| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 727.1 | | VIKING::TARBET | Clorty Auld Besom | Wed Feb 17 1988 16:47 | 7 |
| Be interesting to know just how valid that "more than a half-million
members" is. I have positively never heard of "Concerned Women
of America" and I just as positively HAVE heard of the "Eagle Forum".
Perhaps many (or even most?) members of CWoA don't know they're
members? Pure speculation, of course.
=maggie
|
| 727.2 | | VINO::EVANS | | Wed Feb 17 1988 17:04 | 7 |
| Interesting.
On the other hand, *I've* known women who thought NOW was too
conservative. Guess they weren't organized.
--DE
|
| 727.3 | Hmmmm... | WLDWST::HASSETT | Pink Tofu? Excuse me? | Wed Feb 17 1988 17:09 | 17 |
| RE: .1, =maggie:
The fact that you have heard of Eagle Forum but not of CWoA (I had never
heard of either, I'm afraid) could be used to argue one of the main points
of the article.
Also, I think that it is perfectly natural for us to be more aware of groups
whose opinions more closely parallel our own. If anyone HAS heard of CWoA,
please let us know; any stats that can be used to corroberate/invalidate the
half million members statistic mentioned in the article?
I really don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but I do TEND to
believe that NOW and other liberal feminist groups represent a vocal
minority of women while the press represents them as the unquestioned
mouthpiece of half the population of the United States of America.
// greg hassett //
|
| 727.4 | | COLORS::TARBET | Clorty Auld Besom | Wed Feb 17 1988 20:53 | 17 |
| Well, actually Greg, the fact that I've heard of the one but not
the other is what made me suspicious: you see, my Coefficient of
Sympathy for the Eagle Forum is at most zero, and as nearly as I
can tell, CWoA and EF are cut from the same ideological cloth.
As I recall, both the Gallup and the ...grrr, what's the other major
reputable opinion-polling organisation? I gotta quit drinking diet
pop...well, the other one anyhow...both of them found that the majority
(ca. 75%) of voting-age americans were in favor of the ERA, with
the %age of respondents with university degrees being on the order
of 85% in favor. Which, of course, made the lack of ratification
rather a scandal.
Does anyone have a better memory than mine (no snide remarks please
;')?
=maggie
|
| 727.5 | you mean Harris? | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Wed Feb 17 1988 21:00 | 1 |
|
|
| 727.6 | Trust oor ain BonnieJ :-) | COLORS::TARBET | Clorty Auld Besom | Wed Feb 17 1988 21:23 | 1 |
| Right, Harris it is!
|
| 727.7 | just one on a crowd of millions.... | FENNEL::SLACK | | Thu Feb 18 1988 07:50 | 13 |
| Just a thought. After briefly reading the base note I came to
the realization that perhaps NOW and the Political Caucuas actually
"represent" women's perspective on key political issues, while the
Eagle and CWoA represent women supporting male key political issues.
Are the issues the same? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Are the
perspectives the same? I doubt it.
|
| 727.8 | they exist | VIA::RANDALL | back in the notes life again | Thu Feb 18 1988 07:54 | 17 |
| I probably know half a dozen or more members of Concerned Women
of America. It's strong in the rural West and the South, practically
nonexistent in the Northeast.
It's a rather loose organization, as far as I know (and I could well be
wrong, being I'm not a member and never inquired about joining). You
send them some money every year, and that's the last you hear from
them. They don't hold meetings, sponsor conventions, etc. the way NOW
and the Eagle Forum do. But then the women who are attracted this
organization probably aren't interested in seminars and meetings,
either.
They did do a fair amount of fundraising for the famine in Ethiopia,
and I think they're involved in one of those cooperative programs
for rural development in South America.
--bonnie
|
| 727.9 | what real choice for women... | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Feb 18 1988 08:52 | 82 |
| re .0 Eleanor Smeal, a former NOW president, wrote the book
'Why and How *Women* Will Elect The Next President' (1984).
About 5-6 copies are available at the Boston Public Library.
I will be discussing this book in Soapbox very shortly.
'*The* handbook for the elections on the hottest issue
of all: the gender gap. Here is everything voters and candidates
alike need to know about the power of the women's vote and
how it will determine the nation's highest seat, as well
as the outcome of many local and congressional elections.
Eleanor Smeal, for 5 years the nationally respected president
of NOW, offers new info on why women vote differently from
men ... She presents a blueprint for:
* the ABC's of political fund raising
* how to run for office
* how to vote smarter
A *complete* resource guide to PAC's, key organizations for
women's issues, and other essential info make this the book
that will arouse everone to the polls.
"Eleanor Smeal has been an integral part of the feminization
of politics. Her book is a must for every woman who wants
to make a difference in 1984 and beyond."
-- Patricia Schroeder,
Co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's
Issues.
"A powerful and authoritative handbook." -- Lou Harris (pollster)
"When Eleanor Smeal talks about how women might vote, I listen."
-- Professor Ruth Mandel,
Director, Center for the American Woman
and Politics
"The book for anyone who *really* (my *'s-RP) wants to understand
the emergence of the gender gap and its significance to American
politics." -- Judy Goldsmith, National President of NOW.
"Eleanor Smeal is one of the most important female figures
of this generation. Her intelligence, political know-how
and leadership ability are formidible." -- Marlo Thomas
Smeal's appendix/resource guide in the book says:
"The following list of resources will help you become pol-
itically active. General political resources, key groups,
and federal political action committees that support feminist
women candidates and the issues they believe in ..."
Contents :
The Gender Gap: What it is and What it Means to You
1. IT'S A MAN'S WORLD UNLESS WE VOTE
Women's Rights and the Gender Gap
Economic Survival and the Gender Gap
War, Violence, and the Gender Gap
2. WOMEN WEREN'T BORN DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, OR YESTERDAY
The Promise Broken by Republicans
The Party Dilemma: What Real Choice for Women?
3. GETTING ORGANIZED
PAC Women: Fund raising for Campaign Dollars
Women on the Ballot--And in Office
Voting Smarter
Another book to check is Bella Abzug's 'Gender Gap: Bella
Abzug's guide to political power for American Women. 1984.
Critics prefer Smeal's work.
re .3 Smeal does not mention the other (alternate) women's groups.
former feminist,
Russ
|
| 727.10 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Thu Feb 18 1988 09:56 | 9 |
| re .9:
> I will be discussing this book in Soapbox very shortly.
No doubt your promised screed is awaited with the same eagerness
and anticipation by the Soapbox notership as by the notership of
this conference.
--Mr Topaz
|
| 727.11 | =soapbox= = =womannotes=?! | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Feb 18 1988 12:33 | 14 |
| re .10 Unfortunately Mr Topaz, whenever I try to 'discuss'
anything here, even though it 'should be' a 'topic of
interest to women' no one responds.
You'd think Darth Vader had walked into the room. Or
a chauvanist pig.
Perhaps you might like to enlighten me about the
liberated intelligent mind-set of that =soapbox= Conf-
erence where I've been asked to go to have 'fencing contests.'
Then again maybe not. I like surprises.
= Russ
|
| 727.12 | Spoken in a very calm voice (in case it isn't obvious.) :-) | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Feb 19 1988 02:10 | 29 |
| RE: .11
Russ, the same thing happens whether you to try to "discuss"
your pet ideas in Mennotes, Womannotes *or* Soapbox -- yet
Womannotes is the only conference that gets accused of somehow
discriminating against you when we don't respond to your notes.
You can research all the 20-year old reviews about feminist
and anti-feminist literature that you want. You can reprint
half your local library in notes. I doubt if it will make a
difference.
Whatever point you're trying to make about feminism (in all
these different conferences) -- it's not coming across and maybe
it never will. I know that must be frustrating for you, but
that's just the way it is. You can't force interest when it
just isn't there.
Since Womannotes is not the only conference that has shown a
degree of apathy for your philosophy, please stop trying
to imply that we have some sort of evil hidden agenda for not
responding to you (or that we have some sort of obligation to
discuss these things with you because *YOU* have decided that
your ideas 'should be' topics of interest to women.) Ok?
Just relax. NOTES may _not_ be a great place to start some sort
of new movement (political, religious, or whatever), but the
medium has many other fine qualities that you may learn to
appreciate in time.
|
| 727.13 | life can be taxing.... | FENNEL::SLACK | | Fri Feb 19 1988 07:31 | 9 |
| off the beaten path for a moment, but, is being once a feminist
like being once pregnant? regarding Russ's sign off....didn't
understand that.
Also, I agree with .12, lots of folks here have written note entries
with no replies...why, just look at the tax reform idea I posed
in an earlier not....zippo response....or perhaps I can say,
responsoes...assuming there are more than one possible replies....
|
| 727.14 | Can't find my way Home | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Feb 19 1988 17:04 | 9 |
| re .13 I wonder if non-responses to strings are responses.
Sometimes noters ignore the string's author. Sometimes
mennotes ignores women string authors and that disturbs
me too. Of course, perhaps there are too many strings
started in the first place also!
re .12 Well, let me put it this way: I know what I'm talking
about.
Russell
|
| 727.15 | You do get a solid "A" for effort, though... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Feb 19 1988 19:32 | 26 |
| RE: .14
> ... I know what I'm talking about.
That's like saying that a person who has read a hundred books
about Vietnam (but has never been there) knows more about the
Vietnam war than the guys who were there getting SHOT AT every
day.
Factually accurate, but is missing the heart and soul of the
experience... Know what I mean?
Try to imagine the sort of enthusiasm that Viet Vets would
offer a person like that (especially if that person tried to
tell the Vets what it was *really like* in 'Nam.)
Then try to imagine how the Vets would feel if the person
got so angry about not being accepted as an authority, that
he/she *turned* on the Vets and started digging up every negative
fact he/she could find about the Vets' conduct during the war.
You may think you know a lot about the women's movement (from
your research at the library.) But you are missing all the
biggest and best parts, from what I've seen so far.
You won't find them at the library, Russ. (Nice try, though!)
|
| 727.16 | poor Russ | CIRCUS::KOLLING | Karen, Sweetie, Holly; in Calif. | Fri Feb 19 1988 20:33 | 8 |
| Re: .15
Uh, does that mean that unless you were in Vietnam, you have nothing
valid to say about it? How about someone who's an expert on Vietnamese
culture and has a lot of Vietnamese friends who have given him first
hand accounts of the war from their side? Does that person maybe
know something about the war that an American veteran doesn't?
|
| 727.18 | RE: .16 It's a matter of how one approaches the topic..... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Feb 19 1988 21:05 | 17 |
| .... Also, it's the difference between ...
Viet Vet: I watched a lot of friends die during the war.
Expert: Lots of North Vietnamese saw their friends die, too.
Viet Vet: We spent a lot of long nights on watch (I was only
17 and had no idea what it would be like.)
Expert: The North Vietnamese spent long nights on watch, too
(and many of them were just as young as you were.)
... and ...
Expert: That sounds difficult. What was it like for you (how
do you feel about it now?)
|
| 727.19 | The Library doesn't hurt | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Feb 19 1988 21:24 | 14 |
| re .18 The Library is improving my knowledge in matters such as
the movement, along with explaining in many ways, the ways
that different people experienced life.
Considering that Library attendence has undergone a
serious decline over the years, I am glad to be back there.
I am stronger.
Also, considering Jim Baranski's recent H_R notes on
the difficulties of the male's experiences of Life, I
am better realizing that 'our' lot has not been all that
great. Indeed, if it ever was.
Russ
|
| 727.20 | we can do both things, maybe more | CIRCUS::KOLLING | Karen, Sweetie, Holly; in Calif. | Fri Feb 19 1988 21:38 | 6 |
| Re: .18
I think some of this depends on the context. Conversation one sounds
valid if people are arguing ethics. Conversation two sounds valid in
an emotional support group for American vets.
|
| 727.21 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Feb 19 1988 22:02 | 17 |
| RE: .20 Karen
Well, it would be nice to have both, but if I could only have
one (which seems to be the case with some folks), I know
which one I'd choose, don't you? :-)
RE: .19 Russ
Libraries are wonderful, but they are not a substitute for
having lived it.
If you don't accept the fact that you are missing huge, important
aspects of the women's movement, you'll never be able to find
them. It's my opinion that you're concentrating on the wrong
things in your research. I suggest that you try elsewhere.
(Just my own 2 cents.)
|
| 727.22 | combustion | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Feb 19 1988 22:24 | 37 |
| re .21 I am almost 30 and, while still young, have lived plenty.
OK, so I'm not a woman -- where DO YA GO?
My family is a place. School. Friends. TV. Work. Magazines.
Newspapers.
Vietnam?? Eisler's 1000 Dominator saturated terms 'book'?
NOW headquarters NYC? Womannotes? A shrink? The Stock Market??
Where do you go?? The grand Boston Public Library. Reading
the words of others who have lived. And lived plenty.
That's where I go. The place where there are tall columns
and marble steps. Where there are help driven people all
too willing and able to find those things that I need to
learn and need to know.
Will the newspapers do it? NO! Will 'Society' do it?
NO! Will TV? NO! Will the stereo blaring? NO!
Will most noters do it? NO! Will the President? NO!
Will it be that which the 'Culture' produces?
You remember what came out of the machine in Pink Floyd's
'The Wall' don't you?
don't you...
don't you..
I am alone. We all are.
aren't we.
Russ
|
| 727.23 | Something Happened | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sat Feb 20 1988 00:25 | 123 |
| touching on .18 but directed towards no one . . . .
Expert: My God there are people lying all over the place -- what
happened?
Vet Cally: They're Villagers. 500 of them. Maybe 300 men.
They're all dead.
Expert: Was it necessary?
Cally: They're on the other side that's been shooting at me, so,
since they're on *their* side what's the difference?
Expert: The difference is that this is a village and no one was
shooting at you. Making 'war' if you like.
Cally: You never know what's behind those 'smiles' or under
those 'hats.'
Expert: And what might I ask is under yours?
Cally: Who the HELL are YOU ? This is WAR !
Expert: It takes two for such to be so.
Cally: Well in this case it just took one -- didn't it?
Expert: Must of had your reasons.
Cally: Damn right I had my reasons.
Expert: And what were those?
Cally: They are the ENEMY. Don't you SEE that?
Expert: I see a village of common people dead. And a soldier
10,000 miles from home.
Cally: You know man you're starting to sound like them--
want me to shoot You! What else do you see!?
Expert: Excuse me while I put a dandelion in the barrel
of your gun. Again, was this action necessary?
Cally: Well I joined the army, I wasn't drafted. I was given
orders from my superiors to shoot the enemy. So I was
following orders.
Expert: And you did it for your country?
Cally: Yes. Yes I did.
Expert: Did you think that maybe these people you decided to
shoot meant you harm?
Cally: Look pal -- they made the system, they are on the other
side, i couldn't take the chance. No I didn't *think*
about it much. This is the jungle. This is war. You think
quickly--and, like lightning, you react.
Expert: So the villagers were part of the enemy then.
Cally: We've gone over this many times before. Well, ...YES!
Expert: As you know, a witness has reported this to the American
press. It is not going over well at all with the Public.
What now Mr Cally.
Cally: I'll tell the truth and hopefully they'll understand that
I was in a war situation and was following orders from
my superiors.
Expert: Were you?
Cally: Yes, . . . yes I believe so.
Expert: Are you sure?
Cally: Again, THEY made the Village and armies and really are
the ... and really are the same.
Expert: I've always thought that the Village is made by everyone.
Not just the larger and stronger ones. Not just them.
Cally: What difference does it make? I did what THIS revolution
called for me to do and there will be other revolutions
and similar occurences like these after me. Look all around
you. Cambodia, Iran. And even the Economic muscle that
the Big Boys play on the lesser ones. I know all about
oppression and exploitation and domination. What is new
huh?
Expert: What is new are these acts that you Sir have committed-
are they justified?
Cally: If you don't see it by now you never will.
Expert: What is there to see Lt. Cally? Tell me what?
Cally: I'm just a pawn in the Game man. What's the use? If
you REALLY want to know, I don't know. All I know is
that I'm here-in this hot jungle sweating my *ss off
and something happened. I dunno. They... they ...they're..
Expert: They're....
Cally: They're *just* the enemy. That's all I know.
Expert: Thank you Mr Cally. For from what I have largely heard
from you...that is all that I am to know. All that I am
to see. To feel. And perhaps even wonder about. I hope
that there is something beyond this, but if there is,
I cannot see it yet. Not in all of the imaginative powers
currently at my disposal. No I cannot even see beyond
that which I have learned from you. Or your Leaders.
Or even those values that you possess--whatever those
may be. But I shall REFLECT upon what you have said.
And I shall REFLECT upon what you have done. And I shall
listen to you and others like you to the best of my ability
to try to UNDERSTAND YOU further, and further, and further.
And someday .... I shall talk about this and this thing
that you have done.
Russ
|
| 727.24 | yes. | SALEM::AMARTIN | nemoW SDEEN sraM | Sat Feb 20 1988 00:26 | 1 |
|
|
| 727.27 | might I point out... | SALEM::AMARTIN | nemoW SDEEN sraM | Sat Feb 20 1988 02:19 | 6 |
| RE: 25
Sorry Suzanne, but to quote MANY wmnters "Wmnts is NOT for MEN
to learn about women but for WOMEN to discuss issues of interrest
to WOMEN". I believe that this point has been pointed out MANY
times. Right?
@L
|
| 727.29 | I sense slight sarcasm in your final words... | SALEM::AMARTIN | nemoW SDEEN sraM | Sat Feb 20 1988 22:24 | 1 |
|
|
| 727.30 | wooden topics | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Mon Feb 22 1988 11:32 | 65 |
| I say, you can always tell a person's current feminist quotient,
or even their flaming temperature, by whether or not they quibble
over the use of "chair" (rather than "chair-<gender or sex word>").
Especially bad are those who start to make sexual-misbehavior
implications (as it "vice-chair"), and it goes downhill when they
have to explain their puns. Okay, sure, sometimes these things
are indeed funny. But when someone starts out an article with
"our post-feminist age" but doesn't continue in a sarcastic vein,
then I conclude that they've an axe to grind.
Or is it Monday, and I've left my sense of humor behind? Was this
really a very funny article in .0? Oh. Well, in that case, I'd
like to expand upon the "chair<designator>" theme: it should be
required that it convey a person's status. Of course, there will
be rankings of status, with whatever is most appropriate for the
meeting or situation or political views of the reporter; however
some designators will always have priority. For example the terms
chair-lesbian, chair-homosexual, chair-gay, chair-black,
chair-commie
will always be used. It's highly important that we know just how
much to listen to these people, and at what time we should run them
out of town. Similarly,
chair-woman
should nearly always be used if it fits, unless of course something
more specific such as
chair-pert-grandmother
or
chair-attractive-mother-of-thirteen
is appropriate, although rare, because just what are these ladies
thinking of by going to meetings and all when they should be at
home. Well, there are always Junior League and Garden Club meetings,
I suppose.
The honorific
chairman
is simply enough. In cases of burgeoning egos one might be tempted
to write
chair-president-of-local-JayCees
except this will often lead to redundancy and repetition, or at
least repeating oneself in the same sentence, and in certain cases,
'twill lead to infinite recursion:
chair-chair-chair-chair-chair-chair-chair-chair-chair-chair-...
In those circumstances when the meeting really is chaired by a chair
chair-chair
[Not to be confused with the popular dance, the cha-char.]
Now, off to consider the myriad possibilities of "arm-chair feminist"
over a tasty Tobins lunch...
|
| 727.31 | Enough is enough | MORGAN::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Mon Feb 22 1988 12:05 | 17 |
|
RE .23 It would be appreciated, by those of us that are Viet Vets,
that You refrain from public commentary, that continues
painting all of us with that black shroud of being a
bunch of sick people. That ugly myth has been perpetrated
and allowed to continue far too long. If you arn't willing
to be a help to the victims of that war, then you can atleast
stop making it worse than it already is.
It would be further appreciated that the constant references
of comparing us to what ever problems stop also. If you
women want to compare things, please do it about people
or things that all can relate to.
Thank you
Bob B
|
| 727.32 | nit | TWEED::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Mon Feb 22 1988 12:47 | 4 |
| Bob I do appreciate your point about Vietnam, however, the
particular note you were referring to was written by a man.
Bonnie
|
| 727.33 | no offense intended | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Mon Feb 22 1988 18:05 | 42 |
| re .31 Bob,
I did not particularly like the pre - .23 usage
of the Vietnam Veteran as some type of comparable
example of the experiences that women have gone
through. Things are not nearly so bad.
So why are these examples used? Perhaps for sev-
eral reasons: (1) people who feel themselves to be
victims, whether they are or not, create a mind set
that elicits *and* solicits pity and sorrow. (2) Men
are not Women and, therefore, have no way of experiencing
life as a Woman experiences life, so, why should a
man persist in even trying to understand women - or
feminism for that matter - even if the means involved
in the attempt for such understanding involve something
basic. Like professional Library work. (3) People
try to use analogies to try to prove a point when
they should only be used to make clear a point. There
is only one way to prove a point - definition of proof:
convince others of the validity of your arguement
-- Logic. As a Professor of Philosophy of mine used
to say, "People resort to analogies only when they
have no proof."
My parable suggested that any extreme point of view
is not, obviously, the whole picture. And therefore
too narrow in its focus. However, an objective expert
would by definition view a subject from as many sides
as possible ( including both extremes ).
My parable was meant to shed light on radical feminism
and was not in any way a discussion of the Vietnam
War itself.
Sincere apologies to any Vietnam Vet offended.
I think the noter before me displayed great insensit-
ivity by bringing up her awkward Vet/Exp. analogy in
the first place. Talk about apples and oranges!
Russ
|
| 727.34 | not in favor of censorship | CIRCUS::KOLLING | Karen, Sweetie, Holly; in Calif. | Mon Feb 22 1988 18:26 | 6 |
| One reason for using an analogy is that the personal prejudices
attached to the original situation may not be present in the analogous
situation, and so the topic of discussion becomes clearer. I think
we can talk about anything we like that's pertinent to women or that
helps to clarify women's issues.
|
| 727.35 | Substitute "World War II Vets" for "Viet Vets"... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Mon Feb 22 1988 22:38 | 39 |
| RE: .33
Russ, you completely missed the point of the analogy about
Viet Nam. Nowhere did I say that women have been treated
the same way that Viet Vets have been treated. (Obviously,
there is no real way to make *any* fully accurate analogy
when trying to describe the way women have been treated for
thousands of years.)
The analogy was about *YOU* ... I compared YOU (Russ Pollitz)
to someone who considers himself more "Expert" on a given subject
(any subject) than those who were there to experience it.
Yes, I agree, it was a weak analogy. Comparing you to an expert
is "apples and oranges." :-) :-)
Seriously, Russ... You complain when we ignore you (the
way that Soapbox is still ignoring you), and you complain when
one or two of us *stop* ignoring you (and try to talk with you.)
I'm not criticizing you for doing research at the library, Russ.
After all, it was done by others in this conference *way* before
you started doing it, too. That's not the problem.
In my opinion, you know almost nothing about feminism (except
for the narrow vision of it that you have received by researching
one small theme that was occasionally present in *some* of the
feminist writings that were published 20 years ago.)
Forget the analogy about Viet Vets (and substitute "WORLD WAR
II Vets" in everything I said.) You only know what you've read
in books and that knowledge has very little to do with real
life (just as a person who has read 100 books on World War II
cannot *possibly* expect to lecture to World War II vets about
what the war was "really like" -- disregarding the Vets' real-
life experiences -- and expect to be taken seriously by very
many of them.)
I'll go back to ignoring you now. Good luck at the library.
|
| 727.36 | ....................... | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Mon Feb 22 1988 22:38 | 7 |
| I assume the last .35 was pulled by its author. Once you calmed
down I would like to hope you saw its total unfairness and
complete falsehoods concerning me.
Thank you for your second opinion.
Russ
|
| 727.37 | Hard to ignore you when you are being this polite... :-) | NEXUS::CONLON | | Mon Feb 22 1988 22:54 | 7 |
| RE: .36
> Thank you for your second opinion.
You are quite welcome. Glad you agree with the rewrite of
the note (.35) ... :-)
|
| 727.39 | what haven't I or other Men experienced... | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Mon Feb 22 1988 23:34 | 16 |
| re .37 I never claimed to be an "expert" on feminism. I claimed
only to be exploring it (for what it's worth). However,
thanks to some people, I can claim to be an expert claiming
its worst aspects: anger, frustration, bewildering displays
of illogic, and indecisiveness in the form of hastily re-
written notes.
By God I knew that some people can't reason, I now suspect
that they cannot read either.
Please point out wherever I have agreed with said person
on anything.
yours truly,
Russ
|
| 727.41 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Feb 23 1988 05:07 | 16 |
| RE: .39
Gee, Russ, you *thanked* me in .36 for deleting my note. Now
you're complaining to me about it. Your indecisiveness is really
starting to piss me off. :-) :-)
Seriously, Russ, I was just playing with you in my .37 note. (I
saw that .35 and .36 collided and that you were thanking me
for my second opinion without having actually *read* the second
.35 that had just been written.) I thought it was humorous
because I was sure that you probably liked the *second* .35
even less than you liked the first one. (If this is over
your head, let me know and I'll send you mail.) :-)
Anyway, sorry for having confused you. I was just in a particularly
good mood (and you caught the fall-out from it.) :-)
|
| 727.42 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | The only way out is through | Tue Feb 23 1988 07:03 | 43 |
| Russ, you alternate between sounding like a serious, thoughtful, scholar
and a little kid who is not being taken as seriously as he would
like, in my opinion.
Have you ever spent time with someone who seems to have one specific
agenda to which all conversations must return? I used to know someone
who was a recent convert to a religious group, and this individual
could take *any* thread of conversation and bring it back around
to their 'agenda'. It got very tiresome and very predictable to
talk with this individual who soon began complaining of being ignored
and often interrupted.
When I was trying to understand why you often sound frustrated here, I
thought of the individual with the agenda and thought to myself that
you appear little bit like that at certain times. As I read your notes
I find myself looking for the 'agenda' and thinking to myself "How will
he do it this time?".
My next thought was that this was unfair to you on my part, but I
thought I'd bring it up because it is others' perceptions (conscious
and unconscious) of us which causes them to react as they do. I
believe that a number of people are probably reading your entries here
and thinking to themselves "How will he do it this time?". It's not
necessarily fair but it happens constantly, and I think it explains why
some of your well-thought out entries aren't taken as seriously
as you'd like.
Let me ask you directly -- do you have an 'agenda' that you know
of? Is there some overriding point you'd like us to hear? I think
it's very possible that many people here are willing to hear you,
and equally possible that those same people may not agree with you.
I think your library research is good and useful. I think you'd
get more appreciation for it if you presented it as 'A snapshot
of feminist thought in 1972' (or whatever) rather than 'What's really
wrong with feminism--dark secrets from the past'. [My paraphrase.]
Holly
|
| 727.43 | is it open for 'discussion' or not? | 39135::POLLITZ | | Tue Feb 23 1988 11:14 | 14 |
| re .42 Holly,
Considering the realities of life, how can
a man get by without some sort of list.
I take it you'd like to know just what it is
that's burning me up.
It is an ideology with man - MAN as being seen
as an ENEMY.
That's......... what is bothering me.
Russ
|
| 727.44 | non-serious reply | BOLT::MINOW | Je suis marxiste, tendance Groucho | Tue Feb 23 1988 12:47 | 7 |
| re: .41:
... I thought it was humorous ...
Ahh, at last I understand feminist humor.
Martin.
|
| 727.45 | | HARDY::HENDRICKS | The only way out is through | Tue Feb 23 1988 13:52 | 80 |
| > I take it you'd like to know just what it is
> that's burning me up.
>
> It is an ideology with man - MAN as being seen
> as an ENEMY.
>
> That's......... what is bothering me.
I'm glad you took the question seriously.
Let me see if I have this right. You are bothered when women treat
men as enemies, and you especially dislike an idealogy that presents
one part of the human race (men) as enemies of the other part (women).
Well, Russ, that makes sense to me. We may even be somewhat in
agreement.
I looked up feminism in Webster.
First definition: the theory of the political, economic and social
equality of the sexes.
Second definition: Organized activity on behalf of women's rights
and interests
I checked the paperback American Heritage next. There was just one
definition:
Militant advocacy of equal rights and status for women.
I'm comfortable with all of the above definitions, and probably
a little more comfortable with Webster. Neither definition says
anything about an enemy. In both dictionaries the operative word
appears to be -equal-. To me, 'militant advocacy of equality' does
not necessarily turn the other group with whom we wish to be equal
into enemies.
I have not understood your attempts to discredit a number of women's
issues and spokespersons. But if some of us have been saying
'feminism' and thinking of the above definitions, and you've been
hearing it as synonymous with 'making men enemies', I begin to
understand.
Would it be safe to say, then, that you don't have major issues with
the above definitions as they stand, but rather with feminists who are
so angry (as a result, perhaps, of having been hurt badly and held back
in the past) that they only perceive men as enemies? If so, your
issues are with a subset of the women in this file and a subset of
women who consider themselves feminists.
(My personal opinion is that the intense anger of some women towards
men is an important step in stopping feeling like victims and beginning
to explore their own power. I'm not contradicting the fact that *you*
don't like it and wish that it wasn't a factor.)
Many of us are working hard for equality, and working hard to promote
women's interests without making anyone an enemy. I believe that you
don't have to fight *against* to fight *for*. If I were a parent of 2
children, one of whom was outgoing and accessed resources easily, and
the other of whom was quiet and unassuming, I could fight for
recognition, acknowledgement, and resources for the second child
without taking them away from the first.
If you analyze the historical feminist writings, as you've been
doing, you will find some writings from the angry militant group. You
will certainly find articles which seem to say men are the enemy
and go no further. I can't believe that would satisfy you, though.
Those of us who are living the "fighting for" rather than "fighting
against" version of feminism could tell you a lot more about what
it means to us. We could also point you to a number of less
sensational feminists like Sheila Rowbotham who influenced some
of us.
Lots of the women you meet at DEC have learned how to work with men,
and get along in a world that is still dominated by men. Many of us
are fighting hard for equality in a technical world. For the most
part, I think that women at DEC have learned to 'fight for' rather than
'fight against', or we wouldn't last long in the corporate world.
Holly
|
| 727.46 | A sane mind, like crystal water... | FXADM::OCONNELL | Irish by Name | Tue Feb 23 1988 22:19 | 11 |
| Holly,
Thank you for those words. You've put out my flames.
Whenever I read one of your notes, I am reminded of why I like
you so much...not only are you an excellent musician, you also
have the gift of being able to organize complex issues and
articulate them in a way that is clear, concise, and
understandable. I rejoice in your friendship.
Roxanne
|
| 727.48 | Can i speak again? | SALEM::AMARTIN | nemoW SDEEN sraM | Thu Feb 25 1988 00:44 | 26 |
| RE: last
Wonderful writing! I do not like the word feminist. I prefer
the word humanist. I care about the rights of EVERYONE including
men and women. Feminist to me means rights for women. Not
men,blacks,Jews,Indians and even Frenchys. :-) Hey, I know what
the dictionary says but I still dont look at it (the meaning) as
equality for all. When we stop labeling rights with genders and
religions etc I think that we can abolish *discrimination or
dehumanization in the world. By using the words human rights or
peoples rights we look at the problem as a whole not a spacific
race or gender. IE: Discrimination in the workplace. Not
discrimination against blacks in the workplace or against women or
even against men. Noone has a corner on the market, noone has the
exclusive when discrimination is involved. It happens everywhere
to everyone in some way. We should work together to stop it ALL
EVERYWHERE.
* I really do not think that it is possible to completely abolish
it, but it would be nice if we ALL could stop it together instead
of in little separate clicks working to stop it cause it pertains
to him/her.
Just my opinion, take it or
leave it, or even delete it.
@L
|
| 727.49 | The Dark side of the Moon | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Feb 25 1988 09:21 | 6 |
| re .48 Unfortunately, Humanism is not recognized as a
worthy alternative to feminists. They view it in the same
light as Androcentrism and androgyny. Want more? PLENTY.
Russ
|
| 727.50 | Matter of opinion | NSG022::POIRIER | Suzanne | Thu Feb 25 1988 09:38 | 5 |
| re.49 Thats what you may think Russ. I tend to think of myself
as both a feminist and a humanist - My point of view is that you
cannot be one without being the other.
Again this is only how I as a "feminist" feel.
|
| 727.51 | muddy waters | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Feb 25 1988 11:03 | 9 |
| re .50 It is *not* what *I* think, it is what many reputable feminist
writers *think*.
I respect your beliefs. You are quite right - one cannot
*hope* to be one without the other.
But there are serious problems with this.
Russ
|
| 727.52 | This isn't humorous anymore, Russ... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Feb 25 1988 11:31 | 15 |
| RE: .51
Russ, *please* stop trying to interpret and define feminism for
us. If you think that all or most of us follow every single
belief held by every prominent feminist who ever wrote a book
(and that we cannot and do not decide for ourselves which values
are important to each of us in the process of moving towards
equality), then you have no idea WHATSOEVER what feminism is about.
As someone in Soapbox told you recently, you have a neurotic
obsession with feminism (and have since gone so far off the
deep end with it that I think you are seriously in need of
professional help.)
Please get yourself some counseling before it is too late!
|
| 727.53 | ..................... | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Feb 25 1988 11:57 | 14 |
| re .52 As a man I am interested in Masculine Virtues. Renowed
*authors* have defined in their words what feminism means
to them. If you do not want me to study various feminists
then I am at a loss for words.
I'm afraid the shrink is desparately needed by you.
You are so us/them that Eisler's message (ie 478.205)
is ignored by you. You make US women's enemy. I am very
deeply ashamed to see the abject bigotry that you evince.
You hate me. Now, .... leave me alone.
Russ
|
| 727.54 | | SEDJAR::THIBAULT | Storybook ending in progress | Thu Feb 25 1988 12:51 | 7 |
| re:< Note 727.48 by SALEM::AMARTIN "nemoW SDEEN sraM" >
� ....Indians and even Frenchys. :-)
Yech, I hate being called "Frenchy"...spit, spit spit...
Jenna Pooh (French, Indian and a little Irish thrown in for good luck)
|
| 727.55 | | GALACH::CONLON | | Thu Feb 25 1988 14:39 | 17 |
| RE: .53
Russ, my comments about your notes on feminism have nothing
whatsoever to do with how I feel about the rest of the male
population on this planet (or off it.) :-) It's so silly
of you to think that disliking one man's notes says anything
about my feelings for 2 billion other people. You aren't
making any sense, fella. Get a grip on yourself.
You know nothing about my politics at all (and while I'm at
it, you know nothing about feminism either,) so I'm not about
to buy your bull about where I stand on us/them or on any other
concept you care to bring up with me.
You may believe that men, by nature, are meant to dominate (per
your note 187.0 in Soapbox), but don't bother trying it with
women at DEC. You just aren't cut out for it, Toots.
|
| 727.56 | :-) | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Thu Feb 25 1988 14:58 | 2 |
| Will you two cut it out! I'm giggling too hard at my terminal,
everyone will know!
|
| 727.58 | Like white on rice..! | RANCHO::HOLT | Mystical golden foo | Thu Feb 25 1988 20:56 | 2 |
|
Is that Suzanne bringing smoke again? Yow!
|
| 727.59 | Jeers for Pollitz, CHEERS for Soapbox! | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Feb 26 1988 10:03 | 10 |
| If anyone hasn't seen it yet, please see BETHE::SOAPBOX_1988
note 187.* (where Russ Pollitz gets his clock cleaned for trying
to make a case for women being "property"/sub-human.)
You won't believe the things that Russ has to say in that topic
(he was the one who started it), but you'll be proud, I think,
to see how the men of Soapbox answered him.
Three cheers for SOAPBOX!!!
|
| 727.60 | ditto | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Fri Feb 26 1988 11:40 | 2 |
| I concur. The original is pretty funny. The replies are mixed;
most of them are interesting.
|
| 727.61 | Regressing to my life as a cavewoman | BSS::BLAZEK | Dancing with My Self | Fri Feb 26 1988 20:34 | 25 |
| My interest piqued, I added SOAPBOX_1988 to my notebook
to read what a complete dweeb Russ has delightfully shown,
WITHOUT A DOUBT, himself to be! Bravo, Russ, you've found
something to be successful at other than research!
(An aside: Suzanne, when pressing KP7 at your reply it
added "SOAPOBOX_1988"; you may want to amend this!)
He has shown that "Dehumanization of Women" isn't possible,
you see, because women have never been fully human in the
first place. It's our place to provide recreation for the
warriors! We are "property", and I, for one, can't think
of any other "property" described as human -- therefore,
women surely must be sub-human! Wow!
After enlightening myself to the nature of this, ahem, def-
initely UNenlightened *man*, I promise to hit NEXT/UNSEEN
*whenever* and *wherever* I see a reply from him so as to
avoid adverse results. Following Suzanne's suggestion, I
also strongly recommend all WN participants read 187.* in
SOAPBOX.
Carla who_is_REALLY_learning_what_this_conference_is_all_
about!
|
| 727.62 | ooops! | TWEED::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Sat Feb 27 1988 08:40 | 5 |
| re .61 , um, that was my mistake, not Suzanne's
red faced moderator
Bonnie Jeanne
|
| 727.63 | The Shakers dominate America | MCIS2::POLLITZ | | Sun Feb 28 1988 03:11 | 9 |
| re .59 Since when is "property" sub-human, seeing how *much* we
(all) worship it in this Society. What doesn't have a price?
What isn't viewed materially? Women like 'rich men' (ie
those schoolgirls in class), and Men have an eye for
'attractive' women. Maybe the sexes just can't help it.
You know it's funny. So I figured just say it like it is.
Russ
|
| 727.64 | | 19358::CHARBONND | What a pitcher! | Mon Feb 29 1988 08:38 | 6 |
| Why does materialism equate to worship of property ? Amassing
property as a means of showing off status doesn't imply respect
for property, much less worship. And nobody with an ounce of
self-respect would consider other people as ownable. Or slaves
as objects of worship. Where did you study philosophy - Harvard
Business School ?
|
| 727.65 | A Nice and Quiet Place | MCIS2::POLLITZ | | Mon Feb 29 1988 09:35 | 4 |
| re .64 Given the choice pick one: Yuppie clutter or Shaker
Simplicity. Also, Marriage or Anti-Marriage.
Russ
|
| 727.66 | You mean it's NOT just 1's and 0's? | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Feb 29 1988 09:45 | 5 |
| You pick one:
Green or fish.
Ann B.
|
| 727.68 | hi-tech does not a bookshelf make | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Mon Feb 29 1988 10:45 | 1 |
| That's not "clutter", it's "books"!
|
| 727.69 | bare floors and candlelight | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Mon Feb 29 1988 15:21 | 26 |
| re .66 Just answer the cooperative/competition one huh?
Or shall I? . . . .
re .67 Would MEN have divorced women in the 70's just because
some 'group' told them what 'reality' was?
Have you ever seen the beauty of a Shaker house - the
splendid architecture. Or even *thought* of the love
and dedication behind their efforts?
Mr Thompson perhaps you embody one of the very very few
Feminist terms that I am in agreement with:
Computer Literacy:
Is a term that "bullies people into thinking that they are
obsolete human beings if they do not admit to the incontrovertible
necessity of the computer's eventual ubiquity." -- Sharon LeBell,
1983, 'Women and Language News'
I'll take my 'reality' without the usual gizmos. I'm sure
they all make you very happy. And a perceptive noter to boot.
to the footwash,
simple Russ
|
| 727.71 | I hearby 'possess thee' | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Tue Mar 01 1988 08:20 | 5 |
| re .70 Instead of following this Senior Eagle around the E-net
like some 'hero-worshipper' just be a man and make a list
of questions. IE 1 - 20. Your agenda.
+ - Russ
|
| 727.73 | Dying to hear the answers | SCOMAN::FOSTER | | Tue Mar 01 1988 11:32 | 5 |
| I think I read this *somewhere*:
"Real men answer direct questions."
|
| 727.74 | Ann somebody | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Tue Mar 01 1988 13:49 | 1 |
| The Shaker sect was founded by a woman!
|
| 727.75 | medicine and other subservient pursuits | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Tue Mar 01 1988 13:54 | 2 |
| In the time of the mighty kings of Egypt, women were respected in
the medical profession.
|
| 727.76 | Shaker tangent - Ann Lee brought them to America | STAR::BECK | Paul Beck | DECnet-VAX | Tue Mar 01 1988 15:18 | 7 |
| re .74
You're referring to Ann Lee. She didn't actually found the Shakers,
but she became their leader and brought the sect to America.
(Everybody should have a copy of the Concise Columbia Encylopedia
in their office. So helpful when programming...)
|
| 727.77 | | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Mar 02 1988 08:35 | 33 |
| re .72
1. I've given nods regarding the FWO notes.
2. Presenting info on feminism (granted, 'the bad') does not
worry me. What is worrisome is not finding anyone talking
about the good.
3. I am for women. Opinions on RF's does not constitute hating.
I actually am going to feminist Conf's now. I may not like
all that I hear but I am interested.
4. In this age of psychology I regret to say that you've got me
all wrong. Be careful.
Q 1: What is a feminist?
2. Do you consider reporting on aspects of a movement for women
something that a man should not do?
3. Cite specific evidence that supports your view that I
dislike women.
4. Suppose I am trying to convince myself that I'd like to be-
come a feminist - have not felt support - am rather un-convinced
- what then?
5. Suppose I feel that some people are aiding in creating a
false image regarding me - or harassing me - what then?
Russ
|
| 727.78 | I will not join in cheering someone's downfall | YODA::BARANSKI | Words have too little bandwidth... | Thu Mar 31 1988 16:30 | 8 |
| RE: Russ Pollitz
Whatever Russ's failing may be, I am dismayed to hear people cheering that
he is 'getting his clock cleaned'!!!
The rest of this topic is too disjointed to reply to... given reply deletions
Jim.
|