Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Alfred,
    
    To be entirely honest, I can't answer your question. I like men....
    I love my husband, and I love my sons, and I enjoy the friendships
    that I have with men, in fact what I really mean to say is that
    I like *people* I like to hear their stories, and I like to get
    to know them and understand them.
    
    My feelings are not as intense as some of the women in this file
    however. Infact I would supppose that there are some women who
    would think I am an appeaser, someone who backs down in the face
    of male anger and upset and tries to make "them" feel better.
    
    What I think I am trying to do is to help people on both sides
    understand where the others are coming from....I only wish I could
    do it better. :-}.
    
    Many years ago I started reading Ms Magazine at work and for the
    first time became aware that women were indeed discriminated against.
    (up until that time I hadn't really been aware of discrimination
    against women pre se...having succeeded in the area that I chose
    to compete in...that of academics...I tended to dislike women and
    like to talk to bright men...going to a women's college just expanded
    that circle to liking to get to know and talk to interesting people
    of all sexes and background.) When I first realized that these things
    were really happening not by accident but because people chose to
    act this way it made me very angry (I remember feeling the same
    way about how some Whites treated Blacks a little earlier.) So what
    I did was to go home and yell at my (very much loved) husband about
    all of this.  Until finally he blew up and said "Bonnie, it wasn't
    me!"
    
    and this is important for all of us to remember....that the men
    who write here are our brothers, they come into this file because
    it is where you find the most intelligent and articulate women
    in notes (as I was told by a man this past week). and we may be
    tempted to want to create an enemy....just to have someone to yell
    at...as I was years ago....and since we don't all know each other
    in person it is easier to do that....but we have also to learn
    how to separate the anger against what is and has happened to us
    from our reactions against particular men....and that is not always
    easy to do.
    
    Personnally I'd like to give a lot of the  people
    in this file a big hug, and tell them how special they are...
    
    and continue to encourage all of us to work towards better
    understanding
    
    
    peace
    
    Bonnie

    
    	My personal feeling is that too much is made of the fact that
    	men and women tend to argue in this conference.
    
    	It is normal and natural (at least in OUR culture) for people
    	to get into fiercely heated debates when talking about politics
    	and religion (among other subjects.)
    
    	Why should everyone be so surprised and upset to see men and
    	*WOMEN* in heated debates *HERE*?
    
    	Perhaps it is because women are so strongly discouraged from
    	engaging in such heated discussions with members of the opposite
    	sex out in the real world.  (As a result, most men have rarely
    	if ever seen women, who are NOT part of their own families,
    	cut loose and really get into a HEATED ARGUMENT IN A PUBLIC
    	PLACE LIKE AN OPEN CONFERENCE.)  

    	Women are PEOPLE (and tend to use strong language when the
    	discussion gets heated.)  I don't see why that should be so
    	surprising.
    
    							Suzanne...

    Well Suzanne, I do know that at least one man of my acquaintance
    told me that men log on to womannotes because there are intelligent
    and articulate women here...
    
    Bonnie

    	RE:  .5
    
    	Intelligent and articulate women *CAN* get into intelligent
    	and articulate (but *VERY HEATED*) debates.
    
    	It's NORMAL for *some* people to argue about certain types
    	of issues (like politics.)  Intelligent and articulate MEN
    	do that sort of thing, too.
    
    							Suzanne...

    Ah, Alfred, good question.
    
    I seem to have gotten a lot of noters' backs up, male and female,
    but mostly male.  In an attempt to communicate the VERY complex
    emotions which arise from believing sexism was a thing of the past
    and finding that this is not true, I seem to have helped chase away
    and/or taken aback many of the good guys.
    
    This is a real downer, extremely depressing, and makes me wonder
    whether that adolescent suspicion had a bit of truth to it: I _am_
    from Mars, and only the very few other Martians stranded here can
    understand my mind, which is entirely alien to all you Earthlings.
    
    This is, however, quite unlikely.   :)
    
    Failure to understand/believe that I/we don't hate men could stem
    from a number of things.  Some of the following may seem to be callous
    presumption on my part, but remember that I know few of the
    contributors to this file at all, and so am left to extraplatiom.
    
    1)  Some may have been pretty badly burnt by women.  Maybe their
    wife/lover walked out on them recently.  Maybe they are at a point
    where women seem to have unanimously decided that this man is not
    attractive... they cannot FIND a wife/lover and rather than believe
    that they themselves are entirely repulsive (unlikely) or that they
    are not presently as ready/capable of sustaining such a relationship,
    they choose to believe subconsciously that there is a conspiracy,
    that in their hearts, women DO hate all men and conspire to leave
    them without someone to love.
    
    The anger from such a rejection is pretty intense (having both
    witnessed it in others, and gone through it myself).  When you are
    lonely, lusting, bruised, longing, it is very difficult to remember
    or to BELIEVE that you are in a time where you need to be alone.
    You long for something, yet sabotage it whenever it becomes available.
    
    Whether it is an immediate rejection by an individual, or a general
    imposed solitude, I think one reaction which is hard to quell is
    to paint all "potential_love_objects" with your anger.  The first
    time I went through this, I went out and broke a couple hearts.
    "Serves 'em right, those fools", I thought.  The next time I just
    got mad.  The aftermath of the "rotton Lee" episode was pretty horrible
    on my conscience, and I didn't want to do _that_ EVER again.  So
    I just got mad, but worked at not taking it out on ANYbody.  The
    most recent time (I am not sure if I'm coming out of it now, or
    just settling in...) I actually enjoyed the solitude.
    
    Many of the men who seem angriest at me also seem to exhibit a lot
    of the symptoms of my first few trials after being dumped or unable
    to find someone to love.  I try not to take their anger personally,
    as I suspect it is only very indirectly aimed at or caused by me.
    
    I hope it will pass in time, or at least grow less intense.  And
    I thank my lucky stars that I only have to cope with it when I log
    in.
    
    2)  Most of my unfocussed anger is pretty intense, and it is possible
    that in fact it _is_ aimed at all men, and they can see through
    my words to the underlying hatred.  Yes, it is possible that y'all
    are RIGHT (eek!).  I doubt it, especially as you do not know me
    that well, despite the volume of verbiage I pour out on this screen.
    All  can say to ths possibility is that if I hated men as much as
    a few seem to believe, it is highly unlikely that I would fall in
    love with ANY of 'em.  Believe me, I have spent plenty of soul
    searching in the past years, months, weeks, and I really do NOT
    hate man.  Man has a great body, man is intensly loving and caring,
    man is good.  I DO hate, with enormous passion, Macho.  Macho has
    a great body, macho is intensly insecure and needy for reassurance,
    macho makes war, macho is bad, bad, bad.  
    
    So I DO have hate, but I do NOT think it is aimed where I am accused
    of aiming it.  You don't have to be macho to be man, not here, not
    now.
    
    3)  Maybe because they don't know me, and con't see my face/hands
    while I talk.  The tube is notorious for creating misunderstandings.
    
    But I am at a loss as to explain what I have done or said to alienate
    _you_, Alfred.  There is another issue where we disagree pretty
    strongly, but I am not sure that colors ALL of it.  I honestly do
    not understand [you earthling, you :)], and would certainly appreciate
    it if you would explain to me (NOTES, MAIL, phone, next party) what
    the heck I am doing wrong.
    
    Lee
    
    
    Once upon a time in America,
    and to this day in many other cultures, the definition of man HAD
    to include macho.  
    

    Why do *some* men think that women hate them?
    
    Well, from my experience teaching school, living in this society,
    and yes, I think there *has* been a study done in this area.....
    
    Many males, when a problem crops up, tend to look for the problem
    *external* to themselves; many females tend to look *internally*.
    
    The "OK! Who stole my hammer!?" versus "Now where did I leave that
    d*mn hammer?"
    
    I found this to be very common in my teaching experience. When
    corrected, many of the boys would go through a litany of why they
    couldn't do it right - "He pushed me", "The ball's out of air",
    "The goal's in the wrong spot"  , etc. Conversly, many of the girls
    nodded, accepted correction, asked a few more questions in trying
    to get it right, etc.
    
    THis isn't universal, of course, but then I don't think it's universal
    among men that every feminist statement/remark evokes the idea that
    the speaker is a "man-hater".
    
    Dawn
    

    RE: .9
    
    You  may be right in your analysis (tho' isn't "better trained"
    right on the borde of "sociological", if not the same thing?)
    
    What I was trying to say (Oh boy, See Dawn note. Note, Dawn, note.
    See Dawn get herself in trouble. Again. Oh. Oh. Oh.)
    
    .....is that there may be a tendency for men to attribute a negative
    situation to something external, more than might generally be expected.
    Thus, if a man says something on s ubject in this conference, and
    a woman (or women) reply that the statement is sexist, demeans women,
    or gives an example of male involvement in a particular activity
    
    the tendency is to look outward for the problem. IF the man feels
    he did nothing sexist (for example) then the external cause for
    this is that the woman making the statement hates men.
    
    I dunno - maybe this has nothing to do with it at all. Maybe it
    does, but only peripherally. 
    
    Maybe it's merely a matter of the human tendency to get ones-self
    off the hook by attributing some generalized pathology to the
    "opponent". I remember being in one of those back-seat wrestling
    matches with a *gentleman* who would not understand that I was *not*
    interested in the particular activity he had in mind. I literally
    pushed him across the seat, finally. Upon which he said "Hey! What
    is it with you, do you hate men?!"
    
    There couldn't be anything wrong with *him*, right? Therefore, ther
    was some thing wrong with *me*. Maybe it's some kind of
    ego-involvement. Instead of hearing "I don't want to do what you
    want to do" what's heard is "I don't like you, personally". 
    
    But *why*? Back to the original question....hmmmm.....
    
    Dawn
    

      
� ... they can't bring themselves to admit that men as a group of people 
�     allowed this to continue for so long.  

      The  problem  I have with this is that, though I do not doubt that 
      women, both singularly and as a  group,  have  been  discriminated 
      against, and denied certain fundamental rights through the ages, I 
      am also aware that until well into this century the vast  majority 
      of men were discriminated against almost as much.
      
      The  rise  of the Trade Union movement, and the decline of the old 
      class system did much to give men the chance to be upwardly mobile 
      in  society  100 - 50 years ago.  The Women's Movement is doing so 
      for women today.
      
      Remember that though women only recently (comparatively  speaking) 
      achieved  one-woman-one-vote,  universal male suffrage is not that 
      much older (In America, universal white male  suffrage  came  with 
      the founding of the nation, but blacks had to wait until well into 
      this century.   In  Britain  the  property  qualification  was not 
      eliminated  until  the  Reform  Act of the early 19th century.  In 
      local government elections in Northern Ireland it was only removed 
      20 years ago.)
                                                           
      If  you  want  to blame a faceless group for oppressing the female 
      masses, then perhaps you should blame  "The  Establishment".   But 
      please, don't extend this to embrace all male-kind!
      
      /. Ian .\

    Yes Lorna, by and large it is (though I suspect Margaret Thatcher considers
    herself to be part of "The Establishment").
    
    However if A is the statement "The Establishment oppresses women"
    and        B is the statement "Most members of the establishment are men"
    and        C is the statement "Most men oppress women"
    
    Then the truth of A and B has no bearing on the truth or falsity of C.
             
    /. Ian .\

    <----(.14)
    
    What he said.  Exactly.  What I've been trying to say.
    
    Lee

    Re Ian & Lee, I'm sorry.
    
    I'm sure you're right.
    
    You're both so smart and self-assertive.
    
    My IQ tripled no doubt wouldn't equal either of yours so I won't
    bother you with my dumb ideas anymore.
    
    By the way, I've got one more dumb idea I just can't seem to get
    rid of and that's that so called feminism hasn't done a one fucking
    thing for me.  I'd be better off looking for another husband than
    wasting any more of my time reading this file.
    
    Bye.
    

    Since the serfs started to work for liberation from their feudal masters,
    and probably from the dawn of time, human life has been one social
    revolution after another.
    
    We are in the middle of a fight to gain social equality, recognition
    and freedom for the approximately 50% of humankind who by accident of
    birth are female.
    
    However as in any fight (a) the combatants have to know and target the
    correct enemy, and (b) acknowledge that they, as participants will not
    be primary beneficiaries of the ultimate victory.
    
    I contend that the adversary is not "male-kind", though I ackowledge
    that it is primarily male. 
    
    And the present fighters for the Feminist Ideal (who may be of either
    gender) will not be the beneficiaries of this fight. That will be left
    to our children or our children's children.
        
    /. Ian .\

    
    Lorna,
    
    I really hope you won't go away.  I enjoy your contributions.
    This seems like a day (for many of us, myself included) to be pissed
    and to feel like doing the big "delete entry."
    
    One of the things about men (generally) that I sometimes admire
    and sometimes really get angry about.. is their ability to argue
    dispassionately, to *not* take it personally.  This is a good skill
    to have in a business meeting, for example.  It's good to be able
    to fight for an idea and then let go of it if it's not adopted.
    But when you're discussing emotionally charged issues like abortion,
    or woman-abuse, or child-abuse, or oppression; I'm not sure it is all
    that valuable to argue intellectual ideas in a detached way.  I
    think that's where many of our conflicts begin in this file: with
    that different level of emotional investment in an issue.
    
    So women working in "man's world", i.e. strive to fight for ideas
    without so much emotional investment, and I think we're learning
    those skills.  And, men, if you really want to learn about women,
    if you truly admire our ability to express emotion freely, then
    this is where it begins.  When you're talking about something that
    affects people, it's good to take it personally.
                                                    
    Justine

    HOWEVER, Ian, what Lorna was saying was more along the lines of
    
      "The Establishment oppresses women"
      "Most [wasp] men are [beneficial] members of the establishment"
      "Most [wasp] men oppress women [in their membership]"
                                                         
    *That* syllogism will hold water.
    
    						=maggie

      .11 has been deleted. I wrote .12 as a commentary on the following
      fragment:
      
� ... they can't bring themselves to admit that men as a group of people 
�     allowed this to continue for so long.  
               
      I certainly didn't read that as you explain it should be read. Rather
      I read it quite clearly as saying that men, AS A GROUP, oppressed
      women. 
      
      My contention in .12 was that most of the men were themselves oppressed,
      not by an Establishment of which they were part, but by an Establishment
      over which they had no control. 
      
      However I would refer you to the recent humorous book "Brit-Think,
      Ameri-Think" which, whilst a work of humor does make many serious
      points about the differences between British and American thinking.
      
      One point clearly made is that whilst [most] American [men] think of 
      themselves as part of the Establishment, British men don't (and aren't).
                                   
      So if I have offended as a result of a cultural difference, my apologies.
      However I honestly didn't read the remark as you interpret it, and
      felt that my riposte was relatively mild. I would truly be sad if
      I have driven away a contributor whose views I may not agree with,
      but which I learn from reading. As Justine (?) said, many men tend
      to view discussion dispassionately. I know I certainly do, and this
      itself must seem infuriating to someone speaking in passion about
      a subject that they feel deeply about. (You might raise me to a similar
      degree of passion if you inquire on my views on the injustices of
      the oppression of the working classes by "The Establishment", but
      it is one of the few subjects that would do so.)
                 
      /. Ian .\

RE: only blame the establishment

      
While it's true that various groups have been discriminated against, and
have worked to overcome that; it is also true that the women of those
groups were always second class to men of those same groups.  So if the
establishment didn't include certain groups, than why did the male members
of those groups discriminate against women?  Can they not be held accountable
along with the current establishment?  I'm not saying *all* men oppressed
women, but that most men did even when they were the second class
citizens (and perhaps even more, why everyone likes to feel superior to 
someone).

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that it is not only the establishment
that is to blame.  Unless you say everyone is part of the establishment.

...Karen

�  -< who's in the Establishment? >-

   By and large I consider the Establishment to consist of the Bosses and
   the Politicos (usually the same people). 
   
   Let me sidestep for a minute and explain a little of my mind set.
   
   I grew up in the North of England. My Father was away, and I was brought
   up by my Mother, Grandmother and a Nanny. I saw little or no "oppression
   of women" around the house and pub that I grew up in. Quite the reverse
   - my Grandmother frequently threw drunken men bodily into the streets.
   
   I grew up around Liverpool docks, and on a farm (my "other" grandparents)
   in a coal mining / spinning area.
   
   From the dockers, miners and spinners I learned a little of the history
   of the labor movement. Were the women second class members of this third
   class part of society? perhaps, but that wasn't the impression I got
   growing up. The dockers wives were - to a woman - homemakers, but they
   were never put down by the men. The Andy Capp cartoon is not a good example.
   Sure the men had the public bar to themselves, but God help a man who
   walked into the snug. The women ruled their homes and their men with
   a rod of iron. The women weren't homemakers because their men wanted
   it that way. Heaven forbid, the families would have been glad of the
   money if the women could have worked, and if the women could have earned
   more than the men then that would be welcome too. The problem was that
   the Bosses wouldn't employ women.
   
   During the nineteenth century women worked down the pits alongside the
   men, doing the same jobs as the men for the same pay.  Sure mostly the
   women did a more menial job (pulling coal wagons rather than cutting
   coal) but this wasn't because the male miners forced them to: it was
   because the pit owners wanted it that way. In a few pits were this
   discrimination didn't exist the work was equitable. The pay rate for
   a woman face worker was identical to a male face worker. The hours were
   the same. The conditions were identical. [In the South Wales coal fields
   it was common practice for women who had been widowed by mine accidents
   to become face workers as the family breadwinner. In many areas the ganger
   (=foreman - a member of the Establishment and about as well liked as
   a "trusty" in a prison) would only give this position to the woman in
   return for sexual favors. Again it is not oppression by members of the
   same class, this is oppression of a working class woman by a member of
   the middle classes - a member of the local Establishment].
   
   In the same time frame most mill workers were women. However again there
   was no discrimination in this by the workers: it was the Bosses who felt
   that they preferred a female work force ("smaller hands make it easier
   to work on fine detail", anyway they really preferred children, who they
   paid much less than the adults...)
   
   No: in the history of the labor movement I know of no widespread example
   of oppression of women by men of the same class. True there are widespread
   examples of oppression and discrimination by the Bosses. In many industries
   they preferred men. In others they preferred women. This meant that in
   "smokestack industry" towns females were largely unemployable, and so
   became homemakers. In many mill towns it was the men who were unemployable
   - they stayed home or became migrant workers.            
      
   /. Ian .\
   
   --- oops ! I said I could get heated if we started talking about the
   Labor Movement.

Perhaps we could rewrite the syllogism as:

1. The [American] "establishment" oppresses women.

2. [American] men identify with the establishment.

3. People who identify with the establishment do what the establishment does.

4. Therefore, men oppress women.

Simple, no?  Of course, I would argue against the utter truth of
1, 2, and 3, leaving us back where we started.

Also, I would imagine it isn't much solace for a woman to be told,
"It's not *my* fault, honey, it's the establishment who made me that way."

Ian's earlier point about the way in which social/economic changes
affected the status of men brings up an interesting point: in America,
the improvement of the economic status of women coincides with the
end of the era of strong trade unions.  Perhaps more importantly,
both changes also coincide with the baby boom and the mechanization
-- and computerization -- of industry and agriculture.

Martin.

RE: .22

But didn't the men have the ownership of the woman's property (if any)? 
Didn't they have the right to beat their women?  I'm not saying they
all took advantage of this right, but some did.  I'm sorry, I'm not
really qualified to argue this topic in regards to the english labor
movement.  My statements were meant to be more general of all oppressed
groups.

...Karen

    
    
    I think that the point is that even when these second class or
    oppressed groups changed their status (am I repeating my self
    YET again) the women in that class or group did not attain the
    same ranking as the men.
    
    BTW - the labor movement in the United States of America started
    with a bunch of UPPITY women in Massachusettes in the 1820's who
    were tired of working x number of hours per day.  They did not
    benefit from the formation of a union because they were not allowed
    to speak at union meetings.  Their male co-workers did benefit from
    forming a union.  A LARGE NUMBER of the most active labor unionist
    in the United States were/are women BUT labor unions that represent
    mostly male workers carry more clout and get outrageous agreements
    while female workers get to give up more and more of their hard
    fought for "benefits" - like equal pay for equal work.
    
    By the way I would perfer to loose 10 men in this conference than
    to lose one woman.  This is WOMANNOTES and we need to build sisterhood
    if we plan on getting anywhere at all.
    
    The above are only my opinion and what do I know....
    
    _peggy
    		(-|-)
    		  |
    		  |	Goddess give me strength enough not
    				to pound the s**t out of my oppressors.
    
    

I wanted to provide a dispassionate discourse on the history of women, 
but today seems to be a day for flaming wildness...

For all this discussion of the labor movement, it is exceptionally 
myopic not to see that the overall position of women for the last few 
millenia throughout the world has been one no better than slavery, and 
that taken universally women's lot has *ALWAYS* been substantially worse 
than men's across all classes.

In the west, women had virtually no legal rights until relatively 
recently. Women were the property of their fathers, who disposed of them 
in marriage as they chose.  A woman did not expect to be happy in 
marriage: if she got a husband who was passably kind, she was very 
lucky.  Once married, she was her husband's property.  A husband of any
class had the incontrovertible right to his wife's body, to sexually
use, physically abuse, and collect all the profit from the labor of her
hands.  She was in every way his complete and total slave, and this
enslavement had all the backing of every religious and social
institution in existence.  If she became a widow, she might enjoy some 
status acting in some cases as a substitute for her husband.  If she had 
a son however, he became her master and head of her household when of age.

The average woman was denied any opportunity for any kind of education,
had no legal representation, no redress through the courts for any
injustice, could not divorce an abusive husband, was forced to bear
children over and over again until she died of exhaustion (the average
middle class man went through two wives in his lifetime).  She could not
speak in church, belong to a guild, or vote for a political
representative.  Her situation was worse than that of any landless man. 

She could not own property, unless she was an hieress, and that property
then belonged to her husband as soon as she married. When he died, it
belonged to her son.  Her whole life long, she was someone else's
economic dependant, forced to be servile and "good" in order to be
provided for.  She had no options in the way of occupation -- she 
couldn't run away and join the army, or take up tinkering, or apprentice 
herself to a trade -- all things that lower class men had available to 
them. If she wasn't a man's woman, she was a whore or a servant.

She was forbidden any sexual desire or activity if she was a "good"
woman -- to give in to a man's temptations, seduction, or rape labelled
her damaged goods with a future in prostitution.  She submitted to her 
husband because of duty, and bore children to the man who owned her and 
took his sexual pleasure elsewhere (virtuous women being such a bore).

A woman had nothing to say about whether she wanted to marry, bear and 
raise children, and keep house.  It was her fate.  She was reviled by 
men for being vain, stupid, and fit for nothing else.  As late as this 
century, she was told that thinking would damage her reproductive 
organs.  She worked very, very hard at endless, unpaid, and unrewarding 
labor, which was then demeaned as valueless and proof of her inferior 
condition.  A man could at least have a job or till land, and get some 
tangible rewards for his labor, however menial. Those male coalminers 
after their grueling day in the pits did not go home and cook food, 
clean house, tend sick children, make soap, wash clothes, make clothing,
etc, etc on top of it all, but the women did.  A man went home to his
meal, his hearth, and his servile woman.  Whether she could shoe a mule
as well as he, she was still the "fragile" sex, who had to be sheltered
from participating in the wider world -- a lot like the child-like
African needed to be "sheltered" on a plantation... 

A marriage manual written in the early part of this century flatly told 
women that if perchance the woman was smarter and more capable than her 
husband, it was too bad.  She'd made her choice (not that often her own, 
historically) and she had to live with it.  She still had to treat this 
man as her superior and lord and master, deferring to him in all things, 
whether his decisions were good or bad, keeping her own mind to herself. 
How many men had to live with this day in and day out, no matter how 
otherwise oppressed?

Women who challenged their position in society were usually squashed 
with enormous severity.  The witch hunts of the middle ages were 
directed almost exclusively against women, and many, many, many 
thousands died.  Their crime was usually being independant, or old, or 
eccentric -- no man's property.  A woman who dared to wear men's clothes 
(as many invisible women did) in order to pass as a man and obtain male 
privileges (work as tradesmen, or freedom from molestation) was usually 
burned if discovered.  The handful of women who had some small degree of 
independence are anomalous, and giving me a list won't change the horror 
of what the typical woman has endured for so many centuries.

Men, for all the class oppression in the world, have never had it so 
bad.

    <--(.27)
    
    No, Bob, just unfairly advantaged usually through no willful effort
    of their own.
    
    <--(.26)
    
    Oh, *well* said, Catherine!  Spot ON, Sister!
                                        
    						=maggie

	I can remember when the standard response about a woman's lower
	salary was 'well, she doesn't have to support a family'. I can
	remember when I went for my first job interview and I was asked
	if I had a boyfriend and what kind of birth control I used.

	back to .0 - It's hard to think a man is understanding you when
	no matter what you say, if you don't agree with him, he says you
	don't know or understand what you are talking about. Why can't
	he just accept that I don't agree and have a right to my opinion?

	I *personally* feel that many of the heated arguments in this file
	come from men who refuse to give up when we don't agree with them. 
	I WON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH YOU !!!! NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU ARGUE !!!

	liesl (is this how wars start?)

    Re .26 - well said.
    
    Douglas

        In  reply  to  .26,  first  let  me say that I largely agree: in 
        seeing the major culprit in the matter to be "The Establishment" 
        I understated  the  amount  to which the social and legal system 
        that  The   Establishment   established   enshrined   a   sexual 
        inequality.
   
        However  much as I agree with you, I must comment on some errors 
        of fact, at least in so far as English law is concerned.
   
� ... A husband of any class had the incontrovertible right to ... physically 
�     abuse, 
   
        Not true: a husband who could be proven to beat his wife *could* 
        be  charged  with  the  crime.  That he wasn't is not due to men 
        oppressing other members of their own class, but rather  due  to 
        the  fact that the Establishment of the day, vividly represented 
        by the be-wigged judge on the bench, was unwilling to try such a 
        case  fairly.  Since jury duty required a property qualification 
        (still does in Britain) the jury would be all male.  Also a wife 
        cannot testify against her husband (and vice versa) [At the time 
        the accused could not testify in his own  defense  either,  this 
        makes a typically domestic dispute rather hard to bring to court 
        since independent witnesses were required].    The  statement as 
        made  would  imply that he could, in extremis, commit murder and 
        get away with it.
   
        It is true however that there were some crimes that specifically 
        applied  to  the wife, not the husband (thus if a husband killed 
        his wife that was murder and punished by hanging, if she  killed 
        him  that was Petty Treason and punished by hanging, drawing and 
        quartering).
   
�  The average woman was denied any opportunity for any kind of education,

        So was "the average man" - education was the norm  only  in  the 
        upper middle class and upper classes.  Free elementary education 
        for both sexes was introduced in the 1912 (year?) Education Act. 
        Free  education  for  all at all levels was not introduced until 
        the 1944 Education Act.    (And  has  yet  to  be  introduced in 
        America!)  Historically  upper class girls had tutors whilst the 
        boys went away to boarding schools.  The  received  education of 
        course  differed  immensely  but  it would be wrong to say girls 
        didn't receive education.  I  admit  that  they  couldn't  go to 
        university,  but  then that was denied to all who weren't of the 
        Church of England faith also.
   
�  had no legal representation, no redress through the courts for any injustice
   
        wrong.
   
�  could not divorce an abusive husband, 
   
        a total non sequitor - he  couldn't  divorce  her  either.   The 
        country  enshrined a state religion.  The only valid cause for a 
        bill of divorce was infidelity.
   
   
�  She could not speak in church, 
   
        *That* is in the Bible. It is the ultimate authority used by the 
        Roman  Catholic Church and the Church of England to require that 
        all priests are male. I do not however dispute that the Bible is 
        full of sexist prototypes, but it is an impressive precedent for 
        a concept.
   
�  vote for a political representative.  
   
        As stated earlier, prior to political reform in  the  nineteenth 
        century most men didn't have that right either.  I agree that it 
        was an inequity for about 80 years though.  But  80  years  is a 
        minute  part  of human existence (it wasn't an inequity prior to 
        that because *property* was the prerequisite for voting, and  as 
        you say women generally owned no property).
   

�  She could not own property, unless she was an heiress, and that property
�  then belonged to her husband as soon as she married. 
   
        An  heiress's  property could be, and frequently was "entailed", 
        in whole or in part.  Furthermore in the  upper  classes  it was 
        common for a woman's property to be so arranged that she had the 
        income, whilst her husband had the title (not equitable or  fair 
        I admit,  but  not as black as you paint it).  Whilst it is true 
        that a woman could not make a contract (her husband did  it  for 
        her)  it is equally true to say that she was not responsible for 
        his debts.  If he got in debt he went to debtor's  prison whilst 
        she  stayed  out.  (If she got in debt, it was still the husband 
        who went to prison).
   
�  When he died, it belonged to her son.  
   
        That again depends on how the  inheritance  was  worded  in  her 
        father's  will.  It is however true of her dowry.  It may not be 
        true of any income she had by way of an allowance (from property 
        inherited  or  gifted to her).  It was relatively common for the 
        first inheritance to require that on  the  husband's  death  the 
        property was to support the wife and could not be disposed of by 
        the son during the wife's remaining life.
   
�  ... She had no options in the way of occupation ... or apprentice herself 
�  to a trade ... 
   
        Nor did most men.  An apprenticeship is not like getting  a job. 
        In  most  cases  the  apprentice's  father paid the tradesman to 
        provide the education.  The father decided the future occupation 
        of  *all* his children, both boys and girls.  If he put the boys 
        to a trade and the girls in service then that was equally unfair 
        to all the children, all of whom were denied a choice of career.
   
�  she couldn't run away and join the army, 
   
        true.    It  was a brutish life at best for the enlisted men.  I 
        doubt anybody, male or  female,  would  have  chosen  it  as  "a 
        career".
   
�  or take up tinkering, 
   
        Nuts. Tinkers were the lowest of the low. The med�val equivalent 
        of today's homeless people.  Women certainly  did  run  away and 
        join these "gypsy" bands.
   
�  all things that lower class men had available to them. 
   
        As I said above men didn't really have this freedom either.
   
�  If she wasn't a man's woman, she was a ... servant.
   
        That's classist! what is wrong with being a servant?
   

�  Women who challenged their position in society were usually squashed 
�  with enormous severity.  
   
        True  in  general,  but  remember  that  Britain has had several 
        Queens  (remember  Queen  Elizabeth  who  took  on  the  Spanish 
        Empire?).  The upper classes (notably the aristocracy) have many 
        examples of women who were not forced into  marriage  and  lived 
        out  their  lives in full control of their fortunes and destiny. 
        That this was much rarer in the lower classes is  to  a  certain 
        extent an indicator of my charge of Establishment oppression. If 
        you are a member of the Establishment then you can be eccentric, 
        if not you must conform to their rules.
   
�  A woman who dared to wear men's clothes ...
   
        or  a man who wore women's clothes.  The crime of personation is 
        an old one.
   
�  The handful of women who had some small degree of independence are 
�  anomalous, and giving me a list won't change the horror of what the typical 
�  woman has endured for so many centuries.
   
        granted. q.v. That they exist at all proves the error of some of 
        your  statements  regarding legal positions.  If the law removed 
        all  women's  rights  then  by  definition  there  could  be  no 
        independent women.
   
        /. Ian .\

    In addendum to .31:
    
    A man could beat his wife, his children, and his servants - if by "beat"
    you mean to thrash (with a cane, paddle, belt, birch, riding crop or
    whatever).
    
    However if a man punched his wife he could be, and would be, prosecuted
    for battery.
    
    Remember that it is only in the last few years that British school teachers
    have lost the right to thrash unruly children for minor infractions
    of the rules. And they held that right not because they were teachers
    per se, but because in law they stood "in loco parentis".
    
    /. Ian .\

    I'm not all that old, either, but I can remember job interviews
    where I was asked what form of birth control I used.  And I got
    laid off once with the comment "Well, that's OK because we know
    your husband has a job.".  Never mind that his job alone wouldn't
    even cover the rent...or that he left me not too long after.

    Ian:
    
    	Thanks for the British history lesson. I doubt it would serve
    any purpose to argue point by point but I wish to qualify a little
    of the history.
    
    	The Welsh miners who managed to 'escape' to Pennsylvania and
    the Virginia's quite quickly became members of the management for
    the mine owners in the US, though not rising much above the levels
    of supervisor and the like.  Many of them did manage to keep from
    going down.  What interests me about this is the picture of a unified
    group of working folk (unified in their misery) who wanted little
    more than a better life for all which you painted.  Yet these people
    wasted little time in taking up with management when the opportunity
    (in the US) was provided and treated those who were miners just
    as badly as they were treated back in Wales.  
    
    	An aside - the comment concerning the lack of 'free' education
    to all in the US is rather out of place.  The schools are open to
    all but, in this less socialized society, are not free.  You imply
    GB is 'better' because education is 'free.'  Neither country is
    'better,' just different.                     
    
    	I support your statement concerning the difference between how
    the citizens of GB and the US see themselves relative to the various
    strata of their respective societies but, again, don't see a 'better,'
    simply another difference.
    
    Douglas

    I, too, have a comment about the history reply you made, Ian.
    
    The point about the army not being an option. I believe what you
    said was essentially that the army in those days wasn't such a great
    deal for men, either. Well, that isn't really the point. At least
    is was an *option* for the men. It was *not* an option for the women.
    
    The thing is NOT the activity itself, but whether it is a choice
    one can make.
    
    The "Well, you wouldn't want to do *that* anyway, dear" is one of
    the standard ways women have had choices limited, throughout history
    up to the present day. "You wouldn't want to climb that *dirty*
    telephone pole (dear)"  "You don't want to get into the dirty job
    of back-room politics (dear)"  etc.
    
    Granted, the army was no picnic for anyone (then again, *life* wasn't
    easy back when, either) but the point is the *choice*, not the
    activity/job itself.
    
    Dawn
    

    
    
    	Don't know the basis but did you ever notice that
    	most of the 'men-hating women' are not young women?
    
    	There are many reasons, but why go into here?
    
    

    Don't know the basis but did you ever notice that most of the men
    who claim that women hate them are arrogant and have poor
    interpersonal relationship and communication skills?
    
    There are many reasons, but why go into here?

    re .36:
    
    I've been accused of being a "man-hater" (but only by a few men
    in womannotes).  I'm under 30.  What does this prove?  Nothing.
    
    	-Ellen

    and I have never been accused of same and I am over 40. as Ellen
    says it proves nothing
    
    Bonnie

RE: .38  Good comeback!

RE: .37  Are you purposely being provoking?

...Karen

	Provoking? No.  Just that I bet someone if I said that here that
    the  replies  following would be [at least] one that is a copy of my
    reply  re-worded,  one  that would apply his/her own life experience
    and  opinion[s]  to skew the context without query as to the meaning
    or  implication  of the note and at least one back patting atta-boy,
    er  girl,   note   praising  one of the previous replies. And I even
    get  a  bonus  here  for  a classic NOTES VICE-VERSA tactic employed
    unsuccesfully!

    re .42
    So now that you've explained yourself (and after I parsed your message)
    what are you trying to prove?

>>  Provoking? No.  Just that I bet someone if I said that here that
>>    the  replies  following would be [at least] one that is a copy of my
>>    reply  re-worded,  one  that would apply his/her own life experience
>>    and  opinion[s]  to skew the context without query as to the meaning
>>    or  implication  of the note and at least one back patting atta-boy,
>>    er  girl,   note   praising  one of the previous replies. And I even
>>    get  a  bonus  here  for  a classic NOTES VICE-VERSA tactic employed
>>    unsuccesfully!

See what I mean?  Stop playing games and say what you mean and perhaps your
"context would not need query as to the meaning or implication."  Have you
made any other bets we can clear up before continuing?  

    "As far as I know,... you have not been appointed judge of this issue
    and I have no compelling desire to justify my opinions to you...
    you are not that important to me."

RE: .36, .42, .45

        I tend to disagree with your statement that you weren't being
        purposely provoking by .36.  In .42 you stated that you did this as
        part of a bet to see what type of reaction you would get.  Yes, that's
        the meaning of being provoking (to incite to action, to arouse)!
        Doing this tends to trivialize the discussion, as well as causing
        others to decide that your statements are not worth taking seriously.
        From .36 and .42, I get the impression that you do not want to
        communicate feelings or seriously contribute to the discussion. This
        makes me want to ignore your contributions, and I won't want to pay
        attention when you are serious (how will I know the difference?).
        This is really too bad, since I do think you have something to
        contribute to the discussions. 

        RE: .45  I assume that you quoted this since it was said to you in
        another topic (I can't remember exactly, but it sounded familiar, but
        I can't look it up since you didn't give a reference to it).  Well, I
        didn't say that to you, and it may be too bad that someone did.  I do
        want to know if you feel that you have any basis for stating .36, and
        why you feel that way.  I can then give you my impressions.  If you
        would like to seriously debate the topic, please reply with your
        reasons, otherwise, I'd just rather drop it. 

	...Karen

re .45
    
    Back in Junior High School, there were always some boys who desperately
wanted female attention but lacked the means to attract it.  These boys
would then pull our hair, throw snowballs, put frogs in our school bags and
generally be as disruptive and obnoxious as possible.  They must have figured
that *any* female attention is better than none.

I've come to realize that often these boys grow up, mature intellectually 
and physically but never venture beyond the social and emotional maturity 
level of twelve year olds.  How ironic that they find their way into woman 
notes to (once again) pursue female attention in the only way they know how..
.. perhaps they will venture forth once again to start their own
notesfile... they could call it DELAYED_ADOLESCENCE.NOTE.

    -1 Thats speccual!  Let's just keep slinging it at each other.  Let's
    not give the benefit of the doubt to anyone.  Can you say we all
    have out bad days!  In point of fact men are part of this file,
    the world we live and work in....I don't always like that fact
    sometimes I want to start a separate world of just women...but,
    lets try to not attack each other I disagree violently with some
    of the men and some of the women in this file, I try to see their
    point of view and not personalize what they say as an attack or
    a victimization of me.  I have been victimized in the past but I
    will not victimize myself my closing my heart and mind to other
    points of view....
    
    MaggieT

	RE: .36

	I talked to Michael through mail, and he explained why he
	wrote .36.  I suggested to him that what he mailed me should
	have been what he wrote in .36 (brevity tends to cause more
	mis-understandings!).  He then asked me if I would post it.
	So, here it is:

------------------Reply to mail received on 13-OCT-1987 14:07------------------


    Hello ...Karen,

    First i'd like to just mention that I find it strange that
    a few people have taken my note the wrong way and even deducted
    results that are not right.  For instance, I mentioned that
    "...men-hating women are usually not young."

    This does NOT imply that "alot of older women are men-hating
    women" and to extract this from my statement would, and has,
    caused confusion as to the meaning of the reply I entered.  
    False, too, is Bonnie's assertion that since she is old and
    is not man-hating proves my assertion wrong and also the reply
    back from that stating that since the author is under 30 and 
    has been accused of being man-hating, that my statement
    is wrong [I never said what young was *TO ME*, which 
    is my fault, since I was not sure how OTHERS would take
    that.  For that note, young means, say, 16-22, or so.

    Enough of that.  What did I mean you are asking?

    In my life-experiences, I have met many women who would
    even admit [as some of the authors who wrote replies to
    my .36 reply] that they are man-hating women.  ALL of
    them were over 28.  ALL of them were engaged/married/seriously_
    involved and had it 'broken-off', not by their choice -
    'because he was scum.' was their usual reason [infidelity,
    beating].  This has lead me to believe that MOST women
    who admit to hating MEN have usually been involved with
    schmucks who treated them poorly, to say the least, and
    wound up later in years without a spouse or any boyfriend
    due to mistrust of men.  This mistrust becomes displaced
    aggression and winds up turning to hate for a man who hurt
    them and turns this anger towards men in general.

    Then you have man-hating women who 'can't do' and chose
    to blame it on men who have authority over them [boss, co-worker]
    which alleviates them of the responsibility of having work
    harder or 'deal with men'.

    People are people.

    I'd like to apologize to Michael (and Maggie) and anyone else whom
    I may have offended.  I do not hate men,... I never have.  
    As a matter of fact I love the men in my life and have an inordinate
    amount of respect for men in general.

    I do find it strange that there is no note in mennotes about why some
    women think that men hate them.  I do find it distasteful that older
    women (the most vulnerable and the most experienced) are generalized
    about and labeled so easily.  It makes me extremely uneasy that
    women are supposed to justify the feelings of men "why do men feel
    that women, especially those in womannotes, hate them".  And I was
    (in truth) set off by a remark made in another note diminishing
    a female diety.  Having done this, I will now sheath my sword and slip 
    quietly into the night.  

    Michael does raise a good point for discussion, and I am glad
    to see his intent clarified.
    
    (small nit here over 40 is *NOT* *OLD*)
    
    Bonnie

    given that michael was participating in a bet about our reactions,
    i find it hard to accept any after-the-fact explanation.
    
    liz

    
    
    	Apology accepted and I also apologize for entering a note
    	without first taking the time to fully expand on the issue
    	as I had some things to take care of and wanted to start a
    	new note about it [hence the line about not 'going into it
    	here' since it didn't seem apropriate].  
    
    	Truly, Liz, i'm sorry you do not want to give the benefit of
    	the doubt and be so unforgiving.  Life is too short to just
    	write people off.  Sure I was even pretty miffed about what
    	.47 said, but I was still willing to hear if she still thought
    	this way.  If you must know, I really didn't 'bet' about
    	anyone's reactions [i'd never place money on human nature]
    	and was just being obnoxious since I *felt*, at the time, that
    	I was being treated similarly.  Maybe a 8-} on the top of
    	the note woulda helped, but to tell you the truth, it was
    	a combination of being 'disturbed' by the note and the
    	lack of mis-trust that seemed to abound.
    
    	Maybe i'm just one of those people whose too good
    	looking to get a date ;-}
    
    

    Huh?  WHERE did I ever say that I was a woman-hater?

    Or are you trying to say that I said some women were man-haters
    and that you are making a point that I can be taken as a woman-hater
    [which is so far from the truth...]?

    Please let me know.


						-+- Michael -+-

	RE: .57
		Huh?  I'm confused.  I don't see the relevance.

	Michael stated that he has met women who said that they hate
	men.  Since that's experiantial evidence, I can't refute that.
	There are some women who do hate men, in fact I met one once.
	It was pretty sad that her experiance with a lot of men made her
	decide to hate them all (or espouse to, since she had a son and
	I can't believe she hated him).

	However, it is my belief that there are very few women who 
	actually do hate all men.  I think some women might have
	said they do after a bad experiance, but probably get over it.
	On the other hand, I also believe that there are a lot of
	men who think most women hate men, especially "feminists".
	This assumption is false and is probably what .0 was trying
	to address.

	As a previous reply mentioned, I too think that it's a pretty
	useless exercise to ask women why they think that some men
	think that women hate men.  It's practically calling for
	mudslinging since I can't think of any nice reason for men to
	think that.  It would be more productive if some man who thinks
	most women hate men would give us his reasons.

	...Karen

    
    I just want to make sure I have the facts clear here:
    
    1. A man comes into Womannotes and dumps a smart remark, i.e.,
       ever wonder why none of the man-haters are young women?
       No explanation is offered.  To my mind, the note was extremely 
       manipulative, that is to say, I felt manipulated by it.  How should 
       someone answer a question like that?  Gee, I'm young, and I hate men, 
       or I'm old, and I love men?  It felt to me like the note played on 
       women's (alleged) anxiety about being "old maids" ... they hate men 
       because they can't *get* one. I was furious when I read that note but 
       kept telling myself not to take the bait.
    
    2. Then a woman responds with some sarcasm of her own, and she ends
       up apologizing to *HIM*?!!  Regardless of the author's explained-after-
       the-fact intent, the note itself looked like emotional hit and run
       to me, and I don't think anyone should apologize for calling the
       author on it... However, I doubt it's worth the effort since only
       <insert anxiety-provoking insult> women get angry at men when men
       say things that hurt.
                                                                        
       Baffled,
    
       Justine	

    Well, I can't justify my note in the context of
    YOUR life experiences, only mine.  Like I said,
    People are People and this was my personal experience
    with some people.

    Why do you look for enemy, when there are none.

    Some of my best friends are women?  ;-}

RE: .24

"But didn't the men have the ownership of the woman's property (if any)? Didn't
they have the right to beat their women?  I'm not saying they all took
advantage of this right, but some did."

Men have not had any choice in whether or not to 'own' their wife's property,
have they?  Or choice in whether or not they have the right to beat their wife?
How can you hold something against someone who has no choice in the matter?
True, people do have the choice in whether they exercise that 'right', and if
they did, and you disagree with that 'right', then you can hold *that* against
them; but don't hold the fact that a man had 'rights' that he never wanted, and
never used against him, or the fact that some *other* man used those 'rights'
against *him*. 

Women *have* traditionally felt it was their right to verbally abuse men.

RE: .25

"the labor movement in the United States of America started with a bunch of
UPPITY women in Massachusettes ... while female workers get to give up more and
more of their hard fought for "benefits" - like equal pay for equal work."

So tell us... how and why did this happen?  (if it did happen)

RE: .26 see RE: .24

Not all men did these things to women, the numbers that did could be quite a
wide range which we could debate, but in any case would be a rathole. What good
does it do *now* to bitch about the someone else's past? 

"The witch hunts of the middle ages were directed almost exclusively against
women, and many, many, many thousands died."
          
many, many, many thousands???

"Men, for all the class oppression in the world, have never had it so bad."

I dispute that as a rule, that women have ever actually had it as bad as the
picture you paint.  You point out the exceptions, and state that all women
lived this way. 

Thanks for the history lesson Ian.

RE: .36

The older women remember older times, and have lived longer and have had more
time and chances to become dissillusioned with men.  They hold a grudge better.

RE: 58 nit

"espouse : 1: to marry, 2: to give one's loyalty or support to; adopt."

RE: *

More men think women hate men because women are better at verbal abuse,
and talk/write like they hate men, having "better ... communication skills".

RE: .59

Looks like hit & run to me...

Jim.

    Well, maybe I'm just dense, but in reading the last spate of replies
    in which some individuals have mentioned "man-hating" remarks and
    such, I am still wondering where all these "man-hating" remarks
    *are*.
    
    Perhaps I just "Next Unseen"d past them.
    
    Dawn
    

RE: Reply .61 of this topic by YODA::BARANSKI

� RE: .36
� The older women remember older times, and have lived longer and have had more
� time and chances to become dissillusioned with men.  They hold a grudge better.

    Older women do NOT hold grudges better than anyone else, as a rule,
    and  they  may not even have more grudges to hold than anyone else,
    just BECAUSE they have lived longer.  Everyone has different life
    experiences.  Your, albeit baited, statement is false.
    
� RE: *
� More men think women hate men because women are better at verbal abuse,
� and talk/write like they hate men, having "better ... communication skills".

    Women are better at verbal abuse?  Have better communication skills?
    Sounds like a generalization to me.  Generalizations are usually
    used  when  the  author  does  not  have  evidence  to  back  up 
    the authors statements which, I suspect, is the case here. 

� RE: .59
� Looks like hit & run to me...

    Not at all, i'm still here.  But don't let the facts get in your
    way. 

    Jim,

    It may interest you to learn that husbands were not merely permitted,
    but urged to beat their wives if they "scolded".  (This is what you
    mean by verbal abuse, isn't it?)  The husband was limited to using a
    rod or whip `only' as thick as his thumb, and the use of the whip
    was urged, since it was less likely to cripple the woman.  One might
    therefore argue that women did NOT have the "right to verbally
    abuse men", since the law permitted a punishment for such activity.

    Naturally, some person might claim that this is part of the Right
    to Free Speech, that a woman has as much right to call a man
    "juvenile" as you have to call a woman a "girl".

    In the matter of witch hunts, I have a book here which quotes Charles
    G. Leland, from his book _Gypsy_Sorcery_and_Fortune_Telling_, with
    "[The Inquisition] put to death hundreds of thousands of fellow-
    beings, mostly helpless and poor old women...."  In easy-going
    England, about 30,000 witches (mostly women, as always) were hanged
    in less than 200 years.  In 1586, all the women but two from two
    villages were executed by inquisitors.  In Neisse, Silesia, the
    executioner roasted 42 women and girls to death in a single year.

    Shall I go on?  Or will you accept that "many, many, many thousands"
    did indeed die there and then for that reason?

    							Ann B.

.64

>    In the matter of witch hunts, I have a book here which quotes Charles
>    G. Leland, from his book _Gypsy_Sorcery_and_Fortune_Telling_, with
>    "[The Inquisition] put to death hundreds of thousands of fellow-
>    beings, mostly helpless and poor old women...."

    I don't have the texts at hand.  My memory from a course on the
    history of witchcraft is and various readings about the Inquisitions
    (primarily the Spanish Inquisition) is sketchy.  But I seem to remember
    that the Inquisitions were primarily after heretics and that their
    favorite targets were Jews who had prentended to convert to Christianity
    in order to avoid expultion from their homes.

    I have to admit I am not to sure of my footing on this one   8^{)

    Dick

    Well, since it was heresy for a woman to practice any healing art...
    
    							Ann B.

    RE: .65 responding to .64
    
      >  -< Your's memory's good; their definitions aren't. >-
    
    > Well, since it was heresy for a woman to practice any healing
    > art...
    
    Could you please explain the point you're trying to make? Both
    your title and your comment left me confused.
    
      Alan

    
    Oops. That should have been 
    
     RE: .66 responding to .65 
    
      Alan
    

    No problem, Alan.
    
    You remembered the Inquisition as caring more about heresy than
    about witchcraft.  Your memory was correct.  What is flaky is
    the Inquisition's definition of "heresy".  Healing was a legitimate
    art only when practiced by men.  If a woman tried to cure someone,
    then she had performed an heretical act, punishable by death by
    burning, whether she succeeding in her cure or failed.
    
    A lot of women tried to help the sick...
    
    							Ann B.

	I don't know if women were the major victums of the inqusition or
	not but I do seem to remember that if they got a man to admit being
	a witch the state,(or maybe the church) could get all his property.
	So it would be more profitable to charge a man with witchcraft but
	probably easier to convict a woman, especially if she was old and
	alone. I also suppose these events, held in public squares, were
	quite profitable to local merchants since large crowds would like
	to gather to watch the 'witches' die in agony.

	Yet another example of how the church kills in the name of
	the 'prince of peace'. liesl

    	30000 in 200 years - sounds like it was safer being a medieval
    witch than driving a modern car. (silly, flippant remark).
    
    	More seriously, while other parts of Europe were more excited
    about religious issues, in England a witch was someone who harmed
    their neighbours by supernatural means.
    
    	And peoples understanding of what is natural and what is not
    has changed. A woman who poisoned her husband would have been charged
    with witchcraft, and killed. In some countries there is a death
    penalty for that, even today; only the wording of the charge would
    be different.
    
    	In an age when stealing a sheep, even by natural means, had
    the death penalty, and so many more things were regarded as
    supernatural, I am not too surprised at 150 per year for medieval
    England. The U.S., with a population about 20 times that of medieval
    England probably has more than 3000 women per year who steal the
    value of a sheep or more, and if the jury did not understand how
    it was done, then it was witchcraft.
    
    	Incidentally, my wife is proud to be the direct descendant of
    a famous witch. "Old Mother Leakey" was famous for her cures and
    prophecies throughout the South West of England.
    
    		Dave

    According to Steve Kallis Jr., the total death toll for the
    witch hunts of Europe was over half a million people.  (The
    anti-witch hysteria extended well past the reach of the Spanish
    and Roman Inquisitions.)
    
    							Ann B.

RE: .64

I beg your pardon.  I'm still too niave, and not cynical enough to believe
in this.  Maybe in a couple of years. :-{

The Inquisition was not aimed at the persection of women.

Jim.

    One question before us is:  What was the attitude of "The
    Inquisition" towards women?

    The first problem we face is in defining "The Inquisition".  Should
    it be restricted to the Spanish Inquisition between two specific
    dates?  Should it refer to the medieval, Spanish, and Roman
    Inquisitions only?  Or should it refer to any European ecclesiastical
    court which could sentence defendants to death?  I lean towards
    this last definition, for this discussion.

    Technically, "The Inquisition" was responsible for detecting and
    eliminating heresy.  Practically, it worked primarily at eliminating
    Islam, Judaism, and (later) Protestantism from its sphere of influence.
    It/They did this by treating the beliefs of those religions as
    heretical.  Witchcraft was also defined as heresy.

    It is in the operation of this last field of inquiry in which we
    find hundreds of thousands of women executed, so it is in this
    context that I will pursue an answer.

    I began with the entries in Barbara Walker's tome, went on to a
    quick perusal of the pertinent sections of a book aptly entitled
    _The_Spanish_Inquisition_, and then read all the related entries
    for "Inquisition" in the _Encyclopedia_Brittanica_.  I found it
    very interesting to read these last two works with a feminist
    sensibility �.

    All sources agree that the attacks on "witchcraft" come from the
    Bible, in Exodus 22:18.  So, why did the Inquisition (and various
    other "Christian" organizations intent upon obeying Exodus 22:18)
    single out women for their attentions?

    The _Brittanica_ translates the verse as "You shall not permit a
    sorceress to live."  Perhaps this is a hint, or perhaps it is a
    modern cultural reflection on this historical situation of "churches"
    accusing women of witchcraft.  Certainly, the original Hebrew
    would translate better as "You shall not permit a poisoner to live."
    When did did one-who-poisons become she-who-makes-magic?

    In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII sent two Dominican priests to Germany
    to try witches.  Two years later, the priests had published _Malleus_
    _Maleficarum_, _The_Hammer_of_Witches_.  For centuries, this book
    was the `Bible' of prosecutors of witches across Europe.  Notice
    that "Maleficarum" is the *feminine* plural.

    Here is a little background, perhaps irrelevant:  It was heretical
    to disbelieve in demons.  The Goddess of the old religions was
    labelled a [male] demon in the new.  Witchcraft was defined as the
    making of "spells, charms, cures,..."  Sorcery was not the same as
    witchcraft.

    Walker claims that men were more likely to be accused of sorcery,
    which was not heretical, and which carried a lesser punishment.
    Indeed, _The_Spanish_Inquisition_ gave an example of generous
    behavior on the part of the Inquisitors, and the case was that of
    a man who claimed to perform sorcery.  Also, in a study of 1,200
    cases of witchcraft trials from Essex, England from 1560 to 1680,
    A.D.J. Macfarlane found that "[t]he most frequent kind of accusation
    was the one in which someone who had repudiated a neighbour,
    usually an old woman seeking a favour, subsequently attributed
    some misfortune befalling him to her anger at being refused and
    thus to her witchcraft."

    I see several possibilities for why "The Inquisition" concentrated
    on women as witches.

    1.  "The Church" prior to and during this era preached that women
    were more given to sin than men.

    2.  [Some] women still practiced the old religion, and thus
    practiced heresy.

    3.  Women were different from men, and Otherness was what "The
    Inquisition" was trying to eliminate.

    4.  Women were inclined to attempt healing, cures, and the alleviation
    of suffering, and this was seen as a [lucrative and] male-only
    field of endeavor.  (It was legal for a man to practice medicine,
    but not for a woman.)

    5.  Women lived longer, and this ability was suspect.

    6.  Women were weak and powerless, which was too strong a temptation
    for certain individuals to refrain from taking advantage of.

    7.  Two or more of the above.

    Well, I can't answer this; there just aren't enough data.

    							Ann B.

    �  In this context, synonyms for "a feminist sensibility" are
    "a jaundiced eye" and "a cynical attitude".

    
    Ann, as always, I'm impressed with your scholarship, but I'm
    uncomfortable with the feminist sensibility = jaundiced/cynical
    view footnote.  Were you quoting someone here?  The comparison
    surprised me.
    
    Justine

    Reply to .74, Ann,
    
    It's interesting to note that the State of Colorado is currently
    engaged in a modern witch hunt.
    
    For the last two weeks or more the state has been ferreting out
    midwives in an attempt to arrest and prosecute them for practicing
    midwifery which is illegial in Colorado.
    
    Sometimes we just never learn...

    Well, Justine, I did write "In this context" -- didn't I?  In that
    context I felt very cynical to read about the leniency of the Spanish
    Inquisition, and to notice that it was applied to bigamists (male
    only), priests (male only) who violated the sanctity of the
    confessional to engage in sexual activity with their penitants,
    and a man who provided ample proof that he was a sorcerer.  I felt
    very jaundiced to read of the execution of two batches of witches
    by the S.I., refered to as "women", and notice that the author did
    not feel that it was worth pointing out that no men were in either
    batch executed for witchcraft.
    
    							Ann B.