I hope the following is water on the flames, not oil...)
I think Ann has pinpointed the problem exactly: Bob *is* saying that
(1) men will mis-read what (e.g.) Lee wrote, and (2) it is the
responsibility of the writers to make sure that that doesn't happen.
I haven't seen Bob make any overgeneralised charges in this discussion,
either overtly or by implication.
=maggie
|
| 479.47 | Not an enemy at all | PNEUMA::SULLIVAN | | Mon Sep 21 1987 16:07 | 8 |
|
re 479.45
Steve,
Thank you! I really liked what you said in your note.
Justine
|
| 479.48 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Mon Sep 21 1987 17:19 | 49 |
|
Re .43 Ann
Excuse me but I do happen to have a QUITE HIGH level of
comprehension. But for the matter at hand lets look at
some of the text as an example.
" For now , for many of us the "enemy" who is actively causing
us pain , is men . Note that I said "men" and not a man."
"We are at war with men".
Now Iam sorry but in my book these (and other statements)
made in the text are straight forward anti men statements.
THIS is what I object to, that I have been wrongly labeled
as bad because Iam a man. You keep telling me that you arnt
anti man, well go back into the text, replace men with women
and see if it sings the happy tune you claim it does.
For once Ignore the last paragraph and concentrate on the
first 90 % of the text. The statements are very direct,
and leave little if no room for interpatation.
RE .44 Suzanne
How many millions of times before I believe ????
When I stop seeing statements such as were in the first
90 % of Lees text. When I stop getting flamed when I object
to what I believe to be gerneric anti men statements. When
I see the person(s) responsible for the problem, rather
then all men get the blame. Am I getting nit picky ...yes probably
but if one of us men wrote something similar, Iam quite
sure one of you would have come back at us with an objection.
In my original text I asked for both men and women to work
together to help each other against the bad. But it seams
that you only wish to read what you wish to see. It would
appear that you are the one who hasent listened to a word
said.
RE . 46 Maggie
Thank you, at least one person has read all of what Ive
written. I was beginning to wonder if the real meaning and
message was getting across at all.
|
| 479.49 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Mon Sep 21 1987 18:22 | 29 |
| um, Bob, you have now misread something that was, I think, *very*
clearly stated. The sentence immediately following those you quoted
is "There is not one man in this conference who has actively hurt
[any of us]". You are almost by name excluded from any imputation
of guilt, Bob. What more could you ask?
What I almost think I hear you arguing is that we should never make any
general statement; that if we cannot name individuals then we shouldn't
talk about the problems. You seem to be saying that any general
statement, no matter how thoroughly qualified to exclude you as an
individual, nonetheless maligns you because it speaks of men and
you are a man.
I guess it's maybe something like being german and hearing people say
"Germans are responsible for having killed 6M jews". It makes no claim
that ALL germans were killers, or that the germans were the ONLY
killers, or that jews were the only people killed. So it's a true
statement, and probably all the harder to hear because of that very
fact.
Similarly, being a man and hearing "Men are our enemy because they are
actively causing us pain" must be very hard to hear, even when in the
same breath your personal innocence is clearly acknowledged.
It's too hard to expect people to either name names or say nothing,
Bob. The best anyone can do is try not to burn the innocent, and Lee
did that over and over again in the note you cite.
=maggie
|
| 479.50 | | CYBORG::MALLETT | | Mon Sep 21 1987 18:47 | 17 |
| re: .48 Bob
"Now Iam (sic) sorry but in my book these...are straight
forward (sic) anti men (sic) statements."
I believe what many of the women are saying is that in many
mens' books, these are not straightforward anti-men statements.
They and you are both right; I'm sure many men feel as you do,
but I'm equally sure some (many) don't. Me f'rinstance. While
I acknowledge I'm a part of the oppressor class (not just to
women, BTW; after all, I'm white, too), I understand from many
of the women in this conference that I may not be the object of
any *particular* note or offense. And, though I may be weird,
I'm not entirely alone, right guys? Uh, *right* guys? Um, guys. . .?
Steve (who tries to wear those shoes that fit)
|
| 479.51 | I'll admit to being Nesfan | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Sep 21 1987 19:11 | 56 |
| Bob B,
You claim, in reply .48, "to have a QUITE HIGH level of comprehension."
Very well, let's look at some of it:
A few lines after you wrote that you wrote, "You keep telling me
that you arnt [sic] anti man [sic]..."
Since I, personally, have NEVER written or said any such thing in
any forum, public or otherwise, your statement is false, and to
have produced such a statement implies a reading comprehension
level of approximately zero.
Alternatively, thou art using the word "you" to be plural. Still,
this includes me as part of a group which has repeated stated to
thee that they are not "anti man", and I am in no way part of such
a group, and my conclusion of the previous paragraph stands: Thy
understanding is zip.
A further alternative is that you do not distinguish between the terms
"you" and "they". Here are more promising grounds. In your comments
on Lee's essay, you repeatedly demonstrate this failing. Let me see
if I can explain the difference between the two pronouns to you:
Imagine Lee is seated at a terminal on a vast flat plain. All
the people who read this file are standing behind her, and
reading over her shoulder. All the rest of the people in the
world are out on the plain in front of her. When she types
"I", she means the person seated at the terminal. When she types
"you", she means one or more of the persons standing behind the
terminal. When she types "they", she means two or more of the people
out on the plain.
Let me paraphrase. When she types "they", she is never
referring to anyone reading over her shoulder. When she types
"you", she is never referring to anyone out on the plain.
Notice that I did not use the term "all" except when I meant to
use the term "all". Please extend the courtesy of believing that a
writer refrains from using "all" as a deliberate act of English
composition to all the people you read, and especially to all the
people to whom you reply.
Perhaps you do not think you do this, yet how else could one
explain that you quote Lee as she speaks of two individual and
hypothetical cases ("In both cases, the same gender is victimizing
the other."), and then claim that it is making the point, "Only
men can victimize....Women never do it"?
From TWO situations, carefully crafted to be similar, you derive
concepts like "only" and "never". This is not responsible reading
and writing, and this is only one, quick example out of many I
could write.
Ann B.
|
| 479.52 | restimulation | VINO::MCARLETON | Reality; what a concept! | Mon Sep 21 1987 23:14 | 50 |
| Re: .19
> Part of our asking that men not reply to a topic is self protection --
> we don't want more hurt, and any man could easily add to the hurt in a
> vulnerable area.
I have read a huge number of notes in this file. I mostly read
here to try to get a better understanding of women and their issues.
Most of the notes pass by me and add little to my understanding.
A few just make me want to flame. Once in a great while a note
expresses and idea so well that I have a leap of understanding.
The "ah-ha" effect. These notes also add to my ability to feel
empathy and make me glad that I took the time to read though all
the rest.
479.19 is one such note. Thanks Lee.
Re: .20
> One of the men who wrote in started saying some of the things
> that my Mother-in-Law used to say to me (TO EXCUSE THE BEHAVIOR
> OF HER VIOLENT SON) and it sent me right up the wall.
Being the man that the above fragment refers too I can see now that
I fell into the trap that Lee talks about in .19. I was pouring
salt in Suzanne's wounds and I did not even know it. I was expecting
that Suzanne was speaking from a cool rational base and that all
her flames were based on only what I had said.
I can see now that, at times, demanding a rational discussion may
be asking too much. I don't think that I could stay rational under
similar but reversed circumstances.
One discipline of healing that was practiced by my parents and family
friends was called reevaluation counseling. In the lingo of that
school of thought my input in the battered women note would be
called the "restimulation" of Suzanne's memories of her mother-in-law.
The resulting output from her would be called "discharge" and is
recognized as being healthy to the person "discharging". Discharge
is not supposed to be questioned. If we had been face to face I
might have recognized that Suzanne was restimulated and I might,
therefor, have reacted differently. At the time I had no idea that
my arguments could have touched a nerve.
Keep in mind that the men in this file may also be reacting to
painful events from the past. I'm sure the biggest flames come
when both sides are poking at each other's wounds.
MJC O->
|
| 479.53 | Saved (For A Short Time At Least) | FDCV03::ROSS | | Tue Sep 22 1987 11:31 | 9 |
| RE: Last 25, or so, replies
Phewwww... Oh Boy/Girl! I'm glad I'm off the hook for a while.
And to think this particular round all started over a Van Heusen
shirt ad.
Alan
|
| 479.54 | But What The Hell - Life's Short | FDCV03::ROSS | | Tue Sep 22 1987 11:47 | 13 |
| RE: .51
Have *you* confirmed with Lee that what you interpreted as *her*
meaning for "you" and "they" is really what *she* meant?
I'm not saying that she didn't necessarily mean them the way you posit.
It's just that you may be doing something that you're inferring
Bob should not do.
Alan
|
| 479.56 | Keep trying... | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Tue Sep 22 1987 13:48 | 14 |
| Bob, not being Lee, I wouldn't say I am at war with men, but
I would say that I don't *trust* a man I don't know. I tend to
be much more wary around male strangers than I am around female.
(Unless the female looks like a biker then I would be wary around
her also :-) ). I have never been hurt like many of the women in
this file have been by men, which accounts for the difference in
how we express this sort of feeling. In general tho, if I have gotten
to know someone, even by notes or mail, I am much more apt to trust
them (no matter how they look ;-) ). So just keep on communicating,
keep on writing notes, keep on listening, keep on talking, and
encourage others to do likewise. As long as we are trying to
communicate and understand each other there isn't any war.
Bonnie
|
| 479.57 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Tue Sep 22 1987 14:23 | 113 |
|
RE .49
Ahhh Maggie , no I didn't miss the "one man in the conference "
statement. The problem is in the beginning of the next paragraph
it starts off with "We are at war with ALL MEN". (my emphasis)
Now where does one draw the line ??? The problem is that we read
one statement saying were all bad and then one saying this group
is OK, and then back to we're all bad again. Am I safe and a good guy
because I follow this conference ?? ( one would not get that idea
considering the current dialog going on in this note.) Would I be
any different if I had never either read or wrote in this conference
?? I don't think so, I am the same person I was before I add this
conference to my file.
The "not one man in this conference has hurt us" statement is
an example of what Iam talking about when I talk about qualifier
statement. It equates with "gee you would really be OK if you
would be like I think you should be". In this case the statement
is exonerating any and all men who follow or write in this
conference.
I really kind of have to go "HUH ???? " at that one.
I can recall some real knock down, drag out written fights
between some of the participants of this file. Some went as
far as to be personal attacks against the other, that Ill be
willing to guarantee caused anger, hurt and pain to the persons
involved.
I can remember certain men that do nothing else, but come
in this file to argue and cause problems. There are others
that are here and agree with every thing any of the women
write. And still there are the others such as myself that
agree with some things, disagree with some of the others.
Am I only welcome here if I only agree ???? If I disagree
with some things, do I still come ( by Lees statement)
under the heading of a good guy ???
The point here is that there is a very large number of men
in this company that don't follow this file. There is a even
greater amount that don't even work for DEC. Now does that
put them outside of the realm of being classified as good
men ????
I don't expect anyone to remain silent on the things that bother
them. I mean look at this as an example. Am I going a bit
overboard on the terms thing ? , maybe, but in your cited example
if I were a German I would be upset to be hated by those who
lived through WW II. The Nazis were the people that brought
so much suffering to others, not the current generation born
during and after those times.
Is it right that they bear the brunt of the sins of their
forefathers ?? Is it right under the same pretense that I suffer
the stigmatism brought about by a small percentage of other men ??
That only when I think, do and say what you consider to be
accecptable (varies with source) that then Iam OK ????
I am getting the feeling that its not allowable to be a good
guy and an independent thinker.
No, I don't expect you to name names, but on the other side I
don't think its unfair of me to request that you stop writing
statements that infer that all of us are to blame. If it was
your ex boyfriend, husband, friend, whatever say it was THAT MAN
that did you wrong.
I really must apologize to Lee since this entire discussion is
centered around her text. I have read other things written by
Lee, (such as .19) that I would agree with .52, is a super
example of an "Ah huh" step in understanding.
RE.50
Steve, I hear you and respect that, that is your opinion,
Yet I would need to hear it from a number of more men
before I retire from my stand on the subject.
RE. 51
Ow, ouuuu Yup you got me on that one. Your absolutely right
in stating that you haven't made any stand or written on whether
your pro or anti man. Sorry about that, I was getting a little
too wrapped up in the subject at hand. Now that you mention it I
didn't realize that this was my English Comp exam instead of a
discussion of differences. All you have done up to and including
your last reply is nit pick my style of writing. But I contend
that my ability to comprehend should not be compaired to my
mistake on who replyed what.
On the subject of my writting ability, well I did suffer my
way thrugh English comp in school, but suprise, I got a A in
understanding English lit. So, sorry bout that, I studied
Engineering and not English as my major, so I suppose that
if you wish to follow along with this , you'll just have to
suffer through it.
On the other side I was unaware that you and Lee were one in
the same person. Who are you to know exactly what Lee's
thoughts were at the time she wrote her note ?? Iam quite sure
that Lee has the ability to explain her own mind set ( which she
has done [.19] and it was nothing like you describe) much better
than you.
In the case of the point of my statement " only men can victimize
...women never do it ? was meant to be a question ( read question
mark at end of sentence ) It was made in reference to the statements
" Statistics show that the people who victimize others with their
incest fantasies are overwhelmingly men. " followed by....
" They (..........) are the bad guys." The rational was that I was
questioning the statements that lay the total blame for problem
on men.
I'de love to continue this, but Iam going to be gone for the
rest of the week. Ill catch up when I get back.
Bob B
|
| 479.59 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Tue Sep 22 1987 14:47 | 25 |
| re .57
>> We are at war with ALL MEN.
The emphasis may be yours, but you certainly aren't quoting my .13
(which was copied as 1.28). It reads:
> We are at war with men.
and then goes on to say (again) that we are not at war with YOU.
(For you, read you, Bob Barber, you, Bob Holt, you, ANY MAN WHO
IS NOT HURTING US).
You are reading into my statements much more hatred and rancor than
is there. I said what I _meant_, darnit!
Do I _have_ to remind you that men are among the people I fall in
love with?!? Would I fall in love with someone I hated, even
subconsciously? And if I were a lesbian, would you assume that
meant man-hater instead of woman-lover? Would you then think you
_knew_ what I meant even if I said the opposite??
Sorry. Flame off.
Lee
|
| 479.60 | Quit while you're ahead? | PSYCHE::SULLIVAN | | Tue Sep 22 1987 15:09 | 18 |
|
Lee.
I think maybe you ought to quit while you're ahead. I thought
your first note was beautifully written, and it *was* understood
by most of us. I worry that your attempts to explain your words
to a few are confusing some of the rest of us. (I, for one had
some trouble with the Viet Cong-leads-to-bashing-of-all-Vietnamese
analogy, for example.) I think your words stand pretty well for
themselves. I think the explanation of MEN (as a class, as a social
and political entity) as different from individuals who are male but
not oppressive has been made countless ways.
Maybe it's like Algebra... not everybody gets it right away.
Justine who barely passed Algebra
|
| 479.61 | | RAINBO::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Tue Sep 22 1987 15:20 | 56 |
| <--(.57)
� Ahhh Maggie , no I didn't miss the "one man in the conference "
� statement. The problem is in the beginning of the next paragraph
� it starts off with "We are at war with ALL MEN". (my emphasis)
um, Bob, it _doesn't_ say "all"...you're not only adding emphasis,
you're adding the whole word!!
I don't want to put words in Lee's mouth, but my interpretation of her
"not one man in this conference" statement was as a "don't anyone here
take the anger you'll find here personally because as far as I know not
one man in this conference" etc. Benefit of the doubt, in some cases,
fairly certain knowledge in others. Any injury caused in here is,
on both sides I think, pretty transient. (Not less painful in the
moment, sometimes, but still of fairly short duration) I really
can't think of any genuine creeps in here. Curmudgeons yes, creeps
no.
� ... but in your cited example
� if I were a German I would be upset to be hated by those who
� lived through WW II.
That's where you keep going wrong, Bob. My example is of someone (a
german, call him Hans) who considers it unfair of someone else (call
her Anna) to SAY "germans killed jews" because after all *he*, Hans,
has never killed anybody. Somehow Hans keeps hearing Anna say "all"
even though she isn't, and somehow he then makes the leap to her
hating *him* because of it even though she has never said anything
about him either personally or inclusively.
� The Nazis were the people that brought
� so much suffering to others, not the current generation born
� during and after those times.
That has nothing to do with the truth of the statement!
� Is it right that they bear the brunt of the sins of their
� forefathers ?? Is it right under the same pretense that I suffer
� the stigmatism brought about by a small percentage of other men??
But you *don't* suffer it, Bob. I can almost guarantee that were you
perceived as "one of Them" few in here would be even civil toward you.
The only flak you're getting is what you're bringing down on your own
head...and that's a trivial amount :')
� That only when I think, do and say what you consider to be
� accecptable (varies with source) that then Iam OK ????
� I am getting the feeling that its not allowable to be a good
� guy and an independent thinker.
The only people worth having are those who are "good guy[s] and
... independent thinker[s]".
Have a nice holiday!
=maggie
|
| 479.62 | | ANGORA::BUSHEE | George Bushee | Wed Sep 23 1987 12:48 | 24 |
|
RE: .58
Lee, the Vietnam example was a bad one.. Just as the one
I kept hearing the whole time I was there;
"We are NOT at war with North Vietnam.. We are here as
advisors..."
Sure they kept telling us that, all the while I kept watching
my buddies getting blown apart by the non-war!!
So bottom line. Did I really think we weren't at war?
NO WAY, there was shooting and people getting
killed.. Funny it sure looks like war.
Some men may react the same, they hear you say you don't
blame all men, then make statements that read by themself
seem to imply it.
So what can we do, how can we work past this?
George
|
| 479.63 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Wed Sep 23 1987 18:09 | 3 |
| well, I'll just delete that one if it didn't work.
Oh well. Lee
|
| 479.64 | Sad, not angry, not offended | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Wed Sep 23 1987 23:08 | 103 |
| Well, since I seem to be in the habit of disagreeing with
everyone, may I give this rather dead looking horse a few kicks
of my own? (I'd never beat a dead horse, but I might kick him.)
When I read Lee's note I will admit that I was a little hurt, a
bit saddened, but it wasn't in the way that you might have
thought. It didn't hurt my feelings. It didn't make me angry. It
didn't feel like bigotry or sexism. It didn't make me feel badly
about Lee, nor did it make me feel that she disliked or was
attacking me. No, I was hurt or saddened because I care very
much for Lee, and she ssemed to be letting the bad guys win.
Lee did a marvelous job, I though, of explaining who the bad
guys are, and giving an idea of what made them bad. But, in my
eye, when she said "we are at war with men", and when she
implied that in order to be good guys men had to be "honorary
women", she was giving in to the bad guys--letting them win.
She let them win by letting them poison her view of men. The bad
guys of the world win each time we fear, each time they make us
angry, each time they steal our ability to trust. They win when
they impose world view on us, when they bring out the dark side
of us, when they remake us in their image or in their image of
us.
By declaring not that "we are at war with the bad guys of the
world", by implying that men are only good when they are
womanly, Lee confuses, on the verbal level at the very least,
men as a class with bad guys as a class. She may have done it
only on the verbal/rhetorical level, but our thoughts are often
conditioned by or reflected in our language.
Even if she isn't actually confusing the two groups, the other
things that she says indicates that she fears, doubts and
suspects men more than women. One way or another, the bad guys
have conditioned her view of men in general, and the way she
deals with them and speaks of them.
You have to understand, if you're going to understand what I'm
saying, where I'm coming from on this. For years as a youngster
I was a victim. The bad guys beat me regularly. Worse than that,
they managed to engage virtually all of the other boys in our
class to join them in this sport of beating me. They didn't just
beat me. They made me into a victim--with my acquiescence. I
felt like a victim. I looked like a victim. I was victimized
even by people who weren't victimizers. I boiled with impotent
anger. I feared and distrusted everyone.
One day I put and end to it. I stopped being a victim. I began
to believe in myself. I fought back. But more, I began to trust
again. I swore off not only fear, but hate, uncontrolable anger
and distrust. I stopped centering my life around those people
who only made it miserable.
My experience colors my view ofthe world. It made me hate to see
good people manipulated by bad, be it through fear, hate, guilt,
or distrust. I deeply resent any concession made to the bad
guys. And when I see people I care for, people I admire
surrender control to the other side it hurts.
I think a lot of Lee. I admire the strength and consistancy of
her principles. I respect her technical competance. I aplaud and
am attracted to her strength of character. I feel great sympathy
for her difficulties of times past. When I see signs that she
has come to distrust men, to classify them with the bad guy it
hurts. It doesn't hurt me personally. If I thought she disliked
me that would hurt personally. No, this hurts because one of the
best has made a concession to the bad guys. It hurts because
*we* (the good guys--Lee, me and the rest of us) are losing.
When I read Lee's note I was affected quite a lot by it. The
things she said were just a small defeat, perhaps just a slip of
the tongue, but because they came from Lee and not someone who
normally rants or condemns men, from someone of strong priniples
and intelligence, they felt like a very real defeat. It hurt
because I knew that it would have taken a lot of pain for the
bad guys to win that concession from her, and I didn't want
to think of some I cared for being hurt that bad.
It's taken me a long time to write this. I have no idea if I
have conveyed the reality of my raction to this note. I really
don't want to support the "man-hating" image, or the "be careful
of what you say or you'll hurt the feelings of men" view. I
don't think that many, if any, of the women here are bigotted
against men. I feel that even for men this is one of the most
supportive conferences on the net. But I was bothered by that
note and I think that the reason is important.
By the way, to see the note taken by Maggie, whom I respect
deeply and posted in 1.28 in the name of the conference hurt
just as much. Another one of the best of the good guys concedes.
Another victory for the bad guys. The phrases are a small thing,
but the implication of them is extremely daunting.
To have several people embrace and commend them and praise them
without seeing the lost of trust, the acceptance of fear, the
prejudice of "war with men" and goodliness being equated with
womanhood and presumption of badness with manhood, adds up to a
big loss, and it makes me sad. I hate to lose. It hurts whether
the loss is big and dramatic or slow, small and gradual. And to
me, this feels like a defeat for the side of right.
JimB.
|
| 479.65 | Thanks, Jim | QUARK::LIONEL | We all live in a yellow subroutine | Thu Sep 24 1987 00:17 | 16 |
| Thanks, Jim. You've put into words what's been bothering me for
a long time. I felt a sour taste in my mouth whenever I thought
that I had to be an "honorary woman" to be accepted as a "good guy".
But I couldn't find the right words to say it.
I too was a victim all throughout my school years. But I never
lost my willingness to trust, to assume that someone was a friend
until they proved otherwise. And it has hurt when I have come
to realize that I have to prove to others that I am "harmless".
I've felt enough of the not-so-subtle pressure here that I've
basically stopped participating in this conference, though I
continue to read it. I'm weary of having to prove myself each
time just to get listened to. I'm weary of being told that I'm
unworthy because I'm a man.
Steve
|
| 479.66 | good friends | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Thu Sep 24 1987 00:31 | 7 |
| Jim and Steve....
both of you are valuable contributors to this file. Please
continue to add your thoughts and insights... the file would
be poorer without either of you
Bonnie
|
| 479.67 | too much static!!! | DECWET::JWHITE | weird wizard white | Thu Sep 24 1987 00:43 | 25 |
|
I'm getting a little tired of this. The only thing I can think of
is that many of the men arguing this issue must have been fortunate
enough to have avoided much oppression. Is it not clear that many
people in our society suffer oppression? Is it not clear that a
disproportionate number of those suffering are women (and blacks
and children and...)? Is it not also clear that a disproportionate
number of those *not* being oppressed are adult white males? That
alone might be enough to at least suggest that white males are the
oppressors. However, it also seems clear that many white men do
not actually have the requisite power to oppress. So we must temper
our ideas at least enough to say, maybe, some people oppress others
and a significant (and highly visible) proportion of those oppressors
are white males. But...
I believe it is far more important, rather than argue about how many
oppressors there are, rather than quibble about whether we should
say 'some' or 'most' or 'many', is to realise and admit that, as
white males, *even if we are not active oppressors*, we tend to
benefit from the system as it is. We need to say the system is *wrong*.
It *must* be changed. We must *help* make it change. Doing *anything
else* simply delays change and I for one am not willing to take
the awesome responsibility that somewhere, someone is being oppressed
one day longer because I quibbled.
|
| 479.68 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Thu Sep 24 1987 10:46 | 22 |
| But Jim, the bad guys have won a temporary victory only. Do you
think I could go on if I thought they had really won?? They are
fighting a losing battle and will soon (less than 1 generation,
in my opinion) be entirely outdated, a thing of the dark ages.
To do this, ALL of us need to keep fighting as hard as we can, which
is one of the reasons I care so much about including men in this
file and in our lives -- you MUST see the problems, understand that
the problems effect you too, and help fix them.
Steve and Jim, I say and think "honorary woman" for many reasons,
one of which is that it makes it much easier for me to understand
you: I understand myself pretty well, and using that phrase makes it
easier for me to understand you as if you were a human being (as
_I_ am) rather than some "other". It may may seem otherwise, but
for some of the men in my life to understand me as a person, they
have had to look at me as though I were an "honorary man".
My mind is a bit fuddled today, so I'll stop while I'm behind :)
and try again later. Your notes touched me (see Lee trying not
to cry in her office).
Lee
|
| 479.69 | Give Peace a Chance | PSYCHE::SULLIVAN | | Thu Sep 24 1987 10:55 | 108 |
|
Jim B.,
I just read your considered response, and I for one really appreciate
that this issue of how women feel about men is so important to you.
It seems to me that we (meaning women) cannot ask you (meaning men)
to agree with our views, but we can ask you to consider them seriously,
and it's obvious that you have done that.
In reading your message, however, I felt that you had at once both
understood and then dismissed the importance of one of Lee's key
points. Because many men have and continue to oppress and
victimize many women a number of things happen:
o The women who have experienced this victimization directly
may experience fear of men and perhaps some bitterness (the
amount of bitterness and fear is probably proportionate to
the amount of victimization experienced.)
o Other women who may not have been directly victimized in (for
example) a violent way may live in fear that it could happen.
(I, for example, have never been raped, but I've been chased
by a carload full of drunk teenage boys and as a result have
some fear.)
What this means is that a lot of women are afraid of being hurt by
the "bad guys." The problem here is that how do you tell the bad
guys from the good guys. Rapists and wife beaters can be found in
every social strata; they have no distinguishing marks or features.
Women have to try to figure out who the bad guys are. I suspect
that women fall somewhere on a spectrum of trust in this regard.
On one end you have women who trust everyone, and then luck determines
whether or not they will be victimized. On the other end of the
spectrum you have women who trust no men; I think they all live
in an organic farm collective in Belchertown, MA :-). Most of
us, however, fall somewhere in the middle. We take some risks
and constantly reevaluate what seems safe to us.
What does this fear that women have mean to men, especially to men
who are not oppressive? Well, as has been mentioned before, on
some level men benefit from women's fear, from women's second
class status. I think the losses good men suffer, however, far
outweigh the gains. As you have mentioned, Jim, good men suffer
when women mistrust men because of their experience with the bad guys.
Good men suffer when they feel they are being lumped together with
the bad guys.
So what should good guys do in response to what seems to misplaced
anger? Well, only you can decide what you *should* do, but I'll
offer an opinion. When our words hurt you, do speak up, and tell
us why it hurts. But when you do that, I think you should remember
a few things.
First of all, as I mentioned before, the only recognizable characteristic
that (most of) our oppressors share is that they are men. (Perhaps this
discussion would not go on if Lee's message had said, "We are at war with
the men who oppress us.") Secondly, as women fighting oppression, we are
not just fighting for better jobs and equal pay (although those things are
important to us); we are fighting for our SURVIVAL. I think that changes
the rules a little. Do I care about your feelings? Yes. Will I risk
hurting your feelings if I feel my life (or the life of one of my sisters)
is in danger? Yes, I will. So, please remember that for some of us the
stakes are higher than those of mere intellectual debate.
The last thing I'd like you to keep in mind when our words hurt you
is that our words and our ability (and freedom) to express our anger
are very important to us. In fact, in this battle that we're fighting,
words are sometimes our only tools. We could fight back with violence,
but men (and here I mean good guys AND bad guys) have the weapons.
They make the laws. They run the courts and the police stations and
the jails. And not being able to distinguish (at a glance) the good
guys from the bad, some of us mistrust all the symbols of the
(white male) establishment. So the only way that we can hope to win
this battle is to inspire each other first, and for some of us that
means getting angry, spelling out the fact that we are "at war" for
our survival.
The good guys can benefit from joining in our battle because they are
hurt by the bad guys, too. But you must remember that it is our
battle, and that if you attack our words and our feelings (as the bad
guys do), then we may have a conflict with you. You may start to look
like one of them. It's *not* fair. But as I mentioned, the stakes
are very high for some of us. So if you wish to join our team, you as
a member, have every right to question and criticize the process. But
for the reasons that I hope I have explained clearly above, you will have
to be very careful when you do it. That's just the way it is. We all
suffer from the bad guys: women suffer the oppression, and good men
suffer the potential for mistrust.
The question that remains is: Can we resolve our differences and fight
for change together? I suspect the answer to that question is sometimes
yes and sometimes no. But it's an important goal. And as much as it
feels sometimes like we're going around in circles on this issue. I
think it's important for us to discuss it when it comes up. I, for one,
have come to see some of the men here as potential allies.. something
that wasn't true just a short time ago. I was angry and resented not
having a space in which I could safely express that anger. But I
I think we're working it out. In fact, for some of us, learning to
*make* this notesfile safe and valuable for us has been an important
growth experience. And if we sometimes step on each other's toes,
I suspect that's just a part of recognizing difference and trying
to learn to value and benefit from it.
I hope you'll give some of these ideas a second look,
Justine
|
| 479.70 | Men as oppressors | CANDY::PITERAK | | Thu Sep 24 1987 11:22 | 37 |
|
This discussion is soooo strange. Men - as a class - have oppressed women.
Some women - as individuals - oppress women. Even the "good guys" will
unwittingly oppress women. Every time a "good guy" takes advantage of male
privilege he oppresses women. Society has a bias toward "favoring" men.
Even if you do not knowingly oppress us - you are in the "cat bird" seat.
Society oppresses women with the use of laws, class privilege, *moral*
standards, violence, the media etc.,etc.
The much used "You are part of the problem, if you are not part of the
solution" is very apropos here. The first step to the solution is
internal change and the ability to view the overall oppression of women
by society. The next step is to not take part in the privilege of being
male. I don't believe that very many men can accomplish that one. It's
very tough to turn down being part of the "old boy network" of the
locker room, the board room, the golf course. It's tough to vocalize
that you find other men's treatment or attitudes toward women as demeaning
to women or offensive to you. Just because you as an individual have changed
does not solve the problem. Are you an activist for women? Do you complain
about the sexist language in books that you read, or training material you
receive? Do you even notice it? Do you call sexist remarks that men around
you make? Do you take a "chance" about being the proverbial pain in the ass,
or is it just a lot more comfortable to feel that - alas, as long as you have
changed it's enough?
Some men understand and work with women to change what is wrong with
societies treatment of women. Most men I have worked with politically
have understood my statements around men -as a class- being oppressive.
Most straight people I have worked with politically have understood my
statements around heterosexuals -as a class- being oppressive of lesbians
and gay men.
I believe part of the support men can show women is the understanding that
men -as a class- oppress women, and they as individuals can work toward
changing other men and society.
Flora
|
| 479.71 | | COLORS::IANNUZZO | Catherine T. | Thu Sep 24 1987 11:42 | 55 |
| [While I was writing this, several other notes have been entered that
say pretty much the same thing.]
I feel that a lot of the commentary in this note is missing the point
about the nature of sexism. We live in a patriarchy: rule of society by
and for "the fathers" -- men. This means that by virtue of their
gender, every male is born into a position of privilege relative to
every female. Individual men may not be personally responsible for
putting themselves in this position, but they benefit from a society
that provides them these privileges at the expense of a large underclass
of economically, socially, sexually, and emotionally exploited women.
Societies function like complex organisms, with the same blind will to
survive and propagate. Although comprised of individuals, a social
system shapes its members to serve its purposes of survival. Any social
group represents a force that is more than just the collective will of
the individuals in it.
For men to interrupt every argument by protesting that they are not
personally exploiters is to nullify any attempt at analysing the larger
social picture. This is a kind of libertarianism that imagines all
individuals to be unique instances of autonomous and arbitrary behavior,
from which no conclusions about the workings of power in our society can
be drawn. For you engineering types, the situation is a lot like trying
to understand the high level design of a system while someone is
constantly insists on explaining the contents of the low byte in
Register 4.
The purpose of feminist social criticism is to understand the social
entities that are "men" and "women" and to expose the dynamics of
exploitation, so that women can throw off the internalized misogyny that
serves to keep them from claiming their own power and men of conscience
can use their positions of privilege in the cause of furthering justice.
Being the out-of-power group, it is much easier for women to engage in
critical analysis of the system. As beneficiaries of the system, it is
much harder for men to question the nature and source of their power.
It's a hard thing the women of this conference are asking of the men who
choose to participate, but a necessary one if we are going to change the
world.
[p.s.
re: .65:
>> I'm weary of having to prove myself each
>> time just to get listened to. I'm weary of being told that I'm
>> unworthy because I'm a man.
This is the typical woman's experience ALL HER LIFE.
Just experiencing it in this little corner of your life makes
you angry and frustated. And you wonder why the women
feel the way they do??
]
|
| 479.72 | Articulate, intelligent, buncha folks here | VINO::EVANS | | Thu Sep 24 1987 13:28 | 8 |
| RE: last few
Boy,I wish *I'd* said that. And that. And *that*.
Thanks, y'all
Dawn
|
| 479.73 | That was great..... | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth | Thu Sep 24 1987 18:32 | 9 |
|
I think that we have some of the most articulate, intelligent
writers in the conference.
_peggy
(-)
| Truly in the arms of the Goddess
|
| 479.74 | I just don't know how to say it... | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Thu Sep 24 1987 22:38 | 66 |
| Sometimes I feel so inarticulate I just want to cry...
Justine, (I hope I may call you Justine)
It would seem I did a poor job of conveying what I intended in
my 479.64 reply. Several times in 479.69 you speak about hurting
my feelings or about the good guys being hurt by being mistaken
for the bad guys. But the whole point I was trying to convey was
that Lee when she wrote the note and Maggie when she reposted it
and the others when they praised it DID NOT hurt my feelings.
I tried to say that my feelings weren't hurt, I wasn't offended,
I was just deeply saddened, saddened FOR Lee, for Maggie, for
all the women who, if even only on a verbal level, embraced the
image of men as a class being the bad guys. Because of how much
they mean to me, I hate to see them accept and embrace the bad
guys claim that they (the bad guys) are no different from other
men. Every time I see bright articulate thoughtful women lump
bad guy men and good guy men together it feels like a defeat for
goodness, not for me, but for the cause of goodness.
The bad guys want you to believe that they are no different from
the average man. They're just normal healthy red-blooded young
men who know where a woman's place is and how she really wants
to be treated. They want you to think that all men are just like
them. They aren't bad, they're just men. And when you buy that,
or when you repeat it even if you don't believe it completely
they win just a little bit more.
If we allow them to define abusiveness, sadism, hate, and mean
spiritedness as normal or as normal for men, we give them
something to hide behind--an excuse for being whatthey are. We
can't let them do that to us, to any of us. We have to say "NO!
if you do that you are not normal, you are not just being a man.
You are doing wrong and you must stop!"
There ARE times when I read the words of especially bitter women
who speak quite vehemently against men as a class or men in
general, who do not say some men, but all men or any man or any
male, or any white man, and I get angry. There are times when
having every class I belong to: white, male, middle class,
heterosexual, Protestant, WC4, etc. called the oppressors just
gets to be too much. And when it does I say so. It happens very
seldom. And it is in NO WAY what I was trying to talk about in
my note.
What I saw in Lee's note was not reverse bigotry, it was an
acceptance of the bad guys' definition of male behavior. I saw
her let them have a victory they don't deserve. I saw womanhood
and manhood diminished because a few more of the good guys let
the bad guys write the agenda.
To Hell with whether you hurt my feelings. Don't let them lie to
you about what it means to be a man or what it means to be a
woman, or who the enemy really is. It isn't men as class. It
isn't white men. It is anyone who takes advantage of another. It
is every hateful, abusive, violent, antisocial, manipulative,
arrogant bastard whether he be a he or a she or a little green
bug-eyed critter from Deneb.
It seems almost impossible to convey this, because everyone
knows that the problem is that the good men are offended when
they're lumped in with the bad, but honest I'm trying to say
something different.
JimB.
|
| 479.75 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Fri Sep 25 1987 11:01 | 37 |
| <--(.74)
Jim, we know you're trying to say something different. So are we.
That's where Lee's analogy to the Viet Nam war (that everyone disliked
so much) came from.
Let me have a go at explaining. The VWVs will relate to this.
You're a grunt in 'Nam, out in the countryside. Most of the people you
meet are local folks, farmers, very in favor of live-and-let-live, not
too interested in politics, willing to be friendly, share their food
with you, good people. They're small, brownskinned, and wear black
pajamas. Some of the folks you meet are also local folks, but besides
being farmers they're also Charlie, the Viet Cong, a lot more
interested in killing you than sharing food with you. They're small,
brownskinned, and wear black pajamas.
Quick, now, your life depends on it!: how do you tell them apart?
Charlie doesn't wear a big red star on his chest, and his smile may be
even bigger and more sincere-looking to lull your suspicions. Quick! Is
it the old man with the bag slung over his shoulder and coming toward
you with alms bowl clutched in palsied fingers? The young woman
passerby carrying a sling that looks too big for the baby riding in it?
Is it the little kid with the big smile who's offering you the melon?
Guess wrong and either you're dead or some innocent villager is! You
haven't figured it out yet? Too bad! Time's up, you're dead: it was
the young woman with a "borrowed" baby, she had a machine pistol under
her blouse. You and your two buddies are KIAs. Will all the good
people in the village rise up in horrified anger to avenge your death?
Not bloody likely!
We do try to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys, and we do
recognise that there are fundamental differences between individuals
--that was a major burden of Lee's message that I reposted-- but it's
an existential issue, Jim: you all wear black pajamas.
=maggie
|
| 479.76 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Fri Sep 25 1987 12:08 | 22 |
| <-------- (.75)
Ah maggie, you hit the nail on the head!
JimB, if I believed that to be male one has to do what the bad guys
do, I'd move out to that separatist farm collective in Belchertown.
Like you, I feel that *those* activities take away a person's humanity,
the very essence of what makes them human. As far as I am concerned,
they are from Mars. The men _I_ like are different from women,
yes, but they are HUMAN.
I think I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate
your concern and care (as you well know). I also think you understand
the gist of our (my) messages. It is hard for me to explain why
I think you're feeling more concern than is needed. That may be
because I am very used to what has happened to me and my sisters
and have been desensitized to it (the horror) a bit.
Dunno.
Lee
|
| 479.77 | | SPIDER::PARE | What a long, strange trip its been | Fri Sep 25 1987 13:37 | 8 |
| It occurs to me that we (woman as a class of people in society)
strive to win battles (as in this note) while ending up losing the
war (as is evidenced by womans continuing place in society). We
don't accomplish anything nor do we help ourselves or our position
in society by alienating the very people who are in a position to
help us.... the (perhaps) few people who are inclined to help us.
Just an observation of course.
Mary
|
| 479.78 | "Madder'n hell, and..." | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Fri Sep 25 1987 13:56 | 9 |
| JimB,
Don't worry too much. The ~at war with men~ statement tells me
that she/we/they has/have reached the point that you finally
reached: You weren't going to be the victim any more. This is
the attitude behind the "Take Back the Night" Army, and I like
it very much.
Ann B.
|
| 479.79 | It takes a long time to change society. | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth | Fri Sep 25 1987 13:57 | 15 |
|
I think that Maggie explained the situation quite well - but most
of all the war is far from over and woman's place in society is
changing. It is a very long war and it is moving very slowly.
(I do not like using the term war - though it does describe the
situation.)
_peggy
(-)
| By the Goddess I remember when a woman
could not buy a house on her own.
|
| 479.80 | My view of our male friends is much more optomistic... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Sep 25 1987 14:38 | 66 |
| RE: .77
We *are* making progress with our position in society! It
may not be as much as we might have hoped for at this point,
but it *IS* happening for us.
Think for a minute about what you're saying about the men
who could possibly help us in our cause. What you're implying
(or what I'm inferring from your comments) is that the NICE
men will only be willing to help us if we are careful to treat
them with the proper respect (the respect that they deserve
for being above us in society and being in the position to help
us *OR* hurt us by withholding that help if we *DON'T* pay
homage to them.)
Myself, I take a MUCH MORE OPTOMISTIC view of our male friends
(the ones who truly want to see us receive equitable treatment
in our society.) I don't think for a minute that our TRUE
FRIENDS are going to hold it against us that we have strong
feelings about the oppression we have experienced in our culture
(and will sooner or later KNOW, if they don't already, that
our fight is against a BELIEF SYSTEM that values us less than
men and is not a fight, in any way, against all men.)
We would be defeating ourselves, I think, if we decide that
the best alternative is to pay homage to males who can help us
(as if we lack faith in our own power to effect changes in
our culture.)
It is unfortunate that some of our male friends are being
offended along the way, but my strong feeling is that many of
them COULD understand our position if they CHOSE to, and I
do not subscribe to the idea that we can't "win the war"
unless we are careful to keep from ever offending any man
who might be on our side.
If we spend all our time and energy trying to be "nice" and
never offend anyone at any time (which is an impossible task
to begin with), then we will lose much of our potential
effectiveness in the overall struggle.
If a man is truly our friend (and believes in what we are
working for) then it will be unconditional. The man believes
in equality because it is RIGHT AND JUST (and **NOT** because
we paid him the price that he demanded of us: that we say what
HE demands that we say to make him feel good about helping us.)
Think of it this way: How much of a friend would you consider
a white person who worked for civil rights if he or she joined
the movement saying, "Well, I could help you but I'll only do
it if you treat me REALLY NICELY, because remember that you'll
never make it without my help as a white person. If you make
me mad, I'll withdraw my help immediately."
I don't believe for a minute that our true male friends have
this attitude toward us. Like I said, it's incredibly
unfortunate when we inadvertently offend our supporters, but
we can't spend 100% of our energy trying to avoid that if it
means that we diffuse our own power to effect the changes we
want. We need to be able to expect that our male friends will
understand that we are trying to sort things out and do not
mean nor intend any insult to them. If that's not good enough,
then maybe we haven't lost much of a friend in that sort of
individual.
Suzanne...
|
| 479.81 | We really do have many TRUE FRIENDS that are men... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Sep 25 1987 14:43 | 9 |
| By the way, I do think that **MANY** of the men in this
conference and in DEC **ARE** our true friends!!
Sometimes I think that not all of them completely understand
our position, but I feel certain that they believe in our
struggle for the right reasons and are our FRIENDS in the
true spirit of the word!
Suzanne...
|
| 479.83 | Huh? | PSYCHE::SULLIVAN | Run, Pat, Run! | Fri Sep 25 1987 17:24 | 5 |
|
> The purpose of this entire conference ought to be to help men
> to achieve a better understanding of the position of women.
Do you mean that this ought to be our sole purpose?
|
| 479.86 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Mon Sep 28 1987 11:38 | 33 |
| RE: .85
> It just makes it easier to agree when one is agreeable.
Bob, the vast majority of women that I've met in the world
(and in DEC) do not openly discuss concerns about women's
rights in mixed company. We are agreeable, calm and smile
(even when we think that we may have run up against some
sort of oppression or discrimination.)
Rarely have I seen any woman turn to a man in a business
situation (in an environment other than notes) and openly
state what it's like to be a member of an oppressed group
in this culture.
One must come to a forum such as this one to see such things
on an everyday basis. As rare as it is (and as enlightening
as it can be), why would you want to prevent us from saying
what is on our minds here?
If you want to hear only that which makes you comfortable,
try almost any other forum (other than this one) and most
likely you will find that women will not choose to discuss
the sort of delicate/disturbing matters that you seem to
find so unsettling.
The choice is up to you -- if you'd rather not know what
we think when we discuss women's issues, there is an alter-
native for you.
Suzanne...
|
| 479.87 | Bette Davis had a great line for situations like these... :-) | NEXUS::CONLON | | Mon Sep 28 1987 12:21 | 7 |
| P.S. Personally, I'd much rather that you stick around and
share this with us (I'm not suggesting that you go away.)
Just keep your seatbelt fastened around here, cuz it can be
a bumpy ride at times.
Suzanne... @^@
|
| 479.88 | That reminds me.. | PNEUMA::SULLIVAN | Run, Pat, Run! | Mon Sep 28 1987 12:24 | 11 |
|
Suzanne, your mentioning that women don't like to discuss their
concerns in "mixed company" reminded me of something that I noticed
at the last get together at Leslie's house. As I walked around
and mingled with different groups of women, I noticed that sometimes
the conversation would get kind of loud and heated, even angry,
but when a man entered the area, we lowered our voices.
Did anyone else notice that? Other examples?
Justine
|
| 479.89 | It's Called Human Relations | FDCV03::ROSS | | Mon Sep 28 1987 13:07 | 18 |
| RE: .80
Suzanne, I don't think the writer of .77 was suggesting that
homage be paid to people (men) who were in a position to help
effect changes that women are fighting for.
MY interpretation of what she wrote is that, simply, people (male
female, white, black, yellow, young,old, managers...) have more of a
tendency to listen positively to someone else who is, at least,
temperate in his/her approach.
Personally, I close my ears to someone who starts off by saying,
"HEY ASSHOLE".
I suspect many others do the same.
Alan
|
| 479.90 | Flaming/discussing is in the eye of the beholder... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Mon Sep 28 1987 13:50 | 28 |
| RE: .89
Alan, while I do agree that it makes it tough to have a
conversation when people are screaming, let it suffice to
say that one person's "Oh, gee, excuse me" is another
person's "HEY *SSH*LE!" and that each of us probably has
his/her own opinion about what is and is not a reasonable way
to approach an "intense" discussion.
For every instance you can name where you think one side or
the other was a tad too vehement in asserting a position, I
can show you where the other side had moments that were
equally as assertive.
Would it surprise you to hear that I had no idea exactly
how oppressed women ARE in this culture until I saw how difficult
it IS for women to express almost any idea in our own file
without being endlessly challenged as to our right to HAVE
and to EXPRESS such ideas? [Now I'm going to be challenged
for saying that, I bet. :-)]
Like most other things in life, it is a two-way street.
I would suspect that when women can peacefully talk about
women's issues, we will be less apt to get a tad upset when
we have to spend so much time defending our right to discuss
such issues in the first place.
Suzanne...
|
| 479.91 | What we really need here are SUBTITLES... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Mon Sep 28 1987 13:57 | 7 |
| P.S. In case it wasn't obvious, that last message was
meant as an "Oh, gee, excuse me..."
I know it's hard to tell these things when we all read
this stuff on impersonal terminals. :-)
Suzanne... @^@
|
| 479.94 | Sorry, Oh, yes, don't let the door hit your back. | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth | Mon Sep 28 1987 15:39 | 15 |
|
I really love it when someone has to explain why they are leaving
WOMANNOTES in great detail. I would just say "I am not comfortable
here or I no longer find the discussion of interest but will check
in from time to time to see if topics change."
The "I am leaving and here is what I think of you" parting short
is really rather childish and the longer it is the more evident
it is that that is what is being done.
_peggy
"Cakes" is coming to Westford MA
|
| 479.95 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Mon Sep 28 1987 16:12 | 62 |
|
It is interesting to see what has transpired since I was away. I
sense the fact that I'am am not a regular contributor to this file
has a touch of bearing to it, or is it just my style of verbalization.
I don't know.
In .69 the words come across as they have in other places and by
multiple authors.
> So what should good guys do in response to what seems to misplaced
> anger ? Well, only you can decide what you *should* do, but I'll
> offer an opinion. When our words hurt you, do speak up, and tell
> us why it hurts. But when you do that, I think you should remember
> a few things.
She then continues to explain why. I would totally agree with her
on the basis of this whole thing would have not gone on if the
text had read "We are at war with the men who oppress us". That
was the entire point of my original note. Why is it OK for you to
say it and not me ????
I'am sorry, I guess I must have not used the right words. I went off
and attempted to explain why Lee's note not "hurt", but disturbed me.
Further in my my original note I stated that I honestly believed that
many of you ladies had very good reasons to be mad, angry and hurt.
In the following notes , I went on to explain why and show HOW the
text COULD BE interrupted as negative. Does this count towards getting
an understanding , No way.
Did anyone read everything that I had to say rather than seeing
something that set them off, I have a tendency to doubt it. Why ??
Because of the responses. In them I get blasted for not saying the
things that were either explained or stated in the original text.
This wasn't done to be vicious or malicious, yet thats how it was
taken. I went on to explain that I DIDN'T have anything against LEE,
others that responded, this file, only that that note bothered me.
Yet I continued to get blasted. Now low and behold, two regular
men contributors come in and say that the text *hurt* them and
the whole tone changes to a civil discussion. People do a 180,
and begin to see that it can be take as a negative man statement.
I guess that in order not to upset the apple cart and get everyone
defensive, I guess that only Jim B., Steve L. or Charles has got
to be the one to say something about it. Sorry if I have something
to say I prefer not to do it through someone else. It somehow looses
something in the translation.
There is a number of topics in here which should serve as a good
common ground for communications and better understanding.
There has been a number of times that you folk's say you want
feedback and comments about what hurts or disturbs us, yet get
defensive when we enter it. Some of you have gotten so defensive
that you no longer can tell the difference, for you HEY NO VC NO VC
Then you wonder why most men wont put word one in here. It makes me
wonder , why I bothered at all. Have no fear I will go back to being
a read only person, since I'am tired of being called a vicious bad
person. I'am tired of ducking the pot shots, its gotten too dinky dou.
Bob B
|
| 479.96 | | FRSBEE::MALLETT | | Mon Sep 28 1987 17:11 | 25 |
| re: .93 ". . .being discouraged because I'm male. . ."
That's odd. I'm hanging around because I get the distinct
impression that thoughtful, considerate discussions from
men were welcome. It seems to me that, if anything, things
are getting generally more reasonable of late.
I keep thinking I hear several women clearly expressing the
idea that "men" is a classification of a group of people who
are oppresive (BTW, seems to me that an "oppressor" rarely
labels him/herself that; it's usually up to the oppressed to
bring this notion to the other; and it's usually denied. . .).
And this seems to be followed by vehement denials by some men
that they, as individuals, are not "bad", "evil", etc. I have
that feeling that some folks aren't listening to some others.
But then, what would I know anyway? I turned *that* age this
year and have played rock music for some 23 years; we all know
what that sort of stuff can do to one's brain.
Steve (who recalls lots of (white) people running around during the
racial upheavals of the '60s saying stuff like "I don't understand
what these Black people want; *I'm* not an oppressor. . ."
|
| 479.97 | | FAUXPA::ENO | Homesteader | Mon Sep 28 1987 17:22 | 6 |
| I've stayed out of this so far, but Steve (re .96), that's a great
point at the end of your note, about whites saying "I never oppressed
blacks ...". That says very succintly what so many of the woman
in this note have been trying to express.
G
|
| 479.98 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Mon Sep 28 1987 18:20 | 11 |
| <--(.97 about .96)
I second that. Nice point, Steve!
<--(.95)
Bob, nobody's climbing all over your case, honest. If you took
a poll of the women members, $20 says you'd be seen as one of the
Good Guys (the ARVNs? ;'). Wanna bet?
=maggie
|
| 479.99 | Sure hope that most of us can see past the heat.... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Sep 29 1987 01:58 | 18 |
| Although it does bother me to see some people totally misunder-
stand what we say (and see hate where no hate exists) -- I just
have to say something here.
During the Womannotes party this past summer, I had the opportunity
to talk (by voice phone) to members of this community (and have had
the pleasure of mail exchanges with quite a few folks in this
conference as well.)
I just want to say that the people in this community are some
of the warmest, most intelligent and articulate people I've
ever known.
When the discussions become intense, I hope that most of us
can keep some level of perspective here and value the caliber
of the contributions that are typical of this conference.
Suzanne...
|
| 479.100 | Back to one of the issues at hand... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Sep 29 1987 08:09 | 40 |
| RE: .95
Bob, your original note mentioned NOTHING about Lee's note
about being at war. You came in with your usual attack on
the entire file (including a patronizing lecture to us about
why we shouldn't hate men) and said nothing about what set
you off.
If you recall, my next two notes POINTED to Lee's note as a
way to answer your concerns (and you then admitted that you
came in BECAUSE of her note.)
If you had started out saying what was REALLY on your mind
(in a reasonable fashion) instead of just blasting the whole
file and all of us in it (including mentioning MY name in
particular) then you might have received a more civil response
to your concerns.
This sort of thing often happens in this conference -- people
come in blasting the WHOLE FILE instead of addressing the immediate
area of their concern. It's quite difficult to conduct meaningful
dialogue with someone who just drops by to say "You're all screwed"
instead of merely addressing a reply or a statement within a
reply.
We know from experience that a person who drops by to say that
the file is screwed is not going to be happy whether we say,
"Oh, gee, I'm soooo sorry you feel that way" or "Go jump."
So there is very little incentive for us to sit here and accept
attacks that consist of "wildly inaccurate generalizations."
It just becomes another part of the vast amount of bullsh*t
that we are asked to swallow in our culture (and some of us
are less enthusiastic about swallowing that stuff in our
OWN file.)
It is easier to have a dialogue with women in this conference
when one approaches the file with a degree of sensitivity and
common respect.
Suzanne...
|
| 479.101 | Still feel the same way about Lee's original note... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Sep 29 1987 08:26 | 7 |
|
P.S. BTW, I *still* fail to find anything wrong with Lee's
original note. I think she explained things quite well and
one would have to go some distance to misinterpret her
intentions.
|
| 479.104 | and its not a full moon.... | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth | Tue Sep 29 1987 18:55 | 27 |
|
Lorna,
I perfer to change the males position whenever possible. : ^))
Seriously,
One of the most important things that males in this
conference can do for themselves and for us is to
LEARN TO LISTEN (read)
to what is being said (typed). This is what has caused more
misunderstandings.
Oh, yes - There are males in this conference who do listen
and they do it very well.
_peggy
(-)
| Talking, talking, talking
listen to the words
and you will begin to understand
what it is that we are saying.
|
| 479.105 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Wed Sep 30 1987 09:34 | 10 |
| Indeed, as several women have remarked, there are many men in our
community who *do* listen and *are* *listened* *to* in return because
of that fact.
(And at least a couple of them are living proof that men don't need
to sign up for "the feminist agenda" to be welcomed and heard here.)
(Oy vey are they living proof!! ;')
=maggie
|
| 479.106 | OK! I'll shutup. | MSDOA2::CUNNINGHAM | | Wed Sep 30 1987 14:48 | 30 |
| re: -.104
Believe it or not, there are a lot of male readers out here
who do try to do just that, shut up and listen. We try to keep
this a space for predominately female voices and opinions. I may
not agree with everything I read, but so what? I rarely do anywhere.
If I have an overpowering need to express myself, I try to keep
that to mennotes.
I would ask the contributors of this file to remember that when
men such as Jim B. comment on something that upset them in this
file, they are the vocal ones, not the only ones who are upset,
and for their opinions to be seen as somewhat representative of
many of us. I found Lee's note to be upsetting as well, (especially
when it was moved to 1.28 as representative of the conference.)
My reasons are many of the ones that have already been pointed out,
is it necessary for every reader that is upset to chime in with
"me too" for it to become obvious that her note upset many of us?
Is your response to this that we are all just crazy and unable to
read, and therefore who care? OK. I understand. I know now what
our opinion is worth. We should keep it to ourselves.
Maggie, your comments have often chimed in and given me heart.
I appreciate them, and I mean that sincerely. I don't agree though
that it is not necessary to sign up for the feminist agenda in order
to be "welcomed" and "heard". After all the highest complement
I can hope to achieve in this file is to be considered an "honorary
woman".
David
(DRC)
|
| 479.107 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Wed Sep 30 1987 15:54 | 27 |
| <--(.106)
David, I (we) do indeed know that the vast majority of men members
("male members" would be more grammatical, but it sounds too much like
a risqu� pun ;') "try to keep this a space for predominately female
voices and opinions". And we appreciate it, too (though my personal
opinion is that our file would be a poorer place if none of our
Brothers spoke). No, it isn't necessary for anyone to regularly me-too
this or that position; we do understand that the men who speak up are
speaking for many other men, just as the women are speaking for many
other women. One voice almost always speaks for many hearts, no matter
what is being said.
But if you feel you need to speak out personally, *please* do so. And
understand that even if we then roast you to a crisp, we'd still hug
you in person because you are our Brother; you are Family.
No, people really don't have to sign up for the "feminist agenda",
David. Honest. One needn't even be willing to take the verbal heat...
though we all lose whenever someone walks out instead.
And I would urge all the men who, like David, feel devalued by Lee's
"honorary woman" phrase to reflect for awhile on how devalued women
have felt to have the supreme accolade for women in business be "You
think just like a man"!
=maggie
|
| 479.108 | (Note hidden by author) | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Thu Oct 01 1987 01:45 | 63 |
| I get terribly confused every time I read this topic.
I keep finding myself held up as one of the men who are welcomed
and then someone, often the same person, says that you have to
buy the feminist agenda to be welcomed here. It makes me wonder
if anyone was listening to what I had to say when I defended
calling the dear things girls, or to not buying the argument
that there is no moral isssue involved in homosexuality or
argued that saying "no male legislator would voluntarily reduce
male control of women" is bigotry, or any of a number of the
areas where I question the feminist party line.
It seems to me that I regularly take stands in this file which
open me to a fair amount of heat from the women. I know that I
at times agonize whether something is too inflamatory to say
here, and find myself saying "Damn the torpedoes! Someone has to
say it." I try to say it with respect and gently, without
casting blame (except for what I see as blatant feminist
bigotry). At times it is accepted and at times I get opposed
quite vigorously.
I find this file to be one of the most supportive on the net,
even for men, and even for men who don't buy the party line. I
feel great affection for a large number of people I know only as
nodename/username pairs in this file. I feel as safe as I
possibly can when talking about painful things here--things like
being beaten up or sexually assaulted--things like the ways that
I have been perceived as a sexist or as harrassing when that
wasn't my intent. I really feel I could turn to most ofthe
members of this file for help if I needed it.
I'm also confused when people whom I admire and respect say that
it's OK for women to say things that are hurtful to men because
men have "traditionally" said things that were hurtful to women.
These same people seem to claim at other times that what we need
to do is become more considerate of each other and view each
other first as people and then as members of a sex.
I really expect that rather than say "Well if that made you feel
bad just think how bad women have felt in the past", and "I see
nothing wrong with that note" they would say "Gee, now that you
point that out, I can see how that's like the things that we
find hurts so much--terribly sorry. Hope we can both learn from
this."
I read notes by women that look conciliatory to me and men bow
out because they can't stand the fighting. I see men trying to
explain that they didn't mean it the way it was taken and women
pouncing to prove that what the men said was offensive. I see
men arguing that even though they know what a women was trying
to say the way she said it could be missinterpretted, and then
find that the way they said *that* could be misinterpretted as
an attack. Ms. X doesn't like the way Mr. Y conveyed the way
he didn't like the way Ms. Z conveyed what he knew she meant.
Huh?
People complement me on how articulately I said something and
then make it quite clear that they think I said something I was
trying very hard not to. Something there doesn't figure.
I get terribly confused every time I read this topic.
JimB.
|
| 479.109 | Come meet us! | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Fri Oct 02 1987 18:43 | 16 |
| To all of the men who feel criticized or hurt or harassed in
this conference - I think you would find something very different
if you would come to a party and meet us.
I see the names of the men here who have been held up as "examples"
in what caring, considerate men can have to say to us. Almost without
exception, those are the same men that come to meet us at the parties
and gatherings we've had.
Are we more tolerant of them because we know them personally? Are
they more considerate and less quick to jump on us because they
know us personally? I tend to think it's a little bit of both.
Is it time for another party yet? We could sure use one.
-Ellen
|
| 479.111 | party? need a place | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Fri Oct 02 1987 20:06 | 3 |
| Ellen I tried to get another party going but noone was willing
to offer a place to hold it.....I astill willing to do the
organizing if someone offers a house. :-)
|
| 479.112 | Nomex ??? Puh !~!! | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Mon Oct 05 1987 16:29 | 5 |
|
I beleave a three layer Kevlar suit would be more in order
for some of us.
B
|
| 479.113 | Kevlar won't help | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Mon Oct 05 1987 16:50 | 3 |
| We use full Teflon jackets, Bob. ;')
=maggie
|
| 479.114 | But, if you're careful... | MAY20::MINOW | Je suis Marxiste, tendence Groucho | Mon Oct 05 1987 17:01 | 4 |
| I've never seen the need for anything more than latex. Lubricated,
of course.
Martin.
|
| 479.115 | | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Tue Oct 06 1987 11:34 | 9 |
| re .114:
I don't like the implication.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 479.117 | Incominnnnng! | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Tue Oct 06 1987 13:13 | 2 |
| Rathole Alert! Rathole Alert!
=maggie
|
| 479.118 | A later response. | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Tue Oct 06 1987 14:21 | 28 |
| I revisited 479 today as a reaction to another note and was
confused as to why I had not reseponded since the first about 100
responses caused my blood pressure to rise. The last few notes
reminded me why I chose not to respond - an interesting discussion
(some of the note responses were interesting to me - *some*)
degenerated to a level of silliness which I find boring.
But, the rereading has resulted in my responding. 479.* is
an excellent example of what can be wrong and *bad* about notes.
So many responses were little more than attacks on specific words
and sentences rather than responses to what various authors wrote.
Choosing a word or sentance or paragraph out of a note to disect
in an effort to "prove" some implied intent on the part of the author
is ignorant and self serving. I might suggest, however, offering
note responses which are too long invite misunderstanding. After
all, most of us must reread detailed, complex arguements in order
to understand them. A quick read through often results in
misconception.
Joseph Pulitzer wrote:
Put it before them briefly so they will read it, clearly so
they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember
it and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its
light.
Douglas
|
| 479.119 | | VINO::EVANS | | Wed Oct 07 1987 12:49 | 12 |
| RE: 118
Well said, Douglas - I really liked the Pulitzer quote.
Maybe *that* oughta be put in the into note to this conference!
:-)
(And some others I know of....( (yes, it's a preposition. But then,
the sentence hasn't officially ended, yet.) :-)
Dawn
|
| 479.120 | I See! | GUCCI::MHILL | Age of Miracle and Wonder | Wed Oct 07 1987 13:57 | 16 |
| RE: .13 and .118
Another vote for well said, Douglas - I'll use the Pulitzer quote
to set the stage for future presentations.
I also had to reread a large portion of this note to discover what
all the fuss is over. If it is what was said in .13, then those of
us (men) that Flammed did not really read this note. I, as a
represenative of the male gender appreciate being an honorary woman.
The title was ment in the most complementary way. I understand the
difference between "they" and me as an individual member of the male
population. Men "they" and me as an individual have victimized
women. I hope to learn from our my and our past mistakes.
Cheers,
Marty
|
| 479.121 | RE .108 | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Wed Oct 07 1987 23:53 | 30 |
| Well, I've been thinking about it for nearly a week and I've
decided what to do about 479.108. I'm sorry it took me so long
but I was getting a lot conflicting input from folk I value and
there's no way I can make everybody happy on this one. I really
want to but it isn't possible.
One very dear friend whose opinions and feelings I value deeply
is quite offended by two or three things I've said there and
insists that I should delete it or admit that all the values
that I've advocated in regard to Notes are false. At the same
time a small handful of folk who read the note and then saw that
I had hidden it have implored me to unhide it so that it and the
issues it raises can be discussed.
I can't do both.
I've decided to unhide it and to promise in advance not to take
offense at any of the harsh words that it may provoke. I know
that by leaving it in the file I am discomfrting people who are
extremely important to me. I am deeply sorry. I know I am likely
to anger some of the members of the file. I accept and forgive
in advance anything they may say that expresses that anger.
I don't feel I can unhide it without explanation. I will post
that explanation in my next reply. In this one I merely want to
say what my decision was, apologize without making excuses, and
assure anyone who responds harshly that I understand and do not
hold it against them.
JimB.
|
| 479.122 | In explanation | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Thu Oct 08 1987 01:03 | 124 |
| There are, as I understand it, three things in .108 that people
find objectionable. One is relatively minor (I suspect) and I,
too, feel that it was wrong and I would not do it again if I
were starting from scratch. The other two are more serious, but
I meant them; I can't see a more acceptable way of presenting
them without detracting from what I was saying; and I have come
to believe that it is better for me to say them and take the
heat for doing so, than not to.
The clear mistake was comining a flip remark that on its own
would probably not have been misinterpretted with much more
serious statements. The flip remark thus appears serious and
therefore mean spirited. It was bad judgement. I'm sorry.
Specifically, when referencing my defence of more traditional
language I shouldn't have said spoken of the "daer things". Had
the whole note remained light, I could have gotten away with
that kind of tongue in cheek style for emphasis, but combined
with the talk of bigotry it was flat out of place. Sorry.
Now on to the more serious statements. Both regard the use of
the term "bigotry". If you will remember (or may have just gone
and seen) the whole theme of my note is that people have a
tendancy to be sufficiently understanding of me to forget that I
have said, and continue to say things that are very clearly not
your typical feminist stand point. In the two statements in
question I spoke of the times when I have opposed what I felt
were bigotted statements made in the conference.
This is, as I understand it, objectionable to some members of
this conference on two grounds. First it alleges that there is
bigotry in this file, and thus demeans the file and its members.
Second, by giving an example of the kind of statement that I
felt was bigotted, Iit was felt I was singling out one person as
bigotted and thus "speaking badly of someone in a notes file",
which I have often spoken out against.
Let me see if I can clarify my view on the occurance of
statements that I feel reflect bigotry in this file. First of
all, I make no bones about it. I do believe I have seen bigotted
statements by both men and women about both men and women (and
not solely of the opposite sex) and about others on non-sexual
grounds in this file. Let me, if you will, add immediately that
I do not hold the people who have made these satements to be
therefore bigots.
Each of us in this society has experienced bigotry, and each of
us is its victim. We are the victims when it is directed at us,
and when we either unthinkingly or even intentionally propagate
it. I have a hard time beliving that there is any member of this
conference who hasn't at one time or another experienced the
"click" of realizing that some view we held was rooted not in
fact but in prejudice. If there is such a person hear, it is far
more likely that they have never realized it, rather than that
they have never been prejudiced.
This is not a very prejudiced file, far the opposite. In this
file we have repeatedly dragged prejudice, sexism and bigotry
out into the open, decried it and with luck foresworn it.
While I was trying to figure out if my allegation that I had
seen bigotry in the file unfairly defamed the file, I extracted
every note containing the string "bigot". I found quite a
surprising number of them. Some, including my own, specificly
pointed at a note and took serious issue with it. Others decried
it in general or ascribed it to our society as a whole. Perhaps
not too surprisingly, the two folk who used the term most often
were Lee and myself. We neither of us believe in pulling our
punches and both very fervently want to see bigotry driven out
of our society.
That we can talk about bigotry is a real strength of this
conference. It's a hard thing to live with and a hard thing to
get rid of. It won't go away by wishing or hoping. It won't go
away because we ignore it. It certaily won't go away if we just
turn it around and use it in reverse. Bigotry exists less in
this conference than in the vast majority, and yet it is talked
about more. I believe that there is a reason for this.
As to the objection that I cited a specific sort of statement as
bogotted and that a fairly similar statement was made by a
memeber of this file, I have this to say. I did, in fact, have a
specific discussion in mind, and a specific set of statements
made by a specific person. I was not, however, singling out that
person as a bigot.
In fact, I don't believe that the person *is* a bigot. Some of
their statements do, I feel, reflect a more blatant bigotry, an
a greater excess of zealous rhetoric than most of the members of
this file, but I believe that the problem is that they have been
sold a bill of goods, that they have been taken in by
stereotypes of our society. This person isn't a source of
bigotry. They are merely someone who has been its victim, a very
eloquent and angry or cynical person who more clearly exposes
the undercurrent of bigotry in our culture than many others.
I decided to acceed to the requests to unhide my note rather
than to the request to delete it because I feel that is
important to assert that this is a file in which hard issues are
faced, in which people of extremely good character take chances
and speak honestly and take the responsibility for what they
think, feel and believe.
I may be wrong in my views. What I feel is an example of bigotry
may not be. The strength of this file is that it allows me to
say my piece and then has the honesty and courage to tell me I'm
wrong. In this file I can talk about being a victim of sexual or
racial assault, and how that feels. In this file I can say that
I have reservations about homosexual behavior. I can ask
questions and air opinions. And if I do so with some amount of
respect and open-mindedness, I am told that I am wrong with
respect and honesty (and considerable firmness).
If the discussions become heated, affection and respect and
trust and a willingness for both sides to work it out often win
out. This file reflects many of the virtues of a good marriage.
The vast majority of the members bring love, trust and
commitment to the file. It is hard work, but it is worth it.
I am terribly sorry that what I said or how I said it hurt
anyone. Having done that, I'd rather examine the hurt and the
cause, and take the criticism for having done it than try to
pretend it didn't happen, or hide it.
JimB.
|
| 479.123 | Moderator Response | COLORS::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Thu Oct 08 1987 07:10 | 3 |
| Thank you, Jim. And welcome back.
=maggie
|
| 479.124 | | COLORS::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Thu Oct 08 1987 07:26 | 7 |
| ...and while I'm here, let me be the first to get in the boot ;')
I would argue that the case you cited as bigotry would be more
charitably ...and accurately... characterised as hyperbole or
rhetorical excess. And I'm surprised that you didn't do so.
=maggie
|
| 479.126 | We are a model... | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | AAY-UH | Thu Oct 08 1987 08:03 | 29 |
| I hope I can express what I say here well...for what I am going
to say reflects just that the ability to say things well. JimB
has the ability to say things well....and if I were to summarize
.108 it is my perception that he said....
I say things well so therefore I am a welcome member of
the community.
There are three men who respond to this conference that do not say
things well...but I know these men personally. They are good men
who have ideas that I am not always in agreement with. All of them
seem to be reflecting thoughts based on their perceptions and their
experience which make those thoughts as valid as ours. Sometimes
I think they should take the thoughts to Mennotes, sometimes I wish
they wouldn't appear so vulnerable on the screen (because I like
them and I want you to like them).
But I cringe inside when we as a community attack anyone as a person
(and my male friends that I have mentioned have done that also).
If we as a community could address issues instead of attacking
individuals we could prove that the larger community could have
peace. Peace has always seemed so simple...but as I read this
conference I wonder how simple it is.
Thanks JimB for your thoughts...I don't always agree with your ideas
but I like the way you say it.
Joyce
|
| 479.127 | I'm sitting here in shock and disbelief... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Oct 08 1987 08:58 | 17 |
| RE: .122
JimB.,
Interesting. You have insulted an identifiable member of this
community and everyone is thanking you. How nice.
You say that she got her views by being FOOLED ("sold a bill
of goods") and TAKEN IN (by what, I don't know.) And, of
course, she is a victim. Well, hell, that would screw up
ANYONE's head! No *wonder* her words include such blatant
bigotry, according to you.
Do you think that all feminists got their politics by being
fooled (or all women in general)?
Suzanne...
|
| 479.128 | Anger <> Bigotry | PSYCHE::SULLIVAN | October 11, 1987.. | Thu Oct 08 1987 09:59 | 32 |
|
I don't think that an expression of anger or even an exaggerated
statement of anger is the same thing as bigotry. It's a very effective
tactic to turn around and accuse your opponents of that which you
have been accused. But I don't think it's very fair.
Bigotry is judging a person or persons harshly simply
because of their membership in a group of which you don't
approve.
Anger is an emotional response to an actual (or perceived)
wrong.
An exaggerated statement of anger is an emotional response to
an actual (or perceived wrong) and includes a statement which
may stretch the truth. Like saying, for example: All men beat
their wives.
So is there really a difference between these three things? I think
so. If someone is angry, you *can* deal with it. For example, you can
try to find out why the person's angry, and you can either take steps
to correct what is wrong OR you can explain why you disagree with
the angry person's assessment. If someone is a bigot, there's not
a whole lot you can do except expose their bigotry. If someone
can look you in the eye and say, "I believe in my heart that xyz
group is intellectually or morally inferior to *my* group," what can
you say in response to that? How can you argue? I think we should
be a little more careful how we throw terms like bigot around.
If the anger is legitimate, you may be able to argue about the extent
to which it gets expressed, but you cannot call it bigotry.
Justine
|
| 479.129 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Oct 08 1987 10:44 | 21 |
| RE: .128
Thanks, Justine -- I agree completely. Calling "the person's"
words bigotry (PLUS saying that she only says them because she
was DUPED) is a *very* effective tactic to use against one's
opponent. It has the benefit of condemning the opponent's
argument as both morally wrong and foolish.
Combine that with some very condescending statements about how
one pities the person for her status as victim (and do not wish
to hurt her feelings) and you have, in effect, an argument that
says the opponent is morally wrong, foolish and defenseless.
That is one of the ways that minorities are kept "in their
place" (if one is willing to fall for such a tactic.)
It is *EXACTLY* this sort of condescending, judgmental attitude
toward women that is STILL a problem for us in the real world
(and is one of the things that makes some women so angry.)
Suzanne...
|
| 479.130 | Response from the "bigot" in question | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Thu Oct 08 1987 11:20 | 131 |
| >I have this to say. I did, in fact, have a specific discussion
>in mind, and a specific set of statements made by a specific
>person. I was not, however, singling out that person as a bigot.
This sounds like "I'm going to insult you now but I don't want you
to think of this as an insult". C'mon, Jim, take some responsi-
bility for your words. If you have a "specific discussion", a
"specific set of statements" and a "specific person" in mind when
you use the term bigot, you have singled out someone whether you
want us to realize it or not.
>...excess of zealous rhetoric
That could describe a lot of YOUR notes.
>but I believe that the problem is that they have been sold a bill
>of goods, that they have been taken in by stereotypes of our society.
That's sure no reason to call someone a bigot. Don't you feel sorry
for me then in your oh-so-generous way if you really think I'm a duped
victim? I thought you were so open-minded - so fair - so egalitarian.
>I may be wrong in my views. What I feel is an example of bigotry
>may not be.
Perhaps you'd better give this line a little more thought then
before you begin name calling EVEN if you insist your name calling
really isn't name calling.
>and then has the honesty and courage to tell me I'm wrong.
It takes neither honesty nor courage to tell you or anyone else
you're wrong. Do you think we're all listening wide-eyed and
only the most "courageous" among us has the nerve to disagree
with you? Get real.
>And if I do so with some amount of respect and open-mindedness,
You do so with a good smokescreen of respect and open-mindedness.
You pad your insults with sugar, "I'm not angry but I just feel pain
for you..." is how you defended yourself against one woman you
angered. This is pure condescention and it's a further insult
that you actually believe that you can just TELL us you're not
really being insulting or condescending and then have your merry
way with your own eloquence. I've hesitated addressing you direct-
ly in the past, (because we are worlds apart), but since you singled
me out for insults, (like it or not Jim, you did), I guess I have
a little room here to single you out too.
>If the discussions become heated, affection and respect and
>trust and a willingness for both sides to work it out often win
>out.
Again this is more claptrap designed to make us all think your in-
tentions in this file are only the best. Your notes suggest other-
wise therefore the words above are empty.
But the good new is, Jim, that I don't take you seriously anyway.
I got a phone call telling me about this note and I really just
had to laugh.
>It seems to me that I regularly take stands in this file which
>open me to a fair amount of heat from the women.
What you want us to read here is that you get flamed simply for
taking stands. The truth is that some of the stands you take are
inflammatory even though you pepper them with disclaimers.
>I know that I at times agonize whether something is too inflamatory
>to say here, and find myself saying "Damn the torpedoes! Someone has
>to say it."
And Jim saw that it was good. Let some woman, (me for instance),
have such a "Damn the torpedoes" attitude and she will be called
bigoted, duped, a victim. Good for you, Jim. You just say what
needs to be said and we'll listen and only engage in lighter
chatter. We'll leave the heavy stuff to you.
>I try to say it with respect and gently, without casting blame
>(except for what I see as blatant feminist bigotry).
Then you can't say "without casting blame". You can say, "I monitor
these women's words and when I deem them blatant feminist bigotry
I have a right, nay a DUTY to expose them".
>I feel as safe as I possibly can when talking about ... things like
>the ways that I have been perceived as a sexist or as harrassing
>when that wasn't my intent.
You poor, persecuted thing and all you want to do is learn! How
can women be so callous as to ignore your INTENT and respond only
to the sound of your words? If you are perceived as sexist then
you may as well be, regardless of your intent. The road to hell
is paved with good intentions.
>I really expect that rather than say "Well if that made you feel
>bad just think how bad women have felt in the past", and "I see
>nothing wrong with that note" they would say "Gee, now that you
>point that out, I can see how that's like the things that we
>find hurts so much--terribly sorry. Hope we can both learn from
>this."
Yes, Jim, we'd all like to throw out our pearls of wisdom and
have everyone looking wide-eyed at us as if we've found the answer
to world hunger. If people are taking exception to your words why
do you just assume there's something wrong with them and/or the file
environment? Why not address the issues? You really sound like
you're sulking that here you are trying to do your best and re-
spectfully point out bigotry, closed-mindedness and cynicism, (which
you identify by the acceptance or rejection of your notes), and
women actually have the GAUL to not just say, "Gee, now that you
point that out..." That's what sexist men like to hear from women
and you're not that way, are you? It doesn't matter that that's
what you want to hear too, does it? Because you're only sexist if
YOU say you're sexist.
Let's just kill this debate from here. I'm not insulted by your
names, I'm not hurt nor do I think you've done me any irreparable
social or career damage. You've pissed off some other women in
this file but I just don't take it all that seriously.
There really is no WAY to screen out every single "nasty" word in a
forum that is accessed and addressed by people the world over. Just
saying, "AHA! - I FOUND one!" doesn't prove anything but that
there are all kinds of people in the world with all kinds of ideas.
The law of averages says there's going to be some "bad" words used
here sooner or later. People who just police the file looking to
catch people are playing in the minor leagues and probably don't
really understand the weightier issues anyway.
And in closing may I quote the great Ashley Roachclip...
|
| 479.131 | I've been here before... | VCQUAL::THOMPSON | Noter at large | Thu Oct 08 1987 12:43 | 8 |
| Wow, Deja Vu! I've seen this whole argument before. Wow,
only the sides have changed. Before it was men defending
how they interpreted women's *words* to be attacks against
men. Now we've got women defending how they interpreted a
man's *words* to be attacks against women. Is this progress
or what?
Alfred
|
| 479.132 | P A R T Y ! ! ! ! ! | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Oct 08 1987 12:49 | 11 |
| RE: .131
You betcha!! :)
Life in notes is like watching time-lapsed photography.
God, I love it here!! WHEN IS THIS PARTY?? Now I *gotta*
go (even if I have to parachute out over Liz' house.)
Suzanne...
|
| 479.133 | This generosity I don't need | SHIRE::BIZE | | Thu Oct 08 1987 12:54 | 8 |
| I'd like to mention that I agree with the last three notes and say
that I was flabbergasted by the incredible condescension shown by
Jim in his latest note.
It sounds like an excess of zealous rhetoric in a Sunday morning
sermon. The display of generosity is a bit hard to swallow.
Joana
|
| 479.134 | I could say more but for what purpose? | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | AAY-UH | Thu Oct 08 1987 13:39 | 34 |
| .108
* I get terrible confused every time I read this topic.
* I keep finding myself held up as one of the men who are welcomed
* and then someone, often the same person, says that you have
* to buy the feminist agenda to be welcomed here. It makes me
* wonder if anyone was listening to what I had to say when I.......
Is this the first time we have listened to the author's ideas,
philosophies and thoughts? If it is then there has been an important
point made in reply .108.
Ideas, thoughts and philosophies belong to people. I can like the
people but not the expression. If Notes were set up to show the
text first and the header last I expect that something good might happen.
We would read with less prejudice. Not knowing the author
would allow us to focus on the words not the personality.
I have made a personal decision that I intend to follow in noting.
I will *never* again refer to an individual by name in a conference
and I would appreciate it if my name is never mentioned. This
philosophy if adopted by a substantial number of people would improve
communication and the substance of the conference a great deal.
In my humble opinion we have proven the thought in .108 that up
to the point of this note this author was respected for his prose,
stature in the community and noting style. We were not paying any
attention to his ideas, philosophies or thoughts, because the author
has made similiar remarks throughout the conference and never been
subject to the name-calling that has occurred this morning.
|
| 479.136 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Thu Oct 08 1987 13:59 | 57 |
| Well, a light bulb of possible understanding of Sandy went off in
my mind at a h_r note.
Jim, I don't think Sandy's more, hmm, heated statements are bigotted.
Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but I think her statements reflect
a balanced viewpoint and brutal honesty. For ex the comment about
males not willing to legislate away their power. Seems to me that
if I were in a position of power, _I_ would not willing give that
away unless I saw some way I could gain by it. Seems to me that
Sandy made a similar comparison of what _she_ would do in that
position.
It may have _seemed_ like bigotry (to a certain extent, it did to
me), but right now I don't see it.
I also don't see it much coming from _any_ of the members of this
file. What I see sometimes is a belief that "people" will act only
in their own self-interest, damn the consequences to others. This
is a belief with which I do not agree, that's all.
On another issue:
I think if you knew Jim a bit better, you might be a bit less ready
to scream at him for a condescending attitude.
For example, I think his opinions of homosexuality are dead wrong. I
disagree with him vehemently. I see that as an example of prejudice,
judgementalism, plain stupidity, etc, in him. I am more than a little
firm in my disagreement with him. He is aware of this, my conviction
that there is a part of him which is fundamentally and morally wrong.
I do _not_ think he is a rotton person for feeling this way, just,
er, stupid in one spot. He does not resent my "condescending
attitude" towards him. We are separate people, with separate opinions
and outlooks on life. We differ on many issues. With many of those
differing attitudes, we are each willing to hear the other's point
of view and examine ourselves to see whether that changes our opinions.
Sometimes we convince each other, and sometimes we do not. When
we do not convince each other, we simply say what we believe and
why, then agree to disagree. That does not mean that I may not
be furious still at the stupid blindness of the view he holds; I
simply know that we have reached an impasse. If we reach too many
impasses, then we cannot be friends because we are just too different.
The point of this is that while it FEELS like condescention coming
from his mouth (fingers?) sometimes, I think he is simply trying
to say what he feels (even when he disagrees) without making it
impossible for us to be civilized. You don't HAVE to like him or
his words; I don't think he is looking to be adored or worshipped.
Friendship, however distant, is *nice* when it results from such
a correspondence, but it by no means necessary. Nor is enmity,
and I think he simply wants to say his piece, maybe discuss it,
maybe heatedly, in a civilized fashion which will provoke thought
or distaste rather than anger.
Lee
|
| 479.137 | Like I said, P A R T Y ! ! ! | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Oct 08 1987 14:00 | 11 |
| RE: .135
Oh, be honest Iggles!! *YOU* will be there with bells on
(whether you are willing to admit it NOW or not!)
Anyway, who is talking about a phone call.
~~S~~ Where_do_Eagles_attach_bells_when_they_wear_their_party_
_feathers_?__Egads_never_mind_I_don't_want_to_know_! :)
|
| 479.138 | A pervasive problem that even I suffer of | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Fri Oct 09 1987 00:25 | 123 |
| Bless you, Lee, (and may I be forgiven by other noters for
speaking of an individual in the conference) you have not only
seen my point regarding how we express ourselves, but you have
also helped me to clarify some thoughts I've had in the last few
days regarding what I have perceieved as bigotry in this
conference and others.
On the point of bigotry, I am coming to feel that I was quite
likely wrong in my interpretation of some of the statements made
here. I still think that there is an element of prejudice in the
statements themselves, but what I was hearing as bitterness or
anger or even hatred seems to me now something more benign and
common. There is a strong assumption that all men are the same
or all legislators or all whites or all people in power or
whatever, but I think that the vehemence is as you suggest more
motivated by brutal honesty than the bitterness I thought I
heard. This interpretation has been coming to me for a while
now, but you have helped to jell it.
Sandy, again let me apologize for any offense I have given you.
Just as Lee strongly disagrees with me on some subjects and will
tell me so quite clearly without meaning any offense to me, so
do I disagree very strongly with you without thinking badly of
you as a person. I find some of the things I hear you say (which
I am willing to admit may not be what you intended to say) to be
absolutely dreadful. None-the-less, I feel no animosity towards
you nor wish you any offense. To me, at least, there is a
difference between a person and their notions or statements.
The major bone I have to pick wth you is that you often claim to
know how men think, what motivates them, and what they are
after. Assuming that men as men think, feel or are motivated in
one way, or that women, blacks, WC4s, homosexuals or anyone as a
class does is, I am convinced, just plain wrong--both in the
sense that it is incorrect and in the sense that it a bad thing
to do. When we think of people as a class, when we decide that
because we understand some members of a class we understand them
all, we are misled and we do them a great disservice.
Your views on men are both on the one hand unflattering and on
the other hand so unlike the way I view myself and many men that
it seems that such a view could be based only on anger or
bitterness. But as I tried to write about my earlier note in
which I spoke out against the prejudice and stereotyping that I
saw in your notes, and then as I read your note in H-R, and as I
read what Lee said, I have begun to think that I misread your
notes. I still think you are wrong and I disagree with you
heartily, but I view it somewhat differently.
It seems to me that both you and the men you associated with and
identified with (as you mentioned in your H-R note) are
extremely different from me and from what I see as the norm (of
course I don't view myself as "abnormal", right). What I wish I
could convey to you is that the converse is true, that many men
are very different from what you have adopted as your image of
men. Your projections of your own point of view is extremely
alien to many of us who are men.
A point that I've had an extremely hard time making in H-R,
Philosophy and other conferences is that some people are not
motivated primarily by self-interest or gain. Several people
with whom I've debated have insisted that they new better--
everyone is motivated by self-interest at the heart. While that
may be true of many, I maintain that there is much more
diversity amongs human beings.
Lee has said that if she were in a position of power she would
not willingly give it away without being able to see some way to
gain from it. She suggests that you are similar to her and have
projected your own view on men as a class. Myself, I don't find
power or wealth, which is quite a related vlaue, very attractive.
I don't like being powerless, controlled by others, but beyond
wishing not to be controlled, I have no strong desire to
control. When in a position of power, I often delegate that
power to others. Power, once you have a modicum of it over your
own life, can be quite a nuisance.
The point of talking about my view on power is not to toot my
own horn or to disparage those who value power. I merely wish to
say that Lee as she describes herself, and I are extremely
different. That in turn is intended only to illustrate my point
that we all are different. It is to illustrate that knowing that
I am human or male or white or whatever is not to know much of
anything about what I feel, what motivates me or what I would
do.
This gets around eventually to the point that someone made in
paraphrase of my .108 to the effect that I am well received
because I express myself well. Because we often assume that
everyone is like us, when we see someone who is articulate or
intelligent or of good character or logical or "reasonable" in
some manner we assume that they must agree with us. It is hard
for us to believe that well-meaning intelligent people who are
aware of the facts could possibly disagree with us. Only someone
stupid or bad could fail to see the point.
But in reality people ARE very different and just because they
are pleasant or inteligent or well spoken doesn't mean that they
will feel like us or agree with our views.
This problem is I feel at the root of a lot of what goes on in
this topic. People often assume that all of the women here have
the same beliefs or that those who are welcomed here all agree,
when they don't and we don't. I feel that many of the
categorizations of men or of women here are bigotted or at least
prejudiced because they assume that all men or all women are the
same. At the same time, *I* tend to hear anger or bigotry in
views that I have a hard time understanding because the folk
putting them forth are so very different from me that I have a
hard time seeing from their point of view.
This assumption that all people are alike or all men are alike
or all WomanNoters are alike, and the corelate that anyone good
and clever must agree with us when presented with the same facts
is the main problem I have been trying to address in the various
notes I have posted here. Related to that is my assertion that
to be critical of the view or statement is not necessarily to be
critical of the person who holds or makes it.
I'm sorry if I have presented it badly or in an offensive
manner. That is most assuredly not my intention.
JimB.
|
| 479.139 | a fine kettle of misunderstanding! | YODA::BARANSKI | Law?!? Hell! Give me *Justice*! | Wed Oct 14 1987 16:55 | 23 |
| Well, I've read it all, a fine kettle of misunderstanding...
I have to say that I support the point which Bob Barber was trying to make; that
the words used objectively can be read as 'condemning' men as a group. I don't
feel that he twisted either the words, *or* the meaning; He understaood the
meaning. It is not just *one* example of a complete sentence which can be read
as condemning men, it is at least a dozen. I think that there is something
wrong about a writing style where a dozen sentences can be taken '''out of
context''' to mean the opposite of what the note is supposed to be saying.
I also support JimB (not me :-)), that it is a bad thing that this is not
realized. I also have to say that I respect Lee, and her writing quite a bit.
In case anybody is curious, I am looking at every occurance of "all men", "all
women", "no men", and "on women", and other absolutes in this file. (I wish I
didn't *have* to use notes!) So far, I have found very few dammnable uses of
the phrases. There are a ***lot*** of instances of these phrases in arguments,
saying such and such is an insult, but the phrases are never used as insults.
*I* would encourage *every*one to *all* ways use 'some' qualifiers in *all*
their notes. :-}
Jim.
|